From: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: (#2)
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:51:56 EST
Reply-To: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

(Continued from the previous message)


The ultimate flim-flamming of the American public by the largely 
conservative controlled media casts a shadow on  the judgement, 
ability and reputations of many both in and out of government. Even 
more to the point, they must worry about what this Texas maverick will 
do if elected. Many of his major accomplishments, taken singly, could 
elicit either admiration or sharp criticism, depending on your 
viewpoint. Instead, almost all of Perot's achievements have been 
twisted and reframed by the spin doctors of the parties and the media 
as either self-serving, negative or both. Why are they so scared and 
angry?  What have the media done, either by omission or commission,
that generates such huge antipathy to Ross Perot? Or do they all know 
something that they have yet to reveal to an  audience they often 
treat with contempt?


Perot's greatest political contribution to-date has probably been to
force discussion of the still-growing national debt and debt related
problems.  He cites the  contributions of people like Paul Tsongas, 
Warren Rudman, and Felix Rohatyn to his and our  thinking. As long as 
Perot is actively engaged in the race, the major political parties are 
forced to as least look as though they will toss about this political 
bomb which has destroyed many a contender in the past. The national 
media largely deals with this subject as it does other serious matters 
of the society... lip service, hocus-pocus, grab the headline, don't 
dig too deeply, and pretend you've done credible work. The "why" of 
their behavior is obvious, given their conservative ownership and 
control.  Why most citizens allow their opinions to be formed by those 
who  directly  benefit from maintaining the status quo is quite 
another matter. And the final insult is that the news reporters, who 
to a large extent have liberal views, allow themselves to be used as 
whipping boys by the GOP when it finds itself in hot water. Is
freedom of the press as vigilantly guarded at the editors' desks, 
where the orders are taken from the managers, as are the words used in
some of the editorials and columns?  Or is everyone happiest when they
can have it all ways: make good money, have access and continue to 
perpetuate illusions. 


Even fine newspapers like the New York Times have failed to initiate 
the risky, expensive and demanding task of digging into other closets 
filled with GOP skeletons.  Publications like the Village Voice
normally send up the trial balloons for reader interest and then the
stories are picked up, many months later if at all, by some of our good
dailies.  CNN is the only TV network which is consistently and
vigorously committed to in-depth news reporting and analysis. It seems 
that it is more important to have good relationships than good 
informants in high places.  The tennis date or the Rush style luncheon 
with the President gives the reporter the panache that can largely 
compensate for excellence in this age of networking.  There is an
obvious price for this sort of camaraderie.  It is probably 
not quite as crude (what do we know...maybe it is) as a hand shaking
deal, but the result is prestige, increased salaries, bonuses, and 
public acceptance as an informed and respected personality.


Access to the established political parties is of crucial importance.
The sheer numbers of Washington lawyers are only exceeded by the sheer 
number Washington Ph D's. This group of insiders--along with the 
Washington Press corps, the Washington diplomatic establishment, and 
the Washington lobbyists-- make up the bulk of the inside-the-belt-way 
opinion makers.  These people do NOT reflect American concerns except 
partially and almost by accident.  Instead they attempt, and do so
rather successfully, to form American opinions and to deliver the 
goods to their employers and sponsors.


Washington is not a night club kind of town. Insiders entertain in their
own homes or meet at the many charity fund raisers.  The guest lists are
impressive and exciting, and can help create, with judicious name dropping,
one's social mobility.  All this is part and parcel of the networking that
is vital for these people to do business.  There is no question that many
people were aware of Bush's knowledge of Iran Contra or that this was widely
discussed and as one of the many open secrets for gossip.  However, part of
one's credibility is keeping one's mouth shut, particularly to outsiders...to
preserve the sanctity of the relationship, contact, or network.  America is
rarely made privy to hard news of and about its leaders.  The rest of us are
like cheated wives and are usually the last to know.


To add to the list of those who have much to lose by a possible Perot upset
is the permanent federal government, the social action groups for and
against abortion, PAC's, civil rights, anti-poverty, state and local 
government representatives and on, and on, and on!  They KNOW about the
redundancy of services, the exorbitant administrative costs, and the 
sacred federal principalities controled and owned by the likes of the 
late FBI Director J.Edgar Hoover.


The Washington insiders have done very well monetarily over the years. 
They are not about to give it up without a fight.  Their choice is 
Bill Clinton, if they are opposed to George Bush, because he IS so 
wishy-washy on issues and DOES aim to please....almost everyone! 


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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections