Ross Perot. When that name is mentioned, many images come to mind: crazy, obsessive, short, big ears - and crazy again. Do I think that Perot is totally sane? No, not really. Do I think that he has a chance of winning this election? No, because our electoral system is stacked against third parties. Do I think that Perot should have been in the presidential debates? Absolutely.
Despite popular opinion, I do feel that Perot should have been included in the Presidential debates. Many wonder why on earth a man who has earned only 6 percent of popular support in recent polls should be included in the presidential debates, if the majority of America feels he's destined to lose.
There is obvious entertainment value in spicing up the oh-so-exciting presidential debates.
Watching President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole thrashing away at each other was worse than watching paint dry - an endless series of double-talk, insults and lies.
There's also another, more important, reason Perot should be included in the debates. The presidential election is set up so that anyone can run, as long as he or she can meet the legal requirements. These debates are a crucial part of the election process and any candidate who wants to participate should be able to. Period.
If the Presidential Debate Council starts limiting who can participate in these debates, what will stop them from limiting whom can run? Suddenly, women, minorities, short people, fat people, people with big ears or any other person who the council does not want to have a chance to get control of the country becomes a de-facto second class citizen. You can vote but don't dare run. We can also assume that if Perot had participated in those debates, the dodging of questions would not have happened. Does anyone else remember his 1992 infomercials? Perot would whip out his graphs and charts and basically be his obsessive self as he explained his positions. Maybe his style is a bit rough, but he always has something to say.
I like Perot for the same reason that most people don't like him. Yes, I think that Ross Perot is crazier than a loon, but he appears to be the only candidate who has any concrete opinions, such as his loudly voiced disgust over our national debt. His ideas might be off the wall, but they're anything but flimsy.
What if, by some strange fluke of nature, Perot did win this election? Would he be a good
president? Does anyone really know? No, of course not. He may be short. He may have
enormous ears. He may even be crazy. But at least he is a man with a plan - which is a definite
advantage over his opponents. I'll take the short, crazy guy with big ears any day.