To me, it depends on what they mean by the statement, "We should run America like a business." And it depends on what their business background is. Looking at what Perot was in favor of and what he was against at the time: in favor of educational reform and expanding high tech learning, was pro-choice, had a focus on infrastructure, was in favor of restructuring Medicare to cover ALL Americans with health insurance, was in favor of tort reform, was against expanded foreign aid and wasteful military projects, was in favor of eliminating tax breaks to companies which outsourced American jobs, was in favor of developing a "business plan" to systematically pay down the national debt and eliminate deficit spending except in times of war or recession, for crime control, against gun control, etc., etc.
Some other positions that I swiped from the interwebs:
Establishing a national health board as an independent federal agency to oversee cost containment and comprehensive health-care reform efforts
Setting a national health policy
Encouraging problem solving by everyone involved
Reaching a consensus on a set of principles for reform
Determining a basic benefit package for universal coverage and appropriate tax treatment of health benefits
Asking states to submit comprehensive health-care reform proposals that meet agreed-upon principles and cost-containment targets
Changing federal rules to allow states the necessary flexibility to conduct pilot programs
But just as we saw the Dems and Repubs work together (for once) in 1996 to bar him from the national debate, I feel that his Presidency may have been a disaster because they would have probably worked together (much like the TEA baggers have done with Obama) to destroy the nation, rather than work with him. And one thing I know for sure, the disastrous launch of Obamacare would not have happened under Perot. If nothing else, this guy would have made sure the website worked well before its launch date. Hell, he could have probably written some of the code himself. And unlike Obama or Bush, Perot actually knew how to create jobs... not just give speeches about it. Would he have done some things that I wouldn't have agreed with? I'm sure that he would have. He's still just a man... one who would have to work with a partisan Congress. And he wasn't/isn't perfect. But looking at his background of success in implementing his plans and goals (versus people who have never worked in or even understand the private sector), I think he would have balanced the books at the very least. And unlike the TEA baggers, Perot wasn't out to step on anybody at the bottom. He was more of a non-partisan "republican" (in the Roman sense). All the Dem and Repub party machines care about is getting/keeping Dems or Repubs in office. They don't really give two shits about the republic.
