Time for Another Ross Perot?
EmailMy colleague ABC News' Teddy Davis reports on interesting remarks made at the CAP conference yesterday. (By the way, Cook’s right about 1992)… Is it time for another Ross Perot? Franklin Raines, President Clinton’s former budget director, certainly thinks so. At a Wednesday conference on “Progressives and the National Debt,” Raines stood up during the question-and-answer period and said that the deficit reduction that took place under his former boss would not have occurred without Perot, the Texas billionaire who ran for president as an independent in 1992 and captured 19 percent of the popular vote. “The budget became a political imperative for Republicans and Democrats not because of virtue but because of the prior election where a third-party candidate ran on the platform (of balancing the budget) and didn’t win – didn’t have a chance of winning – but did more than enough to determine the election,” said Raines who headed the Office of Management and Budget from 1996 to 1998. The speculation about whether there is room for another Perot comes on the heels of an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last month which shows that 43 percent of Americans now identify themselves as independents, the most since ABC/Post polls began 28 years ago. With the budget deficit currently taking a backseat to the Democratic push for universal health care and Republican calls for tax cuts, Raines thinks the deficit will not become a priority in Washington unless and until the Perot voters coalesce and force the issue onto the agenda. “There is only 15-25 percent of the population that actually cares about (reducing the deficit),” Raines told ABC News in a follow-up interview. “The only question is do they stay in their main parties? Or does someone capture them for a period of time as Perot did?” Raines, who became CEO of Fannie Mae after leaving the Clinton administration and then stepped down in 2004 under accusations of accounting improprieties, told conference attendees that there is an opportunity for a Republican or a Democrat who is serious about the deficit to “leap out” and “capture that anger.” He believes, however, that if neither of the major parties does it, there will be an opening for a significant independent candidate in 2012 just as there was in 1992. “He won’t be back,” said Raines, referring to Perot. “But I can definitely see someone else being back.” Independent political analyst Charlie Cook “quibbled” with Raines’s assumption that Clinton would not have won in 1992 without Perot. “If you look at the exit polls, half of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Bush and half of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton,” Cook told ABC News. Raines is not alone, however, in thinking that Perot’s 1992 campaign shaped the agenda once Clinton became president. “I think there is no question about it that Perot was a very important force in not only the outcome of the election but also in defining the agenda that the Clinton administration followed,” said Robert Reischauer, the president of the Urban Institute who headed the Congressional Budget Office from 1989-1995, in an interview with ABC News. “He was sort of telling it like it is because he invested a lot of his own money in this and he had no coterie of people he had to please – no party, nothing like that.” The conference on “Progressives and the National Debt” was co-sponsored by the liberal Center for American Progress and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It was held at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C. ABC News’ Brittany Crockett contributed to this report.
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Romney Makes His Case to Conservatives at CPAC
yep,
chuck hagel
Posted by: vic | October 1, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
You could put THE smartest business man in America up for president and he still wouldn’t get elected next time around. Someone on the left or the right, whichever this person is not, would throw the guy under the bus somehow even though the business man might be the best thing for the country to get the economy back on track. To the Dems and the Reps, it isn’t about who or what is best for the country, it’s all about power. They don’t give a rats backside about what is good for the country. The only thing any of those in office or running to be in office care about is how much money they can make for themselves while they are in office. Again, that’s both the left and the right. Doesn’t matter which. Both sides are just too greedy.
Posted by: CarpeDiem | October 1, 2009, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
Our country would be much better off if we would simply allow our nation’s third largest political party, the Libertarian party, to enter into the debates. (Americans today don’t even seem to realize that a third option exists!) Watching only two candidates debate, both whom have no solutions, is getting really, really old.
George, you have a lot of clout, can’t you make this happen? :p
Posted by: Henry | October 1, 2009, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
Yep somebody else with the initials RP from Texas. We had Ron Paul and he was my choice, but Americans love the warfare and welfare state so he had no chance. I also liked Ross back in 1992. He had fiscal sense much like Ron Paul. Oh well…..
Posted by: Huh | October 1, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
No. At least, not another eccentric Texas billionaire like Ross Perot. Our country has been screwed up enough by Texans. I wish Texas would secede from the Union, which would prevent any of them being sent to DC.
Posted by: Jesus was a freak | October 1, 2009, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm
Sounds like Ron Paul might be the next Ross perot
Posted by: s | October 1, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
Jesus was a freak – I agree. No more Texans with the initials GB. But Ross and Ron would have been a refreshing change from the corruption and bad policy that we have received over the years. Ya, I know they are from Texas, but they have been the best presidential candidates in the last 50 years.
Posted by: Huh | October 1, 2009, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
Neither party has the courage to do what is right for the country as their primary objective is to get re-elected. This is clear in the health debate. Republicans are offering little to the debate but saying “no” – little wonder that health insurance has had no attention when republicans were in power. Democrats are defeating their own bills. Libertarians promote less governemtn and less regulation – however, this combination allowed Enron and others to run amok. Libertarians would remove Medicare, Social Security, free public schools, would probably allow health insurance companies greater freedom in selecting who gets covered. Am I wrong?
Posted by: Jimmy | October 1, 2009, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
For the last two decades, I have believed that there was a strong potential for a 3rd party that would be composed of the center left Republicans and the center and center right Democrats. Let the extreme edges have their voices heard, but they should not drive the political game as they have.
All that has to happen is for more Republicans to leave the party to become independents, and have the unhappy democrats do the same. Get them together in a room to find out their common causes and voila a new generation of politics could be born.
(In my dreams!)
Posted by: Harrison Rose | October 1, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
Jimmy – You can regulate all you want but the weasels on wall street will find a way around them. That is why bailouts are so destructive. There is no risk for these narcissistic folks. Libertarianism would move us towards the things you mentioned, but it would not happen overnight. I don’t think you will ever create pure libertarianism again assuming the country doesn’t desintegrate into economic ruin. We do need to shrink government because we are broke. If Ron Paul is succesful in opening the Fed’s books the toxicity will be mind blowing.
Posted by: Huh | October 1, 2009, 6:03 pm 6:03 pm
A third party one-issue candidate could have a big impact, but it’s not guaranteed. I’d rather seen intelligent conservatives take the Republican party back. Far easier to kick a nutjob out of the drivers seat and take your car back than to build a whole new car.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 1, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
“That is why bailouts are so destructive. There is no risk for these narcissistic folks.”
Huh | Oct 1, 2009 6:03:09 PM
That makes no sense. WITHOUT regulation, such as the proposed clawback requirements, there is absolutely no risk to a guy who gets his fifty million dollar bonus check. It’s in the bank, his, he’s good. Do you think he cares if the company he currently works for goes under? You seem to think punishing a corporation means anything – they aren’t really people you know.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 1, 2009, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
Raines, you are a cook, who got over $60 million in salary and bonuses from Fannie Mae while cooking the books and destroying the U.S. economy. Raines, you need to go to prison and join Madoff.
Posted by: rukidding 55 | October 1, 2009, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
Huh ………..you need to get a copy of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight & Gov’t Reform…”The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008″
This report show clearly that Fannie & Freddie, certain members of Congress created the fall of Wall Street & Banking Industry. And good old Raines was a major player. Fannie & Freddie sold bonds to banks. These bonds were based on very distorted financial figures from Fannie & Freddie.
Posted by: rukidding 55 | October 1, 2009, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Jimmy the Republicans tried numerous times to address health care, but to have Dem’s add something stupid and unacceptable to the bill. Just like the Republicans tried over 9 times to regulate Fannie & Freddie, sub prime industry, but to have Franks, Dodd, Dennis Hastert…and lobbyist that fannie & freddie paid to not compete against them. The House has 3 bills on Health Care Reform but it can’t get any of these bills out of committee and get scored by the COB.
Posted by: rukidding 55 | October 1, 2009, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
Palin 2012.
Posted by: Jim Bob | October 1, 2009, 6:38 pm 6:38 pm
Doesn’t it bother anyone that Perot was paranoid and crazy as a loon?
Posted by: JR | October 1, 2009, 6:51 pm 6:51 pm
I am a native born Texan and I would love it if our state seceded. Our state constitution requires a balanced budget. We can spend no more than we take in, maybe the Feds should also try this.
Posted by: Amy C | October 1, 2009, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
Perot was a nutjub…but he did manage to pull alot of Bush Sr. supporters into his camp. Besides if I remember correctly that election cycle it was anyone’s game until Clinton went on MTV and admitted to smoking pot but NOT inhaling it. The youth went nuts and voted for him for that reason alone.
Posted by: rightsideofmymind | October 1, 2009, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
jhw539 – We had more regulations under Bush than ever before, and it didn’t work. These banker types will always find a way around them if they know that they will be bailed out. They incure none of the risk. That is my point.
Posted by: Huh | October 1, 2009, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
rukidding 55 – No thanks. I already know all about this from listening to Ron Paul. I think we both agree on the problem. In this case government intervention and regulation of the housing market. How about that regulation jhw539.
Posted by: Huh | October 1, 2009, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
rightsideofmymind – nutjub? Why don’t you explain why instead of meaningless slander.
Posted by: Huh | October 1, 2009, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
HOW ABOUT OLD REV WRIGHT.
Posted by: rking | October 1, 2009, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
I don’t think he would be tall enough to reach the spread sheets showing our debt … for anyone who remembers his campaign …
Posted by: 1enlightened | October 1, 2009, 10:29 pm 10:29 pm
Huh, the problem, was the deregulation of the housing market during the Clinton years…ie Fannie & Freddie. Banks couldn’t compete with subsidized companies, Fannie & Freddie, who paid off certain politicians to keep the Bush Admin from putting back the regulation that Clinton took off. For 2 companies that are trade on the NY stock exchange, to be the ONLY companies not to be regulated by the SEC….come on…what a joke. We were blind sided by certain people and their greed and the front window dressing that they presented to the poor in the name of “Affordable Housing”.
Posted by: rukidding 55 | October 1, 2009, 11:55 pm 11:55 pm
There will never be an effective 3rd party person unless they can buy ballot access and run ads in all 50 states. (like Perot)
The D & R commission on presidential debates won’t let you speak to the public and confront the two party hierarchy on the issues, and the tv stations won’t run your ads for free. (Or at all if they disagree with you like CBS or FOX…)
The political system is hoplessly corrupt thanks to unrestricted cash from taxes and corporate profits buying off canidates.
The people have become irrelivant… Obama’s supporters are just the latest to find this out!
Posted by: Huh? | October 2, 2009, 12:07 am 12:07 am
I voted for Perot even though I knew he was a bit of a nut. I knew him personally. But, my vote was primarily a protest vote. I couldn’t vote for Clinton because he was a crook, and I wouldn’t vote for Bush Sr. because he sold us out in Iraq. His reluctance to go straight to Baghdad in 1991 caused the current mess we are in. Some of us could see that back then. We had to wait 12 years to finish the job and it cost 10x as much in lives and treasure by not doing it when we should have.
Posted by: jack carlson | October 2, 2009, 12:31 am 12:31 am
If the banks make potential buyers put down a 20 to 30 percent down payment. This is how it was before fannie and freddie. It will do two things. stablize rates and prices. We need to look at Lebanon’s banking practices. Not much regulation and very few defaults.
Posted by: coastlinecascott | October 2, 2009, 5:04 am 5:04 am
God forbid another third party candidate enters the fray….America is on a crash course for destruction and a new form of government would be the only solution. Dems and repubs are in death struggle to be in power and dont give a damn for the voters anymore. GO RON PAUL
Posted by: Don | October 2, 2009, 9:37 am 9:37 am
Long past time, for another Ross Perot. Worst thing that happened to this country in the past few years, was that he withdrew from the race.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | October 2, 2009, 10:03 am 10:03 am
How about Jim Webb?
Posted by: oldest | October 2, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am
I’m sure Ross Perot did not expect to win but he spent his own money to change things. Like him or not, he did the impossible; he showed Democrats and Republicans that many Americans were sick and tired of chosing between two of the same-governments that were not for the people. That’s why I voted for Perot. Yes, he was paranoid and maybe a little crazy, but I guess so am I. Still, history proved him (and me) right. Yes, we do need another Perot.
Posted by: Carmen | October 3, 2009, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
Carmen | Oct 3, 2009 10:28:31 PM
……Like you, I vote Perot. I don’t think we’ve have a more honest candidate since. I think a lot of people were intimidated by his charts. Ron Paul was my choice in 08, but was out of the race when I got to vote in the primaries.
Posted by: deanbob | October 4, 2009, 6:20 pm 6:20 pm
The Dems would just love that. Get a 3rd party to rally around fiscal issues and steal votes from GOP.
Posted by: tajitj | October 4, 2009, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm
OK, the idea that you worry about balancing a budget, and cut spending while you have 10% unemployment was the brain child of …..HEBERT HOOVER!!!!!! And it turned a 10% unemployment rate into a 25% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE!!!! BEEN THERE DONE THAT FOLKS!! BAD IDEA!
Posted by: hello air heads | October 4, 2009, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm