AUSTIN -- A colleague from out of state called to inquire, "What is it about these Texas runts?" He meant the political runts with attitude.
"I'm talking about Ross Perot, Claytie Williams, John Tower, Bill Clements. What is it with these people?"
I explained that it is not easy to be a short, male Texan. If you can't be a long, tall Texan, our tradition (which is not limited to Republicans and right-wingers by any means) calls for you to weigh in with at least 130 pounds of bad attitude to make up for it.
But in the case of Perot, whom I actually rather like, I'm afraid it's time to point out a few of his other failings.
Ross Perot is a liar. It's really quite striking and leaves me with a certain respect for professional politicians, who lie with such artistry, such deniability, such masterful phraseology that they can always deny their denials later on. Perot lies the way Henry Kissinger used to lie, but without Kissinger's air of grave, weighty authority. Perot just flat-out lies. What's more, when he lies, he accuses everyone else of lying. He never said this, he never said that, he never said the other. They're making it all up. They're all liars. They're all out to get him. You should check on their reputations (hint, hint).
Some bidness expert explained the other day that Perot lies like that because he's an entrepreneur, and those guys are always out on such limbs that they have to lie. It was a new theory to me.
Perot is seriously into paranoid, right-wing conspiracy theories. Actually, this is not news; we've known this about him for years. But now we have to do some serious thinking about what it means to have a president whose grip on reality is both infirm and elastic. By now your humble servants in the ink trade have documented Perot's connections to Lyndon LaRouche-ites, Christic Institute fantasists, Ollie North at his wiggiest (Perot says Ollie is lying, Ollie made it all up, no such thing ever happened) and various oddball spin-offs of the there-are-still-POWs-in-Asia theory.
Ross Perot spies on people. Perot keeps saying he didn't know anything about instances of Electronic Data Systems employees being spied on -- maybe so. But he hired a private investigator to snoop on Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, hired a p.i. to snoop on some of the contra stuff, sent his own company lawyer and two pilots to check into part of the October Surprise scenario, offered to show "secret," supposedly incriminating photos to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher and to a Washington Post reporter.
I don't like the way the guy plays. If he can't have it all his way, he takes his ball and goes home. Whether it's the promise of a big donation to a Dallas charity or General Motors, Perot's been a bully and a quitter. And no matter whom he crosses or who crosses him, his story is always the same -- he's completely in the right and the other guy's completely in the wrong.
I think it's a lousy idea to vote for anyone who's paying for his own campaign. I've long been complaining about the way we finance elections in this country; it's sorry, it's sleazy and it's got to stop. But the biggest loophole in the campaign law right now is that it puts a $1,000 limit on contributions to campaigns for federal office unless it's your own campaign. Well, dammit, we already know this system is giving us a government of the special interests, by the special interests and for the special interests. The players in politics all have big money or access to it -- that's what's wrong with the government of this country.
Okay, so maybe we figured that at least Perot wouldn't owe anything to the usual chorus of special interests -- I mean, if it was all his money, maybe he'd actually work for us.
But look, in the first place, it's bad enough the extent to which rich people and their bought lackeys already run this country -- why make it worse?
In the second place, look at Perot's proposals. He, like Bush, favors a cut in the capital gains tax: That's the move that helps rich people. He also wants to take away Congress's power to levy taxes. In a speech to the National Press Club, he proposed this startling notion and said, "You say, 'Well, that means a constitutional amendment.' Fine."
I don't like people who think it's fine, chop-chop, no big deal, to change the Constitution of this country. I think Madison and Jefferson and Adams and all those guys were wiser than Ross Perot. I think they put the right to tax in the branch of government closest to the people for good reasons.
Perot says he wants to throw out the current tax system and start with a blank piece of paper. But he hasn't said what he wants to write on it, because people think issues aren't important.
Ronnie Dugger has pointed out that since presidents have already ripped up one of the major constitutional powers of Congress -- to declare war -- and Perot wants to remove another, that would leave Congress with just one important power -- to spend. Except that Perot wants the right to veto any appropriation passed by Congress. Let's see, that would give him war, peace, taxes, spending -- can anyone think of anything else he'd need to be our first dictator?