It will probably end up being a conventional campaign, but there are some signs of potential wackiness in 2012.
Leading the charge, of course, is Donald Trump, who is getting the lion's share of the news coverage. Oddly, the reality show host seems uninterested in running as a Republican, as he has quit the party and joined the Reform Party created by Ross Perot. Also officially joining the Reform Party is its former nominee Pat Buchanan...
Trump officially joins Reform Party
October 25, 1999
http://articles.cnn.com/1999-10-25/politics/trump.cnn_1_reform-party-donald-trump-independence-party
Another interesting entry in the field: former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, a Republican with an extreme Libertarian streak (and that is meant as a compliment.) Like Ron Paul, Johnson embraces real libertarianism (not the phony kind sold by the Astroturf Teabagger leaders) that would both be good for the GOP and have some strong Democratic and independent crossover. Unlike Paul, he has actually been a political executive before, and thus has shown how he could practically apply his philosophy in practice, and did so in a particularly effective fashion:
"Johnson, 58, said during two terms as New Mexico governor, he eliminated the state’s budget deficit and cut the rate of state government growth in half while reducing the state workforce by more than 10 percent without laying off a single qualified state worker."
Gary Johnson announces presidential bid, plans to ski Tuckerman Ravine
Thursday, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=9f95c903-3cb9-4467-8b36-6b17283a3eed&headline=Gary+Johnson+announces+presidential+bid%2c+plans+to+ski+Tuckerman+Ravine
Besides these two, there are some other possibilities: Ron Paul again, either as a Republican or as independent, Jesse Ventura as an independent, either alone or on a ticket with Paul, Michael Bloomberg as an independent, and perhaps the most entertaining choice of all, Charlie Sheen, who has hinted at a run based on outlawing the IRS and the Fed. No word yet from Lindsay Lohan, but she has our vote...
Showing posts with label Ross Perot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ross Perot. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Dan Quayle still pushing "Perot elected Clinton" nonsense
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/02/dan_quayle_still_blaming_perot_for_clinton/index.html
Friday, Apr 2, 2010
Dan Quayle still pushing "Perot elected Clinton" nonsense
For nearly 20 years, the right has been arguing that the Democrats' 1992 win should come with an asterisk
By Steve Kornacki
In 1992, Bill Clinton won a decisive victory in the presidential race, snagging 370 electoral votes and relegating George H.W. Bush to a smaller share of the vote than any incumbent president since William Howard Taft in 1912.
The right is still pretending this didn’t really happen. Oh sure, they acknowledge that Bill Clinton was elected and sworn-in as the nation’s 42nd president. They just claim it wasn’t really a legitimate victory. Case in point: an op-ed from Dan Quayle set to appear in Sunday’s Washington Post. Quayle writes:
Many remember the Reform Party of the 1990s, which formed around the candidacy of Ross Perot. I sure do, because it eliminated any chance that President George H.W. Bush and I would prevail over Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992. What started as a grass-roots phenomenon ended with 19 percent support at the ballot box -- and a majority of those voters would probably have gone Republican in a two-party race. Speaking on behalf of the Bush-Quayle campaign, to this day we firmly believe that Perot cost the Republican Party the White House.
Republicans have been blindly pushing this argument for nearly 20 years now, acting like George H.W. Bush was all set to win a second term until some crazy Texas billionaire came along and messed it all up. It’s understandable why they like this narrative: it lets them off the hook for losing the public’s confidence in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s -- and casts Clinton’s electoral triumph as an accident of history.
But let me try, one more time, to set the record straight: there is absolutely no rational reason -- none -- to believe that Perot cost Bush and Quayle the 1992 election. To understand why, let’s quickly review what happened in the ’92 campaign.
In the early stages of the race, just after the Gulf War in 1991, Bush looked positively unbeatable. As a result, every big-name Democrat -- Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller and on and on -- backed out. And for the spring and summer of ’91, virtually no other Democrats stepped up to the fill the void. Former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas was the only active candidate until the middle of the summer, and few took him seriously.
But as the Gulf War afterglow faded and the sputtering economy gained more attention, Bush’s popularity returned to earth. Several Democrats, including Clinton, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown, entered the race. And when, in December, Cuomo resisted a last-minute push to recruit him into the race, Clinton emerged as the clear front-runner. He was badly damaged by scandal in early ’92 and nearly overtaken by Tsongas, but by April, Clinton had emerged as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
At that point, he was given little chance of winning, mainly because of the scandals (Gennifer Flowers, draft-dodging and so on). But economic anxiety was widespread, and Bush’s job approval ratings were poisonous. He was a plainly vulnerable incumbent. This is where the Perot phenomenon took hold: With voters initially unwilling to trust Clinton, Perot stepped forward and rocketed to the top of national polls. By the late spring, he led in three-way trial heats, with Clinton lagging in a very distant third place.
Then came the Perot crack-up. Faced with media scrutiny he’d never before experienced, Perot’s erratic, paranoid and even delusional tendencies became evident to the general public. His numbers began to slide. He grew cranky – with the media and with the campaign team he’d assembled. In July, hours before Clinton was to deliver his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, Perot withdrew from the race.
Here the GOP’s “blame Perot” excuse-making falls apart, because immediately after the Democratic convention, Clinton soared ahead of Bush in polls -- by more than 20 points. This was with no Perot in the race. The explanation was obvious: Clinton, after a beautifully choreographed convention, had convinced millions of Americans to give him a second look. It had been clear for months that voters were ready to throw out Bush, but they’d been unwilling to embrace Clinton. After the convention, though, they were.
Clinton’s one-on-one lead over Bush survived for the next 11 weeks. Not a single independent poll after the Democratic convention ever showed Bush leading Clinton – not even immediately after the August ’92 GOP convention (after which Bush temporarily closed the gap, to as few as six points in one poll). By Labor Day, the Bush convention bounce was gone and Clinton was back ahead by double-digits -- a lead that endured all the way through September.
It was then, as October arrived, that Perot jumped back in the race. But his re-emergence didn’t disproportionately hurt Bush -- who, it cannot be emphasized enough, was already being drubbed by Clinton. In a CBS poll on the eve of Perot's re-entry, Clinton led Bush by 13 points in a two-man race – and by 11 in a three-way race. In other words, Clinton’s lead actually declined (very slightly) with Perot back in the mix.
Throughout October, Clinton maintained a steady, commanding advantage over Bush. Three presidential debates were held that month. In the first, Perot stole the show and earned a measurable polling bounce -- from single digits back to double-digits. In the second, Bush was excoriated for glancing at his watch, feeding the impression that he was insufficiently energized and engaged as president; his poll numbers ebbed. In the third, Bush fared better, and by the end of October, he’d pared Clinton’s lead back to the mid- to high- single-digits.
Any last-minute Bush momentum, though, was undermined on the Friday before the election when Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan’s old Defense secretary – and, in a statement released with the indictment, implicated Bush, who had been dogged for years by questions about his Iran-Contra involvement.
The following Tuesday, Clinton nabbed 43 percent of the vote, good for 370 electoral votes. Bush finished with 37 percent and 168 electoral votes. Perot tallied nearly 20 percent, and exit polls showed that his voters were roughly split evenly on whom their second choice would have been.
In other words, take Perot out of the mix, and Clinton still wins -- handily. The argument of Quayle and other Republicans that Perot cost Bush the election would be more credible if there had been even a single independent poll after the Democratic convention giving Bush the lead over Clinton in a head-to-head race. There never was. Clinton won the race and Bush lost it -- no asterisks needed.
Friday, Apr 2, 2010
Dan Quayle still pushing "Perot elected Clinton" nonsense
For nearly 20 years, the right has been arguing that the Democrats' 1992 win should come with an asterisk
By Steve Kornacki
In 1992, Bill Clinton won a decisive victory in the presidential race, snagging 370 electoral votes and relegating George H.W. Bush to a smaller share of the vote than any incumbent president since William Howard Taft in 1912.
The right is still pretending this didn’t really happen. Oh sure, they acknowledge that Bill Clinton was elected and sworn-in as the nation’s 42nd president. They just claim it wasn’t really a legitimate victory. Case in point: an op-ed from Dan Quayle set to appear in Sunday’s Washington Post. Quayle writes:
Many remember the Reform Party of the 1990s, which formed around the candidacy of Ross Perot. I sure do, because it eliminated any chance that President George H.W. Bush and I would prevail over Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992. What started as a grass-roots phenomenon ended with 19 percent support at the ballot box -- and a majority of those voters would probably have gone Republican in a two-party race. Speaking on behalf of the Bush-Quayle campaign, to this day we firmly believe that Perot cost the Republican Party the White House.
Republicans have been blindly pushing this argument for nearly 20 years now, acting like George H.W. Bush was all set to win a second term until some crazy Texas billionaire came along and messed it all up. It’s understandable why they like this narrative: it lets them off the hook for losing the public’s confidence in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s -- and casts Clinton’s electoral triumph as an accident of history.
But let me try, one more time, to set the record straight: there is absolutely no rational reason -- none -- to believe that Perot cost Bush and Quayle the 1992 election. To understand why, let’s quickly review what happened in the ’92 campaign.
In the early stages of the race, just after the Gulf War in 1991, Bush looked positively unbeatable. As a result, every big-name Democrat -- Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller and on and on -- backed out. And for the spring and summer of ’91, virtually no other Democrats stepped up to the fill the void. Former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas was the only active candidate until the middle of the summer, and few took him seriously.
But as the Gulf War afterglow faded and the sputtering economy gained more attention, Bush’s popularity returned to earth. Several Democrats, including Clinton, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown, entered the race. And when, in December, Cuomo resisted a last-minute push to recruit him into the race, Clinton emerged as the clear front-runner. He was badly damaged by scandal in early ’92 and nearly overtaken by Tsongas, but by April, Clinton had emerged as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
At that point, he was given little chance of winning, mainly because of the scandals (Gennifer Flowers, draft-dodging and so on). But economic anxiety was widespread, and Bush’s job approval ratings were poisonous. He was a plainly vulnerable incumbent. This is where the Perot phenomenon took hold: With voters initially unwilling to trust Clinton, Perot stepped forward and rocketed to the top of national polls. By the late spring, he led in three-way trial heats, with Clinton lagging in a very distant third place.
Then came the Perot crack-up. Faced with media scrutiny he’d never before experienced, Perot’s erratic, paranoid and even delusional tendencies became evident to the general public. His numbers began to slide. He grew cranky – with the media and with the campaign team he’d assembled. In July, hours before Clinton was to deliver his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, Perot withdrew from the race.
Here the GOP’s “blame Perot” excuse-making falls apart, because immediately after the Democratic convention, Clinton soared ahead of Bush in polls -- by more than 20 points. This was with no Perot in the race. The explanation was obvious: Clinton, after a beautifully choreographed convention, had convinced millions of Americans to give him a second look. It had been clear for months that voters were ready to throw out Bush, but they’d been unwilling to embrace Clinton. After the convention, though, they were.
Clinton’s one-on-one lead over Bush survived for the next 11 weeks. Not a single independent poll after the Democratic convention ever showed Bush leading Clinton – not even immediately after the August ’92 GOP convention (after which Bush temporarily closed the gap, to as few as six points in one poll). By Labor Day, the Bush convention bounce was gone and Clinton was back ahead by double-digits -- a lead that endured all the way through September.
It was then, as October arrived, that Perot jumped back in the race. But his re-emergence didn’t disproportionately hurt Bush -- who, it cannot be emphasized enough, was already being drubbed by Clinton. In a CBS poll on the eve of Perot's re-entry, Clinton led Bush by 13 points in a two-man race – and by 11 in a three-way race. In other words, Clinton’s lead actually declined (very slightly) with Perot back in the mix.
Throughout October, Clinton maintained a steady, commanding advantage over Bush. Three presidential debates were held that month. In the first, Perot stole the show and earned a measurable polling bounce -- from single digits back to double-digits. In the second, Bush was excoriated for glancing at his watch, feeding the impression that he was insufficiently energized and engaged as president; his poll numbers ebbed. In the third, Bush fared better, and by the end of October, he’d pared Clinton’s lead back to the mid- to high- single-digits.
Any last-minute Bush momentum, though, was undermined on the Friday before the election when Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan’s old Defense secretary – and, in a statement released with the indictment, implicated Bush, who had been dogged for years by questions about his Iran-Contra involvement.
The following Tuesday, Clinton nabbed 43 percent of the vote, good for 370 electoral votes. Bush finished with 37 percent and 168 electoral votes. Perot tallied nearly 20 percent, and exit polls showed that his voters were roughly split evenly on whom their second choice would have been.
In other words, take Perot out of the mix, and Clinton still wins -- handily. The argument of Quayle and other Republicans that Perot cost Bush the election would be more credible if there had been even a single independent poll after the Democratic convention giving Bush the lead over Clinton in a head-to-head race. There never was. Clinton won the race and Bush lost it -- no asterisks needed.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Barr launches Libertarian White House bid
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGwp22QlX2kmePoy02e4pTBLwWwAD90KEJ980
Barr launches Libertarian White House bid
By BEN EVANS
5-12-8
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.
His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.
Barr, who has hired Ross Perot's former campaign manager, acknowledged that some Republicans have tried to discourage him from running. But he said he's getting in the race to win, not to play spoiler or to make a point.
"I've heard from Americans from all walks of life ... they want a choice," he said at a news conference in Washington. "They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us."
Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party's national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed as a Georgia congressman from 1995 to 2003.
If he wins the White House, he said he would immediately freeze discretionary spending in Washington. He also would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and consider slashing spending at federal agencies such as the departments of education and commerce — as well as at overseas military bases.
The former U.S. attorney also said he would strictly enforce immigration laws.
"This notion that government owes something to people just because they're here does not resonate with me," he said. "This is not a charity."
Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism. He has been particularly critical of President Bush over the war in Iraq and says the administration is ignoring constitutional protections on due process and privacy.
While in Congress, he was a persistent critic of President Clinton and was among the first to press for impeaching the former president. He helped manage House Republicans' impeachment case before the Senate.
He lost his seat to fellow Republican Rep. John Linder in 2002 after a redistricting. He then opened a lobbying and public affairs firm with offices in Atlanta and outside Washington.
The 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, took less than 1 percent of the vote, placing fourth behind President Bush, Democrat John Kerry and Independent Ralph Nader.
Barr launches Libertarian White House bid
By BEN EVANS
5-12-8
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.
His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.
Barr, who has hired Ross Perot's former campaign manager, acknowledged that some Republicans have tried to discourage him from running. But he said he's getting in the race to win, not to play spoiler or to make a point.
"I've heard from Americans from all walks of life ... they want a choice," he said at a news conference in Washington. "They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us."
Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party's national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed as a Georgia congressman from 1995 to 2003.
If he wins the White House, he said he would immediately freeze discretionary spending in Washington. He also would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and consider slashing spending at federal agencies such as the departments of education and commerce — as well as at overseas military bases.
The former U.S. attorney also said he would strictly enforce immigration laws.
"This notion that government owes something to people just because they're here does not resonate with me," he said. "This is not a charity."
Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism. He has been particularly critical of President Bush over the war in Iraq and says the administration is ignoring constitutional protections on due process and privacy.
While in Congress, he was a persistent critic of President Clinton and was among the first to press for impeaching the former president. He helped manage House Republicans' impeachment case before the Senate.
He lost his seat to fellow Republican Rep. John Linder in 2002 after a redistricting. He then opened a lobbying and public affairs firm with offices in Atlanta and outside Washington.
The 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, took less than 1 percent of the vote, placing fourth behind President Bush, Democrat John Kerry and Independent Ralph Nader.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Magna Carta bought for $21m by US tycoon
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3070798.ece
December 19, 2007
Magna Carta bought for $21m by US tycoon
James Bone in New York
The only copy of Magna Carta in private hands sold for $21.32 million (£10.6 million) this morning in the first auction of the “birth certificate of freedom”.
The 1297 example, described as the most important document to come up for sale, was acquired by David Rubenstein, the founder of the Carlyle Group, at Sotheby’s in New York. He has paid $8,528 a word.
Sotheby’s had put a pre-sale estimate on the document of $20-$30 million.
The 14in-by-16in (35.6cm-by40.6cm) sheet of animal-skin vellum is one of only 17 originals of the founding “Great Charter” of English liberties first signed by King John at Runnymede — near present-day Staines, Surrey — in 1215.
The document established the principle of habeas corpus, which protects people against unlawful imprisonment by ensuring such rights as trial by jury and freedom from unlawful arrest.
Clause 39 proclaims: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
Four of the surviving 17 copies date from the reign of John, eight from that of Henry III and five from that of Edward I. The Sotheby’s example bears the wax seal of King Edward I hanging from a ribbon at the bottom of the parchment — one of only five that still carry the royal seal.
1297 was the year that Magna Carta was formally entered into the statute rolls as the law of England. It came into being as a result of a dispute between King John and the English barons and went some way towards limiting the authority of the king.
The only other original outside Britain was a gift by the country to “The People of Australia”. It is on display at the Parliament in Canberra.
Mr Rubenstein, the founder of the Carlyle private equity group and a former deputy domestic policy adviser to President Carter, said that he would put the document back on public view at the National Archives in Washington, where it had been on loan.
“I thought it was very important that the Magna Carta stay in the United States, and I was concerned the only copy in the United States might escape the United States as a result of this auction,” he said.
“I am a person who has served in government myself. I worked in the White House as a young man. At that time I recognised the importance of these kind of documents and the importance of freedom.”
He admitted that he could not actually read it because he had avoided learning Latin at school — a decision he now regrets.
The 2,500-word document, written in medieval Latin, was put up for sale by the Texan software billionaire and two-time independent presidential candidate Ross Perot.
Mr Perot acquired it for $1.5 million in 1984 from relatives of James Thomas Brudenell, the 7th Earl of Cardigan, who led the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Magna Carta had been at the Brudenells’ family seat at Deene Park, Northamptonshire, for more than half a millennium.
In a catalogue essay Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia theorises that the Brudenells obtained it in Buckinghamshire after William Brudenell, the founder of the family’s fortunes, married an heiress there during the reign of Edward III.
After displaying Magna Carta at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Mr Perot loaned it to the US National Archives in Washington, where it has been seen by a million people.
“It’s in remarkable condition for a document that dates from 1297,” Chris Rudy Smith, an archivist at the institution, said before the sale.
Proceeds of the sale will go to Mr Perot’s foundation to make funds available for medical research and care for wounded military veterans.
$8,528
Or £4,233 — the cost per word of buying the only edition of Magna Carta in private hands. A copy of J. K. Rowling’s The Tales of Beedle the Bard was sold at auction for £1.9 million last week, or for £363.64 a word
Source: Times database
December 19, 2007
Magna Carta bought for $21m by US tycoon
James Bone in New York
The only copy of Magna Carta in private hands sold for $21.32 million (£10.6 million) this morning in the first auction of the “birth certificate of freedom”.
The 1297 example, described as the most important document to come up for sale, was acquired by David Rubenstein, the founder of the Carlyle Group, at Sotheby’s in New York. He has paid $8,528 a word.
Sotheby’s had put a pre-sale estimate on the document of $20-$30 million.
The 14in-by-16in (35.6cm-by40.6cm) sheet of animal-skin vellum is one of only 17 originals of the founding “Great Charter” of English liberties first signed by King John at Runnymede — near present-day Staines, Surrey — in 1215.
The document established the principle of habeas corpus, which protects people against unlawful imprisonment by ensuring such rights as trial by jury and freedom from unlawful arrest.
Clause 39 proclaims: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
Four of the surviving 17 copies date from the reign of John, eight from that of Henry III and five from that of Edward I. The Sotheby’s example bears the wax seal of King Edward I hanging from a ribbon at the bottom of the parchment — one of only five that still carry the royal seal.
1297 was the year that Magna Carta was formally entered into the statute rolls as the law of England. It came into being as a result of a dispute between King John and the English barons and went some way towards limiting the authority of the king.
The only other original outside Britain was a gift by the country to “The People of Australia”. It is on display at the Parliament in Canberra.
Mr Rubenstein, the founder of the Carlyle private equity group and a former deputy domestic policy adviser to President Carter, said that he would put the document back on public view at the National Archives in Washington, where it had been on loan.
“I thought it was very important that the Magna Carta stay in the United States, and I was concerned the only copy in the United States might escape the United States as a result of this auction,” he said.
“I am a person who has served in government myself. I worked in the White House as a young man. At that time I recognised the importance of these kind of documents and the importance of freedom.”
He admitted that he could not actually read it because he had avoided learning Latin at school — a decision he now regrets.
The 2,500-word document, written in medieval Latin, was put up for sale by the Texan software billionaire and two-time independent presidential candidate Ross Perot.
Mr Perot acquired it for $1.5 million in 1984 from relatives of James Thomas Brudenell, the 7th Earl of Cardigan, who led the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Magna Carta had been at the Brudenells’ family seat at Deene Park, Northamptonshire, for more than half a millennium.
In a catalogue essay Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia theorises that the Brudenells obtained it in Buckinghamshire after William Brudenell, the founder of the family’s fortunes, married an heiress there during the reign of Edward III.
After displaying Magna Carta at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Mr Perot loaned it to the US National Archives in Washington, where it has been seen by a million people.
“It’s in remarkable condition for a document that dates from 1297,” Chris Rudy Smith, an archivist at the institution, said before the sale.
Proceeds of the sale will go to Mr Perot’s foundation to make funds available for medical research and care for wounded military veterans.
$8,528
Or £4,233 — the cost per word of buying the only edition of Magna Carta in private hands. A copy of J. K. Rowling’s The Tales of Beedle the Bard was sold at auction for £1.9 million last week, or for £363.64 a word
Source: Times database
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
