The candidates we want, we get

Re “We get the candidates we deserve,” Opinion, June 2

Dan McLaughlin suggests that we get the candidates we “deserve” because of questionable media coverage and practices.

Given there is currently more reporting, more easily accessible, than at any time in history, I suspect this opinion to be based on an over-inflated sense of the influence of journalism. Most of us consume the specific reportage we want. We the readers are now the editors too, and we align our choice of “news” to reinforce our worldview, not to challenge it.

The words that have been written supporting or denouncing likely Republican nominee Donald Trump could no doubt create a tower reaching far into outer space, and the same with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. But has anyone’s opinion been changed?

The trash job Politico published on David and Nancy French (the former floated as a possible thirdparty presidential nominee) made no difference. It’s too late for French to create the emotion-share (why call it mindshare?) required to be a contender. Sure, we could intellectually comprehend and evaluate his qualifications and positions rather quickly, but the electorate has already voted with their hearts.

How else can we explain the rise of Trump? George Alexander

Woodland Hills

I understand McLaughlin’s frustration with what he states are “Washington political establishment” tactics preventing Harvard-educated, decorated veteran, constitutional lawyer David French from being considered a possible presidential candidate. I agree with him.

I eagerly await his column decrying the Washington political establishment for preventing Harvard-educated (magna cum laude graduate, editor at the Harvard Law Review), respected U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland’s consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court. I’d like to agree with McLaughlin again. Mary Lucero West Hills