From: tcm@tcm.austin.ibm.com (Tom McDonald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot speaks
Keywords: blatant bias
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:09:22 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <1992Apr8.213227.921@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>Christian Science Monitor, scheduled to run 4/7/92
>
>Op-Ed Column on Ross Perot
>
>By Williamson M. Evers
                                                                       
It's good to see the press beginning to treat Perot like a major
candidate (i.e., taking the time to dig up "dirt", quote out of
context, and misrepresent his positions!)
                                                                         
Most of this article was so biased as to just be amusing, but I won't
let some of the most ridiculous points go unchallenged:
                                                                         
>Perot told Brian Lamb that he wouldn't let the Constitution stand
>in the way of federal election reforms he wants: a time-limit on
>campaigns and a ban on exit polls. Perot revealed something of his
>mindset when Lamb suggested that Perot's proposals would violate
>the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and the
>press. Perot replied: "We'd probably have to get about 30 lawyers
>on that one." If there's an obstacle, just send in the hired-gun
>attorneys. "We can amend this dang Constitution, if we have to,"
>Perot told Lamb.
                                                                     
Perot suggests a change to a document written before satellite
communication, telephones, even before the telegraph and Pony
Express.  Hmmm.  Wonder if Jefferson would have approved of East
Coast newspapers reporting the "results" of elections before polls
closed in the West?
                                                                      
>Last but not least, under Perot, there'd be a crackdown:
>     *on people who dare to pay less in taxes than the IRS thinks
>they should (Perot told the National Press Club he wants the IRS
>to acquire a "decent computer system" that would ensure that it
>would take in $100 billion more in taxes; surely, under Perot's
>plan, the Big Brother IRS will inspect every financial detail of
>our lives, especially if we try to pay less than last year).
                                                                  
Oh, come on.  It's to the advantage of every tax-paying American
for the IRS to be able to work more efficiently.  A better computer
system would mean fewer mistakes and improved collection from
lawbreakers.  
                                                                   
No one likes paying taxes; if you think the tax laws are bad, work
to change them.  Don't froth at the mouth with an anti-IRS
knee-jerk reaction.
                                                                 
>What would be surprising would be if someone who made billions off
>of government medical programs didn't agree that medical care is a
>human right, as Perot did on the Phil Donahue Show on March 25.
                                                                     
I doubt many people would deny that basic medical care should be
a right, not a privilege.
                                                                   
>H. Ross Perot might well make Amtrak run on time. But he'd run
>over our liberties to do it.

I suppose our "liberties" include the right to corrupt the results of 
elections, the right to force taxes to be collected as inefficiently
as possible, and the right to bleed to death for lack of money.
                                                                      
                                                                     
Tom McDonald
tcm@tcm.austin.ibm.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not speak for IBM.

                                                                                                                                              
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politic.theory