Sauerbrey's positions prove she would not protect...

Letters to the Editor

October 04, 1998

Sauerbrey's positions prove she would not protect environment

A recent profile of Ellen R. Sauerbrey indicated that she is trying to project a more moderate image.

Yet on the environment, Ms. Sauerbrey is nearly as far right as one can go. It is difficult to believe any of her other positions have moderated.

Ms. Sauerbrey's Web site asks that we "trust" her to preserve the state's environmental resource. However, this statement is buried in the "environmental" section: "I will balance the state's environmental policies and objectives with private property rights," which is consistent with her position on the board of directors of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOFI), an ultra right-wing organization favoring private property rights and "reduced bureaucratic regulations."

FOFI, which frequently criticizes congressional Republicans for not being conservative enough, favors repealing or crippling the highly successful Endangered Species Act.

That's a nice, clear translation of Ms. Sauerbrey's supposedly moderate language.

Also, Ms. Sauerbrey favors completion of the Intercounty Connector, which would bulldoze green space and remaining wetlands in central Montgomery County, including watersheds for both Rock Creek and the Rocky Gorge Reservoir.

And she has recently been courted by wealthy developers in northern Virginia who hope that her pro-business, pro-development tendencies would make her an ally of the Western Bypass, an outer beltway promoting urban sprawl all the way to Point of Rocks and Harper's Ferry.

If this much distance lies between rhetoric and reality on one issue, how can we trust anything Ms. Sauerbrey says as she scrambles to get elected governor?

James Acker

Elkridge

Attacking gun owners doesn't solve problem

I don't belong to the National Rifle Association, and I don't own a gun. With seven grandchildren constantly coming and going, I believe there is a much greater risk of harm to them if I had a gun in the house.

But these stupid Glendening campaign ads attacking the NRA and Ellen R. Sauerbrey instead of going after the criminals who use guns really burns me up. Making sure that responsible, law-abiding citizens can't own guns while slapping the gun-toting criminal on the wrist only encourages lawbreakers and gives them an advantage.

There is a lot of similarity between Gov. Parris N. Glendening and President Clinton. They both use artful diversions to distract people's attention from the real issues.

Ron Parsons

Glen Burnie

Party showed Glendening how Clinton must have felt

It was amusing to read Michael Olesker's column "Glendening intrudes; Schaefer fumes" (Sept. 24).

How sad that Gov. Parris N. Glendening is not even welcome among the leadership of his own party. He had to stoop to crashing William Donald Schaefer's victory party, where he was clearly treated as an outcast.

Now he should know how President Clinton felt after being uninvited to a Glendening fund-raiser.

As the Democratic mayor of Baltimore and Mr. Glendening's successor in Prince George's County say, "It's a matter of trust."

Stuart Lacher

Lutherville

Accusers behaving worse than accused in scandal

Afghanistan has the Taliban. The United States has the GOP in Congress. Base behavior by a president hardly grants license for the leadership of a national political party to behave at an even lower moral level than the accused.

Some German students once wrote, "Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized people as allowing itself to be governed . . . by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct." The clique they wrote about, of course, was the Nazi party, but the insight those students expressed rings equally true today here in the United States.

The irresponsible and self-righteous clique that would govern us, and their slash and burn inquisitor, profane the ideals of our democracy by their unctuous and blatant behavior. God help us if they ever take over our nation's government.

Robert Carbone

Silver Spring

Sons of Confederate Vets foster understanding of war

Michael Olesker has unwisely chosen to compare the Sons of Confederate Veterans with the Ku Klux Klan. His statement that by rededicating a monument in Howard County the SCV favored "the enslavement of human beings" is incorrect and a slap in the face of SCV members.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans exists so that future generations can understand everything that influenced the Southern cause. They meet and discuss the reasons why so many young men went off to fight the bloody battle. Many of those young men fought for the same reasons young men and women go off to fight now, to maintain certain freedoms and land rights.

We may or may not agree with other reasons they may have chosen to fight, but who are we to deny the fact that they did what they thought was their obligation? Should we not remember and honor those who fought in Vietnam or Korea although we disagree with their reasons for going into that war?

Susan W. Chadwick

Shady Side

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.