[dead]

But lets say it again and again....President Bush would not have been defeated in 1992 if Ross Perot had not been there to manipulate the election. There would never have been a President Clinton. Why do journalist continually fail to mention this? It is a large factor in history.

Because Perot didn’t manipulate anything. He ran a legal campaign for office, and received a small but substantial portion of the vote. How is that “manipulation”?

Bush I lost because he broke his promises to conservatives, and the Clinton machine was particularly adept at talking a minor economic downturn into the next great depression.

[whereasandsoforth]

Perot ran a legal operation, I'll admit. It just wasn't honest. That lack of honesty poisoned the well. His goal was not to be president. His goal was to see Clinton become president. That's manipulation pure and simple.

When Ross Perot endorsed Ann Richards for re-election for Texas governor over George W. Bush, all pretense went out the window. Perot is a demosnake and always will be.

[Consort]

How is that “manipulation”?

He preyed on the gullible. He ran even though he never wanted to be president, as he said many times durng his campaign (didn't he even drop out for a while?). He ran to defeat Bush, who he hated, and for no other reason. He met all his objectives because he manipulated the voters...he knew "It's the voters, stupid." The combination of Perot voters and Clinton Conservatives did the rest of us in.