Listen to Dan Schorr's commentary

 

We heard from many listeners today about Daniel Schorr's commentary -- like many Americans, he's getting a little exhausted from this crazy season of primaries and caucuses. Here's what he had to say on today's show...

I think I may not be alone in thinking that our chaotic nominating process is desperately in need of reform. Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver, of Missouri, a superdelegate, says "we have a process that appears to be about as stupid as human beings could put in place." The trouble is that with state parties vying for their places in the primary line, the chaotic system embodies huge benefits for some. Small states can become big power brokers and television stations can ring up millions in ad sales to candidates.

The media, especially round-the-clock cable television, can fill their news budgets for week after week with news from the latest primary contest. And candidates forced to rely on campaign donations end up being obliged to lobbyists. The system is exhausting to candidates, exhausting to campaign staffers and lets face it, exhausting to the public forced to figure out whether 9.4 percent is a double-digit win or just a win. We are obliged to spend time on divining how super-delegates will vote and when.

Speaking of when, when do we know who the Democratic candidate is going to be? On June 3, the day the primaries end? Not until the Denver convention in August? Just give me a date so I can get on with the rest of my life. And I haven't even mentioned Michigan and Florida. Do they get their votes counted at the convention, or do they get punished for holding their primaries too early.

There is only one solution. A single national primary. Iowa and New Hampshire won't like it. The TV ad salesman won't like it. But it will put some sanity into our electoral system.
This is Daniel Schorr.

Well this last idea certainly struck a chord with our listeners... Robert Adams from Madison, Wisconsin wrote that "Dan Schorr's comment on the primaries should be repeated every hour on the hour for a week!"

From Newport, Virginia, Jennings Heilig's subject line was "AMEN, brother Daniel!" And continues:

I just stood up and cheered the radio when I heard Daniel Schorr say what I've been saying for years: its time to have one single national primary election day. Get it over and done with and lets move on with getting a president elected. The incessant bickering and mud slinging are tedious and irritating in the extreme, and do no good for anyone except either those whose egos demand they be "first", or those who stand to profit by dragging out the process (television networks).

Three cheers (once again) for Dan Schorr!

This is from Richard Ellis, Siloam Springs, Arkansas: :

I was online this morning when I heard Daniel Schorr's comments about our bad primary system and I just had to click over to NPR.ORG to voice my support for the idea of a single primary. This is such an obviously good idea -- good for the American public, but bad for all those who influence the process and profit by the current bad system. Maybe it takes a disastrous occurrence like this years process for our leaders to do the obvious.

But a couple of brickbats arrived, this from Stuart Showalter of Orlando, Florida:

I respectfully disagree with Dan Schorr's commentary on alternatives to the presidential primary process. He concluded that there is only one alternative to the current insane system: a national primary election.

I would like to point out that for 150 years or more the candidates were chosen by party leaders in "smoke filled rooms." Yes, they came up with some Millard Fillmores and Warren G. Hardings, but they also nominated Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. On the whole, Id say the candidates chosen the "old way" weren't any worse than the ones we have seen recently, and the process was a lot less annoying!

And there was this form Sam Callan of Colorado Springs, Colorado:

Perhaps someone needs to remind Mr. Schorr that the federal government has NO constitutional role in selecting a party's candidate for president. I am sure he knows, but fails to mention, that the Democrats designed the current system (that no one complained about from 1972 until now) they deserve to reap what they have sowed.

It seems to me that the superdelegates were established because the elites of the party did not trust the individual voters to make up their own minds.(something typical of the Democratic Party, IMHO).

As for having a national primary, that is not a bad idea as long as the parties do it the US constitution does not say anything about it.

However, be careful what you ask for. All too often "fixes" come with their own sets of problems and in a few elections people start to lament the process as unworkable.

--Ned Wharton

11:04 - April 27, 2008

What is this?

Share