Focus on Clinton
I truly believe your editorial "Paula and the President" (May 11) misses the main point by focusing on Mrs. Jones' motivation. If, and I stress the word if, the basic details of her story are correct, the real issue is President Clinton's action, regardless of Mrs. Jones' motives.
If Clarence Thomas was guilty of the behavior attributed to him, this was a valid consideration in his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
Should the presidency be held to a lesser standard? In fact an objective comparison of the two cases would indicate that the charges against President Clinton are far more serious.
Anita Hill essentially claimed verbal abuse, never even hinting that Judge Thomas inappropriately touched her, exposed himself or made bold physical advances.
Ms. Hill and Judge Thomas knew each other; and his actions, if accurately described, could be construed as an awkward and fumbling way of initiating an unsolicited advance.
President Clinton's alleged behavior was for quick sexual satisfaction in a manner that at a minimum treated a woman as strictly a sex object to be used; and at worst, verges on assault.
Additionally, nobody else has ever come forth to accuse Clarence Thomas of sexual indiscretions; the sheer number of accusations against President Clinton almost dictates that Mrs. Jones' charges be given a degree of credence.
You used the words "greed" and "dirty politics" in trying to impugn Paula Jones' story. Anita Hill has gone on to make huge profits from her notoriety, and no reasonable person would imply that her timing was not initiated by politics.
No, the motives of Anita Hill and Paula Corbin Jones are not the issue; the character of our elected and appointed officials is what requires our focus.
It is beyond my comprehension to say, as was done in 1992, that the moral character of the president is not an issue. Mr. Clinton's behavior, as seen in multiple charges, demands the scrutiny of ++ the press and, if warranted, the justice system.
Vincent J. Cucuzzella
It's hard to pin Bill Brock down when it comes to the length of time he has resided in Maryland, but John O'Donnell's April 23 article helped clear up the confusion.
Now we know that it's a multiple choice question where all answers are correct: 20 years (visited Maryland); eight years (bought property in Maryland); six years (voted in general election); three years (got Maryland driver's license) . . .
That surely must end the confusion for most voters. As Mr. Brock is uncomfortable with being called a carpetbagger, maybe the charge should be set aside for more interesting things that we will undoubtedly be learning about the man.
Still I find it curious that he and his wife took four years to "transition" to Maryland. Most people rent a truck, call a few friends and move over the weekend. Most people also get a Maryland drivers license 30 days after moving here, as required by law, and start to pay Maryland state taxes from day one.
But those things are for the common folk like you and me, and sometimes those Washington elitists exempt themselves from the bothersome laws that you and I must obey.
As I read the postmortems of the Nixon legacy, one thing becomes perfectly clear: Richard M. Nixon continues to divide this country in death, just as he did in life.
Some observers concentrate on Nixon's accomplishments, such as opening relations with China, founding the Environmental Protection Agency, and pursuing Mideast peace.
But in my view they are missing the point. Any successes Nixon achieved are greatly overshadowed by his "us vs. them" mentality -- "us" being the Nixon White House and what he considered to be patriotic Americans, and "them" being Democrats, activists, and citizens rebelling against the Vietnam war, which included most of the country's youth.
His distrust of so many Americans, demonstrated by his enemies list, FBI and CIA surveillance of citizens, and the sordid Watergate episode, caused irreparable harm to our country -- it destroyed the element of faith between its citizens and fTC America's government and institutions.
Even now, 20 years after Nixon's resignation and just a short while after he is buried, the commentary over Nixon's legacy unveils evidence of a still-divided nation: folks either loved him or hated him.
Used only a few times in summer, the gasoline-powered lawn mower has nevertheless been named as the latest polluter.
But buses and trucks, which are used daily, are much worse.
Gun Control Myths
. . . What is confounding to me are the half truths and innuendoes surrounding the whole gun control issue expounded our politicians.
This seems to be a massive cover-up because of past faux pas of the politicians' inability to control crime and education in our cities and to make the legitimate gun enthusiast the "cannon fodder" for their ineffectiveness. . .