From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who is H. Ross Perot? - The Perot Amendment
Date: 14 Apr 1992 12:46:48 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:

Hey, Guy!  Thanks for the informative and reasonably biased news
article!

NOT!

>  In recent weeks the national media floodgates have opened to pour forth
>a flood of imagery depicting H. Ross Perot as a white knight and benevolent
>saviour.

Oh really?  I haven't read any such media.  At most, you are referring
to a single political cartoon that I have seen.  In short, your first
sentence is a gross innacurate depiction of the media.  You are 0 for
1 so far... but I'll continue reading.

>  Awash in this tempest of newsprint and television exposure, Perot
>and his views remain an enigma for most voters, and, indeed, many of his
>supporters are confused as to where he stands on all but the most
>superficial issues.

I don't believe this is true either.  Fortunately, I have access to a
vast computer network called Internet.  From this I have been able to
pick up a little more information on Ross Perot than you have.  If you
are still confused about his positions on things, you should try
FTPing to bjmccall's FTP site (sp?) and downloading some more
information.  I assume that this idiotic statement of yours comes from
the fact that you can't read... and when you do, it's to pick up your
college newspaper.  Believe it or not, there IS more to the American
media than just CNN and Headline News.  I have removed television from
my environment and have discovered that I can learn more about
politics and political candidates by READING about them than I can
watching CNN.

>  Perot seems to revel in the mystery, as evidenced by
>his reluctance to speak of himself and his past, and his refusal to give
>specific answers to specific questions in some of his recent televised
>interviews.

Huh?  Which alternate universe are you from?  Oh.. I.C.  You're one of
those Jerry Brown campaign pundits.  This explains your whole article
now!  You have gross innacuracies, strange off-the-wall comments
such as the sentence above.  Perhaps you would like to substantiate
your allegation here?  Which question has he not answered yet?  Bonus
points if you can dig up a question that he deliberatly evades!  (I
know he has been evading a few questions... I just want to know if you
can put your damn thesaurus down long enough to look them up.)

[blah blah blah]

>  With his personal war-chest of 100 million dollars,

I have an idea that this is about the same amount of money Bush will
have spent by the end of this campaign.  The significant difference is
that Perot is rich enough to dig this out of his own pocket... and
Bush will have to get this from PAC money if he expects to win.

> Perot has already
>bought his way to the status of "serious" candidate, without yet having
>to spend a penny.

Oh really?  That statement is an oxymoron.  Like nearly every other
sentence in your post it doesn't say a damn thing.

>  The media monolith has contributed virtually unlimited
>free and positive "advertising" in the form of uncritical newsprint
>and ample television coverage,

"Uncritical Newsprint"?  With your choice of words, you're beginning
to sound more like Artimus every second.  How exactly do you define
"uncritical newsprint"?  Are you trying to say that the op-ed piece in
the Christian Science Monitor was "uncritical newsprint"?  Are you
REALLY trying to convince me that the media has been "uncritical" of
someone who rushes in and attempts to shake up the status quo?  If you
believe this is true, then you must not know anything about the way
our system works.

> which began well before Perot even declared
>he was interested in running.

I see.  So you're going to dig up those THOUSANDS of newspaper
articles and television reports from Texas (1970's and 80's) as
evidence that the press was giving Perot free air time to campaign for
the presidency even before he was interested in running.  This is
rubbish.  Pure rot.  His campaign began, unnoficially, on February 20
when he told Larry King the conditions underwhich he would declare his
official candidacy.  By the way... I'm half way into your article and
you haven't said anything yet.

>  One can only imagine what will happen
>when the money really starts flowing.

I see.  You can only imagine what will happen when the campaign starts
(officially).  I invite you to go right on imagining.  To yourself
that is...

>  So it appears that we, as citizens
>and voters, will be left to ourselves the task of sorting the truth from
>the fiction when answering the question - Who is H. Ross Perot?

At last!  A Thesis statement!  Composition I *HAS* tought you
something after all!

>  In my recent reading of Philip M. Stern's book _The Best Congress
>Money Can Buy_, I encountered a passage concerning Perot that conveys
>an image quite different from that of the white knight, Washington-outsider
>that we have recently been force-fed:

[blah blah blah]

So you you've dug up a little dirt.  Proud of yourself?  

Or, more to the point... do you think anyone really cares?

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
 *** Don't be a pacifist, be an Activist! Fight to keep abortion LEGAL! ***
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey