Do you think he was any good?
Why or why not?
2007-10-15 13:01:06 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
its not a question of whether hes good or not. theres no way a third party can win in this country. it all comes down to the electors, not the people, who matter when voting for pres. and since its the two major parties who pick the electors, its nearly impossible to get a thrid party candidate into office.
2007-10-15 13:38:40 · answer #1 · answered by avkedav 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I am afraid that I have to admit that I voted for him. I was so mad at Bush for raising taxes that I protested by voting for Perot. I guess you can blame me and others for Bill Clinton.
Perot was pretty interesting and I think smart enough to make a difference. That being said, he would never be able to hold his tongue well enough to be president.
2007-10-15 15:44:17 · answer #2 · answered by united9198 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bad VP choice , stockdale cost him allot of votes. on the first run .
and on his second run he backed out while saying the republicans were going to disrupt his lesbian daughters wedding , so he chose not to run to save her. Lol, but then he came back in a couple of days later after blowing his momentum.
he had a great organization and true volunteers , but he was and is a true dictator, Ive been a 3rd party supporter most of my life , but he never had my vote because he is a part of the government problem.
he made his money on a airport that didn't work but he got payed anyway, he used the system to his own advantage and won , he wouldn't of been a good leader , ask anyone who ever worked for him. he didn't trust his employees and was a pioneer in background searches and drug test policy's credit checks etc etc for them.
he had a great chance and blew it because he didn't take advice.
I'm going for a true independent voice, that has a true track record of doing what is right for the country, and that's Ron Paul
ron paul o8'
the only wasted vote is for the status quo
2007-10-15 14:15:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
He by no skill confirmed us a chart of ways we ought to continually have voted. heavily regardless of the truth that, Perot turned right into a wild card and gave the wide-spread public trouble-free recommendations to our economic woes on the time. regrettably, he did no longer have any overseas coverage concepts nor relatives concepts....in basic terms economic.
2016-10-21 05:45:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrible, he was a spoiler. Also, he kept saying he was a Washington outsider, but he made his fortune on Federal Government contracts - what could be more inside than being able to win all those huge contracts. He was kind of weird also and short - generally only taller men get elected to be President.
2007-10-15 13:07:09 · answer #5 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I don't think Ross Perot would have made a good president. He had crazy ideas.
2007-10-15 13:04:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think he would have been good, because who can buy him off or put him in their back pocket (not literally). He would have been the cleanest President we had in decades, and our last great hope to have a 3rd party representing the White House for a very long time.
2007-10-15 14:40:25 · answer #7 · answered by suanniiq 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He allowed the other players running for president to scare him with bogus threats on his person and no less his family. He was an old man who scared easy. Simple as that.
2007-10-15 13:08:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
He was to flaky, I wanted to vote for him in the worst way, but hen he pulled out jumped back in pulled out. Wouldn't answer questions.
In the beginning he made sense but then his eccentricities went way over the edge, couldn't count on him to stay if the going got tough.
2007-10-15 13:05:14 · answer #9 · answered by QBeing 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
his ears were too big and people hate charts. yes he was good,he has done a lot for POWs and is a good businessman
2007-10-15 13:05:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋