From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:50:05
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: ne
	<GORDON.92Apr14201138@lugh.think.com> <2212@transfer.stratus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com
In-reply-to: tarl@sw.stratus.com's message of 15 Apr 92 03:33:29 GMT

In article <2212@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

   In article <GORDON.92Apr14201138@lugh.think.com>, gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:
   > [...]  George and Bill have forced me to
   > reconsider -- their corruption, their unwillingness to stand
   > up for individual rights, their suppression of opposition,
   > but especially the way they are foisted on us by their
   > respective party hacks.

   I have to laugh at this. In a sense, it says much good about the
   american political system that someone can consider Bush and Clinton
   to be corrupt. We've managed to keep our political system clean enough
   that the word has ceased having its original meaning and is now used
   for other purposes.

Fortunately standards in the U.S. are a bit higher than
in non-industrialized countries.

	. . .

Bailing out Neal's Savings and Loan?  False residency in
Texas to avoid taxes?  These are two examples of corruption,
if not outright breaking the law.

Clinton has been involved in enough shady dealings to cast
doubt on his integrity.  I think the Democrats are waiting
for Bush to find the big one.

	. . .

   >  If someone could please explain why
   > I should support either Clinton or Bush, please do!

	. . .

   Basically, Bush and Clinton at least understand power, administration,
   law and bureaucracies. Clinton is a sleaze and Bush has broken a number
   of campaign promises. They're politicians.

So you agree?  Why would you limit your choice to a "sleaze"
and a liar?


   Clinton is ideologically a long way away from me; Perot is probably much
   closer to my ideology, but I'd choose Clinton over Perot. At least Bill
   understands the limits to executive power - I don't believe Perot does.

Clinton is probably ideologically closer to me.  I would
almost definitely choose Perot over Bush.  I'd have to find
out more for Perot vs. Clinton.


   An example to keep in mind is President Fujimori of Peru. He campaigned
   as a hard-nosed outsider with a tough reputation who would come in with
   a broom to clean things up. He's doing exactly that - without bothering
   with a few niceties of the law. [I'll admit; faced with his problems, I'd
   be tempted to start using firing squads. That's why I program computers
   for a living, while others run for political office]

We do have a constitution that the military, Supreme Court,
Congress, and general public all support.  I am not worried
about a military coup from an elected politician.  This is
not Peru.


   Neither Bush nor Clinton is likely to pull something like that; From what
   I hear of Perot, I'd be worried he would.

   > [good things happening early in campaign] Perhaps I vainly hope that a
   > viable third national candidate would have the same effect.

   Don't put someone on the ballot just because you think it will shake up
   the other campaigners.

Why not?


                          You can't take him off once you've achieved the
   proper shake. Put someone on the ballot because you want him to
   win - you'll feel pretty stupid if he gets elected and that isn't what
   you wanted.

There will be more than two candidates on the ballot in all
states (except perhaps Arkansas).  In my judgement, Perot is
no worse than Bush, so I'm not at all concerned about
letting him on the ballot.  He is a viable threat.


               You'll feel even stupider if the House of Representatives
   chooses someone yet else whom you like even less (Tom Foley? Jesse
   Jackson? Alan Cranston? Dan Quayle?).

The House can only choose one of the top five people who
were voted on by the electoral college.  Presumably this
would be Clinton, Bush, Perot, Quayle, and Clinton's running
mate.


   Besides, the campaign has already achieved its purpose; if you don't
   know who George Bush and Bill Clinton are, what they have done in their
   careers and how they stand on a majority of the issues you care about, you
   haven't been reading the papers. And that's what the campaign is about;
   showing you who your options are.

I know allegations about who Clinton and Bush sleep with.  I
know the customers of Hillary Clinton's law firm.  I know
about evading the Vietnam war draft.  I know that Saddam is
still in power.

Unfortunately, the problems of the United States center
around poverty, unemployment, homelessness, lack of access
to medical care, hate-motivated violence, and a host of
other issues that nether the candidates nor the media care
to discuss in any detail.  In the Democratic Primary, at
least, The more candidates in the race, the more the
candidates addressed issues.


   A campaign is *not* where issues are decided.

A campaign is where politicians "sell" issues and where the
american electorate "buys" solutions.

                                                 If there is an issue that
   neither candidate takes a stance you like, that is when you need to find
   another candidate. What you *don't* need is for the existing candidates
   to posture such that you change your mind and think now they do take your
   stance. If you think a candidate makes a change in future policy as a
   result of a campaign, you are either deluded or have been lied to.

Experience has shown to me that you are not familiar with
American politics.  Candidates do change their policies and
their constituencies.  The notably instance is when Mr.
VooDoo Economics joined the Reagan camp and suddenly became
conservative.  More locally, Weld's support on gay issues
arose during his campaign.  In fact, campaigns are when
politicians are most approachable for modifying their views.

I want the existing candidates to have enough stature to be
able to deal with issues.  A race between Bush and Clinton
is inviting a dirty, personal smear campaign because neither
can rise above that.

--gordon


   -- 
	    Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
	    Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
   Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.