Letter bristol on election
Let me first say that I support President Bush. But view this letter as an analytical look at the election process and what kind of candidate has the best chance to win this or any other election.My hypothesis is that a sitting U.S. senator of either party cannot be elected president in today’s media sound bite environment.When was the last time it happened? It was John F. Kennedy, in 1960. Our recent history is littered with presidential wannabes from both parties trying to win the job from their Senate office. Bob Dole, John McCain and Phil Graham have vied for the Republican nomination and failed in the past two elections. The Democrats have trotted out Paul Simon, Bill Bradley and Ted Kennedy in the last decade or two, only to name a few. It also seems that being a former senator makes it equally difficult – Richard Nixon was the last one elected. Why is it so difficult for a current or former senator to win the presidency? One answer – voting record. I think it is fair to say that virtually every senator has had to vote for and against any issue on which votes have been held in the Senate. Sen. John Kerry’s now infamous, “I voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” line is the perfect illustration. Almost every Senate bill has various amendments proposed and/or attached that a senator will have to vote against, even though he or she supports the principal issue addressed in the bill. So is there a prediction here? I support President Bush for a variety of reasons and hope that he is re-elected. But there is a difference between hope and belief.I believe President Bush will be re-elected because he has a talented campaign team who undoubtedly already has identified votes by Sens. Kerry and John Edwards on both sides of various issues. Votes on issues that are important to swing voters in the 14 or 15 battleground states. The senators will then be hammered for waffling on key issues.Is it fair? Yes and no. The voting record is there to back it up, so it is the truth. But it is not necessarily the whole story. And this is politics.It is up to the senator to use his or her commercial time giving the entire story – basically playing defense. That is why a senator cannot be elected president.Ron Bristol Silverthorne History and the ‘Scale of Consciousness’Being an ex-history teacher and history buff (who else would read Will Durant’s 12 volume “Story of Civilization”), I read with interest the letters from your readers about their reactions to our President’s actions in Iraq, Iran and the Middle East. Last fall, by “happenstance,” I attended a lecture given by Dr. David Hawkins, a successful psychiatrist, who I believe is highly enlightened. He believes it’s all about higher consciousness or being enlightened. After his lecture and reading his three books: “Power vs. Force,” “The Eye of the I” and “I,” I look at the events unfolding in a new, excuse the expression, light. Memorable is Hawkins’ logarithmic “Scale of Consciousness” with Jesus and Buddha at 1,000 and Stalin (below Hitler) at 23. Below 200 is the area of negativity, of strife, and war. Is it any wonder that the whole Middle East calculates at 175? We all remember Newton’s Third Law of Physics (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). So invading Iraq just strengthens the Muslim radicals just as our invasion of Vietnam strengthened that opposition (Ho Chi Minh wanted to unite his country, hated the Chinese and was wary of the Russians). And war, being low on the “Scale of Consciousness” is dangerous because it sucks people into that lower mindset (ask any combat soldier or read about our interrogations in some prisons).Hawkins claims that Mohammed was at 744, way above the area of the ego (the 400s) and the area of love (above 500) when he wrote the Koran.But when he picked up his sword to conquer in the name of Allah, he dropped in consciousness to below 200. Hawkins also mentions in one of his three books that Jesus cautioned his disciples not to preach to a certain section of Judea because the people there wouldn’t be receptive. Maybe George Bush should have read the Bible more diligently and heeded the advice, because obviously those below 200 (Iraqis) can’t fathom the idea of love or democracy. Stuart “Boot” GordonSilverthorne
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User