Today's Letters: We need to recapture voters' attention
Letters to the EditorPublished November 30, 2007
Picking a president isn't a game show Nov. 28, Bill Maxwell column
I strongly disagree with Bill Maxwell's assertion that the CNN/YouTube debate trivializes the presidential selection process. His allegations that in this debate format "style and form are more important than substance," and that questioners are simply looking for their 15 minutes of fame belittle the intent of the debate.
The topics covered are those that are important to the American people. Maxwell states that an educated, not an entertained, citizenry is the "backbone of a viable democracy." While that's certainly true, it reflects his "old-fashioned" way of thinking to assume that entertainment and education cannot coexist. (Indeed, he must never have seen an episode of Sesame Street).
A telling line from Maxwell's column comes when he says, "Let my eyes glaze over," because that is the type of attitude that has brought us to where we are. American voters have let their eyes glaze over far too much, and the result is a broken political system. We need a revitalized voting base that feels as though it has more of a stake in the process, and that its concerns are being heard by the people who will lead this country in the future.
Ryan Cardone, St. Petersburg
Republican debate
The same old stuff
I missed the first 10 minutes of the presidential debate Wednesday night, in which I assume they covered all the really pertinent issues: health care, global warming, energy, Middle East peace, the economy and education. With the exception of John McCain's eloquent commentary on torture, and Ron Paul's boldly honest assertion on the reason for Sept. 11, for which he was soundly booed, the remaining hour and 50 minutes was an amazing exercise in diversion.
Whether the "liberal media" chose mostly irrelevant YouTube questions to make the Republicans seem stuck in the 1980s (guns, abortion, Bibles and Ronald Reagan), or ones that highlight their tired tirades against the usual scapegoats (immigrants, gays, the IRS and the surname Clinton), I do not know.
What I do know is that, despite flashy new technology, we seem to be given the same old perspectives that have gotten us where we are today. Is that the best they can offer?
Sarah Robinson, Safety Harbor
Note GOP hopefuls: Be practical, specificNov. 28, editorial
Unfair to Democrats
I must take exception to your use of the phrase "shortsighted" in this editorial: "Unlike shortsighted Democrats who have foolishly boycotted this state ..."
Your use of it here smacks of selfishness and pouting about not being the "first" in line. The phrase casts an unfair shadow on the Democratic Party and suggests that Republicans are more "fair," an interpretation I do not think is warranted or intended.
The Democratic candidates are abiding by the rules set forth by the national Democratic Party and in compliance with the nominating procedures in place. There are those of us, even here in Florida, who recognize the value of establishing a selection process that initially requires a lot of close contact with candidates directly by voters, a process made impossible by the sheer size of Florida.
If you believe that the demographics of Iowa skew the results in an unfair manner, a solution would be to revise the early nominating process to include states with a more varied population. This change is currently taking place with the addition of Nevada and South Carolina, also two "small" states but with different demographics, to the early Democratic primary season. Perhaps additional revisions could be considered to further balance the demographics of the early primaries and caucuses.
Wouldn't "shortsighted" be more appropriately used if all of our candidates were first required to raise the enormous amounts of money necessary to reach voters in a huge state such as ours?
David Olive, Tampa
Iowa flunks Democracy 101 Nov. 28, Susan Estrich column
Discouraging young voters
Susan Estrich's complaints over the disenfranchisement of students in Iowa only begin to describe the way this country is failing to teach its young adults civics. College students have to fight more than most in order to vote in this country. Local and state officials gerrymander districts to split campus votes, keep polling places away from campuses and allow their parties to lie to students at polling sites, claiming false registrations and other untruths in an effort to frustrate the student away from voting.
After working on nonpartisan student get-out-the-vote campaigns in two states, I have little faith that local politicians will ever be willing to help college students participate in their government.
Individuals are more likely to vote throughout their adult lives if they start voting in the first election possible. It is little wonder that young voters do not go to the polls and have a reputation as disengaged from civic life when so many unofficial systems are in place to prevent them from engaging their government.
When voting numbers are down in 15 years to their lowest yet, we will have the current generation of leaders to thank.
Lauren Adriaansen, Temple Terrace
Leaning to the right?
When I saw PolitiFact in the St. Petersburg Times, I said to myself, "Finally!" I made it my home page on my PC. But now I must say the editors of PolitFact are partisan to the Republican Party, and their full-page ad on Tuesday (Page 9A) is proof.
What does Bill Clinton have to do with the 2008 elections? If you are going to run an ad about lies by a president, how about starting with weapons of mass destruction, or we do not torture.
How about running articles by Media Matters along with the partisan articles of PolitiFact. I am disappointed in my newspaper of choice, which it may not be much longer.
Eric Arens, Tampa
Father loses all parental rights Nov. 24, story
Trampling rights
We are endowed by our creator "with certain unalienable rights." Among these is the right to bear and raise children. Rather than secure this right, our government stripped it from two of our neighbors - "the exact reasons are not clear" other than a dog bite.
Who is this government? Is it not the same one that takes children into its care and then loses them; that gives children to foster "parents" who abuse them and worse; that fails to look after the children they take then covers their failure with lies?
Will our government take your children or mine should they fall from a backyard swing? What other rights will we let our government take from us to keep us safe?
Dave Plyer, Clearwater
Jarring juxtaposition
Not well placed: The news story Fighting for food in Bangladesh was right beside the brief 21 pounds of food gone in 15 minutes into one man's stomach.
I am surprised!
Joan Malone, St. Petersburg