While polls show that a plurality of voters in Utah and the nation want Ross Perot as their next president, Washington politicians still don't take him seriously.
They give Rodney Dangerfield more respect. Really.
That may be hard for people beyond the Washington beltway - where Perot seems to be gaining steam daily - to believe. After all, he even leads polls in Utah, which was the most Republican state in presidential elections in 1980, 1984 and 1988 - which should show Perot is for real.
But signs that Washington politicians still consider him little more than a bothersome fly that should soon fly away include:
- Party leaders - and even most members of Utah congressional delegation - say Perot's popularity is a mere mirage that will disappear once he starts taking firmer stands on issues.
- They simply don't believe he can win a majority of electoral votes. And if the election therefore is thrown to the Democratic-controlled House, they see no way it would elect him over Democrat Bill Clinton.
- They say the nation isn't in bad enough shape for voters in the end to abandon traditional parties. After all, the nation won a war last year, and the economy is recovering.
- They say third-party candidates often can achieve high ratings in the spring. But those ratings historically disappear long before the general election. They say history well repeat.
Of course, such arguments have plenty of potential holes.
First, Perot indeed hasn't taken many firm stands yet. That hasn't hurt him either. And who said Perot will play by their rules of politics and supply detailed stands?
Simple statements - like, "What do I think about welfare? I say if you're breathing, you're working" - may be enough to satisfy voters. If the press or others politicians want more, Perot's fighting against such less-than-popular foes may endear him to the public.
Still, some simple stands Perot has taken could cause problems for him, at least in Utah. For example, Perot is pro-choice on abortion. It would be surprising if conservative Utah shunned pro-life President Bush for a pro-choice candidate.
A hole in another argument is that Perot may have a shot at winning the Electoral College - and at least as good a chance as Bush and Clinton. For example, Perot could easily outspend them.
Washington political leaders also seem to assume that House Democrats will automatically vote for Clinton if the election goes to the House. That may not be the case, as Rep. Bill Orton, D-Utah, recently showed.
He vowed to vote for whomever wins the popular vote in his district - and is pushing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Orton predicts more and more voters will not put up with any candidate who does not vow to do likewise.
While most third-party candidates have faded long before general elections, nothing quite like Perot has come along before now. For example, George Wallace in 1968 and John Anderson in 1980 never actually led the polls, as Perot is now.
They also had money problems. Perot, however, does not. Anderson and Wallace also had messages extremely unpopular in some regions. Perot's appeal seems to be nationwide.
Perot may fade. But more likely he will be a huge factor throughout the race, and deserves respect. Still, don't expect Washington to give it to him - until maybe it sees him being inaugurated.