From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:52:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.203657.24403@news.columbia.edu>, rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.143053.5160@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct5.154712.20208@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Oct2.193504.27591@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >1)  I don't think he will resign.  When he starts something he follows
|> >|> >through.  Cite one example where this has not been the case.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Here're two: his candidacy and his tenure at GM.  Pulling out of the race at
|> >|> the height of one's popularity and re-entering one month before the election
|> >|> is *not* how one follows through on one's pledge to run a world-class
|> >|> campaign.  Accepting a huge sum of money for one's resignation is not how one
|> >|> reorganizes a large corporation.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >Ah, I was hoping someone would take me up on this one.  Great.
|> >
|> >Lets take your points one at a time.
|> >
|> >1) Pulling out of the race.
|> >
|> >Please explain to me how someone who had never ANNOUNCED his candidacy
|> >could pull out?  
|> 
|> This is an issue of semantics, at best; if he wasn't a candidate, why
|> did he feel the need to announce the fact that he wasn't running?
|> The bottom line is this: after telling his "volunteers" that he would
|> run if they got him on the ballot in all 50 states, he reneged.  That
|> he came back later and ultimately fulfilled his word is regarded by 
|> many of his former supporters (including me) as a face-saving measure
|> as much as anything else.

Answer this then:  why does Ross need to save face.  He has 2 billion
faces in his bank account (all George Washington of course).  Why would
he be doing this if he did not truly care for the country and especially
the people?  I think a billionaire has all the power that he needs,
even though Ross doesn't strike me as the power hungry type.  Hell he
could buy the Congress for gods sake.  I, as well as Ross, am sorry if
you are to offended by his action in July to come back and support him.

But let me ask you this: Are you a single issue voter?  Is this single
issue going to decide who you vote for.  Remember the Presidency is a
package deal.

|> 
|> >Also, Perot saw, as I did, the democratic party at the
|> >convention address real issues and actually perform admirably.  I was
|> >quite impressed as was Perot evidently.  Where Perot's assessment and
|> >mine difered is that I realized that the only reason the dems were
|> >acting so rational waas because Perot was in the race.  I realized at
|> >the time that if Perot dropped out of the race it would be back to dirty
|> >politics as usual.  As it was.  
|> 
|> I disagree.  I think the Democrats continued to show a willingness to
|> discuss the issues, primarily because doing so could only help them.
|> Remember the sign on the campaign office in Little Rock: "The economy,
|> stupid!"  Clinton knew from the beginning of the campaign that if he
|> focused on the one issue that most Americans felt most strongly about,
|> he couldn't lose.  As usual, Bush was the one to start the side show:
|> four years ago, it was flag-burning; this year, it's war protests.
|> 

I have no idea what sign you are referring to.  I personally have not
heard Clinton address any economic issues whatsoever besides the release
of his "Putting People First" economic plan several months ago.  I have
read this plan.  It is rediculous (sp).  AS far as I can tell he truly
believes that just by him winning the election that the economy is going
to start fixing itself.  Of course, once this happens then he starts up
a bunch of expensive new programs without cutting a damn thing that will
make a diffrence.  It has been several months since I read it and there
are other things that, at the time, just stuck out like a sore thumb.

|> >Also, I think Perot felt as if his
|> >organization was being taken over by the professional handlers (Ed
|> >Rollins and Hamiltom Jordan and their staffs) and he did not like that,
|> >or the deriction that these people were taking him.  If they had stayed
|> >aboard you would see Perot commercials that looked like Bush commercials
|> >in '88.  Lots of flag waving and such, not commercials which really
|> >address the issues facing this country. 
|> 
|> Agreed.  Although he didn't have to drop out of the race to get rid of
|> Rollins & Jordan; what's wrong with just bagging them?
|> 


He did bag Rollins.  He was just to polite to say so on TV until Rollins
came out with this crap that Ross tried to buy his silence.

|> 
|> [Deletion of the GM discussion]
|> 
|> >This I believe addresses your points, which, of course, were the exact
|> >issues that I assummed that would be raised.  If you need more info or
|> >can come up with some other attack on Perot, I'll be waiting.
|> >
|> >Doug
|> >
|> >PS  I would rather hear how you agree or disagree with the problems or
|> >the solution to the problems that he points out.
|> >
|> Well, I'm not going to "attack" Perot, but I'm not going to vote for
|> him, either.  When this all started last spring, the man I was going
|> to vote for (and I still believe to be the best of all the candidates
|> I've seen) was Paul Tsongas. 

YES! I will agree with this.  Remember though that a lot of what Perot
is saying is based upon Tsongas' "A Call To Economic Arms".  I was quite
inspired when I read it.

|> Unfortunately, Tsongas had the personal
|> appeal of a grapefruit, and wasn't sexy enough for the voters.  He
|> dropped out of the race just before the primary, and my "protest vote"
|> wound up going to Jerry Brown; if nothing else, he appealed to me in 
|> the way he ran his campaign.  (I do think that major campaign reform 
|> is necessary.)  When it became apparent that Clinton was going to win
|> the nomination, I looked into Perot and Clinton, the men I felt to be 
|> the only remaining viable options.  And I preferred Perot's ideas
|> to Clinton's, and supported him until his dropout in July.  Left with
|> the option of Bush and Clinton, the choice was clear to me.
|> 
|> Why haven't I reconsidered Perot since his re-entry?  Because I think
|> his dropping out of the race was simply a campaign strategy, designed
|> to allow him to elude the intense scrutiny that the other two candi-
|> dates were undergoing.  In a May interview with a local TV station
|> (before he had declared or not), he told a reporter that he planned
|> to announce in October.  "An October surprise?" the reporter shouted
|> back.  "Yeah, something like that," beamed ol' HRP, and vanished.
|> He seems to me to be jerking the voters around, and I just don't
|> feel compelled to support a man like that.  I also have *SERIOUS*
|> doubts that he could do any of the admittedly good things he claims
|> he will, since he will be working with a hostile Congress, but that's
|> a whole other story.
|> 
|> Rob L.
|> 

If Perot wins in Nov. This will mean that he has gotten >50% of the
vote.  A true mandate from the people.  I really think that their are a
lot of People in Washington that want to do the right thing but don't
think that they can get re-elected if they do.  Lets give them the
freedom to do so.  Vote Perot.

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc