From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: 1-800-BEND-OVER
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:45:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.000550.18017@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>, bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>Dave Sill (de5@ORNL.GOV) writes:
>| He only wants to hear the good news.  Where's the number for Perot supporter
>| who *don't* want him to run to call?  Unless nobody bothers to call the
>| support hotline, Perot will have a mandate to enter the race, and no real
>| measure of what the majority of his supporters want.
>
>  Knock it off.

I will not!

>  That post is a good example of how the campaign has been going so far.
>  The Democrats and Republicans talk about everything but the real 
>  problems of the country.  

Firstly, it was an article, not a "post".  A post is a think piece of wood
fixed vertically.  Secondly, my article had nothing to do with how the
Democrats and Republicans are running their campaigns (which they've
actually done better than I'd expected)--it was about how Perot has run his
campaign.

>  What do you care of how Perot runs his campaign?

I used to be a Perot supporter.  I read his speeches, talked to my friends
about him (several even ended up supporting him), posted articles (not
posts) defending him to various newsgroups, etc.  I gave up on him when he
pulled out of the race.  He was either sincere about his seemingly
incredulous reasons for pulling out, or he was manipulating the process (and
his supporters)--either way, I wanted nothing to do with him after that. 
Once bitten, twice shy.  He won't fail *me* again.

>  If you want to talk
>  about silly issues like this, stick to your own party. 

And just which party is that, Mr. Know-it-all?

>  The Democrats

Nope.

>  and Republicans

Nope.  Nor is it Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, New Alliance, ...  I'm
independent.  Between Bush and Clinton, I prefer the latter.  I'll probably
vote for Marrou.

>  ran $35 million pep rallies that excluded dissent.

Yeah, but at least you *knew* they were pep rallies.  Unlike Mr. Perot's
telephone-poll-that's-not-a-poll.  He probably decided weeks ago to re-enter
the race (if he ever *really* decided to pull out), and this "poll", this
show of support from his "volunteers", is likely just a rubber stamp for
that decision.

>  The Republicans brought in hundreds of young Republicans who were not
>  delegates to make it look like there was more support and enthusiasm
>  than there really was.  The Democrats wouldn't let the governor of
>  Pennsylvania present an anti-abortion stance.  Delegates who were 
>  supposed to give "spontaneous" interviews were coached and rehearsed
>  their lines up to seven times.

Comparing party conventions to Perot's bogus attempt to manipulate his
supporters just won't do.

>| Bend over, folks...
>
>  Wake up and look are around.  It is the Democrats and Republicans, not
>  Perot, who have been screwing you for years.  This, and not Perot's 800
>  number or his campaign, is the real problem.  

Sound's like you've missed one of Perot's main points: that it's the
*people* who are responsible for the mess we're in, not the parties or the
politicians.  On that point, I agree totally with Perot.

>  Perot's candidacy may be the healthiest thing to happen to our political
>  process in our lifetimes.

Unless he manipulates the process and his honest supporters to further his
own agenda.

>  To see this go take a look in any Perot
>  headquarters in the next 5 weeks.  Perot's citizens' movement is as
>  close to true "democracy in action" as you can get.

How many of the upper echelon of this "citizen's movement" are actually paid
Perot staff?  Why did Perot replace volunteers with paid staff?

>  I have probably done more work for Democratic candidates than 99.9% of
>  the people reading this group.

Oh, so *you're* responsible for the mess the Democrats have created.  And
you're righting that wrong by supporting Perot now?  How noble of you.

>  There is no comparison between Perots 
>  campaign and those of the establishment parties.

Agreed.  Perot's noncampaign is without precendent.

>  The establishment
>  parties value money, not people and have developed a corrupt system of
>  institutionalized bribery they call campaign contributions.

Money is not an issue for Perot because of his vast personal wealth.  Surely
you don't believe candidates must be independently wealthy to avoid
corruption?  Who was it that said "power corrupts"?  Could it be that Perot,
who now has all the power that money can buy, seeks the presidency because
he wants more power?

>  They need
>  the money to manipulate the media and fool the people.  This is a sick,
>  cynical version of democracy that is more into game playing than problem
>  solving.

Yeah, but it's *your* version of democracy, not mine.  Sure, things could be
better...but the Perot method is hardly an improvement.

>  With Perot about to enter the race, there is has been more talk about
>  the deficit in the media in the last few days than in the the all the
>  months before that combined.

I don't think so.  The campaign so far has been surprisingly issue-based. 
Yes, the Clinton character "issue" is a major non-issue, but other than that
it's been pretty focused.

>  Maybe we can stop arguing about fictional
>  television characters

I've never argued about fictional characters in the political debate.

>  and how another campaign should use its 800
>  number and get down business.

I really don't care how they use their numbers--as long as they don't
misrepresent how they use them.

>  We need Perot to give the system and people like the poster of the
>  previous article a good swift kick in the butt.

Isn't that *special*?  I criticize the Perot campaign, so I need a kick in
the butt.  It doesn't matter whether my criticism is valid or if I
sympathize with the Perot movement...

People who vote for Perot will deserve what they get.  Unfortunately, there
will be lots of innocent bystanders that won't deserve it, but will still
have to BEND OVER.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc