A question for changing times

Over 50 years of voting, I’ve supported both political parties. In each election, one party generally lined up with my thinking more than the other, but my vote was never a slam-dunk for either.

George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis in 1988 tested me. I preferred Bush’s world view and that he seemed less dependent on “handlers” than Ronald Reagan, but on the campaign trail, Dukakis sounded more polished and astute. It didn’t help that Dukakis’ running mate Lloyd Bentsen smoked Bush’s VP selection Dan Quayle in the “You’re no Jack Kennedy” debate.

I voted for Bush anyway. My decision was determined less by Bush’s curious choice of Quayle for a running mate than by the people who would actually run the country if Bush died in office. Essentially, I voted for George H.W. Bush, Kansas Sen. Robert Dole and Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn.

How can that be? Dole and Nunn weren’t even on the ticket. Besides, Nunn was a Democrat.

Here’s how. It was 1988, not 2000, 2016 or 2024 when America received crash courses in Electoral College and Supreme Court function — or dysfunction.

If Dan Quayle assumed the presidency, he would have been a figurehead, like a king. Dole, Nunn and a few others would have done the heavy governmental lifting. That’s what elected officials from both political parties once did. Spite was largely neutralized by a mutual desire to accomplish great things.

Will the same be true if JD Vance replaces Donald Trump before 2028?

Jim Newton

Itasca