YOU ARE HERE: IVPress HomeCollections

Voice: Responding to presidential issues

January 08, 2001

I would like to respond to Della Farrer from Fort Wayne Ind. First, good for George W. Bush that God changed his heart! We need more of that in this country. But that doesn't make you presidential material.

Second, the problem I have with George W. about abortion is his (and most Republicans') hypocritical stand. They claim it is a moral wrong to kill innocent "unborn babies" except in cases of incest, rape or health of the mother. The question I have is, "If these are ‘unborn babies,' what makes them less of an unborn baby if the mother was raped, or an incest victim, or if her life is in danger?"

If you make those exceptions you are a hypocrite, because regardless of how it got there, according to your own criteria, you are still killing a baby. That is why I am pro-choice. I can't conceive of making that decision for someone else. I think it's wrong, but I let God deal with the woman (and her man) who makes that decision.


Third, it galls me that you could belittle the people confused by that ballot. You are in effect saying if they can't "work" the ballot they shouldn't have their vote counted because it wasn't done correctly. The onus is that we are responsible for following the rules and voting correctly. The question I have is "Why didn't you say that about the military (and I was in the military for nine years, OOH-RAH, Marine Corps!) and other overseas voters who were apparently confused by the concept of putting a stamp on an envelope and putting it in the mail to be postmarked before the Nov. 7 deadline?"

Mind you, the instructions came with the ballot! The reason for the proper postmark is we don't want people voting AFTER the election, do we? That wouldn't be fair, would it? If it doesn't have a postmark there's no telling when these people actually voted, because their votes come in five to seven days after the election.

Last but not least, the Electoral College. People (especially Republicans) give our constitutional framers too much credit at times. The original intent for the college was not about protecting smaller-populated states. That was a coincidence, a happy byproduct. They addressed that issue with the creation of the Senate. Their concern was power. They were what Republicans hate most these days. ELITISTS! Back then this situation with big (or small) states with hugely populated cities wasn't a problem for two reasons. A) most people lived in rural areas because they were either farmers, worked on farms or connected with farming in some way. B) Sixty to 65 percent of the population couldn't vote at all. Women couldn't vote and most minorities were not even considered full human beings.

The problem these elites had was with the so-called "uneducated" white male who could acquire land and make himself eligible to vote (to be their equal). They thought such people weren't smart enough to vote for their own president! So they came up with a way to negate that vote — the Electoral College.

This country grew into the situation of the Electoral College protecting smaller-populated states. And it doesn't actually protect smaller-populated states. Just ask Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Rhode Island and Delaware how many times either presidential candidate visited them. Then go ask California, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Illinois that same question.


El Centro

Imperial Valley Press Online Articles