Why has it taken 23 years for the meme to appear that Ross Perot

[madinmaryland]

Was actually a hindrance to Clinton and not bush I. I've never heard that until today on du. Just seems odd that it would appear now.

[Mike Nelson]

1. Republican history...

...with "the Media" cooperating.

[Recursion]

2. Huh? How did they figure that? (nt)

[Electric Monk]

5. Rachel Maddow did some number crunching on her TV show

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027004381

[hollysmom]

3. because nothing is ever re[ublicans fault they are the party of responsibility... for democrats only

just like family values does not refer to their lives or Christianity means screw the poor.

whine whine whine, it is like we are living with 5 year old political candidates and most democrats do not try to teach them to do better.

[blm]

4. I heard the facts shortly after that election, back in my FAIR days.

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.

The excuse that Perot ruined it for Bush was developed quickly by the GOP who made it their narrative and the corpmedia mindlessly repeat it to this day.

It was important to GOP that Clinton's presidency was seen as not legitimate - it's become a standard op.

[ericson00]

6. its hard to keep wool over eyes that can see data

data which is easily available (see my thread on the Perot myth). But also because the GOP needed an excuse why 1992 saw them start a long road to 1 popular vote victory in 6 elections, the loss of CA, NJ, CT, MI, IL, MD, DE, ME, VT, NH, and PA (together 156 EVS) and their suburban voters. They had to convince themselves the country wants far-right types and platforms. Not to mention those on the far-left who couldn't accept that welfare reform and being tougher on crime was necessary to win those states and send them to the Dem column for at least 23 years and likely more.

Another thing is because the media has hated the Clintons since Bill took office, and only now are the Clintons fighting the media back, perhaps why some in the media have decided to begin the end of the Perot lie. Hopefully more follow. I hope others join me in emailing MediaMatters, Politifact, and FactCheck to finally correct this extremely long media and politician lie.

[The Second Stone]

7. I think Perot was a net positive for Clinton and I think he intended to

Perot hated GHW Bush and accused him of sabotaging his daughter's wedding during the campaign. If he intentionally ran as a spoiler, I think he ran to the right. Trump may be doing the same thing. If so, it's a long con that is costing him.

[ericson00]

8. data and the actual historical record don't agree with you

maybe you oughta take a look instead of "I am not a scientist" type belief.

[The Second Stone]

10. I'd certainly like to be of the opposite belief on that question

is there an article you can link to? And while I don't think that politics is a "science", I've studied it and have a bachelor's from UCLA in "political science". The evidence has always looked to me that Perot played spoiler for the good guys, which hadn't happened since TR ran as a Progressive candidate.

[ericson00]

11. there's a lot of articles and data

that I link to in this thread

[The Second Stone]

12. Thanks, I'll give it a look

best wishes.

[ericson00]

9. here's the video

click the link