Ross Perot: The heroes' hero

Dallas Morning news ^

[luckystarmom]

This is a very interesting article about H. Ross Perot.

He's definitely an interesting person. I think he definitely loves his country.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"Ross Perot is known around the world as the folksy dynamo who founded a computer empire and ran for president in 1992 and 1996. His colorful criticism that NAFTA would produce a "giant sucking sound" of jobs being siphoned overseas echoes today.

When asked to write his own epitaph once, he answered: "Made more money faster. Lost more money in one day. Led the biggest jailbreak in history. He died. Footnote: The New York Times questioned whether he did the jailbreak or not."

Here's the link to the rest of the article:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032104dnsunperot.c4fe1.html

[Bob Eimiller]

Where did Ross and Pat go? hmmmm? are they dead? or...are they in the dung heap of bad political discourse... where they belong.

If they had anything of value to add except bomb throwing they would still be viable politically today... wouldn't they?

[Bob Eimiller]

I was no Papa Bush Fan either... I didn't want his son because I was tired of Bushes... thankfully I still voted for W....but Bill Clinton caused so much damage to the national security of this country, we will suffer for it for at least another generation

Any vote for a useless 3rd party candidate that helped give us that curse can never be spun positively.

You will just have to live with whatever happens...9-11 to the rest of our lives

Thanks for nothing

[Consort]

AGREE

Wrong.

- Bush Sr. is one of the most inept and incompetent individuals who has ever occupied the White House and definitely not a conservative.

That is a piss-poor excuse for electing the Clintons.

Read his Lips, Bush Sr. has nobody to blame but himself.

The voters get the blame and the credit for who gets elected.

He was not fit to sit in that position (President) to begin with and should never have been elected.

He should have been reelected whether he or you or anyone else liked it or not. When he lost, you lost. If his son loses, you lose.

[mgstarr]

Too easy to blame Perot or the media for giving us Clinton. The fact is that the rest of the American people gave us Clinton TWICE. I don't blame anyone for running, the responsibility for who gets elected rests squarely with the electorate. You get what you deserve.

End of story.

[mgstarr]

I worked on Bush Sr.'s Texas campaign during the 1980 primary - ended up on the Reagan campaign afterwards. Inept and imcompetant? Hardly. Rockefeller Republican? Absolutely.

Bush Sr. as President was free to appoint whomever he wanted - kind of comes with the job. Whether you or I disagree with his choices is an entirely different matter.

[usafsk]

You wrote:

"Perot's Company, soon to be created if conditions planned by he and Clinton fell into place... (Remember..General Motors bought EDS.. [which managed Medicare]from him to get him off the board...)"

You're nuts. Perot already had formed a second company, Perot Systems, long before the election. This company, though not as large as EDS, is still around. He gave up active control and involvement before running for president. As for getting thrown off of GM's board, anyone who doesn't cow-tow to the capital wasting hog that GM was and is will be thrown out eventually.

Investors made a fortune on EDS and his use of investors capital was far better than GM's. His employees were decent people, professional, and EDS was very patriotic. GHWB gave you Clinton. How bad is it that the GHWB still lost votes to Perot after the guy had pulled out of the race and reentered. People still preferred a nut to the tax-raising stiff that Bush had morphed into by 1992.

You may now wipe the spittle off your keyboard and continue with your life.

[luckystarmom]

Since I didn't vote for him, I wasn't duped by anyone.

I just met him once, and he was nice to our family.

Have you ever met him?

[luckystarmom]

I think he is an interesting person. I thought it was an interesting article.

I don't know why I'm getting bashed for posting it.

[MosesKnows]

Ross Perot used his mindless followers and their money to rig an election to elect Bill Clinton..

I trust many will see the absolute folly of such clouded thinking. Asserting that the point of Perot's Presidential campaign was for the purposing of rigging an election is actually just plain silly.

The logic of such an assertion requires that third party candidates must win the election on their first try to avoid being accused of rigging an election. That logic requires that our choices in each election will forever be limited to two thoroughly corrupted political parties.

Consider this possibility. Hold a run-off elections between the two candidates receiving the most votes if neither received a majority of the votes. In that circumstance a voter would be able to vote his true conscience knowing full well that his vote is not wasted.

The nation benefited greatly as a result of Perot running for office. The nation began to face some facts for the first time and Bill Clinton revealed the depth of the corruption that is possible in the federal government.

[Bob Eimiller]

Tell me what all your St. Perot blather has to do with the Clinton/Perot alliance???

Perot WAS going to capture the Hillarycare contract..I could care less about other ventures and I care especially less about GM and your disdain for capitalistic enterprise no matter how bloated.

George HW Bush was not a good president..I stated that but the political Alliance of the object of your affection Ross (the runt) Perot with the Clinton crime machine is a fact....plain and simple.

Everything else in your diatribe is useless fluff... the bottom line is.... your vote was for Clinton by proxy...and you were oblivious when you were duped then and now it's even more startling you're still ignorant to that pathetic fact.

[navyblue]

Don't know if Perot elected Clinton or not. Just have one question.

What's the difference between giant sucking sound and outsourcing?

[Bob Eimiller]

\IF Perot was a viable 3rd party candidate..why did he take money from his supporters..remember the Multi Billionaire proudly stated he wouldn't use his own money he would rely on his people.

Then the guy drops out while polling 15% to 19% of the the eligible voters. Viability of a 3rd party? I would think so...Why quit? The 3rd party was competitive! He OWED those supporters and their 3rd Party everything..BUT!!! HE DROPPED OUT!??!!

Need I say it another way? He had Bush buried, Clinton had a huge lead WHY? hmmmmmm why campaign anymore "The Democrats had their act together"<------ his own words!!

He had his "viable 3rd party"!!!

Sorry..He felt he had done his job and Clinton wanted to have a mandate of over 50%...BUT the polls began to close..oh oh... Ross and Clinton realized he had to get back in..hmmm how?? Oh great idea ..just say the nasty Republicans tried to wreck his daughter's wedding with dirty tricks..yeah that'll do it ...I'll show 'em... and you Perot voters bought it Hook Line and Sinker..and with your little $50 donations...Lots of them... Not hard to figure out. P.T. Barnum was so right.

[Finalapproach29er]

Perot is co-chair of the Air Force Memorial foundation.

[luckystarmom]

That's the one area that Perot was right about.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Bush Sr. lost that election. He only has himself to blame. Do you credit Nader for giving us Bush, Jr.?

Nader did not get 15% of the popular vote.

It is no secret that Perot despises Bush Sr.

Personal vindictiveness and animosity was Perot's motivation, not some high call to save the country like he pretended.

Perot is what Texans call a "liar."

[Hildy]

I'll say this one more time...I worked for Perot (don't even start with me). We called Republicans and asked them who they would vote for if Perot were not in the race. 99.9% of them said they would not vote for Bush under any circumstance. I was part of that 99.9%. It's easy to forget that in 1992 we did not know really who Bill Clinton was.

[evm]

don't know why I'm getting bashed for posting it.

It seems a lot of folks have short memories and don't recall that the real reason for Bush's 1992 defeat wasn't Perot, it was that Bush raised taxes and instituted gun control, that and he had no plan to defeat Clinton in the campaign.

If you really want to read something interesting, check out "On Wings of Eagles" by Ken Follet, the true story of Perot's daring rescue of his people from Iran during the revolution (which Perot personally participated in).

[evm]

You will just have to live with whatever happens...9-11 to the rest of our lives

Remember something though, the first attack against the WTC occured one month after Clinton took office, which meant that the organization of the attack occured on Bush Sr.'s watch.

Had the bomb been a bit bigger the impact of the attack would have made 9/11 look like a spec in comparison. At least one of the towers would have crumbled, possibly into another, with no warning.

I hold Bush Sr. responsible for the first WTC attack just as I hold Clinton responsible for the 2nd.

[ex-snook]

You're right Hildy. Perot's votes came from the Reagan Democrats that Bush ignored. Actually the W2 payroll crowd doesn't exist for 1099 investors. Bush I or II would rather lose than cut into any 'free-trade' job-exporting advantages for Wall Street. Back in Texas, Bush I will get an attaboy and enjoy home on the ranch and visit Bush I at Kennybunkport and have a cigar.