Ross Perot is a liberal
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ross_Perot_Abortion.htm
| quote: |
Ross Perot on Abortion
Pro-choice activist
Perot has not only taken a pro-abortion stand, his is the first presidential candidate ever to have conceived close personal and institutional ties to the abortion industry. The Perots are activists with an interest in the most radical fringe of the pro-abortion movement.
He funded an entire gynecological wing of the Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, which has provided first and second trimester abortions as well as amniocentesis research. He has also been a vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood.
Source: Strong-Man Politics, by George Grant, p. 98 Nov 7, 1992
It’s a woman’s choice, including federal funding
My personal position on abortion is well-known, but I will restate it just to make sure there’s no confusion:
I support a woman’s right to have an abortion. It is the woman’s choice.
I support encouragement of adoption as an alternative to abortion.
I support federal funding of reproductive counseling and education that can help prevent unwanted pregnancies so that fewer women will have to face this difficult decision.
I support federal funding of abortions for poor women. Since these women have already made the decision, for public health reasons, we should ensure that the procedure is done safely.
On social issues, Perot did not fit the stereotype of the conservative Southerner. He was, in fact, pro-choice on abortion (“Yes, it’s a woman’s choice”); for gay rights (“We are a country of individual rights, and it’s that simple to me”); in favor of gun control (“I can’t believe the gun lobby wants the crazies to have machine guns”); and for increased AIDS research (“Now, we’ve got to really blitz and get it done.”)
Source: [X-ref Gay Rights] Citizen Perot, by Gerald Posner, p.257 Jul 2, 1996
Enact strict gun control laws
Perot [supports] the enactment of strict gun control laws.
Source: Strong-Man Politics, by George Grant, p.111 Nov 7, 1992
|
| quote: | NAFTA is good for investors & bad for jobs
NAFTA is really less about trade than it is about investment. Its principal goal is to protect US companies and investors operating in Mexico. The text of the agreement is contained in two volumes covering more than 1,100 pages. The text is mind-numbingly dull. Large portions of it are written in the type of obscure legal terms found on the back of an insurance policy. Buried in the fine print are provisions that will give away American jobs and radically reduce the sovereignty of the US.
Ultimately, NAFTA is not a trade agreement but an investment agreement. NAFTA’s principal goal is to protect the investment of US companies that build factories in Mexico. This is accomplished by reducing the risk of nationalization, by permitting the return of profits to US businesses, and by allowing unlimited access to the American markets for goods produced in Mexico.
Source: Save Your Job, Save Our Country, by Ross Perot, p. i & 11 Jan 1, 1993 |
| quote: | NAFTA will cause a giant sucking sound as jobs go south
A Giant Sucking Sound: One million Mexicans enter the work force each year. They need jobs. To get those jobs, President Salinas and his government have deliberately kept wages down to attract foreign investment. Mexico has vastly expanded its vocational training programs to improve worker skill levels. The Mexican government also offers low-cost loans and tax benefits to companies that build factories in Mexico.
Mexico’s national development strategy is reminiscent of strategies used by Japan, Korea, and Taiwan a generation ago. Like the strategies used by those countries, Mexico’s strategy depends on taking jobs from the US.
The New York Times reports that the skills of Mexican workers already match the skills of 70% of the labor force in the US. Once properly trained, Mexican workers’ productivity and work quality equals that of anyone, anywhere in the world.
Mexico keeps its wages low to attract foreign investment. This strategy has worked.
Source: Save Your Job, Save Our Country, by Ross Perot, p. 41-2 & 47 Jan 1, 1993 |
Reading this surprised me since I had always thought of him as a conservative, but he was way ahead of his time in predicting the outcome of NAFTA. What's really interesting is this means that in the last 3 presidential elections, the USA has voted to give a left-wing mandate (if you also count Gore/Nader).
___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/
|
