🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DUMP.CLINTON.BUSH@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
[snip]
>  Perot, in contrast, was a breath of fresh air.  He stuck to the issues,
>  and talked straight, and more importantly, he talked sense.
>
>  I'm going for Perot.  I wasn't happy with his quitting the race,
>  but he didn't quit on the POW/MIAs and he didn't let the country
>  quit either.  To me, it is the Democrats and the Republicans, and
>  not Ross Perot, who have quit on the country.

I loved listening to Perot on TV.  He spoke candidly, and straight to
the point.

There's only one problem ... the Presidency is not a 1 man job.  You
have an administration, you need to work with groups of people,
solicit their input, build consensus, delegate responsibility, etc.

The head of a corporation, particularly when they hold the majority of
the stock in that corporation, is akin to a dictator.  Perot has a
history of being a great (benevolent, or maybe not so benevolent)
dictator.  His ability to work with people and delegate has not been
widely heralded.

Right after Ed Rollins quit (co-)running the Perot campaign, I heard a
very telling sound-bite: "How can a guy who can't run a presidential
campaign expect to run the country?".  I can't remember if Rollins or
Hamilton Jordan said it - gasp - brain rot :-|.

My bottom line is that I really like the way Perot is stirring up the
business-as-usual usual political process.  He's great on TV, and
makes a great agent for change.  However, I think he'd be an abysmal
president.

Erik