W.R. McAfee Sr.  (c)copyright 2011


Look no further than Ross Perot’s Independent Run for the Presidency

Ross Perot’s 1992 independent run for the presidency holds major lessons for the Tea Party in the 2012 elections. 

Perot, a billionaire, had the means to fund his first race for president and did, spending some $66 million. He chose Dallas as his independent party’s headquarters, and called for volunteers. Democrats, republicans, libertarians, independent-voters of all stripes-answered the call to help him organize and provide the labor needed to set his campaign in motion against Bill Clinton and George H.W.Bush, Sr. 

Perot, it would appear,  was initially asked by the elite to get in the race to bleed conservative votes away from Bush. They had vetted Bill Clinton to be the next president, but felt he might not have enough voter strength to beat Bush outright and knew he needed help; voters, generally, then still being the one uncontrollable on Election Day. 

On February 20, 1992, Perot appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live show and announced his intention to run as an independent if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states. Which they did; helping him establish his campaign organization and slogan, “United We Stand America.” 

As the campaign got underway, Perot got out of the gate fast with good, on-air infomercials (some as long as 30 minutes) about what was wrong with Washington, what needed to be fixed, why it needed to be fixed, and how he would fix it. 

Suddenly, he led the voter polls with 39% versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton. 

Perot’s infomercials were successful because (1) they were true and (2) the public had been primed for such messages when Eddie Childs—CEO of the Western Company of North America—ran a series of radio commercials that touched on the very same issues during the eighties. 

Perot’s stunning poll numbers early in the race so shocked the elite that he was, in my opinion, quickly asked to drop out lest he win. The elite had misjudged how fed up the American people were with the corrupt congress, process, and government, regardless of party affiliation. Desperate for credible representation in Washington, the voters saw in Perot a “solid” American who had enough money to stiff-arm the people behind the curtain controlling Washington, and who had the grit to establish himself once he got there. 

In short, Perot’s early polls scared them spitless. 

A similar situation developed during the spring of 2010 when Debbie Medina ran against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Texas governor Rick Perry in the republican gubernatorial primaries. Her poles began to grow quickly—though not as fast as Perot’s —but quickly enough to worry the elite for two reasons:  (1) The initial check-mating of the Trans Texas Corridor whose opposition was supported by the majority of the Texas voters who, by now, had begun listening and nodding at what Medina was saying in the three-way debates with Hutchison and Perry, and 2) echoes of Perot had to have been ringing in their ears as a result. 

Thinking about these things, they suddenly saw Perry as vulnerable himself  because of (1) his corridor defeat and the state’s Tea Party/rancher/farmer and independent voter disgust with him for trying to backdoor toll roads for the elite that they (Texas citizens) would have had to pay for with no hope of ever collecting any of the toll money for the state; it going in perpetuity to foreign investors, and (2) because they saw Tea Party supporters swinging towards Medina who, like Perot, was a blunt, straight spoken, Texas business woman and nurse.

A huge block of Texas voters at that point had had it with Perry. Many weren’t overly impressed with Hutchinson.  Medina was calling them both out in the debates; her numbers closing fast on Hutchison who was in the race only as a fail-safe candidate for the elite if Perry lost.  

Suddenly, a possible run-off between Medina and either Perry or Hutchison, given the level of voter and Tea Party disgust in Texas, suddenly became real. And all the money and time the people behind the curtain had invested in Perry, including his trip to a Bildeberger meeting in Europe along with Obama and Hillary (The Chosen like to make sure candidates minds “are right” before granting them political blessing) could easily be for naught 

So they set Medina up. On a live phone call to Medina, Glenn Beck, (who’d had Perry on his program a day or so earlier talking presidential) started a  conversation with Medina, then blind-sided her with the old 9/11 straw man question: “Do you think 9/11 was an inside job” (or words to that effect). To which Medina answered: “I believe there are things and questions that haven’t been answered (or words to that effect). 

The uproar was primed. Medina was a conspiracist. A truther. A tin foil hatter. She backtracked toward the accepted “official” mantra sanction for public consumption: “No, we were attacked by Muslim terrorists on 9/11.” (Or words to that effect.)  Too late. Talk radio stations like KSEV in Houston ranted about Medina being a conspiracy (pick one) theorist/nut/tin hat; saying on-air repeatedly: “She’s history. She’s toast. She’s done.” 


Perry won the Republican primary and may very well become president. 

But Medina, like Perot, had scared them even though she did not have Perot’s money. 

So, early on, Perot dropped out of his race; giving some cockamamie story about the mafia threatening to . . . sabotage his daughter’s wedding. . . or some such; which no one in their right political mind believed. 

But, it would be enough to keep him from winning. 

That September, his campaign volunteers having pressed ahead and gotten his name on all fifty ballots despite the chaos created by his withdrawal—Perot was [presumably given] the green light to reenter the race; at which time he picked a retired naval officer and former POW as his running mate and resumed his campaign. 

When the polls closed that November, independent, American party candidate Perot still received almost 19% (19,741,065) of the vote. 

The breakdown of Perot’s votes generally were 20% liberals, 27% conservatives, and 53% moderates; of whom 57% were middle class earning between $15,000 – $49,000 annually (according to Wiki figures); 29% of which were upper middle class who earned more than $50,000 annually. 

Perot was the most successful third party presidential candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and would have won had he been ‘allowed’ to stay in the race. As it turned out, Clinton won the 1992 election with Perot pulling enough votes away from Bush, Sr., to make the difference. 

Perot tried again for the presidency in 1996, but was unsuccessful. 

Fast forward now to the Tea Party and one finds they do not yet have a Ross Perot-type leader, the money, nor an organization positioned behind a candidate.  And the elite, by freezing out independents—any independent, Tea Party or otherwise—on the ballot, has another election wired with both Obama and whoever the ‘emergent’ republican is.  

They could care less who runs or who wins with the two party system. 

The Tea Party has been nurtured and ripened for Perry-pickings or elite-vetted Judas candidates to sing a Tea Party song and ride their white horse and gain their votes; leaving them thinking they’ve made a difference; glowing with the illusion of righting the heinous wrongs in Washington once the latest crop of one-eyed jacks are  in office. 

We are like Mexico—a two party country.  Only. There are no democrats or republicans.  It’s an illusion generated like Muslim boogeymen with a controlled for 9/11. 

Given the organization and financial backing and place on the ballot, an independent candidate could easily be swept into office. Perot would have been. Medina might have been.

People recognize genuine.  And who has their interests at heart.