DO-OVER
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Conventional
Wisdom:
Bingo! I think it might be interesting to go back to
convention-nominated candidates. I was a child in the '50s watching
the nominating conventions with my grandparents on their
television. Those summers were the start of my lifelong interest in
politics. Where better to learn than at the knee of a FDR-reviling
grandfather and a gentler grandmother whose political convictions
were just as strong -- but better modulated.
-- Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky
Agreed. Let's go back to the convention system. While we're at it,
how about repealing the 17th amendment to the Constitution? This
should save us from at least a few of the gasbags lording it over
us in the U.S. Senate. Much mischief has come about following
Amendments 16 through 19. And we've only come to our senses with
regard to the 18th.
-- Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
I do not know which is worse. Placing Governor George C. Wallace in
the same sentence with Hillary Clinton, or declaring him to be a
bigot. Wallace was not in any way like David Duke. He was a
political segregationist for his early career, then changed his
views beginning at about 1967-68. Wallace apologized for his stand
in the schoolhouse door. Hillary has never apologized for her
anti-Jewish comments following her husband's defeat in 1974. We
could have avoided four years of the leftist bumbling incompetence
of Jimmy Carter. Inflation. Unemployment. Brother Billy. The
Hostage Crisis. The stabbing in the back of Taiwan, Rhodesia, and
the Shah of Iran. "The National Malaise." Think of it, all of those
events never even happening. All with just two words. "President
Wallace."
-- Michael Skaggs
Murray, Kentucky
Bob Tyrrell grasps the distressing decline of our election process with one word: dignity. Or rather, the absence thereof. Instead of stumping through town halls, delivering speeches from the back of trains, and meeting and greeting with state political machines and conventions, our candidates now must be skilled in the art of pancake flipping and playing wind instruments. Instead of answering weighty questions on serious news programs, they must be able to banter wittily with late night talk show comedians as well as sob, boogie, and make pasta with day time divas. Of course, there is the obligatory performance on Saturday Night Live where our political contenders must make sport of their candidacy and wow the 15 to 29 crowd by appearing in a self-mocking skit. This requirement not only spotlights their competency in reading cue cards, but lets the world know how hip and with it they really are. It's all for the children, anyway. Right?
The really sad part is it has gotten to the point where the
electorate then is expected to select a serious candidate for these
serious times based on their silly accomplishments in these silly
venues. Dignity and stately decorum are just a hindrance in the
asinine path one must take to become President. Are we electing a
Commander in Chief or Clown in Chief? Does anyone know the
difference anymore?
-- Susie Q
Graceland East
I, for one, don't understand all the whining going on in the media about no frontrunner being established in the GOP nomination before 98 percent of all primary voters have even gone to the polls. To me this is just silly.
I would love to see a brokered convention, at least that way the
convention will actually mean something rather than just a soap box
for politicians to make long-winded speeches
-- Mark L. Saleman
Flushing, New York
You must have been reading my mind. I, too, have been wondering where "dignity" has gone in this election process. So I did some investigating and came up with one clue that maybe the Fed Gov should stop subsidizing the primaries and conventions and then maybe we'll go back to the way it was done before the 1970s reform process was put in place.
I wonder if the average taxpayer realizes that the Republican and Democratic candidates who win their parties' nominations for President are each eligible to receive a grant to cover all the expenses of their general election campaigns. The basic $20 million grant is adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 2004, the grant was $74.62 million. And that each major political party may receive public funds to pay for its national Presidential nominating convention. The statute sets the base amount of the grant at $4 million for each party, and that amount is adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 2004, the major parties each received $14.592 million.
First, that adds up to a lot of taxpayers dollars. But to me, more importantly, each party is essentially funding the other's campaigns and conventions!!!
I think the Party Financing Reform Bill needs to be reformed again. Then maybe we won't have to be subjected to this seemingly endless barage of early primaries and non stop commercialism of the candidates. Without worrying where the financing of the party comes from leaves plenty of free time to hurl insults and barbs at each other.
I'm not that old, but I long for the days of "good old politics" when respect and dignity were the bywords of both parties. I used to enjoy to have a good debate with a Dem because at the end we'd both walk away still respecting each other opinions.
In this age of information maybe there is such a thing as TOO
much information.
-- Joan Moriarty
Pine Plains, New York
I would like to associate myself with Mr. Tyrrell's call for political conventions that actually mean something, that actually are determinant of the nominee of the two parties. I remember well, and fondly, the conventions of 1952 and 1960, and also of 1976 and 1980. I often wonder, if the 1976 convention had picked Reagan over Ford, would we have had to endure Jimmy Carter? Of course Ford was the sitting, if unelected, President. It would have been an heroic task to deny him the nomination. Heck, maybe the TV would go back to covering the whole event, and the American voters might even go back to watching said TV coverage.