From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:02:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.152826.29155@cbnews.cb.att.com>, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N.
Richard Caldwell) writes:

|>From article <1992Oct2.000355.3057@dscomsf.desy.de>, by hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>(Phill Hallam-Baker):
|>> 
|>> Which somehow gets us back to the question of how Pye and Strattocaster
|>made
|>> such a fool of themselves last time round.
|>> 
|>> Anyone posting an article which suggested that Perot was quite probably a
|>> complete con artist or that his lack of policies disqualified him from
|>> consideration was met by a fusilade of vehement abuse from Pye and
|>> Strattocaster. 
|>
|>There's no question that Perot has and had his overzealous supporters,
|>but then so do the Republicans and Democrats.  The difference is that
|>Republicrats get a job on CNN's Crossfire.  Suggesting that Pye and
|>Strattocaster are somehow more vehement than the well known zealots
|>from the various ends of political spectrum that populate the net is
|>ridiculous.  I won't name any names, you know who they are.

It is a fact that whereas most posters are content to saty "Bush is Lying" or
"Clinton is lying" or even "All politicians are liars", the Perotistas tend to
start by attacking posters who are skeptical of Perot saying they are liars.


|>It's interesting that you should mention Perot's "lack of policies."
|>Back when the pathological Perot haters were regularly bashing Perot
|>for his "lack of policies," supporters explained (quietly and
|>rationally) that according to Perot, detailed policies were being 
|>formulated and would be announced well in advance of the election.  
|>Of course, the Perot haters insisted that this was just a con job 
|>and were content to engage in flame wars with Stratocaster or Pye 
|>rather than accept the observable indications that Perot was indeed 
|>formulating detailled policies with the help of a variety of experts.

Opinion Poll experts.

|>Now we know the the truth.  It wasn't a con job.  Perot's detailled
|>policies were completed and released only a few weeks later. 

I am still waiting for them.

In his polemic he is trying to straddle the fence. United we stand has two
mutualy contradictory themes:-

1) That the US has stopped investing and that unless investment restarts will
continue to decline.
2) That the government should in no case interfere with business.

The problem is that Perot gives no proposal for increasing investment. Since we
have already seen the effect of twelve years of the latter policy it is hard to
see how it's continuance can assist.

Perot is trying to be a Roosevelt New Dealer and a Libertarian at the same time.


A more specific example, re health :-

# In the longer term, comprehensive national healthcare reform based on a
# public-private partnership should involve the following:
#
# * Establishing a national health board as an independent federal agency to
# oversee cost containment and comprehensive health-care reform efforts
#
# * Setting a national health policy

Err, yes but what effect would this have, besides meaning additional
beauracrats? How does this fit in with the overall plan to reduce
administration? To save costs -- create a new department, great!

# * Encouraging problem solving by everyone involved
#
# * Reaching a consensus on a set of principles for reform
 
Asking people their opinions costs *lots* of money. All those clerks required to
read the replies.

In the whole of Perots pamphlet I was unable to find any proposal defined in
sufficient detail to determin it's likely effect.

|>> I have had run ins with sparts (Militant tendency, ISO, WRCP, SWSS etc) and
|>> various fascist groups (Freedom Org. Monday club etc). I have *never*
|>> encountered such blind idol worship in those groups as I have seen the
|>> Perotistas show.
|>
|>First of all, I don't believe this for a second. 

What? You don't beleive that I have met Sparts and Facsists? I was secretary of
the Union Club at Southampton University - ie in charge of the slush fund. Most
people in fringe parties tend to be extreemly cynical about the motives of
others.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc