See the last line in this column.
Why was he considered a fraud in 1991?
Seems like a poor comparison to me. I don’t recall Perot misusing arithmetic to make political points. He didn’t seem to be any more of a fraud than other politicans. Maybe Cecil was thinking of Lyndon LaRouche or that sort.
Didn’t Ross use lots of charts and graphs to try to make his point?
I think Cecil was mentioning him along the lines of a strong third party candidate will draw support away from one or both of the other parties. If the candidate leans one side or the other, then he will draw support unequally from the two parties. Thus by running he has the effect of weakening the major party closest to his stated goals, with the effect of ensuring fewer people with that inclination get elected, and more of the ones who lean the other side are elected.
See Ross Perot, Ralph Nader.
What the Tea Partiers have done differently is embed themselves in the Republican Party, and try to take it over from within.
I’m very confused by this. I wonder if the date on the column is wrong? Perot declared for the presidency in 1992.
As I mentioned in another thread, I find it interesting that all the third-party votes seem to have come out of Romney’s share. Not sure what that means.
Yeah, I remember when I told my conservative father I was probably going to vote for Perot, he said “That’s just a vote for Clinton!”
My reply: “So, if I vote for Clinton, that’s two votes for Clinton?”
He wasn’t happy with that either.
By the way, my great uncle came to visit us once and when I said I was studying math, he pulled out the “missing dollar” story.
“So where’s the missing dollar?”
“There isn’t one; it doesn’t make sense to say 27+2=29 when you mean 27-2=25.”
“…But where’s the missing dollar? I stumped you, didn’t I?”
Well, it is! If you’re someone who generally votes Republican and vote for Perot instead, then that’s a net difference (from the expected norm) of one vote for Bush. If you instead vote for Clinton, then that’s a net difference of two votes for Bush.
Ross Perot was a national figure before he ever declared for his run for president. I’m guessing Cecil’s line is a reference to something besides his run for president.
I take it as working on helping Ross Perot see through fraud.
Try this one on him:
“Hey, unc, two times two is four and two plus two is four, right?”
“Sure.”
“But two times three is six and two plus three is only five. Where’s the missing one?”
I thought the dig at Perot was just the garden variety pot-shot at a politician.
I think so. But what is it? Anyone knows?
My guess is that this refers to Perot’s involvement in the POW-MIA movement and his support of those who were bringing “proof” of the existence of live POWs still in Vietnam.
Sometimes when a column is put online, there are a few small edits (usually in places like the one-liner at the end of the column) made from the original version, but the date listed is still the original date. So you can get anachronisms like this.
Are you suggesting this column was edited again in the late 90s to add a Perot reference? Were old columns even put on the AOL site? A much simpler explanation is that Ross Perot was already a national figure in the summer of '91, criticizing Bush I’s handling of the economy and the First Gulf War.
Surely there’s a way to verify the wording of the original 1991 column.
(a) He must be either dead or very decrepit at this point.
(b) I’m sure he’d just reply: “…but where’s the missing dollar?”
Ed or Dex or any old timer here.