Posted on 07/19/2004 8:55:14 AM PDT by Theodore R.
If all nominees for statewide offices and the presidency were chosen by state conventions of the respective parties, then the influence of big money would be greatly diminished.
See, this is what I don't understand. It seems the author's entire point is that "the people" don't really have a choice. How do "the people" get a choice if it is political hacks doing the choosing? That's what I don't understand. Yes, it costs a lot of money to run in an election and the existence of primaries means it costs even more money. But primaries seem to be the only way true "grass roots" candidates have a chance. Please someone, enlighten me if I am wrong about this, since I see there are conservatives who agree with this writer.
If "state conventions" will get to choose the nominee from now on, how do the people get a choice? What if the "state conventions" are out of touch with what the people want? Is this man saying that the party machine should have the only say in who people get to vote for? Why is this a good idea?
If that were the case, then principled voters would NEVER be able to get rid of the moderates and leftists who have infiltrated the Republican party. Herman Cain wouldn't have a chance in Georgia, because the party would choose the more-recognizable Isaakson every time. Why would this be a good idea?
Primaries can also help push the eventual nominee closer to the views of the base, if he is rigorously opposed in the primary.
Please explain this to me, it doesn't make any sense.
""Secondly, that being said, it astonishes me that folks can frequent a "conservative" message board and do nothing but bash and name-call. I thought we left that up to those other web sites? Are some here hoping to lift up themselves by tearing others down? Just because someone posts an editorial piece by a writer who dared to disagree with the President in the past?""
The transition of Reese on FR, from a popular columnist up until around the time of the intifada in israel/palestine in late 2000, when he began writing articles showing he really does disagree with just about everything israel has ever done, to his status today, which is somewhat lower than buchanan, has been something to watch. Posting a Reese thread (even a rational one on a non-ME topic) is an invitation to irrational and hate-filled posts in reply.
You are right, there is a decent percentage of the population on FR that does NOT post ideas or thoughts, but spends its time posting one-word comments when not attacking other posters. I am occasionally flamed, and sometimes have found the flamer, in his other posts, does little else besides flame or make strange comments. This is probably a statement on human nature in general, which unfortunately FR is not exempt from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.