DTCLooking for Miss Dittohead?I can't believe that a...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

January 29, 1995

DTC

Looking for Miss Dittohead?

I can't believe that a liberal woman would actually leave her husband if he listened to Rush Limbaugh or exhibited other conservative tendencies, but your letter writer of Jan. 1 ("Angry White Males and Their Spouses") says she will. Gee, I'd better call my daughter in college and assure her that if her professors turn her into a liberal, I won't disown her. I've also assured my wife that if she voted for a Democrat, I won't leave her for a 22-year-old dittohead.

. . . Let's face it, good people of all political persuasions -- liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat -- want to do everything possible to uplift the poor, keep children from going hungry and create jobs. We only differ in our ideas of how all of that should be accomplished.

We have seen billions of our hard-earned tax dollars go down the drain on Great Society-type programs that have high-sounding names and promises, but have either accomplished nothing or made things worse. . . . Has American education improved since we spent billions on the Department of Education? Has the War on Poverty eliminated the poor, or even made a dent? . . .

Does either side have all of the answers? The answer to all of these questions is no, but there sure has to be a better way than getting Big Brother directly involved in solving local and personal problems.

llan C. Stover

Ellicott City

Reagan vs. Clinton

I am responding to Stanley Rodbell's Jan. 8 letter ("Clinton's Values") in which Mr. Rodbell provides scatological characterizations of for mer President Reagan.

First of all, Reagan is criticized for his lack of concern for homosexual soldiers, which are described as loyal and productive. All soldiers are loyal and productive or they won't remain soldiers that long. And where is President Clinton's concern for children who have been molested by homosexual soldiers? . . .

Second, Reagan is criticized for not meeting with black leaders, visiting Bitburg cemetery in Germany, and increasing the federal deficit. The truth is that Reagan met with many black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, and appointed many blacks to his administration. Reagan visited a cemetery that happened to have Nazi SS soldiers buried there but he placed a wreath on the graves of soldiers that were not Nazis, showing a concern for all soldiers, not just those who happened to die in American uniforms. Plus, I doubt that there is any cemetery in Germany that does not have SS soldiers, or, for the sake of argument, there probably isn't a cemetery in the world that doesn't have murderers, rapists or thieves. Is a U.S. president supposed to avoid visiting all cemeteries? In addition, the increase in the federal deficit . . . was not caused by Reagan but by increased spending by the Democratic Congress.

Third, Reagan did not shred the welfare safety net but welfare spending increased during his term more than any other president including Clinton. Also, Reagan knew that government job training and health care (which Clinton has yet to give us after two years) would not help families -- only jobs will.

Fourth, Reagan did not deal with terrorists. He dealt with what he thought were moderate Iranians who had access to the

terrorists that were holding American civilians hostage. He was wrong about the moderates but he was human and we all make mistakes.

Fifth, Reagan did his job in directing the military to aid national interests abroad which unfortunately led to tragedy in Lebanon. Clinton lacks any direction in his foreign policy which has caused the loss of American troops in Somalia and Haiti, although Mr. Rodbell denies this.

Sixth, Reagan did not parade as a Christian but was committed in his beliefs. He did not look away when murderous thugs (which were not his friends) killed priests and nuns in El Salvador. In fact, communist as well as government thugs were responsible for the murders in El Salvador and the priests and nuns would not have been killed if they did not assist the communists who are the enemies of Christianity.

Under Reagan, inflation was brought under control and more jobs were created than under Clinton. Reagan did not control the deficit because of Congress' runaway spending and the only reason the deficit is down under Clinton is because of low interest rates. Since interest rates are rising, Clinton will have to either cut spending or raise taxes (again). Contrary to what Mr. Rodbell says, Ronald Reagan had very endearing values and the public accepted him not because they were gullible but because he was right. I wish for the sake of our country that the same could be said about William Clinton.

Patrick K. Harris

Elkridge

'Spotted WHAT Lane?'

I was amused by Victor Alvarez's article on Columbia street names in The Sun for Howard County on Jan. 10.

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.