What Happened to Ross Perot?

There was a man named Ross Perot. Remember him? He was very much like Mr. Donald Trump. He was a business man. He was a billionaire. Both of them ran for President. What was Perot’s attractiveness? Perot gave expression to the fear and anxiety of the middle class of his time.
In his book titled, They Only Look Dead, E.J. Dionne Jr. (1996) called those attracted to Ross Perot the “Anxious Middle”. In a very fine chapter about the Politics of the Anxious Middle, Mr. Dionne wrote, (p.67)

The Anxious Middle set the terms for the 1992 and 1994 elections. It destroyed a Republican presidential coalition that seemed invulnerable only a few years earlier. It made Ross Perot possible, ended George (H.W) Bush’s political career, sent Bill Clinton to the White House – and rebuked Clinton and helped make Newt Gingrich one of the central figures of American politics. Perot spoke instinctively of the American Middle. Bush never understood it. Clinton saw it coming long before most politicians, shaped his campaign to respond to its concerns – and then confronted its ire after only two years in office. Gingrich sought his own radical language to speak to its anxieties

(p. 72) Almost as important as Clinton’s candidacy, of course, was Ross Perot’s, and his rise proved to be an essential component of Clinton’s victory. In the spring of 1992, as discontent against Bush was growing, Perot’s sudden availability as a candidate shook loose millions of previously Republican voters. Before he dropped out of the contest, Perot had risen to first in the polls and had driven Bush down to about a third of the potential vote. In his withdrawal statement in July – in the midst of the Democratic National Convention – Perot gave Clinton a large boost when he explained that his candidacy might no longer be needed , “now that the Democratic Party has revitalized itself.” Clinton soared in the polls.

Can we call the politics of Mr. Trump an appeal to the feelings of the Angry Middle? His confrontational style, his harsh criticisms, his stand against media and news reporters, his comments to Megan Kelly at the debate, and his repeated statements of anger and frustration place him as their spokesperson. Many of his supporters praise his fearless engagement with and rebuttal of the news reporters. They like when he gives simple answers to, for instance, the immigration problem. They admire that he is willing to say to anyone who disagrees with him, “you’re Fired.”

But as Mr. Dionne highlights, Ross Perot voluntarily left the race and abandoned his supporters. He threw his support to Clinton. He said that his candidacy was no longer needed now that the Democratic party was revived. Was that it? Did Perot play the American voters for fools? Did he care about the voter’s or only about the revitalization of the Democrats? Was he really just a rich old man who hated Bush and would do whatever he could to insure that Clinton won? However you might feel about that analysis, the fact remains that Perot’s candidacy was phony and he never really cared about the “Anxious Middle.” He cared about himself, the Clinton’s and the Democrat Party.

The parallels between Trump and Perot are startling. Trump’s campaign is to feared because like Perot’s, Trump’s billionaire financing, his bitter anger at the press and media, and his threats of reprisal against those with whom he disagrees are enjoying the same kind of support that sent Perot to number one. Plus, there is already talk among people that if Trump is not on the ballot, millions of voters will opt to stay home on Election Day. Such an action of silent protest will throw the election to Mrs. Clinton and the voter’s will have been played twice the fool.

Why the Republicans Lost in 2012

Rick Santorum and the conservative right are the reason the GOP lost the last election. They refused to back the agreed upon front-runner. They did not work for him after he was chosen and they refused to vote for him on election day. The conservative right complains that the left will not cooperate but it is equally true of them. Santorum attacked Romney so viciously that Rick couldn’t honestly overcome the visceral nature of his attacks. So, he and his followers and moneyed backers simply licked their wounds and went home sulking to come out and fight again this time. The same is true of Gingrich, Ron Paul, (not Rand) and of most other conservatives. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never really backed the agreed upon candidate. Limbaugh eventually agreed that although Romney was not really a Limbaugh conservative (and therefore, not really conservative enough) nonetheless, Limbaugh agreed that Romney was the best Republicans had. It was a veiled rejection of Romney, I believe. Hannity, never really backed Romney until the very end, and then only with the same caveats as Limbaugh. Levin, the same. I guess, you need to believe, like Obama does, that you are the only person who is right and pure and righteous. I guess you need to believe that the 595 members elected to the Congress by the people are the enemy. And, like Obama, you can rule the nation with your selected ideas, subjecting the people to your imperial will. So, here we go again with various factions of the electorate rallying to their narrowly defined “preferred” candidates…all good, that is the American way….but if the Republicans agree to one of them at the convention and then the factions refuse to work for the candidate, refuse to donate and just go home, sulk and refuse to vote, then the Republicans will lose again.

The good news is that the Republican party is a society of thinkers, poets, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others. It is not a party of single minded thinking and locked in step obedience to the leader. The Republican party is a true reflection of the American people who are themselves a people with varying opinions, religions and political philosophies. The Republican party are fighters for their beliefs. This also is good news because we need people of conviction willing to wrestle for their positions in the public square of ideas. Sadly, this writer believes, that the Democrat party is of one mind. It is the mind that is defined by the leadership and to which all Democrats bow. The Democrat party is not reflective of the variety of positions within the populace. Oh yes, individual Democrats may personally believe this or that idea, or think that this or that method is better than the one officially endorsed by the party. But the Democrat will always support the official position of the party no matter their own personal beliefs. This locked in step obedience to the party is why Democrat Senators and Congress persons were willing to pass Obama- care without reading it. They were told by “you cannot know what is in the bill until you pass it…” Nancy Pelosi and “Dead on Arrival if it does not agree with me” Harry Reid…that they must vote yes. And all Democrats did as they were told to do. Obama and the Democrat party leadership said to jump and they responded, “how high and how fast?”. It didn’t matter if the Democrat person thought that Obama-care was good or bad. The only thing that mattered was the decision of the Democrat party leadership. That decision was to be obeyed without question.

Too bad for America that our people seem to think that absolute obedience to the Democrat party leaders is better than public debate, public wrestling and public disagreement. We are a people growing too willing to live in the cartoon world of Barney and Dora and the Disneyland of fairy tales without any difficult characters. Is that the result of the Disney iszation (I know it is not a word) of our society? Some say, we are becoming too soft minded, all messy inside our heads. Some say, that males are being tamed and “feminized” and that the wilderness character of people like Davey Crochett, Kit Carson, Abraham Lincoln, Lewis and Clarke is lost. In response, the tea party movement has tried to revive interest in our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison- seeing in them the successful nation that arose from their religious, philosophical and political struggles.

America today is facing an election for the House and Senate. Hopefully, there will be lively and vibrant debate. However, it must be a debate about ideas. The presentations must be cogent, coherent and convincing. The facts must be true and not created by “talking point” mentors who tell our politicians what to say to which group today, only to slightly modify it for the next group tomorrow. And there absolutely must be an end to name calling, stereotyping, and feigned co-opting which has been so readily apparent with Obama, who says that Republicans must cooperate with him because he wants to cooperate with them, but, the same day, he tells the crowds that the Republicans are recalcitrant, red necked, backward and obstructionist who are to be blamed for everything from the state of the economy to the state of the weather. (Did you notice how adroitly the Democrat party crafted the narrative that hurricane Katrina was the fault of the Republicans. Katrina was President Bush’s hurricane and by careful inference, they said that all of results of Katrina were his fault. And have you noticed that Mayor Nagin, the Democrat hero of Katrina, fled to Texas during the storm and is now under Louisiana and federal indictment for criminal activity before, during and after Katrina? Amazing, to this writer, that Nagin’s indictment is getting meager coverage by the major news media!!)

The run up to the 2014 election must reject the prevalent immorality of our Obama administration which evidently knew that Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack against our embassy with the intention of murdering our ambassador, yet went to the United Nations and blamed it on an amateur You Tube video. The 2014 election debates must refuse to accept the concept that our UN Ambassador must be promoted to the National Security Council because she obediently went on the Sunday Talk Shows and repeated the lie that the Obama Administration wanted all of us to believe. We must reject political advertising that portrays people like Congressman Ryan as pushing our wheel-chaired grandmothers over the cliff. And most certainly, we must reject the guilt be association that blames Hilary for President Clinton’s having oral sex with a young female White House intern. And we must also reject life style morality debates, especially over gay and lesbian and transgender issues. However, as least for this writer, I do think that the place of these issues in the public school curriculum and the methods and age appropriateness of what is taught about these issues,- I believe, these to be legitimate issues for research and high level discussion and debate. Yes, even political debate, although it is all too often not high level.

Finally, I’d like to make a simple statement about the race issue. It should be a non issue. As long as we keep it in the forefront as an issue, then racism continues. Do we see a yellow man or a man who’s ancestry is Asian? Do we see a black woman, or a woman who’s ancestry is black skinned. What is an African anyway? Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccan’s, Tunisians are Africans but they are not black. Is African a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? Is Africa a continent or a country? Is a Nigerian the same ethnicity as a Congolese? What is black, anyway? Is it a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? New Guinea aboriginals are black but they are not African. Many peoples in India are dark brown or even black skinned but they too are not Africans. I know Italian friends who get really dark skinned in the Summer. The race debate is meaningless and President Obama, who thinks that many American citizens reject him because he is black skinned, is not helping. I remember when the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested a university professor. President Obama said openly that the white policeman acted wrongly. Obviously, our President saw it as a racial issue because he cast it as a white policeman acting wrongly against a black university professor. That was the start of racial division politics from then till now.

Ok, I think I have wandered a little in this blog. But at least it is out there for you to read, ponder and respond, if you care to engage.

There is a lot a stake in our nation. We are under going a national wrestling match which may result in a “pin” or a technical win. But to use another metaphor, it will not result in a knock out punch. Nor should it. Because a pin in wrestling is a win of strength that does not unduly hurt nor seek to destroy the opponent. A knock out is a knock out. ( Yes, I know this is not the best analogy. If you care for another share it.! I just hope you get the idea.) I think we need to wrestle with each other but we do not need a fist fight and definitely not a brawl.

Obama Should Stop Using Air Force One

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-cutting-own-pay-solidarity-federal-workers-033436986–business.html

More empty symbolism from Obama. He gives back five percent of four hundred thousand, or twenty thousand dollars. Good. But if he used Air force one 10% less, he would save the government $179,000 each time. So ten times equals 1 million 700 thousand which could be used to pay peoples salary. The President doesn’t pay for anything, not food, or shelter, heat, light, water, lawn, repairs, phone, TV, travel. All are 100 % paid for by the taxes of the same workers he is claiming to favor. Even Obama’s lavish White House parties and hollywood studed extravaganzas are paid for by the taxes of the people. Stop the lavish parties, I don’t mean State dinners which are a requirement of the office of President. I mean the very expensive lavish and extravangant weekly private parties for his friends and political supporters. Then cut all use of Air force one when used for political speeches and political Democrat fund raising and campaigning. I guess, that would probably save tens of millions, all of which could be directed to funding the salaries of the federal workers he so publically supports. But then, it seems, Americans and the media are more impressed with Obama’s drama instead of his actual accomplishments. Its all style over substance.

childlessness Could Doom the Childless and the Nation

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/18/why-the-choice-to-be-childless-is-bad-for-america.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

This is a very extensive, interesting and insightful article on the “Childless Culture” of modern urban America. Will there be enough children to replace those who are growing older and those who are dying? If there are not enough children who will pay for the elderly? If the childless generation succeeds, then they too will suffer. For this writer, one area that the author of this article neglected, and probably could not gauge, was the effect of aging on those who are electing to be childless.

Now, these folk have living parents and often grandparents. But grand parents and parents will die leaving the childless children without family. Friends, yes. But are today’s friends the same as today’s children who remain your children when you are old! This idea of family as companions along the journey of life may be quaint, but I suggest a visit to a contemporary elderly life home, or a nursing home. The people in these places often have families and yet, they cannot stay at home because of illness, frailty, behavioral problems, or simply because their children do not want to take care of them.

So, we posit the idea of millions of men and women who today could have children we imagine that they successfully carry out their childlessness. So, imagine that they are now fifty or sixty. They are weaker than they are now. Some are sick. Some are frail. All are without grandparents, parents or children. They are also either out of a job because of technological advances eliminating their employment, or they are forced to continue working until they are dead because of the increasing costs of urban singleton living.

Hey, they may indeed be happy. But this is also true, there comes a point in biological life when it is no longer possible to have children. So, the decision to be childless becomes, at that point, not reversible. Hey, they may be used to being a “family” of one. However, the socially hip scene changes with age. The friends move away or die away. The body degenerates. So, what! They may think that is not their problem. And it isn’t.

As the article inferred, Obama will take care of them. Oh, I forgot, he will be old too. And surprise! Obama is married and has two children. His retirement will be generous. His wife is a successful business person. And although his parents and grandparents are dead, I am sure he will have plenty of friends to keep him company as he grows older. Maybe, using him as the image for ourselves is not the best idea. Well, to each his/her own.

Obama is Not a Dictator

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-immigration-reform-ill-act-congress-doesnt-224408712.html

“But the president indicated that his patience is provisional. He laid out principles he said should be reflected in any comprehensive immigration-reform legislation, and he said that if lawmakers get bogged down bickering, he’ll act.”

Obama is not a dictator. He is an elected president. His election is according to the law and it is under the rule of the law. We need to remind our young reporters of this fact. It seems that they very much want to give him dictatorial power. Or they want a daddy. Maybe all young college educated reporters want the tyranny of the classroom Professor to remain in their lives forever. Whatever is it, it is annoying to read news reporters using language in describing the President that casts him in the above mentioned roles.

The facts of our national law, however, are in the way of the unmerited enthusiasm of our young reporters who want to grant Mr. Obama power that he does not possess. Hopefully, the rest of the nation sees this and will not fall into the Obama mania crowd.

Mr. Obama’s bellicose pronouncements and threats to the US Congress are actually the rants of someone who thinks of himself as the law or above the law. These kinds of statements are not mere politics such as one might use to influence the decision-making of the 595 elected officials of the US Congress. Rather, they are cast in the language of threat and they are meant to convey a threat. He is saying that either they act of he will do whatever he wants to do, and he will do it whether or not he has the power to do so.

President Obama does not respect the Congress of the USA and by extension, he does not respect the people of the nation because they are the ones who elected the Congress. His threats indicate a person who still believes that America should be thankful that he is willing to allow himself to rule over us and if we don’t recognize that, it is we who are wrong.

There is a Constitutional process in place for Mr. Obama to influence the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is called proposal of legislation. That means that he has his staff actually write down proposed legislation, submit this legislation to the House and Senate through his surrogates and let them debate the issues. The second is to use the threat of a veto of proposed legislation to influence the Congress.

Mr. Obama does not work within the system. He thinks that he is supposed to say something and it is to be done. He thinks that he is supposed to give a speech and that is the same as proposal of legislation. In order words, he wills it to be done, like some kind of Czar and everyone else is to bow down, says yes your majesty, and then go out and do exactly as he says to do.

But the USA is a Republic and not a monarchy. It is also not a dictatorship with a merely phony Congress. The USA is a Constitutional democracy ruled by laws and Mr. Obama is not outside of nor above those laws. So, although the process may be tedious and at times it may make mistakes, ultimately, its is the will of the people as expressed by the people’s elected Representatives in the Congress. If Mr. Obama wants to get things done, he should work harder at the actual writing of legislation and he should be more cooperative in working with the Congress and not against it.

Obama a Centrist?

http://news.yahoo.com/don-t-hem-him-in—liberal–can-t-define-the-obama-presidency–154423941.html

Indeed, Obama is now a second term President, fair and square. But the so-called mandate is not true. Yes, he won 53 percent of those who voted. But how many eligible voters actually voted? His four years have tempered him for the better. I did not vote for him. But I do have hope. My hope is that he will be more left of center than left of left. America, I believe is a fair-minded and good nation. I do not know if President Obama loves the America over which he fought so hard to Preside. But I know that I love America. I love it enough to accept him as the legal President. I love it enough to pray that God will help him to be just, fair and magnanimous in his administration. I love it enough to hope that he really, maybe way down deep, but I will take what I can get, that way down deep, he does love his country.

Comment on Obama Vacation

Yes, the President is entitled to a vacation. However, the question is one of money. He constantly says that we need “shared sacrifice” and also that the so-called rich, who he thinks are people who make over $250 thousand must pay more in taxes. Yet, he takes the Air Force One to go on vacation to Hawaii. I think the cost to the taxpayer for such a flight is $179,000 dollars an hour. An amazing figure. If this figure is correct and the flight from Washington takes ten hours than how much is that?? Does anyone know if the cost includes the secret service salaries and accommodations and the cost of the fighter jet escorts and the on the ground security at the hotel? I think one commentator estimated the trip at 2 million dollars to the taxpayer. To Bq2008, who stated that people have to stop complaining and get a job and realize that the election is over and that Obama won, I have a job. I have also served my nation in the military and my wife and all my relations and children have jobs. So Bq don’t shout at those who object to such extra ordinary expense. It may be time for some expense account cutting on the federal government including the office of President. And yes, other Presidents took vacations, but so what?! That was then and this is now. As you Bq said, the election is over and its time to move on and that includes that it is time to stop treating Obama as a rock star, or pandering to him for whatever silly reasons people use for pandering. If we need to be responsible and share the sacrifice, so does the President.

Obama and Reid Now Must do something and not just talk.

Yes. Since anything the House has already passed was Dead on Arrival in the Senate. And since anything the House may have been able to do was declared Dead on Arrival by Harry Reid. And since anything that was done or could have been done was declared to be a “…item I will veto…” by President Obama- Now it is the turn of the President to actually put something in writing. His proposals so far have been talk and speeches and sound bites. As we know, talk, speeches and sound bites are not proposed legislation and cannot be submitted to the House in that form. Therefore, it is now the President and the Senate who must propose something to the House.

A Citizens Call to Action On Gun Control

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mindset/a-call-to-duty/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CCR%2012-21-2012%20Prospects%20(2)&utm_content=

A very thoughtful and passionate prposal for citizen action in light of school invasion and children’s murder.

White Americans Versus White Americans

0users disliked this commentFrederick • 1 day 7 hrs ago

“We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes,” What does that mean? And if it is true, how is President Obama the architect of cultural and demographic change? Surely, he is not the father of all those demographic people and he is not the author of their culture. Is this a reference to President Obama’s race? Isn’t that racist? Is it a reference to the Muslim influences on his life? Isn’t that also stereotyping and could be considered prejudice? Didn’t the father of modern racial attitudes say that we should judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? I am wondering how many media people see President Obama as a black man? Would MLK have preferred us to see Obama as a man who is is black? What does Obama himself want? Does he think of himself as a black man or a man who is black? Can a white person think of themselves as a white person or a person who is white and what’s the difference?

3 View all 3 Replies

v1/comments/context/722c65d1-5ccf-33aa-8ee9-2f39cd35ce54/comment/1355943394839-0b995661-15b5-4c8c-a90f-793392323ace/reply/00004s000000000000000000000000-76b6c41e-e70d-4d64-86d7-732e8560ee90

0users liked this commentRate a Thumb Up Rate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment

M • 1 day 6 hrs ago

He is not their father but their representative. He is actually the architect because he is representing all of the different races and idealogies, instead of any other presidents who has only represented white christian bigots. And yes he is happened to be black.–Or is he?
0users liked this commentThumbs Up Thumbs Down0users disliked this comment

Frederick • a second agoRemove

Sadly, you thing that White Christians are bigots. But that is the problems. White people are taught not to be proud that they are white and that they have a thousand plus years of illustrious history to include Christianity, Monasticism, the Universities, the hospitals, the Renaisance, the Enlightenment,Democracy, Industrial revolution, computer revolution, digital revolution and that white europeans are in the front of the latest innovations in every measurable field of human endeavor. But we are told to hand our heads down, and to stoop our shoulders and to recite the manta of Liberalism, namely, White and Christian is bad and black and Muslim is good.