Murray Rothbeard: Ross Perot- 'Was The Original Donald Trump'

Source:Murray Rothbeard- One of Ross Perot's candid quotes 

"How did the media Discredit Ross Perot? What tools did they use?
Music by Chuki"

Source:Murray Rothbeard

Source:BBC- "Democrat Bill Clinton (L), Independent Ross Perot (C) and President George H.W. Bush"

I realize this guy on YouTube is not the best source ( and perhaps not even a credible source to talk about Ross Perot ) but I heard this comparison between Perot and Donald Trump last week and I just feel the need to correct the record on it. 

Ross Perot, was a serious, very intelligent man both as it related to business and not just one of the original new-tech leaders, but innovators when it came to new technology with his computer company.

The only time Donald Trump has ever made any real money on his own in his life ( without screwing other people out of their money ) is with his reality TV career that started 15 years ago. We're talking about a man who went bankrupt multiple times both with his business, as well as personally, to the point that back in the early and mid 90s he was borrowing money from his successful brother, to pay his personal bills. Back then he was going through both a bankruptcy and second divorce and couldn't pay his own bills, let alone run his own business.

What Perot and Trump have in common is that trade was a major part of their presidential campaigns. And it's an issue that they both seem to understand pretty well.

But Ross Perot in 92, was running on fixing the debt and balancing the budget with a serious plan to do both.

Donald Trump, is the self-proclaimed King of Debt and for good reasons: his personal and business bankruptcies and thanks to his borrow and spend, supply side fiscal policy that assumes his trillion-dollar tax cut ( mostly for wealthy investors and business ) is going to pay for itself, ( even though there is no real evidence of that ) America is going run a trillion-dollar budget deficit for the first time since 2013 again. Remember, President Barack Obama, inherited a trillion-dollar deficit and got that cut in half during his eight years as President. President Trump, is about to double the Obama deficit.

Ross Perot, wad a good, funny, charming, intelligent, successful man who not only knew how to work with others, was good at it and perhaps even enjoyed working with other people. Donald Trump, believes that anyone who disagrees with him on anything, not only hates him, but hates America and therefor is Un-American. Who doesn't even read his own intelligence reports or believe them that were prepared by his own National Security Council that he personally appointed. Does he ever read anything that he didn't personally write, or that's not one of his speeches?

Ross Perot, in 1992 and 96 was talking about a red, white, and blue America and bringing all Americans together. Donald Trump and just look at this week apparently believes that ethnic and racial minorities are Un-American and shouldn't be American citizens. At least minority women in the House of Representatives.

So sure, Ross Perot and Donald Trump are both outsiders who took on the political establishment in America and made very successful runs at the presidency, with The Donald even winning his election. And they were both suspicious of free trade. But that's really all that they have in common. We don't even know for sure if President Trump was ever a billionaire or is currently a billionaire and might only be worth a 10th of what he claims, because of all of his business and personal debt. And as a result they really shouldn't be compared with each other at all.

When you think of Ross Perot, you should look at Representative John Anderson who made a successful Independent run for President in 1980. And look at Neo-Confederate Governor George Wallace, if you want to compare another major presidential candidate with Donald Trump. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Vanity Fair: Opinion- T.A. Frank: 'What Ross Perot Got Right About America'

Source:Vanity Fair- "American industrialist Ross Perot in 1996." Not sure if 1996 is accurate about this photo.

"When Ross Perot was winding down his presidential campaign in 1992, he played Patsy Cline’s recording of “Crazy” at his rallies. It was an embrace of the pejoratives and invectives hurled his way by Democrats, Republicans, and most of the press. Perot liked to agree with an accusation and then co-opt it to his advantage. “I’ve been accused of looking in the rearview mirror,” he said during one debate. “That’s right. I’m looking back at reality.” As a candidate, Donald Trump often did the same thing. “I do whine,” Trump said in 2015, after being accused of whining, “because I want to win and I’m not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win.”

Read more from T.A. Frank at Vanity Fair

Source:POLITICO: 'Watch Ross Perot's most memorable moments'- A lot to remember 

"H. Ross Perot, the colorful, self-made Texas billionaire who rose from a childhood of Depression-era poverty and twice ran for president as a third-party candidate, has died. He was 89. Here are some of the more memorable moments of his career. "

On a more lighter note, first: when I think of Ross Perot, I think of a man who was brilliant at using political satire to make important points about politics and government, not different from let's say a George Carlin, Robert Klein, Bill Maher, and other great political comedians.

And I have a great example of that: I was only a teenager still in high school in 1992 when Mr. Perot ran for President the first time in 1992 and it was at I believe the Townhall debate in Richmond, Virginia which is a 100 miles or so south of Washington and I think it was ABC News anchor Carole Simpson who asked Perot about his lack of political and government experience and is he ready to be President. Perot answered by saying that he doesn't have any experience running 200 hundred-billion-dollar deficits and trillions of dollars in national debt. He said he doesn't have and political spin doctors and he's sure that shows up when he's speaking. And doesn't have any interns that prepares the charts that he uses when he goes on TV, that he makes them himself, etc.

Perot's basic point that the question shouldn't be how long someone has served in government, but what have they done with that government experience and how they have contributed to society in or out of government, that should determine whether someone is ready to be President or not. And that he didn't have any experience screwing up government, unlike his opponents. Which was a very straight-forward and to the point answer to a serious and important question.

Perot, answering any question is very unlike to what you get from typical Washington politicians or politicians out of Washington, who might give you three different answers to the same question at the same moment in time and then amend what they said the next day about what they said the night before, because their handlers didn't like what they had to say and believed it could hurt them politically, if they didn't amend what they already said.

As far as Ross Perot's legacy: if you think the two-party system was screwed up then and just not working for America back in 1992, because government including Congress struggles to pass even the most basic and essentials bills that they're required to pass by law, because the two parties not just hate each other so much, but don't even trust each other, look at it now where Democrats and Republicans don't even talk to each other, even in private because they're worried about being primaried by their Far-Left or Far-Right.

How often to you think do you think House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, even speaks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Majority Leader Steny Hoyer about anything and vice-versa. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, ( the two leaders in the Senate ) have to speak to each other just do be able to do the basics so their members can get floor time, but that night be the only time they speak. How often to you think Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell talk to each other about anything?

If you think the two-party system sucks now and I'm one of those 6-10 or more Americans who do, it looks like a self-check out line at a supermarket where you just get your groceries and then check yourself out, compared with the two-party system today. Perot, wasn't ahead of his time back in 92, because he represented at least 20% of the country who just didn't want a change, but they wanted something different from what either the Republicans and Democrats had to offer. And because he was a billionaire, he had the ability to offer that real change to the 20 million or so Americans that voted for him. 

Mr. Beat: The American Presidential Election of 1980- John Anderson For President

Source:Mr. Beat- A 3-way presidential election? 

"The 49th episode in a very long series about the American presidential elections from 1788 to the present. I hope to have them done by Election Day 2016. In 1980, Ronald Reagan seems unstoppable as he tries to "make America great again."

The 49th Presidential election in American history took place on November 4, 1980. As President, Jimmy Carter faced quite a few obstacles, and things just weren’t all peachy. The country faced low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates, and an energy crisis, in which the prices of oil went way up since supply went down in certain areas. This shortage was partially caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which a new Islamic government hostile to the United States overthrew the old one. "

From Mr. Beat

There are political Independents and then there are political Independents. Independents tend to get stereotyped as liberal or moderate on social issues and fiscally conservative. Which just isn't the case in a lot of if not most cases. There are Socialists who are Independents. There are Conservatives who are Independent. There are Libertarians who are Independent and I could go on. A political Independent is just someone who who is not associated with the two major political parties and in some cases not associated with any political party.

Source:Politics Matter- John Anderson For President, 1980 

When Representative John Anderson from Illinois, ran for President in the general election in 1980, he ran as a political Independent, but he was a progressive-conservative Republican ideologically. And I know that sounds like jumbo shrimp, or fuel efficient SUV, a Libertarian-Socialist and I could name a tone of other terms that sound like Oxymorons and sound like they were invented by morons who don't realize that these terms don't go together.

But back in the 1970s and well before as far back as perhaps the 1940s, there was a Progressive Republican wing of the Republican Party. People who would be called progressive on social issues and believed in civil rights and commonsense regulations when it came to business, civil liberties, but who also believed in fiscal responsibility. Believed in balanced budgets and lower taxes, a strong national defense, who are anti-Communists and didn't like authoritarianism at all whether it was communist or some right-wing authoritarian ideology. Believed in the rule of law and being tough on crime.

Representative John Anderson, ran for President in 1980 as an Independent, ( meaning not as a Republican or Democrat ) but ideologically he was a progressive-conservative Republican. He was part of the Nelson Rockefeller or Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican. George H.W. Bush at least before he ran as Ronald Reagan's Vice President in 1980 was from this wing of the party as well. And governed this was as President himself. Ideologically he was very different from President Ronald Reagan while at the same time sharing values with President Reagan as it related to national defense, anti-communism, lower taxation, and other issues. So if you want to know where someone stands politically, don't look at their party registration, but look at their politics and what they actually believe.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.

Reform Party USA: 'Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley'

Source:Reform Party USA- Ross Perot's creation.

"The National Reform Party Secretary, Nicholas Hensley, has been making the rounds. His recent interviews have been highly rated by his peers, and were well received by anti-establishment activists. After some consideration, we have decided to post a sample interview on the National Website.

What is the Reform Party?

The Reform Party is a moderate, centrist and populist party that is neither liberal nor conservative. It sits in the middle of the political spectrum as opposition to the Democrats and Republicans. It was formed in 1995 by followers of Ross Perot. Perot won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election.

It was founded on the basis that the political establishment was corrupt. It seeks to reform government by getting special interest money out of politics, and limiting the power of lobbyists. We also want to ending the practice of gerrymandering, and open ballots for third parties and independents. As far as ethics reform, we want to force lawmakers to adhere to a set of laws – not just a set of rules.

Before the Republicans passed their Contract with America, the Reform Party already proposed a balanced budget amendment. We want to reform the government’s accounting system, stop the practice of keeping some items off the books, and create a plan to get America back into the black in the next four years.

Economically we want to reform trade deals, so that the manufacturing sector becomes a job creator for the working and middle classes. Even though we advocate for tax and regulatory reform on the manufacturing sector, those issues are minor compared to the need for stop trade by reforming NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO." 

From Reform Party USA 

When I was growing up in the 1980s and early 1990s, the Democratic Party was supposed to be the left of center progressive party in America and the Republican Party was supposed to be the right of center party in America. The Democrats and Republicans have always had their fringes, but not to the point where they could decide who the party nominates, especially for governor, Senate, and certainly not President. Perhaps in gerrymandered U.S. House districts, but not where someone would have to run statewide or nationally, in competitive, diverse states. 

The reason why we have a Reform Party USA, is pretty much the same reason why we have a Libertarian Party. The Democrats moved left in the mid and late 1990s and especially 2000s. The Republicans have been moving right at least since the late 1960s, but by time the mid 90s comes around, the Christian-Rights was no longer a fringe part of the party, but a core portion of it's base. Which meant Center-Right, more fiscally and economically minded, conservative voters, who aren't interested in the culture wars, were left without a major political party. 

Reform Party USA might call itself a centrist populist party, but that's not Ross Perot's movement. That's really no one's movement. American voters regardless of political philosophy, like to know where the candidates and politicians stand on the issues, even the controversial ones, before deciding who to vote for. And if you are a so-called Reformer, but you don't know what you think and your position is: "Elect me, because I'll do what's best for the country and figure out what the right policies are once I'm elected." you are going to put the voters asleep into a deep coma before they even have a chance to vote for you. 

Ross Perot was a pretty conservative guy, at least economically and fiscally, and even when it came to national security. Most of the people who voted for him in 1992 were either Republicans or were once Center-Right Republicans. Not mushy-middle centrists, who didn't know what they believed on the issues. 

With the Republican Party as far to the right as it is today, the center-right in the country is a great place for the Reform Party to be and for real Conservative Republicans to make their new home, especially the Never-Trumpers who've left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump and his movement.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

C-SPAN: 'The Contenders- Ross Perot Preview'

Source:C-SPAN- presidential reporter & historian Carl Cannon.

Source:The Daily Times

“C-SPAN continues its series “The Contenders” LIVE on Friday, December 9 at 8:00 p.m. ET with Ross Perot. In this clip, Presidential Historian Richard Norton Smith, Goucher College History Professor Jean Baker and Washington Editor of Real Clear Politics Carl Cannon discuss Perot. More information on the series can be found here:CSPAN." 

From C-SPAN

Ross Perot not that he ever had a real shot at being elected President of the United States, but his style of politics and what he believed in and the people he represents and spoke for and represents how Independent Center-Right political candidates can get elected in America.

And I put Ross Perot on the Center-Right in American politics because he is a true fiscal Conservative who believes in fiscal responsibility, not running up debt and deficits. 

Ross Perot believes in limited government and that everything that government does has to be limited to what we need it too. Not do not what we want it to do and that all government including entitlement programs have to be efficient and affordable. But someone who was tolerant to moderate on social issues. Who didn’t push those issues and didn’t believe the Federal Government should be involved in them in most cases and would probably leave the states to deal with them.

He was sort of an Eisenhower or Ford Republican whose philosophy was based around accountability. And limiting government to doing the things that we need it to do and do those things well. Who represents roughly forty percent of the country and how people of this mindset could do well in the future especially if they put together one party that represents this whole movement.

C-SPAN: Political Humorist Molly Ivins- Talking About Ross Perot (1992)

Source:CSPAN- Texas political humorist Molly Ivins on Ross Perot.

Source:The Daily Times

“Molly Ivins

August 30, 1944 – January 31, 2007

I first heard Molly in this program.

Thanks, Goddess, and bless her!

She lives forever in our hearts

Summary: Susan Faludi, Pulitzer prize-winning author of a book on the backlash against feminism in the media and society in the 1990’s, and Molly Ivins, political commentator and author, interviewed each other.

Also available on audio-cassette at Amazon:

Women on the Verge!: Susan Faludi and Molly Ivins in Conversation…

From RGHM

Ross Perot is classical version of take the good with the bad. As Molly Ivins I believe was explaining that there is a lot to like about the man. And had I actually been old enough to vote in 1992 instead of sixteen years old, I probably would’ve at least considered voting for him. But his weakness’ in a lot of way outweighed his strengths because he’s got a Texas sized ego in a New Hampshire size body who thinks a hell of a lot of himself.

Whenever Ross is doing something, he tends to give people the idea that what he’s doing is about him. Even as much as he couldn’t stop reminding people in 1992 that he was running for president for the good of the country and I’m sure part of that was true, but he tended to give people the idea that he was the only one who could save the country.

I believe a good way to describe the Ross Perot was that he was a great visionary, but not someone you want quarterbacking your team or a government. Kinda like a good head coach who didn’t have enough skills to play quarterback very well or play other positions, but someone you might want on the sidelines calling the plays.

Daniel JB Mitchell: ‘Huey Long Seen as Threat to FDR in 1930s’

Source:Daniel J.Mitchell- the U.S. Congress, where Huey Long once served, as a U.S. Senator from Louisiana.

Source:The Daily Times

“Senator Huey Long of Louisiana led a populist “Share the Wealth” movement during the Great Depression. Long planned to run for president on a third-party ticket in 1936. He thought he could throw the election to the Republicans who – he expected – would make a hash of things. Then, in 1940, he expected to make it to the White House. The grand plan came to an abrupt end when Long was assassinated in 1935. He left a legacy, however. His son, Russell Long, became a senator and – in an echo of Share the Wealth – promoted Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) through various tax breaks.”

From Daniel J.B. Mitchell

Franklin Roosevelt and Huey Long were very similar leftist Democrats in that they were both economic Progressives who believed in things like infrastructure investment funded by the public and making American capitalism work for more people. But there were several differences in the two and they mostly resulted around character.

Franklin had a lot of it and wasn’t a corrupt man or a corrupt politician looking to become some dictator over the United States. Huey was exactly that, but a dictator over Louisiana first as Governor where he basically ran the whole state under his leadership and when he left the Louisiana governors mansion to serve in Congress as a Senator, he was still running Louisiana.

But now Huey Long as a U.S. Senator had more national power and since these two men were similar ideologically at least on economic-policy, President Roosevelt saw Senator Long as a threat to his leadership and power and someone who needed to be put down. But Huey Long would’ve gone down anyway because of his lifestyle and how he carried himself in office.

The Centrist Review: Solomon Kleinsmith- The Centrist/Moderate False Equivalence Deception

Source: The Centrist Review-

Source:The Centrist Review

The problem that I believe that Centrists have and my question would be what is a Centrist, but the problem that I believe they have is exactly that. What is a Centrist? I believe that is a question that American voters tend to ask as well. And you can give you all you want about forty-percent of the country that are political Independents. Fine, but that doesn't mean they are all Centrists. It just means they don't like the Republican Party, or Democratic Party and perhaps the two-party system as a whole.

Americans as much as we get stereotyped as being divided politically tend to believe in similar things. We tend to believe in free and unregulated free speech at least in most cases. We tend to believe in the Right to Privacy and personal freedom as long as we aren't hurting innocent people. We believe in the Right to Self-Defense as long as it is regulated. We tend to believe in the Freedom of Assembly and being able to associate with whom we please. We believe in property rights and the ability to make a good honest living and live independently. We tend to support the Freedom of Religion. And I could go further.

These aren't centrist values at least in the sense they came from some centrist philosophy. These are bedrock classical conservative or classical liberal values that the United States was founded on. And I could add another one which would be Americans tend to believe in equal rights for all Americans. These are the liberal and conservative values that made America great. They didn't come from Centrists, but Liberals and Conservatives who wrote the Constitution.

Where would a Centrist be on these key core issues? And if they believe in all of these things the way they are would they still qualify as Centrists? Since these are liberal and conservative values that come from the center-left and center-right in America. Not the dead-center or the mushy-middle. Or would they reform these key individual rights and make them less liberal or conservative and more moderate. Perhaps the Right to Privacy, but only on the first floor of your home and only inside of your home.

I wonder how the civil rights movement would've gone in the 1960s had there not of been a Progressive President in Lyndon Johnson who had served twenty-four years in Congress and eight in the leadership. And instead we had a Centrist Independent instead with no clear record when it came to civil rights because that person was perhaps stuck in the middle. Or if we had a Centrist President during the Civil War, or World War II. Maybe we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but not respond to the Nazis in Europe murdering all of those Jews. Or perhaps just supply our allies with equipment and hope for the best. Or in the Civil War's case Africans can be free in America, but just not in the South.

These might be slight exaggerations and poking too much fun at centrism (or not enough) and I'm not saying that centrism doesn't have it's place. I believe divided government is where it is useful to take the best from the Democrats and Republicans. Throw out the garbage from both sides and take what is good from both sides and put it in a final package that can work. But my point is there are times when right is right and wrong is wrong. Meaning those things are clear and that you need to take a stand whether it is the liberal or conservative thing to do. Which was my point about those examples I laid out in the previous paragraph. And you need to take those stances for the good of the country. Which is where centrism doesn't seem very useful or evident.
The Moderate Centrist: What is a Moderate Centrist

Reform Party USA: 'Core Principles of the Reform Party

Source:Reform Party USA- the official logo of RPUSA.

"We, the members of the Reform Party, commit ourselves to reform our political system. Together we will work to re-establish trust in our government by electing ethical officials, dedicated to fiscal responsibility and political accountability."  

From Reform Party USA 

I hope the title of this post is long enough, otherwise the hell with it. But I agree with the notion of this blog post from the Reform Party that governing simply shouldn’t be about compromise. That even with a divided government with two parties that do not like each other (which is putting it very mildly) and certainly do not trust each other that both sides at the end of the business day still have a responsibility to not only govern, but to govern well.

And in divided government like today that means taking the best from both sides and putting into a package that works. And throwing out the garbage from both sides instead of just splitting the difference on each key issue. As if that is governing even when trying to go half way on each issue may not and in most cases does not result in a good end result. 

There are plenty of examples going back to the early 1980s when the Federal Government became very partisan with a new Conservative President in Ronald Reagan, with a Conservative Republican Senate. To go with a Progressive Democratic House where they managed to govern very well with divided Congress’s.

It is not so much the art of the compromise that should try to be reached. But the art of the consensus. What do both sides want and on a lot of key issues both sides tend to have the same end goals. And after that has been established now where are both sides, what would each side do if they were completely in charge. In other words: what is the opening offer from both sides so we know where both side is. And after that has been established you look to the common ground.

You find that and you put that in the final package and then after that you look for victories from both sides. The good from each side and put their ideas alone on certain key issues. For example the 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example. Republicans wanted time limits and work requirements in the new Welfare system. Democrats wanted job training, education, and childcare for people on Welfare. What happened is both sides won and the final bill had job training, education, childcare, time limits and job requirements.

You take the good from both sides and throw out the things that probably wouldn’t work. Or that both sides simply can’t live with. Meaning both sides get their victories, but do not get everything they are looking for. Instead of just splitting the difference and running for the middle on the key issues. And that is how you get good government in a divided government. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.