Congress wants veto over who should serve in the Oval...

Letters to the Editor

October 15, 1998

Congress wants veto over who should serve in the Oval Office

The Republican Congress is using impeachment as a political weapon to overturn the 1996 presidential election and energize Republicans for the November elections.

The Republican strategy is to get the facts out, in the most prejudicial form, in an attempt to erode the president's public support.

What we have seen is a "Pony Express" investigation. The Republicans release parts of the investigation intended to inflame the electorate, ride it until it's about to die and jump to the next allegation. This way they inflict maximum political damage to President Clinton's public support.

Now, Republicans have insisted on an open-ended investigation. The implication is that Congress will investigate Mr. Clinton until it can impeach him or bring his presidency to a standstill.

Mr. Clinton was legitimately elected by the American people. Congress does not have the power to veto who is in the Oval Office. Remember, it may be Mr. Clinton today, but in the future it could be the candidate whom others elect.

Richard L. Ottenheimer

Baltimore

Well-thought-out editorial should be read by GOP

Thank you for your well-thought-out and sensitive editorial "Panel forges ahead despite people's will (Oct. 6). One can only hope that it will be read by the four "vulture-like" politicians shown on the front page of The Sun.

That picture seems to say it all about the scheming, one-track focus of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Velva P. Grebe

Lutherville

You forget that the Kenneth Starr's probes of Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate have not been completed yet. It is incorrect to assert that no evidence has been found to support impeachment recommendations on these very suspicious activities.

Mr. Starr indicates in his report on the Lewinsky matter that the need to resolve that matter took precedence and that the other probes remain open.

A cynic like myself might interpret this to mean that he wanted to complete the Lewinsky-Jones matter before Mr. Clinton and his cronies had a chance to subvert the legal process by further witness intimidation, subornation of perjury and obstruction.

You call for an investigation of the Starr probe on three accounts: (1) Did Mr. Starr profit from enemies of Mr. Clinton through his law practice? (2) Did the Starr and Paula Jones lawyers collude? (3) What were the circumstances behind the taping the Clinton grand jury testimony, and was this taping part of a plot against Clinton?

Each of these questions deserves an answer. Unfortunately, ending the impeachment hearings prematurely would preclude the opportunity to answer these questions.

Marshall A. Levine

Stevenson

Governor has improved conditions for state workers

We are writing in response to the article "Sauerbrey, Glendening rally forces" (Oct. 6), concerning Ellen R. Sauerbrey's promise to state workers. We would like to assure her that the governor has addressed her concerns, and they are being corrected.

Plans are already in effect to have the orderly conversion of contractual employees to merit positions.

A pay study is being conducted, and a new pay plan will be introduced in the coming months.

Through the collective bargaining agreement, the state has shown a sincere effort to improve the working conditions of state employees while maintaining the quality of work that state employees provide to the citizens of Maryland.

We welcome Ms. Sauerbrey's new position on collective bargaining and would like to remind her that the employees have chosen, through a fair election process, who they want to represent them in workplace issues.

The governor has honored their wishes, and we would expect this to continue, regardless of who occupies the governor's office.

Joyce VanBlunk

Glen Burnie

Susan Rath

Pasadena

The writers are, respectively, chief steward and vice president at-large of the Maryland Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals.

Sun's anti-Glendening bias shows in stories, editorials

As a longtime Sun customer, I am shocked and disturbed by your apparent bias toward Ellen R. Sauerbrey and against Gov. Parris N. Glendening in your reporting and on your editorial page.

The Sun's recent reporting on the gubernatorial race in Maryland has been primarily about the politics of the split of Democratic politicians from Mr. Glendening and about the "new, moderate" Ms. Sauerbrey.

I haven't seen recently any reporting of the past positions and accomplishments of the two candidates. That type of reporting would give the electorate the information it needs to make informed voting decisions.

The Sun seems to have swallowed whole the Sauerbrey makeover without any reporting of the contradictions between her past positions and her present obfuscations. Reporting doesn't consist of repeating campaign propaganda and providing free advertising for a candidate as The Sun seems to be doing for Ms. Sauerbrey.

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.