In all seriousness....has anyone considered...

[Flagg]

....asking Mr Ross Perot for a blank check to get the Republic back on track?

It may sound silly, and while it may be quite cheeky, I've learned "if you don't ask you don't get", right?

It's a hypothetical question of course, but one based on some semblance of reality due to Mr Perot's:

*financial resources
*service to country in and out of uniform
*previous political efforts to find a 3rd political pathway
*validation of his previous warnings coming to fruition
*history of outside the box solutions
*relationship in support of the SF community

Could a hypothetical $1 billion with no strings attached and applied by motivated and organized citizens decisively disrupt the special interest influence buying money train?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php

And I most definitely do NOT mean anything the least bit illegal, kinetic, or involving the watering of any liberty trees.

I'm specifically appealing to big brain problem solving, within the rules of a civil society.

But maybe outside of the "two party, no real choice" political box.

Maybe not a 3rd party, but a 3rd player/disruptor able to shape behavior?

While Tea Party/OWS were hitting it from opposite sides of the spectrum, were they not both aligned in their opposition to a polluted political process?

Were they not 1st iteration, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to effect legal political change?

What would a well funded, well organized, and well led political disruptor look like?

Would a non-partisan, single issue effort(say genuine campaign finance reform) with better command and control be more successful? To clear the slate of excessive special interest influence, then a fair fight over partisan issues?

The institutional knowledge here will have born witness to hundreds, possibly thousands, of governments over the last 60 years as "armed diplomats" possessing a unique perspective on everything humanity has to offer in the political realm: good, bad, legal, illegal, success, and failure.

While I'm quite serious in my question, I reckon keeping a sense of humor is still important, so I'll throw in a quote from a movie I think is kind of relevant to my question:

Just swap out "NASA" for "Retired SF", and "put a man on the moon" for "Che, Central America, Afghanistan, and countless other things that never made the news."

I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You're telling me you don't have a backup plan, that these eight Boy Scouts right here, that is the world's hope, that's what you're telling me?

How would you solve the multi-layered political problems of the Republic if adequately resourced?

[afchic]

Love that movie!!

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by afchic

Love that movie!!

Haha! Yeah it's a good one.

And I particularly like the way Bruce Willis delivers that quote.

[The Reaper]

I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.

This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.

Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.

TR

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.

This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.

Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.

TR

I've got a fair bit of respect for Mr Perot, but I have to admit that my perspective on his participation in politics has changed after reading both here and elsewhere the unintended consequences of his efforts.

I would completely agree with your "one party system" comment.

But rather than diluting the competition, do you think it's possible to filter the competition?

IF it was largely agreed that say campaign finance is possibly an existential threat to the Republic(or a serious contributing factor to it), could efforts to shape the voting public to accurately portray politicians that accept dirty money as spies/traitors/lepers be effective in repairing the Republic?

Instead of "Got Milk?" it's "Got dirty money?" maybe?

[Stiletto11]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.

This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.

Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.

TR

You're right, the Republican party needs to get it's shit in one bag and demonstrate leadership based on the moral principles of the Constitution. A third party will only dilute the conservative vote. It will be a big task to get the bottom feeders off the public trough that have made careers out of fleecing the Republic. Washington moves like pond water so it will most likely take a few elections to drain the swamp. The problem is there is more of them than us thanks to LBJ and "The Great Society."

[(1VB)compforce]

What if...

Rather than funding a third conservative leaning party/candidate and dividing the vote, you instead fund a "middle of the road" candidate who actually leans heavily to the liberal. Would you not then split the liberal vote and provide the opposite outcome of Perot's split of the conservative base?

You'd have to provide a viable candidate, say the candidate from the Democratic primary who lost and shows the most centrist position. If we're correct in our assumption that it's about power and money, wouldn't they jump on the chance as long as the funding didn't come from a far right conservative group? And, hey, if they manage to win somehow, we could expose the real plan behind the funding and completely invalidate them for a second term and turn public opinion and distrust perhaps enough to swing future elections back to the right.

Just thinking somewhat whimsically, what do you think?

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

What if...

Rather than funding a third conservative leaning party/candidate and dividing the vote, you instead fund a "middle of the road" candidate who actually leans heavily to the liberal. Would you not then split the liberal vote and provide the opposite outcome of Perot's split of the conservative base?

You'd have to provide a viable candidate, say the candidate from the Democratic primary who lost and shows the most centrist position. If we're correct in our assumption that it's about power and money, wouldn't they jump on the chance as long as the funding didn't come from a far right conservative group? And, hey, if they manage to win somehow, we could expose the real plan behind the funding and completely invalidate them for a second term and turn public opinion and distrust perhaps enough to swing future elections back to the right.

Just thinking somewhat whimsically, what do you think?

McCain and Romney weren't centrist enough for you? We've tried that approach twice now.

Please give your example for that candidate... Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich?

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

McCain and Romney weren't centrist enough for you? We've tried that approach twice now.

Please give your example for that candidate... Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich?

The problem with our attempt was that they were flying the Republican flag. We need to take someone that is seen as being a centrist Democrat (but with no chance of actually winning) and promote them under a third party such as Libertarian or "Revisionist" so that they are a legitimate non-two party candidate, but their values align to the left rather than the right so that the vote that is split is the Democratic vote rather than the conservative vote as Perot did.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Flagg

....asking Mr Ross Perot for a blank check to get the Republic back on track?

Interesting idea. Thanks for throwing it out there.

Let me turn the idea a bit. Instead of funding a candidate, especially a opposition candidate designed to split the opposition vote... why not concentrate on coordinating factions and re-educating the voting public?

There are plenty of 'Conservative' George Soros's out there. It seems to me that the Conservatives tend to fragment their efforts instead of coordinate. While Soros's goal, IMO, is to 'fundamentally transform' the country to something many of us oppose - they do not need very tight coordination. Because chaos works for them and effectively divides us.

Yes we need good candidates, but we also need voters that understand why they are good candidates.

A Conservative Soros would coordinate, fund, and message the various factions such as Republicans, Blue-dog Democrats, Constructionists, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, etc. along with the varied special interests like the so-called Religious Right, etc.

The 'better' candidate effort, I believe, needs to focus at the county level - state by state. Rebuilding the GOP in each county so they can begin refocus on the building of coalitions. Strive for quality candidates and the current system of patronage (which leads to corruption). Get these candidate started in municipal and school board elections. Building name recognition while vetting. Move them to the state level. Do not let them become 'professional politicians' - make them take breaks from elected office and see if they can make it in the real world.

The educational effort centers around stopping the insidious degradation of our culture and society. Good quality ethical people in lower office can make a real difference in influencing school, city, and state policy. The holding of inclusive community 'town halls' to discuss (educate) issues with voters. These also need to use the current social media and also be proactive when the next thing comes along.


I managed to get three women voters to actually listen to my plea that they actually do some due diligence research on Obamacare in this last election. Two switched their vote, while the one Republican voted for economic security (husband works for the EPA).

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by MR2

Interesting idea. Thanks for throwing it out there.

Let me turn the idea a bit. Instead of funding a candidate, especially a opposition candidate designed to split the opposition vote... why not concentrate on coordinating factions and re-educating the voting public?

There are plenty of 'Conservative' George Soros's out there. It seems to me that the Conservatives tend to fragment their efforts instead of coordinate. While Soros's goal, IMO, is to 'fundamentally transform' the country to something many of us oppose - they do not need very tight coordination. Because chaos works for them and effectively divides us.

Yes we need good candidates, but we also need voters that understand why they are good candidates.

A Conservative Soros would coordinate, fund, and message the various factions such as Republicans, Blue-dog Democrats, Constructionists, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, etc. along with the varied special interests like the so-called Religious Right, etc.

The 'better' candidate effort, I believe, needs to focus at the county level - state by state. Rebuilding the GOP in each county so they can begin refocus on the building of coalitions. Strive for quality candidates and the current system of patronage (which leads to corruption). Get these candidate started in municipal and school board elections. Building name recognition while vetting. Move them to the state level. Do not let them become 'professional politicians' - make them take breaks from elected office and see if they can make it in the real world.

The educational effort centers around stopping the insidious degradation of our culture and society. Good quality ethical people in lower office can make a real difference in influencing school, city, and state policy. The holding of inclusive community 'town halls' to discuss (educate) issues with voters. These also need to use the current social media and also be proactive when the next thing comes along.


I managed to get three women voters to actually listen to my plea that they actually do some due diligence research on Obamacare in this last election. Two switched their vote, while the one Republican voted for economic security (husband works for the EPA).

For the most part I agree with your analysis. Here are the questions I have for you:

1. How long do you believe it will take to for the current and future administrations to dismantle our way of life to the degree that it can't be undone? (Assuming that we aren't there yet)

2. How long do you think it would take to effect the type of ground-up institutional change you suggest?

3. Would the building of institutional changes affect the timeline to question #1 or would it be too little, too late...and why do you think so?

4. If, based on the answers to the above, you believe there is time for this change, how would you begin the groundswell given that changing 1 or 2 people's minds at a time has very little real effect on an election. How would you suggest marketing the knowledge given the funding from Perot?

5. If you don't believe there is time to effect this type of change, how would you accelerate the timeline, given Perot's theoretical investment?

[MR2]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

For the most part I agree with your analysis. Here are the questions I have for you:

Thank you.

1. How long do you believe it will take to for the current and future administrations to dismantle our way of life to the degree that it can't be undone? (Assuming that we aren't there yet)

Until martial law is declared. Kidding aside, I take the long view. We effect change. Should events not go our way, we continue. We never, never ever give up. And neither will they.

2. How long do you think it would take to effect the type of ground-up institutional change you suggest?

How long would it take to retrain writers and producers and get a TV show on air? A dozen different educational initiatives and town halls (in each state) could start in less than six weeks; within six months, in each county. I estimate that it will take two years to fully retrain the GOP and begin effecting real change in the party. Remember, the Tea Party movement was up and surging in less than six weeks.

3. Would the building of institutional changes affect the timeline to question #1 or would it be too little, too late...and why do you think so?

Yes. See #1.

4. If, based on the answers to the above, you believe there is time for this change, how would you begin the groundswell given that changing 1 or 2 people's minds at a time has very little real effect on an election. How would you suggest marketing the knowledge given the funding from Perot?

Someone with funds would need to craft a plan, gather planners to refine the plan, gather organizers in every state to grow the organization and implement the plan. It is UW. Read Mao, Uncle Ho, and the old SF Operations and Techniques manual.

5. If you don't believe there is time to effect this type of change, how would you accelerate the timeline, given Perot's theoretical investment?

Secession. Certainly don't want to go there and do not actually see that happening in any of our lifetimes. Lets concentrate on what we can do to prevent 'possibilities' from occurring.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

McCain and Romney weren't centrist enough for you? We've tried that approach twice now.

Not exactly.

Because of the GOP's base, both men had to veer hard to the right to secure the nomination and then choose running mates that addressed the concerns of that base.

IMO, the key isn't simply about fielding Republican candidates who are either centrist in their views and policy preferences. The GOP also needs to address the tenor of its rhetoric and to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively.

My $0.02.

[Dusty]

No.

[Pericles]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.

This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.

Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.

TR

May I suggest to you that is not an accurate analysis of the effect of Perot running in 1992. Here is why I am making the suggestion: In 1988, there were 91,594,809 votes cast in the election. In 1992, there were 104,426,659 votes cast, and in 1996, there were 96,277,223 votes cast. The impact of Perot running, was to have some 10 million more people vote, that would otherwise have been reasonably expected to vote. The other rational conclusion to make is that the remaining 9.5 million votes were therefore "pulled" from another candidate.

But is is the electoral college that matters, and Clinton got 370 electoral votes, so Perot not running, would have had to move 102 of them away from Clinton. Is that a reasonable assumption to make?

Let us look at Ohio with 21 electoral votes.
1988 election total was 2,416,549 (R) and 1,939,629 (D)
1992 election total was 1,894,310 (R) and 1,984,982 (D) and 1,036,426 (Perot)
1996 election total was 1,859,883 (R) and 2,148,222 (D) and 483,207 (Perot)
2000 election total was 2,350,363 (R) and 2,183,628 (D) and 111,799 (Nader)

Reasonable conclusion is that Perot did cost Bush Ohio in 1992, but Clinton was also a weak candidate in OH losing some vote to 3rd party candidates, and (R)s vote in OH is trending down anyway.

This is the most favorable state for Bush that went to Clinton, one can go down the chart to AR, where Clinton got over 50% of the vote anyway.

A reasonable statistical analysis is that Perot took votes from Clinton in the Northeast and other liberal strongholds, and took votes from Bush in the South and middle of the country Clinton still would have won as he did in 1996, and the Dear Reader did in 2008 and 2012.

Full disclosure - I was part of Perot's 1992 Campaign staff, and we took a close look at at the results to try to assess how much "skew" occurred as a result of Perot's candidacy.