This political season shows the need for campaign reform
Published October 31, 2004
Re: Bush, Kerry: good starts, great divides, Oct. 25.
This article states that the candidates and their surrogates have spent a record $1.9-billion for the 2004 campaigns so far. Neither John Kerry nor George Bush has seriously raised the issue of campaign reform.
Only politicians with financial support from large corporations, rich associations and other wealthy backers have a chance to even get on the ticket statewide and nationwide.
As a Floridian, I have been constantly bombarded with their expensive attack ads that are inaccurate at best.
Ralph Nader and Howard Dean attempted to run on popular support from small individual contributions, but their failures make the point. Third-party candidates haven't been in presidential debates for years. Our system does not permit fair elections.
I would like to see presidential candidates' campaigns limited to public funding, no ads from surrogates or parties, several presidential debates that cover all the issues (repeated at different times on TV and radio to be accessible to all), and opportunities for third-party candidates to either debate or present their platforms on national TV.
-- Margaret Zabor, Tampa
Working to assure voter rights
Re: Political hurricane may strike Nov. 2, Oct. 24.
I am a member of the Kerry-Edwards Florida legal team and I will be a poll watcher on Nov. 2. Philip Gailey's outrageous comment that "the Democratic Party's war manual instructs lawyers and poll watchers to look for evidence of voter intimidation and suppression, . . . and to file a complaint even if they don't find any" is more than irresponsible, it is false.
Our charge for Election Day is to observe activities at each polling place to assure that everyone who has the right to vote gets to vote and that poll workers follow Florida law in carrying out their duties. Our job is to be a resource to poll workers, not adversaries. Our charge is the reverse of what the Times has reported the Bush-Cheney lawyers' mission to be: We seek to assure that the rights of every voter are preserved; according to a recent Times article, the Bush-Cheney lawyers are tasked to assure that people who should not vote do not. History and an examination of the arcane voting procedures show that the former is a complex task for voters and poll workers. The latter is well within the capabilities of poll workers, but speaks loudly to the values of the Bush-Cheney campaign.
Gailey seems to think that lawsuits and heightened scrutiny of election procedures, both in Florida and elsewhere, are cry-baby tactics of sore losers. He fails to mention the flood of stories of voter registration fraud from around the country, or the emerging pattern of partisan rulings from election officials in many states.
In a recent interview, former President Jimmy Carter noted that the Carter Center had observed 54 national elections around the world over the years. The Carter Center's credentials are impeccable. Far from "sanctimonious," President Carter is eminently qualified to comment on election procedures. Gailey is not.
-- Carl A. Schuh, St. Petersburg
The stolen election fallacy
Re: Political hurricane may strike Nov. 2.
-- It is indeed a pleasure to congratulate Philip Gailey for the honest, excellent analysis of the blatant attempt by the losing party in the 2000 election, to smear the winning party, in the electoral process in Florida. Although, it is apparent the liberals are seeking desperately to criticize the conservatives, it is criminal that these false accusations are backed by the vice presidential candidate John Edwards and former President Jimmy Carter, when this corrupt election process was perpetrated by their own party officials. What makes this a miscarriage of justice is the four years of trumpeting these reckless charges, that the election was "stolen," by reputable liberals such as Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Terry McAuliffe and Larry McDonald to name a few.
The fact is, the Republicans are adamant that every vote be counted that is legal and proper, while the Democrats would register anyone and everyone and count all votes, regardless.
The Democrats fight to prevent third-party candidates from being on the ballot while they shout that every vote must count. This is a country of laws backed by the U.S. Constitution. It was said that, "a democracy will not endure when most citizens are dishonest." Let's keep it honest and above board, regardless of party affiliation.
-- Bernard E. Oles, Port Richey
Look to the future
The common question, as in your Oct. 24 headline, is "are you better off than you were four years ago?" We really ought to ask, "Will you be better off in four years with (A) or (B)?"
-- Ernest Lane, Trinity
[Last modified October 31, 2004, 00:56:31]
