From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Bush supporters should Back Perot
Date: 11 Apr 1992 19:55:05 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>In article <s7go6INN35r@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>>You still have yet to explain to me why it would take constitutional
>>reform to have a third party candidate in the White House.

>I don't say that it would.  But if a third party won the White House,
>then one of the major parties would go over to him, or it would be
>marginalized by his organization (including mass defections of
>incumbents plus replacement of some by his supporters) and there would
>be two parties again.

This is enough of a shakeup for me.  Right now I am not happy with
either party.  The TWO parties are actually one.  I have said (three
times in this thread already) that the parties are now split by
association.  What a better way to split the parties up by putting
someone in charge of the Executive who does not associate with ONE
party?  If an outsider gets in the White House, the entire balance is
shifted.

[blah blah blah]

>  Perot is an anomaly because
>he can self-fund, but unless he's planning on subsidizing candidates
>till the end of time, at most he'll be a ripple.

I don't think so at all.  If Perot wins the "big race", we will have a
situation where the American public has created a mandate for change.
The next four years would be very difficult for those who feel
comfortable with the old ways of doing things.  Think about it.  The
clash between our two parties today is actually a lot like the Cola
wars of the 1980's.  Both sides are winning big time.  The only loser
is the American public.  As the cola wars ate up companies like Royal
Crown and effectively turned them into regional colas, the Demopublican
party has forced the Libertarians, Socialists, Green party, and
Independents into the underground.

[blah blah blah]

>The thing is, that if a strong third party candidate runs, he tends to
>take his supporters more from one major party than the other.  As a
>result, the major which loses less support to the third party will
>tend to win.

Analyze the platforms of Bush, Clinton, and (what we know of) Perot.
The way I see it, Bush stands to lose more support than Clinton.  I
don't really think Clinton is electable, which leaves a fight between
Perot and Bush.  And... clearly... Perot has the advantage if it came
down to this.  (Look at previous posts for this information.  I don't
want to trot it out again...)

>  If he really can draw support evenly from both sides, he
>might pull it off-- or if there's a real groundswell.

Yeah.  Let's see how you define groundswell.  Look at the results so
far.  Perot said on Larry King Live (February 20, I think) that he
would run if and only if the American public, acting on their own
initiative, would get him on the ballot in all 50 states.  They're
doing it.  I think there is only one state that is causing them
problems.  They've done all this on one Larry King interview, a few
minutes on Donahue, and a Press Club speech.  The Prodigy information
service held a mock election, in which Perot won.  I invite you to take
a look at the "average" user of Prodigy.  He won the biggest with 45+
year conservatives.  He also won a mock election on my campus.  AND HE
ISN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT YET.  Yes.  I think there is a
groundswelling.

>  But remember
>that there really are a lot of people out there who feel serious party
>loyalty, ranging up to what a friend of mine calls the "yellow-dog
>Democrats" (so called because they'd vote for a yellow dog if the Dems
>nominated it) and their Republican equivalents.

I can't wait to see how Perot will combat this.  I think it's an
ignorant attitude... but one that too many people have.

>>I really doubt that [the government is] in CONTROL of 25%
>>of the GNP as much as [they] "have the legal power to mismanage" it.

>Agreed, but I don't care _who_ is in the White House, any bureaucracy
>can successfully mismangage any amount of money.  The _only_ way to
>force a bureaucracy to become even slightly more efficient is
>to starve it.

I dunno.  That isn't working at my college.  We have lost enrollment
adjustments from our legislature for years and years... this results in
an equally bloated bureaucracy, but more closed classes (and less
equipment).  Don't make these sweeping generalizations.

> I'd
>support a balanced budget amendment-- I just think that the solution
>must be cuts in federal outlays, not increase in federal income.

On this I agree.  The government needs money to pay off the mess it has
created.  I'm afraid they're going to have to get this from themselves
this time around.  Perot says:  "Well, the president's own comptroller
says we waste $180 billion a year though fraud and mismanagement.  I
saw a statement the other day that said, 'But, gee, it would take a
billion dollars to find it.'  Well, that's a nice return!  And
everybody that's ever been around the IRS says, 'You know, if you had a
decent computer system we'd collect another $100 billion a year.'
Well, that can't cost very much compared to picking up $100 billion,
but by the time they get it through procurement, we'll all be dead
under the current system."

>>Which [Presidential Candidate]
>>is likely to break the "borrow" and "spend" cycle that we've had
>>for as long as I can remember?

>None.  Because no one will get a budget deal through without consulting
>Congress, and compromises with Congress will lead to another deficit.
>Until and unless people send a message to their Congresscritter that
>deficit spending has to stop, it's a matter of who is less likely
>to open the spigot wider.

Perot has some good words for them too.  "They probably started out as
honest people.  I guarantee you, replace everybody there, put a new
crop in, leave it the way it is, and you'll reproduce the same kind of
stuff.  Why?  Because you have gone home.  You are an absentee owner
and you've turned the reins over to other people and now you're paying
for it."

It seems to me that there could be no clearer signal to those 
"Congresscritters" than to elect H. Ross Perot.

[blah blah blah]

>I wasn't _surprised_ that Bush reneged
>on his "No New Taxes" pledge, or that he failed to support Russian
>and Ukrainian independence.  But that doesn't mean I approved.

Well said.

>Similarly, I have some distaste for someone who uses his economic
>power to coerce his employees private behavior.  He didn't do anything
>illegal, but he did do something arrogant, nosy and impolite.  The
>question is how much he respects the idea that the Federal government
>is supposed to be less arrogant, nosy and impolite due to the vast
>power we entrust to it?

He's going on Larry King Live next week.  Call him up and ask.

>(Note-- I am _not_ defending the current campaign financing system
>as a "good thing".)

I'm glad.  I'd probably throw up on my keyboard if you tried to
convince me of THAT!

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
 Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.