From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 12:00:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.101940.9187@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <3JAN199318013732@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R. Sparks) writes:
>>In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>
>>> The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
>>> stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.  He got
>>> 4 votes out of 10 and won (with a very willing and cooperative news media's
>>> help.)
>
>>So was the Bush campaign.  The only campaign that even tried to treat
>>the voter as intelligent was Perot's.  He was the one who talked about
>>the economy.  He was the one who brought the election on track, by
>>talking about real issues like the economy.  The professional campaign
>>managers eschewed this kind of politics because they figured the
>>voters would go to sleep.  He may have changed campaign history.  By
>>showing the professional "guns for hire" that politicians hire to run
>>their campaigns every 2-4-6 years that charts and graphs DO keep the
>>voters attention.  BTW, I'm one who thought that Ross Perot would not
>>have made a good President (even though, as a protest, I voted for
>>him).  What he did do was provide a public service to this country
>>that will affect it for decades.  === Al Sparks
>
>Well, I won't argue with the idea that a third party candidate is good
>for democracy, though I will note that neither Teddy Roosevelt nor
>George Wallace (the two biggest third party candidates) had much lasting
>impact.
>
>As to Perot treating the voters as intelligent, I don't think so.  He
>pretended to treat the voters as intelligent.  He, as a salesman, sold
>the idea of no-frills campaigning as "treating the voters as intelligent."
>
>But I don't think ranting "the deficit, the deficit"  "It's bad, it's
>bad" really counts as talking intelligently.
>
This is really a rather gross over-simplification of Perot's campaign,
don'cha think?

He also said stuff like: "The gas tax, the gas tax...It's too low, it's
too low" ...:)

>For all that talk about those flip charts, how many voters had *any*
>idea what Perot was talking about, or can remember at this point in time
>what Perot said?
>
I had (and still do) a pretty good idea of what Ross was trying to get 
across.

Bush and Clinton certainly paid attention to what the man was saying. Perot
scared Clinton to the point of Bill peppering his stump speeches with 
Perotisms in the latter part of the campaign. He got the candidates to 
focus on the issue of the deficit when it was obvious that neither of 
them wanted anything to do with it. Apparently, Perot's campaign has
influenced Clinton's current policy-making to a rather large extent if
for no other reason than to woo Perot's former supporters into his 
camp.

Whether or not you agree with Perot it would be silly to deny that he had
a large role in shaping pre-election politics and he continues to have
an important effect in the post-election arena.

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24751 talk.politics.misc:66623