From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:02:00 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
> 
 
>> As to having been wronged by Ross, I never felt that way.
> 
>You're an idiot.
 
Again:
>> Not through "beating-up" others I see. This is a pretty harmless way
>> to express your contempt, so if you need to flail away, have at it.
> 
>"Beating up" whom?  "Flail away" at whom?  You guys come off like a
>bunch of morons.  
 
Again:
>> Not through "beating-up" others I see. This is a pretty harmless way
>> to express your contempt, so if you need to flail away, have at it.
 
 
As to your "questions" ...
>I asked, does Ross listen to the "volunteers" only
>on some days, or what?  I didn't get an answer.  Were the "volunteers"
>telling him not to get in the race in mid-July, or did he just blow
>you guys off?  What's the story here?
 
I answered:
>> was glad he was in the ring for us, and when he'd had enough, I didn't
>> expect him to continue to get bludgeoned with [the media's] lies.
> 
>> I would have been disappointed if he hadn't climbed back up in
>> the saddle after getting knocked down by the media though.
 
Allow me to amplify. As best I can tell, Ross had enough of dealing
with bull, rather than matters that need to be addressed. Faced with
running just another typical partisan campaign (ala Rollins and the
rest of `headquarters'), he found it necessary to step back and regroup.
The immediate effect of which was that a lot of media money spent on
attacking him went right into the garbage. And the media turned instead
on Bush. The media doesn't care who's president in my opinion -- 
they just want to sell their wares -- Ross ducked their punch. Bush
couldn't. 
 
>What has changed between then and now?  And how did the media "knock
>him down"?  Or are the media going to be more compliant with Ross's
>desires now?  George Bush and Bill Clinton have both been pounded by
>the media (and others) for much longer than Ross Perot (particularly
>in Bush's case) -- how is it that they haven't been "knocked down"?
 
What's changed is that Bush has been consistently behind in the polls
due to the media muck, rather than the typical rebound. The media knocked
down Ross with lies (I've posted direct examples of how the Dallas
Morning News misrepresented even their own prior published articles), 
and speculation based on fear (such as the Laura Miller hearsay), and
*one person* "accounts" of some incident in EDS supposedly typical of
Perot. 
 
As to other candidates being "knocked down," some are just simply 
excluded altogether, and the others from the status-quo-parties are
in bed with the media. (Greider's book was a good recent expose about
the latter). As to the democrat or republican presidential candidate
being pounded by the media; one has been inflated & bolstered by them,
and the other engaged in `TV wrestling.' 
 
The media has not dealt with substantial issues -- preferring instead
theatrics. It makes them more money, and they are beholden to the
Parties-of-Pork for easy information. Instead of "pounding" the party
puppets: on American Arms trade, or on how every tax dollar also is a
loss of investment earnings for a family, or why spending is not being
cut -- we were given "character" issues instead -- though it's taken for
granted that politicians are lechers, liars, and crooks. 
 
>Moreover, should Perot win (which he won't), what would he do when he
>(inevitably) encounters some difficult crisis situation -- and the
>attendant criticism from Congress and the media?  
 
An invitation to a battle of prophecy -- no thanks. 
 
Myself, I'd join with the American People, and their desires and dreams
and let the Media and Congress see if they can even keep up with 100's
of millions of US. (The first thing I'd do is put ascii copies of the
Congressional Record into the Public Domain). 
 
>Quit, and say that he never wanted the job, even Einstein couldn't 
>do it, etc.?  
 
When you get knocked down and stay down that's quitting. When you get
back up and join into the fray again -- that's courage. I guarantee
there is no one person, not Einstein, nor Perot, nor anyone else
who can do the job of revitalizing the country -- that has to come from US. 
 
(Nor could government do it -- that's what the soviet dissolution was
 all about.)
 
>And then
>after the crisis abates, is he going to come back and say King's X, he
>didn't really mean to quit, the people elected him, now he wants to 
>come back for the sake of the people?  Hello.
 
Have you convinced yourself of that scenario yet?
If you can see the future why are we having this discussion?
 
|| Theodore A. Kaldis
|| kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
 
Best approach is to stop the partisan divisive politics, 
and work on what we can compromise on in government, 
with an intent of overlooking our differences,
-- to renew our country. 
 
If you would rather force pork-party-politics down
our throats (such the new FY '93 federal budget)
--- How can I believe you're interested in cooperation
or compromise?
 
-- Stephen 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex