Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Perot -- independent dangers and electronic government

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Ron Schweikert

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 3:31:35 PM4/27/92
to
I have a question to pose -- btw, it's honest, not sarcastic...

Isn't the idea of Perot running a bit scary? The idea of an "independent"
sounds good on the surface, but who's he accountable to? Isn't one of the
strong points of the "two party system" that whoever gets elected will have
(relatively) broad support after election? (For "independents" that aren't
multi- billionaires they no doubt WILL get some support, because people
put into their campaign funds etc., but couldn't Perot "buy" the presidency?
(he doesn't need financial support).

Isn't there a problem with having no dominant political parties? How about
Spain, I believe they have 10 parties (?) and they're in a bit of a turmoil
seemingly
constantly. Without accountability, the president could raise a lot of
turmoil. He'd have little support from congress ... would anything get done?
Would there just be constant battles and internal squabbles (not to mention
what a "half-cocked gun" could say regarding personal beliefs, prejudices
etc. (whatever his are!?). How well has it worked in the past? Have the
independents had good support? Did congress "rally" to his side and support
him?

And, regarding the issue of people sending in their comments to congress via
computer...

Yesterday I attended a debate from four of the five Republican challengers
for the US senate seat (Terry Considine, Sam Zakhehem, Bain and Donley).
In a conversation with my state senator (Leeds) he mentioned they'd had 600
bills to deal with during this last session. 600! The context was whether
or not the legislators were representing their people (the issue was sanctity
of life, education and economics). I'd mentioned I'd never seen a survey on
some of these crucial issues, yet they were voting "for me." He pointed out
that legislators definately make mistakes. They can't possibly know all the
pros and cons and various facets of 600 different bills! (Good point!)
(Nor I suppose could anyone produce a "survey" of all 600 issues for him
to glean information from).

So....we send people to office that we trust will generally
and in good faith (we hope) represent the best interests of the people.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Now, finally to my point :-) ...
if full-time legislators can't know about the 600 issues they're faced with
(in a 120 day session +-), how can the average citizen be expected to stay
on top of it well enough (not to mention this is only state issues, we're
talking about national issues) to "fax" in their beliefs to Congress the
way Perot seems to like? Electronic town meetings? Really? Is there not
already enough information that can be had *IF PEOPLE CARED ENOUGH TO GET
INVOLVED*, and isn't there a way already to let your legislator know (phone
him or her, send mail etc.). Will electronic town meetings work? I doubt
it. Most people don't care enough to get involved. They've delegated that
to their legislators (which is not all bad -- that's reality and better use
of skill/time). People SHOULD be involved, but can you be involved in
everything? Not likely.

One previous poster said he'd vote for a candidate who would say WHAT HE/SHE
BELIEVED and specifically HOW they'd accomplish their goals. Well, you should
have been in Louisville yesterday. I think all four candidates were extremely
to the point. The gyst? Get rid of the democratic stranglehold, provide
line-item veto power to shed light on pork-barrel issues, get the government
off the back of the people and businesses etc. etc. Their statements
were very pointed, as well as how they'd accomplish them.

How many people came to one of the most accessible debates in the Boulder
county area (on a weekend afternoon) to hear the personal statements of
the Republican candidates (who answered every question from the audience)?

About 50. Kinda sad really.

Ron

Dave Hughes

unread,
Apr 29, 1992, 12:19:46 PM4/29/92
to
So Ron said:
------

How many people came to one of the most accessible debates in the Boulder

county area (on a weekend afternoon) to hear the personal statements of

the Republican candidates (who answered every question from the
audience)?


About 50. Kinda sad really.

-----

And I'll bet it never occured to a single one of those "Republican
Candidates" or their supporters to use a single piece of digital
equipment to take questions and provide answers to the public's
questions, online anywhere, in the county (Boulder) with the
highest proportion of modem/terminal uses in the state.

I have not even announced my Perot BBS in Colorado Springs, in
media yet (not until the May 9th Petition kick-off), and
we are approaching 400 calls to it already, with *plenty*
of questions and answers. Including ones I am sending to
Dallas through Compuserve, to get the answers directly,
rather than wait for some face to face meeting sometime.

But thats alright for you Republican folks in Boulder.
Republican County Commissioner Sandy Hume, recently in
the State Senate, is talking about setting up a BBS so
Boulder residents can conveniently discuss County issues
with it.

It is just as important to be able to talk to and from
an elected official *after* they are in office, as
when they are courting your vote *before* the election.
And I can assure you, thats not as easy...

Joseph Burger

unread,
May 14, 1992, 8:10:02 AM5/14/92
to
Ron, I was going to respond to your comments, and got side tracked
with all sorts of things. I finally finished it today and
pass it on for what it is worth. It is worth at least what
you paid for it.

A lot is being made about the problems with Perot running.
Much of it seems to be generated by A) fear of the unknown,
and B) fear by the 'currently in power' party bosses. And it
is easy to fuel the 'fears' of people by putting forth half
truths that will leave just enough doubt in people's minds to
get them to vote 'for the regular parties'.

I believe you have legitimate questions, but I do not see
them as major concerns. On accountability. Yes, he can not
be held accountable by the 'Party'. But what does that mean?
I have not seen the republican party abandoning Bush because
he violated his pledge to not raise taxes. Perot will be
held accountable as all presidents are held accountable, by
the voters. He will also be held accountable by the laws.
He can be impeached by congress if he violates the laws.
And, of course, he will be held in check by the general
inertia of big government.

As for the inability to work with congress, and the squabbles
that will take place. What is different from what has been
happening during most of the past 30 years with a President
and Congress represented by different parties? They
compromise. Once in a while for the good of the country,
usually not! Bush works well with congress because he is as
big a spender as they are. The only difference with Perot as
President would be that both the damnocrats and the
repulsicans could claim no blame if something goes wrong. If
we are lucky, there will be a better than 25 percent turnover
in the house. That would give Perot a good opening to push
through reforms quickly. He can claim a mandate from the
people, and call for congress to unite as Americans, not as
party members. How can they refuse in the short term? And
if it starts looking good and working, you can bet all those
wimps will jump on the band-wagon.

I am more worried over the fact that he is a former Naval
Officer. Six of the last 7 presidents had been in the Navy,
starting with the one that got his 45 knot PT boat cut in
half by a 30 knot destroyer. And look where we are now!

Regards - Joe Burger

Ron Sercely

unread,
May 15, 1992, 11:26:37 AM5/15/92
to
Just my $0.02 on the problems with a businessman with NO political
experience becoming the head of government.

I was living in Arizona when Mecham became govenor. I believe this
to be an analogous situation to Perot being elected president.

Mecham was, without a doubt, the most ineffective govenor imaginable.
He was petty to a fault, and could not work with the legislature or
beaurocracy(sp?) within the executive branch of government.

I believe that some of this is DIRECTLY related to his experience as
a successfull businessman. A CEO almost always gets his way just because
of his position and power. An executive in the government is, IMHO,
radically different. Mecham absolutely could not handle the difference.
I have serious doubts that Perot can.

0 new messages