Editor: As a senior citizen who is Republican, I voted against George Bush in 1988, because I questioned his decision to add Dan Quayle to the ticket.
It has proved detrimental not only to Mr. Bush but also to Mr. Quayle, whose future in politics has been jeopardized.
He could have become a fine addition to the Republican Party, had he been allowed to develop at his own pace.
Nancy F. Hitchcock.
Editor: Your editorial, ''Quayle Unqualified,'' contends that the vice president of the United States is unqualified because he hasn't demonstrated that he is qualified.
What is it that he should have done as vice president to satisfy the liberal news media, of which you are a part?
Did he not serve honorably in the House of Representatives and later the U.S. Senate?
Does he not meet the qualifications delineated in our Constitution?
Has he been dishonest in his private or public life?
Has he not been praised by liberals, such as Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill? Surprisingly, they have lauded him.
What should Dan Quayle have been doing the past several years to demonstrate his qualifications?
Do you think he should have disagreed with President Bush on certain issues, or is it that he has not been sufficiently supportive of the president? Should he have been seeking the limelight and upstaging Mr. Bush, instead of staying out of the spotlight?
Neither your editorials nor KAL's tasteless cartoons are likely to convince Mr. Bush to drop his vice president in the coming election.
Whatever your motives, I am reminded of how so many people felt about Vice President Harry Truman. I, too, felt uneasy about the ex-senator on the death of FDR. We were very wrong.
Editor: Your coverage of Operation Desert Storm was marvelous, but your coverage of the other war, the war against drugs in our society, leaves much to be desired.
Prior to the gulf war, it was most common to find drug-related articles on the front page of most of your papers. Now it seems as though this issue has been relegated to the lesser pages of your publication.
Does this indicate that you are no longer concerned with this topic?
The anti-drug war is still claiming lives each and every day. It is your responsibility as a newspaper to constantly insure that the public is aware of this very dangerous enemy of our society.
Courtney Anne Kahl.
Editor: Regarding your editorial about the City Council's ''typical election-year jockeying'' over a ''hastily concocted recycling incentive surcharge,'' it was interesting to note that two Sun letter writers, Susan M. Battle and Kathy Schuetz, demonstrated a better understanding of recycling than the majority of council members.
Stated in the simplest possible terms, recycling must be regarded as a means of cost avoidance, not a handy-dandy revenue source.
Look at the facts: As Maryland's first post-consumer plastics recycler, we will survive only if the resins we supply to manufacturers are competitive with virgin materials.
On the quality side we have no problem. We can produce recycled polymers that are 99.995 percent pure.
Not only must we provide a product that is virtually equal to virgin plastic, but one that costs less as well. This is not going to be possible if the price of collection is forced up artificially because legislators look upon the public's growing enthusiasm for recycling as an excuse to write themselves blank checks to offset outlays that could be reduced or avoided if they delved beyond the obvious and examined their true costs.
The same applies to other elements of the recycling industry. Keep forcing the price of collection up through ill-conceived levies and there won't be anybody left to take the stuff.
Peter F. Osterchrist.
Towson. 6The writer is chairman of Polymer Resource Group Inc.
Deep Cuts in Education
Editor: I was outraged to learn at a recent school meeting that politicians and councilmen are planning to cut education further, in the form of trimming the ''G.T.,'' gifted and talented program in the Baltimore County school system.
How could anyone even consider such a thing? It is common knowledge, and every newspaper, talk show and newscast will affirm, that our country is falling by the wayside as other countries pass us by with math, science and technological abilities.
Our future is looking dimmer and dimmer because we are having difficulty in competing with other countries, especially Japan. This program is especially designed to encourage those abilities needed to compete.
These students are willing and eager to do the extra work. Their parents are the good, solid citizens who foot the bill for everything else in this country, no matter how foolish or unnecessary.
Are we willing to become a country filled with average and below-average mentalities, just because someone can't manage a budget? With all the resources available, I can't help but believe that there are some pretty incapable or greedy people managing our money.
How could anyone even consider cutting something so important as our country's future by not allowing an opportunity for extremely talented students to learn to their full potential?
This is an outrage and I am deeply concerned about the future of our country.
Shawnee E. Twardzik.