From: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: media & ross perot
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:55:27 EST
Reply-To: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Distribution: bit
Organization: Channel 1 Communications



                They're Worried...And So They Should
                (c) 1992  Jerome and Lois Laulicht
                         Valley Head, WV



When Ross Perot put himself back into the Presidential race he created 
a brand new ball game.  Or did he?  Did our wise political observers
think he wanted to be on the ballot in all 50 states to satisfy some deep
neurotic need to see his name in print?  Did our political pundits
really think he had no viewpoints or concerns?  Or perhaps they thought he
had seen the light and was converted to one of the "regular" candidates.


If experts want to impugn Mr. Perot's motives and hopes and continue to
criticize him for his withdrawal, we should insist the attack be put in
context.  Otherwise, we will be following the old political rules for
behavior which many of us are convinced do great harm to our political
process. Many Americans might think more highly of Mr. Bush had he
stepped aside without giving a darling of the extreme right a shot at the
presidency. In the spirit of non-partisanship: would you like to argue 
that hordes of our fellow citizens would have been heart-broken if Mr. 
Clinton had also stepped aside and thrown open the Democratic convention
to choose a better and stronger candidate?


The claims, elaborate scenarios, dis-information, and the cool of the 
candidates and their handlers reflect their worries. The fact is that 
both parties voluntarily sent high-level delegations to meet with the 
Perot group.  Only a fool or a novice would seriously claim to know 
the outcome of this renewed triangle.  Recall that a winner must have 
a majority of  electoral college votes. Polling techniques and focus 
group interviews are not reliable tools to measure trianglular races. 
Nor are they great for assessing the outcome on Election Day of 
volatile and wide spread voter anger and alienation.  The other two 
candidates  have only partially addressed the most pressing issues 
concerning most Americans and many of us have grave doubts about the 
quality of their "answers" or even their readiness to deliver on 
promises.  Many economists are just now beginning to talk about a triple
dip recession, permanent abolition of jobs, and our future economic
health -- vital concerns to all of us. The re-entrance of Ross Perot
creates much more than a wild card. He and his colleagues are offering an
alternative set of prescriptions, as well as agreeing with some of the
more sensible suggestions made by others.  Too many pundits are foolishly
claiming that Mr. Perot is only a spoiler, that he will bomb out, and 
that at  best he will only get about 15% of the vote. It is more than 
pretentious to insist that one knows what the outcome of this 
extraordinary election will be.  We are hearing and reading partisan
spin, not facts. If he is such a trivial and unserious candidate, then 
what are they worrying about?


Unless Americans are notorious grudge carriers, the bulk of his early 
supporters may well return to his banner and the Perot petitioners will 
get out a very substantial vote.  The spontaneous response from his 
opposition at the news of his re-entry was no response and was 
characterized by National Public Radio as "muted"...not ignored, but 
muted!


Why is this bristly man without slick media wrapping so threatening to 
the established political opinion makers?  What is it about him that 
inspired a Newsweek editoralist to call Perot a liar on a Phil Donahue 
show; goaded main line NY Times columnists to take after him as if he 
is a typhoid Mary; led NPR commentators Daniel Shore and Cokie Boggs 
Roberts to demean his  contribution to the political arena;  convinced 
Evans and Novack that Perot is only out there to "retrieve his 
shattered reputation" and hurt Mr. Bush; and led one of the horde of 
White House aides to say "We ought to tell the idiot to go stuff it." 
Is all of this mainly a reaction to Perot's lack of obsequiousness to 
conventional wisdom, his rejection of group think, his failure to be 
politically correct, his refusal to run a conventional political 
campaign, or a simple assumption that most Americans are foolish 
enough to buy into the media's definitions of the political realities 
1992 style.


The man was damned and ridiculed for his persistence on the POW and 
MIA situation, and was digging for solid information long before the 
Kerry committee did their investigation. The rejection of his 
judgement on the acquisition by General Motors of a declining Hughes 
Aircraft company, along with on-going conflict with GM executives and
the board of directors, cost the giant company dearly. They were more than
slightly wrong and have never forgiven Perot for being right. Or were 
there side deals and other issues that have yet to surface?  The fact:
GM paid Perot a hefty premium for his stock to shed this "incompetent ?"
non-team player. The man played a key role in turning the public 
education system in Texas from an educational abortion into a viable 
and working public school system. The successful rescue of his 
employees from Iran, although reminiscent of a Wild West Film, has 
quite a different spin when one looks at it within the context of the 
Iran-Contra scandal. The  flagrant non-compliance of the Administration
with Congressional legislation was followed by cover-ups and perjury.


(Continued in the next message)
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #10184  Watch the polls change now that Perot is back!
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU