‘Revisionist history’ on Electoral College?

To the editor:

Letter writer Donald R. Davis accused you of "revisionist history" Tuesday because a Review-Journal editorial asserted that the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College "to assure small states that the country's major population centers wouldn't be able to swing every election."

Rather than accept your supposed "revisionist history," he proposes one of his own. Namely, that there were no major population centers in the 1700s, and, in any event, that the Founding Fathers were concerned with the speed of a horse in presidential elections. Perhaps New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore do not exist in Mr. Davis' 18th century.

Mr. Davis and most left-leaning theoreticians ignore the fact that the Founders abhorred democracy and created a republic to protect our country from the mischief of an uninformed electorate. This was suggested in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 68. John Adams' view of a democracy is clear: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Our Founding Fathers established a republic.

If Mr. Davis wants to abolish the Electoral College, his remedy is simple. Amend the Constitution to provide for a direct popular vote of the president. (This approach was specifically thrown out by the Constitutional Convention. Of course, Mr. Davis would assert that this occurred because of their concern with a horse's speed.) Mr. Davis and those who think like him know this can't be done because the small states would not permit such an amendment. Yet he denies the Electoral College was designed to protect small states. His logic appears confused.

And he thinks this newspaper is revising history.

Frank Skiba

LAS VEGAS

Iraq mess

To the editor:

It was during the 1991 Gulf War that Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf uttered his memorable assessment of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein: "He is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that he's a great military man."

Funny how a decade and a half later, that same logic is applicable to George W. Bush. Not to mention Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and, by association, Karl Rove and all their delusional conservative hangers-on.

Since we initiated our expedition to Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration and its conservative Republican supporters in Congress have declared that one day we will achieve "victory" in Iraq -- claims that Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick regurgitated in his April 1 column. However, the American people still have yet to learn exactly what "victory" will comprise. What does it mean? How will we know when we have won? Will we sign a peace treaty with ... well, whomever it is we're fighting over there? Ultimately, what is it will we have won when the guns fall silent -- if ever?

Common sense dictates that military victory is impossible without a clear mission and an objective rooted in reality. Consider that the pretexts for war in Iraq included claims that: (a) Iraq had vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; (b) Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaida; (c) Iraq was pursuing yellow-cake uranium from Niger, ostensibly to develop nuclear weapons; and (d) Iraq failed to abide by U.N. Resolution 1441, which imposed new, strict arms inspections on Iraq. Of course, time has proved all of these claims to be false.

Subsequently, President Bush and Co. reversed field and ambiguously claimed the war is about bringing "freedom" to Iraq. And in the midst of their delusions about "success" and their denial that what is left of Iraq is embroiled in a civil war, the administration and its shrinking list of supporters still has not explained to the American people what "victory" in Iraq will entail. And Mr. Frederick continues to buy into it.

Fortunately, the American people are smarter than that. The results of last November's election showed that minus an objective and a definition of what our "mission" is in Iraq, we need to end this tragic charade. And if that "great military man" George W. Bush, his administration and the right-wing minority on Capitol Hill cannot articulate what truly constitutes "victory" in Iraq, well, best of luck to them at the polls in 2008.

Thomas E. Bradley Jr.

HENDERSON

Bad teachers

To the editor:

I was agreeing with Rodney M. Jean's Tuesday letter on educational problems -- until I got to the line where he faulted "teachers who oppose reforms which would weed out incompetence."

Weeding out incompetent teachers is an administrative responsibility. Teachers normally go through a trial period, and then are awarded tenure, which protects them from undue pressure from administrators or parents.

The reality here in Clark County -- which has a shortage of 500 teachers thanks to the poor salaries being paid -- is if you remove incompetent teachers, you won't be able to find competent teachers to replace them.

Richard J. Mundy

LAS VEGAS