Democrats, not Schaefer, are to blameTo all the...

the Forum

November 12, 1992

Democrats, not Schaefer, are to blame

To all the banner-waving Democrats who are condemning Maryland's governor, I would not be too pleased with myself if I were you. You drove the governor to cross the sacred line. The governor was seeking help for his state and did not care where or from whom it came.

The state legislature since 1985 -- and particularly since 1988 -- has watched revenue sharing end, watched state revenues decline and watched the rainy day fund be depleted along with the treasury.

Having watched and done nothing, having been warned and done nothing, it now condemns the man because he took matters into his own hands.

You made him cross the sacred line, and in the long run the people of this state are going to be hit with new taxes and budget cuts.

Now you blame the governor for the let down. You have nothing to be proud of and almost nothing planned short of putting both hands in the pockets of the people and pulling out all your hands will hold.

The bad economy put Bill Clinton in the White House, not the Democratic Party. None of you have made an honest move in the areas of education, manufacturing, medical care or helping the poor.

You only talk a good game. Let us see if you can right the wrongs of recent years.

Let us see if you can move the state without putting large holes in all our pockets and pocketbooks. Let us see if you understand why the majority have been voting the other way. Let us see if you can work for the good of the state and not for the good of yourselves.

I am a Democrat. But at the moment I am not proud of my registration. I could never hold office because my convictions do not bend.

I believe the legislature owes the governor absolution because he had the courage to cross the sacred line and seek help for his state.

John W. Blake

Baltimore

What did him in

Speculation abounds about the cause or causes of President Bush's defeat.

Even before the Middle East war, as the economy was going into a tailspin, Mr. Bush was informing all within earshot that better days were just over the horizon.

He failed to understand the unbearable agony of average citizens who had lost their jobs and homes and even their loved ones as the horrendous strains of joblessness and its aftermath took its inevitable toll.

He appeared oblivious to the mournful cries of those, his former loyal constituency, who were devastated by Mr. Bush's apparent lack of sympathy to their plight.

Following the Iraqi war, Mr. Bush seemed even more unconcerned, more alienated from those who had assisted him to the White House.

He seemed to be wedded to the opinion that if he ignored the problems at home sufficiently long, they would go away.

As he increasingly turned a deaf ear to millions of unfortunate citizens, he became "all ears" to the forces of the extreme right as he chose to dance to their discordant tune.

Citizens began to believe (justifiably) that Mr. Bush not only chose to ignore them but cared little about their future, their survival.

Even as his ratings in the polls substantially decreased, he appeared mesmerized by his spectacular ratings following the Iraqi war, from which he never seemed to recover

Mr. Bush's lack of recovery and his callousness and insensitivity toward those who had supported him, and his failure to detach himself from the Pat Robertsons and Pat Buchanans finally did him in.

Leon Peace Ried

Baltimore

Clinton, the liberal media darling

The liberal media can justifiably feel a glow of satisfaction that their unremitting efforts -- overt and covert -- to win this election for the Democrats paid off.

The only catch is that they had to do it with Bill Clinton. The long shadow of character flaws that follows him will never go away, however tolerant the electorate may have been on Election Day.

This may not have been the case if the liberal media had done their job by thoroughly investigating, reporting to the people in detail, accommodating public discussion on and thus laying to rest all the questionable activities Bill Clinton engaged in: drug use, marital infidelities, using his high office to abuse state-job allocations, the whole draft-dodging scenario, Rhodes Scholar exploitation, aggressive anti-war activism, trips to communist countries, seeking union support while luring industries to Arkansas with non-union bait, etc., etc.

Instead, these matters were lightly glanced on and swept under the rug. How different the journalistic response for Gary Hart, John Tower, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and even Ted Kennedy.

As they stand now, these issues will be resurrected again and again -- domestically and internationally -- in serious criticism and flippant jest. Serious presidential biographers are unlikely to conceal Mr. Clinton's many warts.

How will foreign nations interpret the character of an American president who had to be shielded by a biased liberal media from exposure of the truth?

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.