This guy would like to ask you nicely to donate
But he's too cranky right now
Give what you can
Or donate monthly, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Save Lazamataz!
Posted on 04/25/2011 10:50:39 AM PDT by Will88
"In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
There is still a very basic point that it seems some prefer to avoid: Perot raised issues in 1992 that could have won the presidency for the right candidate.
Those issues were: the growing federal deficit and national debt, the loss of jobs to one-sided trade deals (the proposed NAFTA trade agreement was part of the campaign) and the influence of lobbyist on our government’s policies and the revolving door between government employment and working for lobbyists.
The Tea Party has been raising the deficit and debt issue for well over a year now, and Trump is raising the one-sided trade deal issue.
Those are winning issues now as they were in 1992 if well presented by the right candidate. And someone might still decide to talk about the influence of lobbyists and the revolving door.
I don't know if we could have handled another 4 years of Bush at that time. I was always puzzled and uncomfortable with Bush's New World Order speech. Come to think of it, Ronald Reagan really never did endorse him.
Perot's ultimate goal was to hurt Bush.
Even worse, Perot ruined a very good public school vocational ed program in Texas....training them for a job. Perot was instrumental in getting that cut and all kids put in college-bound courses. A lot of kids dropped out as a consequence.
IMO, Perot did a lot of damage and much of it was based on things he knew nothing about and didn't understand that he didn't know. Perot was a Napolian Complex little tyrant!
My dislike of Perot has little to do with his presidential run and more about the damage he did in other areas.
Perot's main problem was that he was a flake as a candidate.
Perot's main problem was that he was a flake as a candidate.
Damn Cubans.
There are valid reasons why some will still say "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties. There are differences, but when it comes to the move toward globalism and one-sided trade deals, and more big government and endless deficits, some times there isn't much difference between the two parties.
My basic approach is I'd never vote for a Dim for anything higher than a county or court district office. But that doesn't mean I support everything some Republicans are doing.
All battles are won or lost before they’re ever fought. The primary election is where a general election battle is either won or lost. The Republican party has developed a bad habit of not learning this lesson. More to the point, I have already heard numerous conservatives asserting that they will not vote for Donald if he is picked over Sarah Palin. That means they would be the ones spoiling the election, not Donald Trump.
Indeed. Those issues are winning issues for the right candidate.
I would also add term limits and line item veto. Perot generally had the right issues, but was the wrong spokesman.
“But your snarkiness does not change the reality....”
Snarkiness? Hrrummph... I sir, resemble that remark.
Seriously, I was just inquiring. I know, “Yeah, but” is pretty snarky.
Agreed. I work in the same building with Mr. Perot and I must say, I have never met a more patriotic person. Just in the short time I've been here, I've witnessed his 80th birthday celebration which included video greetings from around the globe from military unit after unit; a celebration for the birthday of the Marine Corps; and on the walls of this building is basically a museum including items from the 92 and 96 campaigns (yes ... even the charts) to items given to him from military personnel (including Bin Laden's walking cane that our troops found after narrowly missing Bin Laden) to memorabilia from his tour of duty in the Navy to a certificate from Pope Benedict honoring the Perots' 50th wedding anniversary ... and flags and military banners throughout the cafeteria.
Reading some of these charts from his campaigns, I gotta say ... he was right. His numbers showing where our economy was going are not far off from where we are today.
It was the first election that I voted in as well, and I also voted for Perot. I didn’t vote again until 2004.
Those percentages never translated into electoral votes because they were poll numbers before Perot dropped out, not actual vote percentages.
The Perot 19% actual votes obviously didn't translate into any electoral votes.
But if he'd stayed in and won 39%, he'd probably have been president. The nation would have rebelled if they'd tried to steal a victory away from him.
I've heard some conservatives in the past say the same thing about Alan Keyes. That doesn't make Sarah a spoiler. It makes some of her supporters babies. As for basing your primary vote on who is going to be the strongest candidate in the general election, nobody really knows, early polling aside. Case in point, all the polls showed Reagan would be the easiest Republican for Carter to beat. They litterally popped champagne in the White House when he won the nomination. So far Sarah has been right about more things than the supposedly more knowegable candidates: eg. Obama just came out for a board to determine what medical treatments will be available for seniors in order to save money; they sure laughed about "Obama death panel" didn't they? And they laughed at Sarah for predicting inflation; pay no attention to $5 dollar gas and $40 an oz. silver.
It's like a Rorschach test, isn't it?
What I wrote: "Many Freepers do not care..."
How big do you think that box needs to be, hmm? Are you in it? I'm not.
I'd vote for Ronald Reagan today if I could....even though I know he signed Amnesty, sold weapons to terrorists, cut-and-ran from Lebanon, and never reduced the number of abortions performed for each of the 8 years he was in office.
And he's still the best conservative candidate we'll likely ever see on the politics scene again in our lives.
But still there will be Freepers "in the box" of people who wouldn't even be satisfied with him today.
I bet there are many 40+ Tea Partiers who could make the same statement. The critical issues haven't changed that much since 1992 since they are yet to be addressed seriously.
I liked what Perot was saying at the time he was in the picture, but I also understood the third-party dynamic and its consequences of the one LEAST supported as the one winning. At the time, I was too gullible and credulous to perceive that Perot was also very likely deliberately deceitful in his true intentions; today, in spite of the words he spoke, wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, much the same way as I regard Trump. I admire him, I like some of what he says, but am older and wiser and regard his political motivations with extreme suspicion.
If you would be so kind, please detail where you draw the line between reasonable and "purist" with regard to someone you think a voter who traditionally votes Republican would stand. What issue(s) would make him/her a purist, in your book? And what issue(s) could make him/her NOT a purist?
(FYI: I have voted straight Republican ticket for 35 years, and only in the past five or six have finally figured out that by doing that, I am responsible in big part for how left this nation has gone in its politics because I have knowingily voted for and validated politicians who went AGAINST me 30 to 60 percent of the time, sometimes even more, as in the case of Schwarzenegger -- that was a real eye opener. What kind of idiot votes for someone he disagrees with 30 to 60 percent? I was that kind of idiot for decades, but have since wised up.)
Reagan said it's better to vote for someone you agree with 80 percent of the time, maybe 75 percent, than to insist on someone you agree with 100 percent of the time. Palin hits the 80 pecent mark, and so does Bachmann. You may be one of those who self-gratifyingly assumes that anyone who likes Palin therefore thinks of her as a messiah or as perfect. If so, I hope you will be honest enough with yourself to admit that you need to throw that template out the window as it accomplishes zero and is also wildly wrong.
DeMint, Romney, Newt, Huckabee, Trump, any at their best only hit 60 percent for me, considerably less in the case of Romney and Huck. I plan on sticking to Reagan's 75-80 percent rule. Limited government, drill-here-drill-now relate to the top four philsophical make-or-breakers for me -- government meddling in health insurance (misnamed health care), abortion, 2nd amendment, and ENVIRONMENTALISM, the ludicrous and extrordinarily dangerous "cap and trade" global ploy for power.
If the GOP candidate supports government-controlled health insurance/care, abortion, gun control, and is ignorant and gullible enough to be duped by environmentalist alarmism (Newt? You reading?), then MY VOTE WILL GO ELSEWHERE, and I will be folllowing the WISE advice of Reagan in doing so. Had I applied that rule sooner, had many of we limited government conservatives applied that rule sooner, the GOP would have maintainted a more rightward course and the nation would have been better off.
In spite of what you or anyone else says of Palin, I know she is the best bet we have for bringing this country right again and connecting with real, everyday people. You may equate that with thinking she's "perfect" and being a "purist," but that's your problem.
A wise saying I once heard says: If you compromise your principles, even when you win, you lose.
If this nation elects a Republican Romney or Huck or anyone else who is fundamentally big-government enough to think the government should have any part in my and your relationship with our health insurance companies and doctors; if that Republican is anti-gun, anti-human (which is pro environmentalist), and doesn't seek to see Roe v. Wade overturned at the very least, then even if that Republican wins, we lose.
One minor correction to your statement above.
The reality was that an independent held a clear lead in a presidential poll, which is nothing at all like holding a lead in a presidential election.
Polls tell us what the polled individual thinks what they may do, while elections count what actually gets done.
From where I sit, if 39% strongly favored Perot, why did half of them not return when he got back into the race? No one else was added to the list, IIRC. It was the same players both before and after he dropped out then in.
Clearly his support was extremely soft, which doesn't get factored in with poll results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.