From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: Why perot?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:39:43 GMT

falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>In response to one of my earlier posts, "Droopy" (Bri) writes:

>{Sorry, I didn't keep your full header...}   
>>In talk.politics.misc you write:

>>>> How he addresed the national deficit? "I could balance the budget without
>>>> breaking a sweat."

>>> He probably could, because he's the only one with the guts and the plan to do
>>>it.  Ask Bush, Quayle, Gore, and Clinton if they even have a plan THAT CAN
>>>WORK.

>>I doubt BQG and C have a plan that could balance the budget because they
>>care if we fall into a depression or not. 

> WHAT??  BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Not your fault, though.  That just seems to be what
>they are all telling you...

> Seriously, I think we have passed the point of no return and that we are going
>to have to endure significant pain if we want to turn this country around,
>that's all.

First off, I believe this was an email reply not a posting. I didn't 
think it is netequiette to do something like this. But, I will be happy
to defend my positions in public anyways. Of course we're going to have
to endure significant pain. That's what Paul Tsongas was talking about.
You know what happened to him.

>>>> What did Perot talk about besides balancing the budget without a
>>>> sweat and slamming the 2 major parties?

>>>  What have the two major parties done for the last umpteen years but slam each
>>>other and create a $4 trillion debt.  (I think that's the right # of 0's now.)

>>At least they pay lip service to other issues. At least Bush can do
>>foreign policy once in a while and i trust Clinton on domestic issues.

> And you trust Perot on neither, or you just don't want to give him a chance??

No, I don't want to give Perot a chance. Bush has shown minimal competency
in foreign policy and I like Clinton's programs. Perot seems to disdain 
civil liberties. As an ACLU member, that's a negative in my book.

> Seriously, I DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT TO PAY LIP SERVICE TO THOSE ISSUES!!

Lip service that Clinton and Bush are giving is better than no service
at all, which is what Perot gave.

> I want somebody that's going to do something about things, and I don't see the
>Republocrats moving too quickly to help.

If this were a parliamentary democracy, Perot might have a shot at doing
some things, but in our system, he would be even less effective as 
CLinton or Bush. You see, we have this thing called a Congress. In Perot's
business, his Congress (the board of directors) was nothing more than 
a rubber stamp on what Perot wanted. Perot COULD listen to their suggestions
but didn't HAVE to. Bush has allies in Congress. Clinton has allies in Congress.
If a president had the power to do things by himself, Perot might do okay
but he doesn't. A president is not an autocrat.

> That's the problem.  The American people are too stupid and NIMBY to realize
>that any real change is going to take further sacrifice on their part too.

No argument there. Sounds a lot like what Tsongas was talking about.

>>>  As far as skipping the heat, maybe it's his ultimate strategy.  If he can't
>>>have the chance to be refuted, his people may vote for him.  Right??

>>Reagan and Bush may have had thin skins but they didn't quit when the
>>going got tough. Bush has been heavily scrutinized by the press
>>during this campaign. Clinton has been too. They  have heavily scrutinized
>>each other. Gennifer. Draft dodging. Hillary. Iran-Contra. Neither Bush
>>nor Clinton decided to quit. When a tough decision comes up, Prez Perot won't
>>be able to say, I'll be back in a few months.

> And that's the one question most will have for Perot, to be sure.  My opinion
>is that he felt Bush could be defeated by Clinton alone and that he would get
>in the way.  NOw, seeing that people are interested in the book and the economy
>not being stressed as it should, he has to do the best for the country, by
>getting back in and forcing the candidates to speak to the economy.

MY opinion is that Perot was treated kindly by the media for a long time.
Longer than any prez will get. Then, when a little trickle of heat came,
Ross quit. He bailed out. I don't want a president who is going to do
that. For as much as I dislike BUsh, during the War for Oil, he didn't
say, "Well, things are getting too tough now so I guess I'll go to
Keunebunkport for a few months. Here's control of the government, Dan."
Who's his veep candidate going to be anyways?! 

> Note that I did not say that he himself would be President.  Think about what
>could happen to other minor parties if he blasts the two-party monopoly down
>this November.  Then Marrou might have a chance in 1996 to have his voice
>heard.  Think about it.

I have no doubt that his blasting of the two-party monopoly is a good
thing. Unlike the GOP's, I believe that diversity in points of view is
a good thing.

>>When the going got tough, Perot got going. Now he's back. He's saying, much
>>like Bush, I screwed up last time give me another chance. 

> At least Perot was not in office when he made the error.  :)

True. But what's to say he won't do it if he gets in office.

> No, I think candidate Perot decided to implement plan X, and answer all your
>questions about not having a platform by putting the platform before the
>candidacy, and not the other way around. 

What WAS his platform? His platform was solely economic. The Presidency
is not the chief economist of the country. Granted the prez should be
doing a better job than Bush but Bush and CLinton are more diversified
as a whole than Perot.

> Once he saw interest in the platform
>and the economy not being as stressed as it should be, he's done what he feels
>he has to do.  Perot does not want to be President; he wants to help the
>country.  He's biting the bullet, Bri.  He feels he has no other choice.

That's what he WANTS you to believe. He WANTS you to believe that he
is doing it out of the goodness of his heart. He abandons his volunteers
and now comes back acting like nothing happened. Why didn't he just say,
"I'm sitting out for a few months to see if Bush and Clinton discuss the
issues better." 

> I personally shudder to see how Bush could run the country, and I'd rather
>basically put two-thirds of the system in the Democrats hands to stop that. 
>Perot is here to see things get addressed, and what might happen is that people
>will vote for him to send a message.  What scares you is that there could be a
>hell of a lot of people that could send that message.  Enough to win the
>election??  Prob. not...  Enough to win states and hang the election?? 
>Maybe...  Enough to make a difference???  You answer that one...

Are you kidding? Perot would be in an even harder position than Bush. At
least Bush has the other 1/3. Who would be on Perot's side?

I don't mind that Perot's voters would be sending a message. What I 
find disturbing is that they are going to put their trust into a quitter?
He bailed out when the going got tough. Before he dropped out, I at
least respected him and what he was doing. Before he dropped out, he
was acting with courage that the other two were lacking. Now, he acted
with even less courage than the other two.

> Besides, being a Clinton supporter, I'd think you'd love having Perot to help
>put Bush away.

That has nothing to do with it.

(personally, I hope we get rid of the electoral college before another
 debacle occurs)
---
Bri Farenell				"It is better to have clean hearts and
Clarkson '95				 dirty hands than dirty hearts and
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu	 clean hands."  ---Rev Jesse Jackson

CLINTON/GORE AND BOB ABRAMS (US SENATE) IN '92
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU