GOING AFTER THE VOTE

Readers try to keep the candidates, pundits and issues on the right track

Third party could cut gridlock

DURING THE PAST three decades, the increase of a biased fragmented electorate along strict party lines has accelerated. Republican politicians grow more conservative while Democrats veer further left.

The widening gap in each party’s policy and philosophy reduces the possibility of solving problems amiably through compromise or consensus. Leaders from both parties are unable to negotiate mutually acceptable legislative solutions for an up or down vote. The growth of and negative efforts of extreme factions of members or biased committee chairs freeze proposed bills. Often the chair will arbitrarily not place a draft on the agenda if it does not totally agree with his or the party’s stand. ...

In Congress there exist a plethora of obstructionist actions that have resulted in an often failed transportation bill, infrastructure appropriations, approval of veterans’ benefits and numerous other unfunded or underfunded programs.

The complexity of non-compromising posture is strengthened by the unwavering influence of lobbyists and big campaign donors. Those of us in the shrinking middle-class desiring common-sense legislative compromise for the good of all citizens have very little influence or say in legislative matters.

Is it time for a moderate or centrist third party to emerge with candidates who will not be obligated to comply with strict left or right party lines? How can our democracy survive without compromise action? Haven’t we had enough unproductive partisanship? WALT PUNKE Albuquerque

Emails show she’s not fit to lead

THE RECENT REVELATION by the State Department that top-secret emails were found on (Hillary) Clinton’s private server (“Secret emails were on Clinton’s home server, Jan. 30) raises serious questions about the viability of her presidential campaign.

Evidence is mounting that Clinton was negligent in her handling of classified information while Secretary of State. Her defense that none of her emails were marked classified is a very weak one, for the non-disclosure agreement that she signed mandates the appropriate handling of classified information whether marked as such or not. Moreover, at least one of her recently released emails revealed that she instructed a subordinate to remove classified markings from a document and send it to her via unsecured email.

The FBI investigation appears to be widening, not winding down; it was also reported last week that the FBI is now conducting a parallel investigation into whether Clinton’s decision-making as Secretary of State was influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton already has high unfavorable and untrustworthy rankings by voters; the expanding FBI investigation will undoubtedly give voters additional reasons to question what kind of a president Clinton would be. BEVERLY BURRIS

Albuquerque

Bernie is for ‘we the people’

BERNIE SANDERS is not a socialist. The socialism he wants is enhancement of the socialism we already have and so many Americans depend on.

He wants to expand Social Security, which in 2016 is not enough to survive on without other income or assistance. He wants to provide free tuition for college, which we already do for elementary and high school in this “socialist” society. I’m 71 and remember when you didn’t need to borrow money to go to college. He wants to provide jobs to improve our infrastructure, the roads and bridges, which apparently otherwise should be left to disintegrate because, you know, socialism.

Bernie wants to share more of America’s vast resources with all Americans and dislikes seeing so many of us poor and needy. In that, he has a lot in common with Pope Francis and, of course, Jesus Christ.

Yet, so many so-called “Christians” in this country seem to believe the poor cause their own poverty and should be cut off from the “free stuff” this country is handing out. They don’t believe all working Americans deserve a living wage and food because they will “abuse” their benefits, as if the rich don’t abuse their vast “free stuff.” Donald Trump says the poor should work themselves up to the next level, as if he did it and it is easy. It’s hard now and getting harder.

The U.S. government is “we the people.” It is America and true patriots should support the government and help improve it if we think it has problems. True “freedom” would be complete chaos, and I think the people who shout it out know that. We have the highest U.S. child poverty rate here in New Mexico. Will “freedom” solve that? Go Bernie! MARJORIE CROW

Albuquerque

Candidate field underwhelms

IN 1969 SINGER Peggy Lee topped the charts with her plaintiff rendition of “Is That All There Is”? Today I use this expression to underscore my dismay with the array of candidates from which our nation’s voters will pick the person they wish to have as our next president. Whomever wins this office will immediately become the most powerful figure in a shrinking world. In a nation of 320 million people, is this the best we can do to find someone to lead us? Is that all there is? EDWARD WRIGHT

Albuquerque

Political circus is just starting

IN DANA MILBANK’S piece about the better Democrat to beat Donald Trump (“Dems should vote with heads, not hearts,” Jan. 29), his premise is wrong. “The Donald” is by no means the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination.

Sure, Trump’s ahead in the polls. But a plurality is a lot different than a majority, especially in a very crowded field.

It will take a delegate majority to secure the GOP nomination. As the primaries progress and candidates drop out, relatively few of their supporters are likely to gravitate to Trump.

To make it local, remember that we once elected Mayor Jim Baca during a unique cycle when there was no runoff. Like Trump, he had a devoted plurality following and likely not much more.

The other thing that will be different about 2016 is that the early, winner-take-all states are largely gone. You won’t see them appear until Florida and Ohio vote in mid-March and they both have home state favorites who could easily still be in the race.

So sit back, get yourself some popcorn, and enjoy the show. It’s very unlikely to be over quickly and it’s definitely going to take some interesting turns along the way. BARRY BITZER

Corrales

Open primaries are foolish

SO, THE JOURNAL is in favor of open primaries (“Online registration a good step one for voters,” Jan. 11). Does not surprise me, given the direction this paper has been going for the last five or so years. Primaries were first used by the progressive movement in the early 1900s. It took until the 1960s for them to catch on across the nation.

That said, it is pure foolishness to let your enemy into your camp to select your candidates for office. I would advise the parties to go the caucus route that the Libertarians and other minor parties have been forced to take, and which was once the mainstay of candidate selection. Don’t hold primaries, hold state caucuses, run and paid for by the party, open only to dues-paying, card-carrying members, and then from there, head on to convention. This will assure that only those who are loyal to the party’s principles, loyal enough even to fork over a few bucks for membership, will select the party’s candidates.

As for so-called “independents,” how can I respect (them)? (They) don’t have the guts to take a position but, like a weather vane, go in whatever direction the wind is blowing. He who believes in nothing will fall for anything. AL V. PUGLISI

Rio Rancho

20 years ago not so long ago

IN HER COLUMN “Clinton trust issues go back decades” (Jan. 27), Kathleen Parker brings up a very good point. Facts do not go away over time. I have noticed the attention span of the media is typically very short. Perhaps that is because that of the average citizen is very short.

Parker’s quote is very poignant: “It’s a pretty safe bet that few will care what happened in 1996.” I care, and if someone has changed their stripes in the last 20 years, well and good, but this is something worth discussing. Parker also says: “”Politicians can reasonably bank on voters’ ever shrinking memories.” This may be true but I say sad but true.

I would not go so far as (New York Times columnist William) Safire and call Hillary (Clinton) a congenital liar. That’s a bit harsh sounding, even though I am not pro- or antiHillary. I like Parker’s remark better: “reflexively prone to dissemble.”

But my point ... is this: Facts do not grow stale. I appreciate Parker for reminding me of things that happened 20 years ago and I think voters would do well to try to remember past yesterday. It’s like, if the paper is thrown out, or the news is switched off, all that was said goes away. Folks, it doesn’t go away. We need to know this stuff on election day. DAVID F. NELSON

Albuquerque