Clinton, H W Bush, and Perot debate,

Go down the list on youtube.

basemetal: See, lookie here, that sucking sound you hear, that's all of your jobs being sent to Mexico.

/and China
//and India
///and Taiwan
////.........

Its interesting to watch Ross Perot in retrospect and without the impression of Dana Carvey in big ears going through your mind.

It's funny how he was right about NAFTA. Also, giant ears, tiny head.

Isinisbad, new Middle Eastern capital city.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It's funny how he was right about NAFTA. Also, giant ears, tiny head.

He was right about a lot of things- he's a smart guy.

/Didn't vote for him.
//Wouldn't vote for him now.

You know, if that peckerwood could have just done his best to avoid offending "you people", he could very well have gotten elected and saved us.

To this day I still think of Ross Perot whenever I hear the term "world-class".

I wonder if he could provide some charts to illustrate what he's talking about.

Epoch_Zero: Ross Perot, dedicated to staying alive to say obvious things.

Well, lets be clear. The failures of neoliberal economics were far from obvious in 1992. This guy put a lot on the line to take that information to the American people.

During those days, people couldn't get past his "funny accent" or his "big ears" to objectively listen to that point.

VGA Hole: You know, if that peckerwood could have just done his best to avoid offending "you people", he could very well have gotten elected and saved us.

You think he got an even shake?
The two party system looooves an upstart 3rd party, right?

/hot

I voted for him. I was concerned about the recession and the deficit -- just like people are concerned about both today.

In retrospect, an increasing economy erased the deficit by 2000. So there's that.

Imperialism: [timiacono.com image 526x377]
/hot

This, folks, is exactly why people should avoid the simple "crazy" smear. You should be able to specify the criticism in a well-constructed argument.

To those who claim the two-party system is broken and/or a sham, please help me out:

Even allowing that the two parties and the candidates they put forth are often imperfect, why is it that every time a somewhat viable third party candidate comes along, he is considerably less perfect than the mainstream candidates?

You third party advocates have to hang your hat on the likes of H. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader? Who else you got? He isn't doing the third party thing yet but the closest we get is Ron Paul, a known crackpot. These are good alternatives? Really?

From a sampling of Presidential candidates to get the most love as a third party (or in Paul's case, who would if he went that route), they have one thing in common: A little populist appeal that comes from being an "outsider" but no more than one or two decent ideas that are unfortunately surrounded by batshiat insanity which makes them as a whole unelectable anyway.

H Ross Perot: Populist because he was a homespun DC outsider... Batshiat crazy.
Ralph Nader: Populist because he fought for the consumer protections... Batshiat crazy.
Ron Paul: Populist because he likes pot and hates war... Batshiat crazy.

If your second-best attribute is simply not being a Democrat or Republican, then maybe you're not really that good of an option.

StopLurkListen: I voted for him. I was concerned about the recession and the deficit -- just like people are concerned about both today.

In retrospect, an increasing economy erased the deficit by 2000. So there's that.

And then radical regressives took control, and completely skullfarked the economy in the name of defense contractors and megacorporations.

NYCNative: Batshiat crazy.

The smear "batshiat crazy' is used in so many more instances without specifying the criticism in a well-constructed argument.

Its just a lazy argument that, when repeated enough, seems to stick. Out of those three, people seem to have the most substance on Ron Paul criticisms.

LordJiro: StopLurkListen: I voted for him. I was concerned about the recession and the deficit -- just like people are concerned about both today.

In retrospect, an increasing economy erased the deficit by 2000. So there's that.

And then radical regressives took control..

There were problems with the late 90's economy as well. Neoliberal economics is a term people should get a handle on.

Party Boy: Epoch_Zero: Ross Perot, dedicated to staying alive to say obvious things.

Well, lets be clear. The failures of neoliberal economics were far from obvious in 1992. This guy put a lot on the line to take that information to the American people.

During those days, people couldn't get past his "funny accent" or his "big ears" to objectively listen to that point.

Or perhaps it was the fact that his ideas of "treating citizens like shareholders" smacked of giving the rich even more power over the country? Or perhaps it was the utter flakiness of his campaign? The fact that he quit the race, then came back in a few months later? His utter disaster of a VP pick? The fact that, all things considered, Clinton seemed like a likable guy who'd make a good president?

Nah, must have been late night TV caricatures. Because FSM knows, SNL has NEVER mocked any candidate other than Ross Perot.

HeartBurnKid: Or perhaps it was the fact that his ideas of "treating citizens like shareholders" smacked of giving the rich even more power over the country?

You are going to have to elaborate this.

HeartBurnKid: Or perhaps it was the utter flakiness of his campaign?

no content. dismissed.

HeartBurnKid: The fact that he quit the race, then came back in a few months later?

So?

HeartBurnKid: His utter disaster of a VP pick?

Admiral Stockdale? You know what he said about the Gulf of Tonkin? His career. But yes, like Perot, he didnt look good for television. Aw shucks.

A Dark Evil Omen: I will also point out, however, that going by the standard of the site you linked they're not any worse/crazier than the "real" candidates...

I disagree. The site does list Obama and while he is not controversy-free, he does not have the baggage as the three I listed. Obama's policies may be imperfect, but hardly anyone makes a solid case that he is a loon.

Party Boy: LordJiro: StopLurkListen: I voted for him. I was concerned about the recession and the deficit -- just like people are concerned about both today.

In retrospect, an increasing economy erased the deficit by 2000. So there's that.

And then radical regressives took control..

There were problems with the late 90's economy as well. Neoliberal economics is a term people should get a handle on.

Problems, yes. Worst economic downturn since the Depression? No.

Party Boy: The smear "batshiat crazy' is used in so many more instances without specifying the criticism in a well-constructed argument.

Or you can go to the links I posted and see that "Batshiat Crazy" was just shorthand for the candidates being accused of hypocrisy, authoritism, paranoia, racist views, being abusive... These traits are legitimate criticisms of all three I mentioned. So you can sue me that I went for the cheap, satisfying (and somewhat humerous) talking point or, you know, just read about them in the links I provided and elsewhere on the interweb.

dletter: Second, while Stockdale is an admirable American, he isn't a political candidate, or a good public speaker (which is no knock against him... I wouldn't be either). If Perot had gotten a VP candidate like lets say Lee Iacocca... ie, another businessperson, well regarded, etc... he would have cleaned up in that VP debate.

A little context from Crapipedia

-----------------------------

Perot eventually re-entered the race in the fall of 1992, with Stockdale still in place as the vice-presidential nominee. Stockdale was not informed that he would be participating in the October 13 vice-presidential debate held in Atlanta, Georgia, until a week before the event. He had no formal preparation for the debate, unlike his opponents Al Gore and Dan Quayle, and did not discuss any political issues with Perot beforehand.[14]
Stockdale notably opened the debate by saying, "Who am I? Why am I here?", when responding to a request for an opening statement from debate moderator, Hal Bruno, the political director of ABC News.[15] Bruno had asked Stockdale, "Admiral Stockdale, your opening statement, please, sir?", leading to the now famous response.[16] Initially, the rhetorical questions drew applause from the audience, seeming to be a good-natured acknowledgment of his relatively unknown status and lack of traditional qualifications.

However, his unfocused style for the rest of the debate (including asking the moderator to repeat one question because he didn't have his hearing aid turned on) made him appear confused and almost disoriented. An unflattering recreation of the moment on Saturday Night Live later that week, with Phil Hartman as Stockdale, cemented a public perception of Stockdale as slow-witted. He was also often parodied for his repeated use of the term "gridlock" to describe slow governmental policy.

As his introduction to the large segment of American voters who had not previously heard of him, the debate was disastrous for Stockdale. He was portrayed in the media as elderly and confused, and his reputation never recovered. In a 1999 interview with Jim Lehrer, Stockdale explained that the statements were intended as an introduction of himself and his personal history to the television audience:[14]

It was terribly frustrating because I remember I started with, "Who am I? Why am I here?" and I never got back to that because there was never an opportunity for me to explain my life to people. It was so different from Quayle and Gore. The four years in solitary confinement in Vietnam, seven-and-a-half years in prisons, drop the first bomb that started the ... American bombing raid in the North Vietnam. We blew the oil storage tanks of them off the map. And I never-I couldn't approach-I don't say it just to brag, but, I mean, my sensitivities are completely different.

LordJiro: Worst economic downturn since the Depression? No.

I didnt make this comparison. I did, however feel the need to interject that the 90's boom had its problems. That was not being added in here. However this recent worst downturn is still linked to overall criticisms of neoliberal economics.

NYCNative: Or you can go to the links I posted and see that "Batshiat Crazy"

Re-read my post. I was agreeing and supplementing. relax.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: Or perhaps it was the fact that his ideas of "treating citizens like shareholders" smacked of giving the rich even more power over the country?

You are going to have to elaborate this.

Watch some of his half-hour campaign ads from the time; he goes on and on about citizens as shareholders. I was well acquainted with them; my dad and I watched every single one.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: Or perhaps it was the utter flakiness of his campaign?

no content. dismissed.

That was actually a lead-in into the next two.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: The fact that he quit the race, then came back in a few months later?

So?

So that's not a really good way to make voters think you're in this for the long haul, or that you'll stick to your guns when things get tough.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: His utter disaster of a VP pick?

Admiral Stockdale? You know what he said about the Gulf of Tonkin? His career. But yes, like Perot, he didnt look good for television. Aw shucks.

He fell asleep during the debate. I'll say that again; He fell asleep during the Vice-Presidential debate.

Party Boy: Re-read my post. I was agreeing and supplementing. relax.Sorry, it seemed you were calling the characteristic "a lazy argument," which didn't smack of agreement to me.

HeartBurnKid: Watch some of his half-hour campaign ads from the time; he goes on and on about citizens as shareholders. I was well acquainted with them; my dad and I watched every single one.

I'm aware of that. Now, make your argument about "smacked of giving the rich even more power over the country?"

HeartBurnKid: So that's not a really good way to make voters think you're in this for the long haul, or that you'll stick to your guns when things get tough.

A third party candidate got nearly 20% of the vote based on his own money. Lots of pressure from from the two party structure and a drain on his own funds. I'm ok with that given this context.

HeartBurnKid: I'll say that again; He fell asleep during the Vice-Presidential debate.

Link.

NYCNative: Party Boy: Re-read my post. I was agreeing and supplementing. relax.Sorry, it seemed you were calling the characteristic "a lazy argument," which didn't smack of agreement to me.

The use of "crazy" without a well constructed argument is crap. Now, do you feel like this charactirizes you? Probably not.

Party Boy: charactirizes

meant to correct that. meh.

NYCNative: To those who claim the two-party system is broken and/or a sham, please help me out:

Even allowing that the two parties and the candidates they put forth are often imperfect, why is it that every time a somewhat viable third party candidate comes along, he is considerably less perfect than the mainstream candidates?

You third party advocates have to hang your hat on the likes of H. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader? Who else you got? He isn't doing the third party thing yet but the closest we get is Ron Paul, a known crackpot. These are good alternatives? Really?

From a sampling of Presidential candidates to get the most love as a third party (or in Paul's case, who would if he went that route), they have one thing in common: A little populist appeal that comes from being an "outsider" but no more than one or two decent ideas that are unfortunately surrounded by batshiat insanity which makes them as a whole unelectable anyway.

H Ross Perot: Populist because he was a homespun DC outsider... Batshiat crazy.
Ralph Nader: Populist because he fought for the consumer protections... Batshiat crazy.
Ron Paul: Populist because he likes pot and hates war... Batshiat crazy.

If your second-best attribute is simply not being a Democrat or Republican, then maybe you're not really that good of an option.

I disagree. I don't think that the majority of 3rd party candidates are actually "crazy" or anything like that. The crux of the issue is that the changes a 3rd party wants to make are usually very sweeping, large-scale, fundamental changes. This makes people nervous, as it should. Not saying those changes are bad ideas, it's that making those changes would cause major changes in our everyday lives. Many would see this as a good thing, but change in and of itself, especially big changes over short periods of time, tend to cause chaos. Suggesting something that would cause chaos = crazy to most people.

Personally I think we could use a little chaos from a 3rd party candidate.

I think this is why some people feel that the difference between D and R are miniscule. Because compared to what a Ross Perot or a Ralph Nader would do, the changes are barely perceptible.

Ross Perot has aged well... By "well" I mean he looks almost the same as he did 20 years ago. lol

Party Boy: Clinton, H W Bush, and Perot debate,

Go down the list on youtube.

This was on CSPAN the other night, and I watched part of it.

Boy, what's old is new again...

star_topology: This was on CSPAN the other night, and I watched part of it.

Boy, what's old is new again..

Yay cspan. We, as a country, are not looking at the neoliberal economic paradigm with enough criticism. People were starting to get at some of the problems before we jumped in with both legs.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: Watch some of his half-hour campaign ads from the time; he goes on and on about citizens as shareholders. I was well acquainted with them; my dad and I watched every single one.

I'm aware of that. Now, make your argument about "smacked of giving the rich even more power over the country?"

Think about it for a second. Think about the way a public corporation works. If you want more votes, you simply buy more shares.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: So that's not a really good way to make voters think you're in this for the long haul, or that you'll stick to your guns when things get tough.

A third party candidate got nearly 20% of the vote based on his own money. Lots of pressure from from the two party structure and a drain on his own funds. I'm ok with that given this context.

Regardless, it's one of the reasons people didn't vote for him. If he actually managed to run an entire campaign, he might have actually won.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: I'll say that again; He fell asleep during the Vice-Presidential debate.

Link.

Couldn't find a video of it, but here's a source that mentions it.

Perot was just another in a long line who believed that government should be run like a business. Just an objectively bad viewpoint. Democratic governments can't be run like businesses, have completely different economics at work and completely different objectives. Sure, there are best practices but on a whole, saying government should be run like a business is a handy way for me to know you should never ever be in it.

joonyer: I disagree. I don't think that the majority of 3rd party candidates are actually "crazy" or anything like that. The crux of the issue is that the changes a 3rd party wants to make are usually very sweeping, large-scale, fundamental changes. This makes people nervous, as it should. Not saying those changes are bad ideas, it's that making those changes would cause major changes in our everyday lives. Many would see this as a good thing, but change in and of itself, especially big changes over short periods of time, tend to cause chaos. Suggesting something that would cause chaos = crazy to most people.

Personally I think we could use a little chaos from a 3rd party cand ...

Sorry, but they are crazy. I outlined why. Most of the "sweeping, large-scale, fundamental changes" they espouse are crazy. People are nervous because they are crazy, not because they are bold. FDR brought about sweeping changes that were not crazy. Obama's HCR is a sweeping change that was not crazy. The Gold Standard is crazy. Isolationism is crazy. Racism is crazy.

HeartBurnKid: Think about it for a second.

No. You make your well-constructed argument.

HeartBurnKid: Regardless

That is a massive share of the votes. it was partly responsible for an increased shut-out of all third party candidates. Huge sweeping changes that Nader (4%) was trying to fight against. You can't hand waive that away with a regardless.

"apparently falling asleep at one point."

Apparently, this isn't good enough.

Party Boy: Imperialism: [timiacono.com image 526x377]
/hot

This, folks, is exactly why people should avoid the simple "crazy" smear. You should be able to specify the criticism in a well-constructed argument.

 


/actually agrees

tomWright: /actually agrees

everyone should agree. of course, thats in the world where we all fart rainbows, and we arent governed by sound bytes and how a candidate looks on television over the content of the message.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: Think about it for a second.

No. You make your well-constructed argument.

I just did. You deleted it off the line.

Party Boy: HeartBurnKid: Regardless

That is a massive share of the votes. it was partly responsible for an increased shut-out of all third party candidates. Huge sweeping changes that Nader (4%) was trying to fight against. You can't hand waive that away with a regardless.

When did I? If he hadn't been a flake, if he had actually stayed in the campaign, he might have won. I was replying to your comment that his "big ears" and his "funny accent" are the only things that kept people from voting for him. Because, you know, other than that, he's the freaking Messiah.

Party Boy: "apparently falling asleep at one point."

Apparently, this isn't good enough.

Apparently, it was.

Party Boy: star_topology: This was on CSPAN the other night, and I watched part of it.

Boy, what's old is new again..

Yay cspan. We, as a country, are not looking at the neoliberal economic paradigm with enough criticism. People were starting to get at some of the problems before we jumped in with both legs.

I know your criticisms are more in-depth than "tax-and-spend" Democrats vs. "spend-and-spend" Republicans, but I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. (Srsly)

As my grandmother said back then, "That awful chicken man."

He was right about nafta

/voted for Ross