Ross Perot the Tea Party and the GOP Political Elite

vanity | 6.4.11 | vanity

[rface]

Dare I say it? I voted for Ross Perot…..twice……I was a Tea Partier Then, and I am a Tea Partier now.

Back in the older days, I wasn’t going to vote for the DC Establishment Candidate (first GHW Bush then Dole), I was going to vote for the candidate that was going to help make America Fiscally healthy…..and the people of America were going to help make America Morally Healthy.

I was an enthusiastic supporter of Perot, and I know now that this is the same type of enthusiasm that is driving the Tea Party today. A weird fact…..many Tea Partiers, who are old enough, have been asked by me if they voted for Perot back in the days of Papa Bush v Clinton v Perot….then Bob Dole v Clinton v Perot…..and a surprising number of them quickly, and without embarrassment say, “Yes – I voted for Ross Perot”

There were few days left. Election Day loomed on the horizon. GW Bush was running the 1st time, against Gore, and the rac was neck and neck. One of the big questions, was “since Perot is not running, Who is Perot going to publicly support? If I remember right, Perot was doing a Larry King interview….and there where many minds (including Rush Limbaugh) convinced that Perot was going to endorse Gore. I would have been floored if he actually had endorsed Gore…..BUT , Perot enthusiastically endorsed GW Bush.

As a former Perot supporter and two-time voter, I was expecting Perot (NOT hoping) that Perot would indeed endorse GW Bush. Limbaugh was shocked! I tell you he was SHOCKED!!!. Limbaugh was then, an “Inside-the-beltway, Official GOP insider”

Throughout the Clinton years Limbaugh et al. hammer the Perot voters for giving America 8 years of Clinton and Lewinski and Gore and all the messes that came with those times. These were the days that Limbaugh openly carried the “establishment GOP water” and fed it to his listeners through a siphon hose…. Since those days, and since Limbaugh’s hearing loss and drug problems, he has PUBLICLY STATED that he is no longer going to be carrying the GOP water……so now Limbaugh openly says that the GOP establishment wants “we the people” to vote for the GOP Political Insiders…..I say screw that! I agree with Limbaugh - SCREW the DC Insiders! They care about POWER not America.

I will not vote for a Bob Dole – or a McCain or any wishy-washy republican. I want a candidate with courage and a vision and a plan to make and keep America great.

There are several candidates that I might consider later on, but I am now recalling the days before the Tea Party, when the Perot Tea Partiers pushed back against the DC Insider elites.

I was a Tea Partier then and I am a Tea Partier now. I voted for Ross Perot.

[algernonpj]

Ok, here is Romney - there is Rick Perry (for example).

If you voted for Perry, you’d be voting for the lesser of two evils, right? Because although his stands/history are better than Romney, he has his issues. (forced vaccinations, border equivocation)

You vote for neither because voting for Perry supports
1. advancing the nanny state, big government spending and intrusion in our lives,
2.open borders and amnesty which advance the destruction of our national security, economy, job opportunities, culture etc.

neither candidate is worthy of my vote.

[algernonpj]

John McCain and the GOP leadership who spoon fed our candidate to us are the reason Obama is in the Whitehouse. do it again and he'll be reelected.

Bingo!

In my experience the GOP leadership would eat their own rather than support a candidate who was not one of the GOP political elite class.

[algernonpj]

If the admirably concise description of the (sadly) all-too-common logical error, definist fallacy, was not helpful to you... then: there's really no other assistance I can be reasonably expected to offer, in this particular instance.

Again: Refusing to vote for "the lesser of two evils" =/= "seeking perfect candidate." Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.

Either one "gets" it, ultimately, or they do not.

Thank you. One either sees it or one doesn't.

IMHO the 'lessor of two evils' is the best piece of propaganda the enemy within has ever come up with.

[Persevero]

“neither candidate is worthy of my vote.”

See, that is what I meant about perfection, which others on this board have called a “straw man.” It is not a straw man, it is a real philosophy which keeps people from voting for anyone because no one is perfect enough.

I respect your right to vote or not as you see fit, of course. I’m just discussing the issue.

-The perfect is the enemy of the good.- This phrase was tossed around at my church for quite a while as we sought a new pastor for years and years. No one was quite “good” enough. Therefore we had no pastor at all.

[algernonpj]

“neither candidate is worthy of my vote.”

See, that is what I meant about perfection, which others on this board have called a “straw man.” It is not a straw man, it is a real philosophy which keeps people from voting for anyone because no one is perfect enough.

I respect your right to vote or not as you see fit, of course. I’m just discussing the issue.

-The perfect is the enemy of the good.- This phrase was tossed around at my church for quite a while as we sought a new pastor for years and years. No one was quite “good” enough. Therefore we had no pastor at all.

You define all candidates as flawed. This is true. We all have flaws as a result of human nature.

That being said you have tagged all flaws as 'evil'. I, and I suspect KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle, only tag those flaws which are totally unacceptable in a candidate as 'evil'.

Some candidates flaws rise to the level of not being acceptable or worthy of a vote, i.e. a deal breaker. Hence Refusing to vote for "the lesser of two evils" =/= "seeking perfect candidate."

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

algernopj: A++

Persevero: You'll be staying back a year. Again. ;)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Will they ever, EVER learn...? ;)

[Persevero]

I think we are getting somewhere - where do we draw the line between “flawed” and “evil?”

Reagan supported the Therapeutic Abortion Act, he did a huge illegal amnesty program - was that “flawed” or “evil?”

I supported him. Why? Because he believably and publicly repented of the abortion act. And because I thought his amnesty act had the right motivation but was wrongly implemented.

However, a politician running for our primary today is called “evil” if he ever supported abortion or if he is perceived as weak on the border in any way.

And if I support that politician, I am often told I am supporting “the lesser of two evils,” and I should not do so. Hence my retort, I always am supporting the lesser of two evils.

I think it is more accurate to say I am supporting the less flawed candidate, generally. And I stand by the wisdom of doing so.

[RitaOK]

” Get this through your thick skull Rita, there is no difference between Big government Republicans and Democrats. “ =============

A duh moment. So, what do we do about that, nominate someone Obama is beating 3 to 1 in the polls? Where is the gain in doing that?