From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Perot ?
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:00:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: amiga0.mykes.09nb
Organization: Amiga makes it possible
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <62494@cup.portal.com> TomK@cup.portal.com (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
> Actually, I don't think Perot cared about the power.
>
> He struck me as a guy who probably accomplished everything in life
> that he wanted, except for one thing: fame.
>
> There are industrialists who are remembered, Ford, Vanderbuilt, Carnegie
> and a few others, but no one is going to mention "Perot" in the same
> sentence with "Henry Ford".
>
> But, every school child knows (or at least used to know) the name
> of every president. Even the mediocre and bad presidents.
>
> You've got to pity all the bookstores that stocked up on Perot books.
>
>
> Anyway. Perot's departure from the race has done something to Perot that
> I'll bet he hates: its branded him a loser and a quiter. And that is
> how he'll be remembered. Way to go Ross.

I, for one, do not believe Perot is out of the race.  If anything, Perot's
candidacy has proven to be far from conventional.  I will not be surprised
in October (hint: October Surprise, get it? :)  when Perot is back in the
race and ahead of Clinton.  So far, Perot has spent less than 20% of what
Clinton has spent (20% of the federal fund matching $$$ given to Clinton).
In October, Perot will easily be able to convince MORE voters to join him -
all he has to do is point to what idiots both Clinton and Bush made of
themselves during the campaign.  Perot is a brilliant man, more brilliant
than I previously gave him credit for!

However, I am going to tell you how the election will come out.  And in
black and white and in front of all you witnesses out ther in csa.advocacy
land.  Call it a prediction, call it what you want.  I call it what WILL
happen :)  So, George Bush is going to win in a landslide, carrying at
least 40 states.  Perot will come in second, whether he formally announces
his candidacy or not.  Clinton will come in a distant third.  Now, this
REALLY REALLY REALLY will happen!

Here's why:

Clinton is far from the strongest democratic candidate possible.
He wasn't even the strongest in the original 6 who ran (most
prominent) in the primaries (note: there were many many other
dems who ran but simply got zero press).  His record as governor of
Arkansas is miserable, and his values are highly questionable - he
cheated on his wife (there are similar claims about Bush, but do not
forget about his teflon suit :)  His ability to be a statesman is
highly questionable, and Bush's record is outstanding in foreign
policy (in case you don't realize it, Bush and his men have guaranteed
the reduction of nuclear weapons in the world by 80% by the year 2000).
Clinton is also a big-time panderer - he just promises people what
they want to hear with no ability to execute those promises.  What
can you say about a guy who wants to claim the Perot vote and the
day after Perot "resigned" he was talking about Perot being a
cabinet member!

Bush, on the other hand, has the ability to run against congress, and
his case is strong.  In case you aren't listening, many of Clinton's
proposals are IDENTICAL to those Bush has been promoting over the
last 4 years.  What has hurt Bush, so far, has been congress' unwillingness
to let any of his programs out of committee.  But there looks to be
140+ new house members and many new senators, too.  If the dems retain
power and they really want change, they will have to be more open to
some of ANY president's proposals, including Clinton if he were elected
(which he won't be anyway).

And when people really get into the campaign rhetoric, they will see
that Clinton is also running against congress.  Where was George
Mitchell, Dick Gephardt, Pat Moynahan, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Foley,
or any of the other current Democratic leadership at the convention?
Think long and hard about this.  Given the choice between two candidates
who propose nothing different from eachother, yet Bush at least has
strong international negotiating abilities, Bush will be peoples'
pick.  Clinton has to offer a real alternative or will fail.  But
he has come around to the same conclusions as Bush has been
promoting, as I've already said, instead.

A few short weeks ago, I would only give Perot a chance to get 30%
of the popular vote.  Now I believe it possible he will win the
popular vote, even though he loses the electoral college vote.
He is going to win some big states, but less than 10 in all.
But when those 10 include California, Texas, and Illinois, he
is going to be getting a LOT of popular vote.

Perot clearly hurts Clinton's chances by stealing his voters.
The only reason to vote for Clinton is to make a change for
the sake of change.  There are people who really want to
make a change and Perot is the only major candidate who
represents the kind of change they envision.  It is also
clear that Clinton has already grabbed a big share of the
fickle Perot voters - hence is current strong showing in
the polls.  But Bush hasn't started to campaign in earnest
yet, and when he does, Clinton will be exposed as the BOZO
he really is.  Bush has a strong case that he is really an
agent of change, especially with the big turnover in
congress that will be compelling to most voters.

David Tiberio will be changing his .sig back to Perot '92
before long.  If he really wanted Perot all along, why
would he not want to pressure Perot to do the right thing
and run?  No matter what Perot has said or done during
the campaign so far, Perot people have continued to be
supportive.  And Perot has asked his people to continue
to get him on as many state ballots as possible.  When
the time comes, he will listen to the people and do as
they ask (run).  If he wins the majority of the electoral
vote, the Democratic congress MUST elect him (house of
representatives).  If not, no Democrat can ever expect
to get anyone's vote ever again.

Perot has the one key ingredient that George Bush lacks
(but Reagan had) which is the ability to get the people
to act.  And he is likewise responsive to the people,
too.

Now, remember, the election is many many months away,
but my crystal ball is never wrong.  I will not change
my predictions, and you all can flame me or rebut my
reasoning (but you will not be right :).  And you can
write it down that I predicted these things and tell
me how right I was after the election :)  One last
prediction - this will not be as ugly a campaign
as the 1988 one - both candidates will attack eachother's
records, platforms, and programs, but will do far less
character assasination.  But beware - Bush has made it
clear that he will keep the gloves on as long as his
family and children are left out of things (left alone).

Oh, I should mention that I am NOT a George Bush fan,
although I am a Republican.  I really really really
wish that any one of a number of Republicans who ran
against Bush in 1988 primaries had won or were running
now.  I also wish that George McGovern or Paul Tsongas
were the Democratic nominee, since both are great men
and would really make the race an interesting choice.
In fact, I donated $50 to the Tsongas campaign even
though I am not a Democrat.  If I could pick any man
in the country to be President, I would pick Reagan
again :)  If he had to be eligible, I would pick from
James Baker, Phil Graham, and Jack Kemp, with Kemp
getting the nod.

One final prediction:  Even though Dan Quayle will
be vice president and an incumbent in 1996, he will
not be the Republican nominee.  Likely, it will be
Kemp or Baker.  Before Bush, I don't know of any
incumbent VP who was able to win the presidency.
Note that LBJ was incumbent president when he won.
Nixon lost in '60, and Humphrey lost, too.  So did
Mondale.  Truman was also incumbent president.  FDR
was not VP...  Goes WAY WAY back, at least.  In
realistic terms, Quayle was picked to be VP to
illustrate how useless the VP has always been -
a definate Bush touch.  He should know what the
VP is capable of - he was VP for 8 years in
an administration whose policies he did not agree
with much of the time.  And rather than wasting a
genius like Kemp or Baker as VP, he was able to use
those men in very very productive roles elsewhere
where they could actually do good.

And lastly, I believe that the Amiga will not be used
very heavily in the campaign, although it should.  Had
to slip some advocacy in there somewhere.

Sorry to "waste" bandwidth with such a long post not
relating to advocacy.  However, advocacy is really for
entertainment and I hope that my post is at least
entertaining.  Also, many many people set a precedent
for non-advocacy postings by talking politics, beer,
cars, etc., over extended periods of time and threads.

I'd rather see people, who choose to respond, make their
own predictions and show me their reasoning.  Real reasons
and not hate.  Anyone who is bothered by this thread
can add it to their kill file :)

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy