Letters

From the January 1997 issue

Pro- and Anti-Choice

Your editorial "The Choice" (October) did a useful service in succinctly reminding us of the long-standing deficiencies of the Republican candidate for president. The choice this November is between two atrocious candidates. I, for one, shall not make it.

R.J. Richardson
Tolovana Park, OR

Hurrah, hurrah! Your editorial about Robert Dole was absolutely superb. All of the things I have been thinking and muttering about, you captured in lucid prose. And thanks for putting the tag on Perot.

William Garner Jr.
Austin, TX

"The Choice" is absolutely first-rate. It started by capturing what I was thinking but unable to articulate, and then considerably improved on it. An interesting light on Dole is that reporters talk about what a fine person he is, but some Senate staffers are pretty tepid, regarding him as uninterested in substance of any kind. One of them said to me, "When he looks in the mirror, there's no reflection."

James V. DeLong
Regulatory Policy Center
Washington, DC

Virginia Postrel criticizes Bob Dole's character and integrity, and much of the criticism is well-founded. She then advocates "sending a message," apparently by voting for Ross Perot or some other quixotic candidate. Postrel's entire thesis seems to rest on her stated assumption that the Republicans will retain both houses of Congress even if Dole "lose[s] badly"; given this, she concludes that "the country can endure a second Clinton term with minimal damage."

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the GOP will retain Congress if Dole "lose[s] badly." Even if they do, however, it is simply not true that another Clinton term will inflict only "minimal damage." First, four more years of President Bill Clinton means four more years of Robert Reich, Laura Tyson, Warren Christopher, Donna Shalala, Hillary Clinton, etc., exercising vast political power, most of it via unelected, virtually untouchable bureaucracies. This is not to mention judicial appointments, the vast majority of which would sail through even a Republican Congress, and nearly all of whom will be committed leftists who will, among other things, help the bureaucrats dig in their heels against any rollback of governmental excess.

Second, and even more frightening, if he wins this year Boy Clinton will, for the first time in his adult life, be unencumbered by the need for re-election. Thus, all of his recent Republican- sounding rhetoric will disappear as fast as the "middle class tax cut" he promised in 1992. The Reich/Shalala wing of the administration will be free to begin acting out its statist fantasies with little or no regard for the daily poll results.

No matter that Bob Dole is imperfect; at least he's not Bill Clinton, and his cabinet won't be filled with neo-socialists. That is all the reason I need to vote for him.

Frank C. Magill
Maryville, IL

I was amazed at your editorial trashing Bob Dole, and at the same time passing off Bill Clinton's lying and broken promises as "dissembling," a much softer term. You imply that Bob Dole also breaks promises. I don't think you can be a minority leader in the Senate for years and then a majority leader and break promises or tell lies to your peers.

You also assume the Republicans will hold on to Congress with a Clinton reelection. With the tremendous sums the unions have been spending to defeat Republicans, this is far from certain, and is more likely to be wrong.

I get the feeling that your journalistic background (about 85 percent of journalists are Democrats) plus your feminine emotional nature are influencing your editorial. In men, it's natural to be attracted to a pretty face and figure, and in women it's natural to be attracted to a highly successful man who has made money or become the U.S. president. How a man succeeded is dwarfed by the security he represents.

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.16.10 @ 7:53PM|#

nfhfg