Exposing the Fallacies….
This tribute will, hopefully, be a web site some day. I spent four months with the Perot Petition Committee in 1992, and gathered a few bits of memorabilia.
But first, as an introduction, I’d like to dispel some of the key rumors and lies about Mr. Perot and his political motivations.
No words like these ever surfaced, period. The effort in ’92 was not about tussling with the power between the "two parties." It was about ending gridlock, and encouraging bipartisan decision-making in the legislative branch!
I, for one, think the concept of having two parties in the House and Senate, and a totally separate party for the executive branch, is quite plausible. In my opinion, we, as a nation, forsake the intent of our forefathers when they created a three-branch system of government.
When our President gives his State of the Union address, for example, why must we then hear from a representative of the other party? Is the Executive Branch a mere figurehead for party leadership?
Ross Perot gave rise to ideas that came Not from lobbyists or back room caucuses. Smile if you will, but his charts fuelled change for the better.
My teeth clenched at this rumor for years, until, finally, in the year 2000, Mr. Perot spoke out for President Bush, Jr. How fitting that his testimony should occur on the very program that gave the Perot effort its genesis.
Let’s define two terms first:
Term One: "loose canon"
My immediate supervisor, after things got started, designed a symbol for the Committee, using an eagle. Below the eagle were etchings to resemble areas of lawn. As a protective device, he typed his initials in a special font that, when shrunk to the tiniest level, looked to be just another etching. We used this symbol on our printed documents.
Some group decided they were going to write a booklet, pretend it was from us, and send one to each Congressman and Senator. Remember, please, this was before the great Internet explosion, and the sharing of images thereby.
My supervisor received one of these false documents, photocopied the emblem, and magnified it several times. Sure enough, the group had stolen his design somehow, lending credibility to their fraud.
We learned first hand that not all so-called "Perot efforts" were truly from our group.
Term Two: "Republican Party"
I place this phrase in quotes when I mean a "loose canon" effort pretending to be the Republican Party itself.
In July of ‘92, one of Mr. Perot’s daughters was to be married. Our organization received a threat that the "Republican Party" was going to create a scene at her wedding.
Mr. Perot has, in my opinion, the correct set of standards and priorities: 1) Freedom, 2) Marriage, 3) Family, 4) Country, and 5, or later) Prosperity.
Simply put, his daughter came first. She would have her wedding without incident.
I have been a resident of Texas since 1989, and watched George W. Bush, both as the owner of the Texas Rangers, and as Governor. His demeanor has always been kind and tender.
I refuse to believe that his family could foster the gangster tactics that approached Mr. Perot. I believe that, more than anyone, the Bush family wanted that wedding to proceed.
Almost immediately after we’d moved to a larger building, to facilitate the rapidly increasing popularity of the Committee, we experienced the first public demonstration against us.
Protesters were in our parking lots, as were TV crews and microphones. Many of us, including myself, I’m afraid, stood in our lunch room, sipping a free soda, while peering out the window.
"Who do those people think they are?" mentioned one. "I think we ought to call the police!" I chimed in. We waited with baited breath until Mr. Perot could notify the authorities and have them removed.
And then, we waited some more. Finally the word came down:
"Let them in." What? "Let them in. Give them full run of the place, and access to the free snacks and beverages. Answer any of their questions."
Mr. Perot knew what it means to be government of the people, by the people, and for the people.