OCR Text |
Show EITHi NIXON WAS ONLY CHOICE It's amazing how many interpretations you can get from a single sentence, but that is the nature of the English language, and why lawyers make millions writting legal documents, and then make additional millions finding loopholes loop-holes in those same documents. Fortunately, we weren't in town only a couple of days after our comment, that given the same choices today -"We'd still have to vote for Nixon!" so we missed the brunt of the frontal attack on our integrity, but still recieved comment from even the far-away lands of California. First, we should clear the air on just exactly what we meant. "Given the same choices today, (Humphrey and Mc-Govern), Mc-Govern), we would still vote for Nixon." The point of the column was that neither Humphrey or McGovern were in a caliber of leadership with Nixon. This is not to say that they are more or less honest a fact that still would have to be proven. To go one step further, we would point out that obviously our system of picking candidates for these high offices, namely the national primaries, are a farce and obviously are not concerned with picking qualified leaders. With today's speed of communication, a national primary could be held with complete results of a popular vote within 24 hours. The only thing holding such a primary back is the big political bosses, and machines have not figured a way to do it without losing control. In many states, such as Utah, where state primaries are held after the national convention, the populace has no choice in the choosing of candidates at all. It is all done by the state political machine. In other states, with early primaries, John Q. Public ,has only a . token .voice, since there is no requirement that ' candidates "enter "a particular primary. Often the winning candidate gets 100 of the delegate vote rather than the actual percentage, and the favorite-son candidate is a ruse to give the political machine full control. We believe in the two-party system, and to preserve it we believe that the national convention is a must. However, to give the voter a real voice in choosing of candidates, we should hold a national primary with the top three or four vote -getters battling it out in the national conventions for President and Vice President. Certainly this policy would have avoided theembarass-ments theembarass-ments of Agnew and Eagleton, because they would have been smoked out far down the campaign trail. And does anyone believe that Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Hum-phrey, or even LBJ could have survived a national primary by popular vote. There are many great leaders in this country. They are in business, labor and the professions. But, they are not candidates, because they will not stoop to the dirty politics necessary to be elected. They will not connive and consort with those of doubtful character. They will not bow to the machine. We've heard a lot about campaign reform in recent years. Most of the talk has centered on money. We believe that few enter the political arena for money though it becomes more lucrative each year. Power is the real culprit. And power does strange things to all humans. And let us not kid ourselves. The greatest power in all the land lies in the hands of the President of the United States. So let's return that power to the people through a national nation-al primary. Let's make our presidential and vice presidential presiden-tial candidates from both parties beholden to no one -except the people they will represent. Let no candidate speak to me of election reform, until he Is prepared to let you and I and all of us vote for the candidate himself instead of a delegate to a convention or to the electoral college. That's when we'll get back to grass roots politics -and every vote will count. Only then will we have a choice. "Red" |