From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: RossPerot
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:09:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.062157.26327@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
c162-av@danube.Berkeley.EDU (Neeraj Chaudhary) writes:
>
>
>
>In response to an earlier post, Michael C. Berth said that "Perot for Prez"
>and libertarianism were mutually exclusive.
>
>Well Michael, you are probably right.  But in view of the economic catas-
>trophe I believe were are approaching, I think Perot is the best candidate
>of the three (Perot, Bush, Clinton).  I am a loyal Republican, but in this
>case, Patrick J. "I don't really hate Jewish people" Buchanan was right.
>Bush has not been an effective president.  He has done nothing to ensure
>the long-term health of this country is not damaged.  Nay, he has been
>counterproductive, and he hasn't shown any signs of true leadership outside
>of foreign policy.

But, Neeraj, you aren't limited to just those three choices.  You
can also vote for Andre Marrou the Libertarian Party candidate who
has a fiscal program just as strong as Perot's but without the
anti-civil liberties baggage.  Actually in many states there will be
even more candidates on the ballot and many more you can write in.

If you vote for Perot just because you think he is "viable" you are
falling prey to a self-fulfilling prophesy.  We  will only get good
presidents when people stop treating elections like horse races and
vote for what they want not what they think they have to settle for.

>Let me again state that you are right about Perot's libertarian record.  But
>I think that he is more concerned with overhauling the U.S. economy than he
>is with creating a police state, and if he does show signs of creating such
>conditions, I will be the first to call for his impeachment.  I don't
>believe that a Democratically-controlled Congress will stand for it.  I
>also believe that if outrageous laws *were* being passed, the American
>people would wake up and really raise hell.

I don't think Perot *wants* to create a police state. I just think
that if respecting civil liberties starts getting in the way of
"overhauling" our economy then Perot will just chuck civil liberties
out the window.  Regardless of whether of not the Congress is
willing to go along with it, the President has an incredible array
of executive powers with which he can do a great deal of damage
before Congress slows him down.  Don't forget that the President
*is* commander in cheif of the armed forces and can call out the
troops whenever there is a perceived civil emergency.  I that sounds
a bit far fetched to you, just think about what is implied in the
rhetoric of a "war on drugs".

>A final note:  the Perot candidacy is more of a "threat" candidacy than a
>"true" one, meaning that if, come September, Bush is neck and neck with
>Slick Willie, he may give in to some of Perot's ideas in exchange for his
>(Perot's) support.  Clinton may do same.

Ah! but what will they do after they are elected even if they chang
their song fort a while?  Remember "Read my lips .."?

Whatever else he is (or isn't) Perot is clearly a flash in the pan
-- here today gone tomorrow.  The Libertarian Party is trying to
build a long term base of principled opposition to what amounts
today to a one party system.

>(Sorry I lied about the previous note but,) A final note:  I am sure you will

It's OK -  we couldn't read your lips.  :-)

>agree with me that Perot's integrity is virtually unquestionable.  After the
>"Peace on Earth" airlift to Vietnam, the commando rescue of his employees in
>Iran, his insistence that the U.S.  acknowledge the POWs in Vietnam and his
>staunch opposition to the Persian Gulf War, his commitment to fairness
>appears genuine.

The road to hell is also paved with good intentions.

>Thanks for listening!

ditto

>**Perot-Rudman '92**

Marrou/Lord '92 (and Genis in the Senate to help them out :-)
/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics