Gore's backing of Howard Dean is good strategy

Re: Gore's dubious help, editorial, Dec. 10.

To begin with, one may see nothing dubious - i.e., causing doubt - in Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean. Gore received a plurality of 500,000 votes over Bush in the 2000 presidential election. This alone is substantial reason for Dean to be pleased with this endorsement. One could also think that, today, Gore is not representative of the Democratic Party establishment, and this is another reason for Dean to be pleased with this endorsement.

This editorial touched on most of the political pundits' (or more accurately, spin masters') take on this endorsement. Whether one likes Hillary Clinton or not, one certainly has to agree with her that "it is not the pundits or the polls, but people who elect presidents."

The bottom line is: Howard Dean is his own person, and unlike President Bush, who is surrounded by political advisers carried over from his father's administration, he will be a leader and not a follower when it comes to decisions that affect most Americans today.

Why save the best for last?

Re: Gasps greet Gore endorsement, by Adam C. Smith, Dec. 10.

I am a staunch supporter of Howard Dean to be the next president, and of course I was beaming when Gore endorsed him. I am also a native of Pinellas County and have lived in the Tampa Bay area all my life and consider myself a loyal reader of the St. Petersburg Times.

In your article about Florida Democrats' response to Gore's endorsement, you had to get through about six either negative or cool to lukewarm responses from people before you got to a single solidly positive quote, that being from Pinellas Dean supporter Tom Lally, which was at the very end of the article. I am highly disappointed that the Times put Mr. Lally's quote at the very end of the article. I would at least expect a Dean supporter to be mentioned second, if not first, and definitely not last.

I will remain loyal to the Times, but I am disappointed in the way this story was laid out.

Oh, and thank you, Mr. Vice President, and welcome to the Dean for America campaign!

Don't knock Dean for being popular

Re: Gasps greet Gore endorsement.

First, my condolences to anyone who feels "kicked in the stomach" by the Gore endorsement. Sorry, y'all. I gotta go with the man willing to reach out to Southern white males like me. That's Howard Dean. Even disagreeing with him on the war, I still like Dean.

Florida is the fourth-most populous state in the country. We deserve the respect that goes along with those 27 electoral votes. Dean has put forth the effort to build a grass-roots campaign here unmatched by any of his rivals. I gotta acknowledge and respect that. Our leaders and activists need to examine their feelings in the light of Dean's popular support, his ability to organize and his commitment.

Of course, you can count on the Democratic Party to be its own most dangerous opponent. You don't see Republicans attacking their own people out of pique. Just attribute any criticism of Gore to sour grapes and jealousy. His endorsement of Dean is a plum that any Democratic candidate would envy.

Dean looks like the sure and certain winner of the nomination. That could change. He has not undergone the "media scrutiny" that sometimes undoes a campaign. Hopefully, he is ready. If so, he is our candidate. In the meantime, it is pointless to hope for the Democratic Party to demonstrate unity of purpose and rally behind the front-runner. That isn't how we operate. I hope, nevertheless.

Democrats need to be on their own side

Re: Gasps greet Gore endorsement.

Here we go again - Democrats squabbling among themselves for an indefensible reason! Al Gore, whose judgment most of us respected enough to vote for him for president of the United States, has made a suggestion - repeat, suggestion - for the benefit of the party - a thought-provoking, thoroughly practical solution - only to be met with self-serving criticism.

Democrats, cease destroying ourselves from within - and develop the self-discipline needed for a must-win election in November 2004.

Now is the time to speak out

Re: Gore's dubious help, editorial, Dec. 10.

What is the problem with Al Gore endorsing Howard Dean? It is obvious that many are simply trying to dampen the strength of this endorsement. Further, it is obvious that many, including this publication, are totally out of touch with the realities in neo-con-ruled America and the American people's disgust with their tactics.

Dean's success in capturing the imagination of millions and his grass-roots efforts are worthy of praise, not scorn. Most of the money raised by Dean has come from small donations from private citizens, as opposed to the millions raised by Bush through big-time donors and special interests. If anything, Gore's endorsement of Dean should be seen as a sign that good does indeed win over evil.

After the dirty 2000 campaign, I am sure Gore has had plenty of time to observe the direction the Republican-led White House has been taking our country in. He is not alone. I, for one, was completely uninvolved in the political process until the 2000 debacle. I was made painfully aware that unless the citizens speak out, unless they demand transparency from our institutions and uphold those responsible for the deterioration of democracy accountable, our country will only keep its downward spiral into a "corporatocracy."

Dean's war stance is a liability

Re: Dean's war stance won Gore's support, Dec. 10.

Mr. Gore endorses Mr. Dean because of the latter's stance on the war. With such news, it becomes harder, daily, to suppress thoughts of conspiracy. What could party insiders possibly be thinking, otherwise?

Stranger things have happened, of course, but a 2004 election of Mr. Dean ranks in probability with meteor collisions. In my opinion, Mr. Dean could only have a chance if he moved to the center - in particular, by repudiating his opposition to the war.

In passing the torch, Mr. Gore called the war America's worst foreign policy initiative, while credible liberal pundits, notably Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, have called it the best. It is neither. But it is exigent, and regrettably it may be imperiled by domestic politics (alas, edging toward the Vietnam paradigm, in effect, though far removed in any other parallels).

What could the leaders of the Democratic Party be thinking besides the vital importance of nominating a candidate who says, "Thanks, Mr. Bush, but I can finish the job - better"? And who also says, "I can also restrain the federal budget several times better" - as Mr. Clinton, in fact, did.

Al's endorsement a kiss of death

Re: Gore's dubious help.

Getting an endorsement from Al Gore is like getting kissed by Michael Corleone. The rest of the candidates should be happy that they weren't endorsed by him.

Gore showed the stuff he's made of when he snubbed his former running mate and loyal friend, Joe Lieberman. It was typical of Gore to watch the polls and jump on the bandwagon of the front-runner, and forget about loyalty and fairness to the other candidates. By endorsing Dean and sidestepping the Democratic primaries, he hopes to be a kingmaker. If Joe Lieberman or any of the other candidates get the nomination over Dean, I hope they remember shallow Al.

Let the record show justices' leanings

After a long break from the St. Petersburg Times, I started reading it again. What's with all the doom and gloom, if not mindless Bush-bashing?

I wonder if the Bush whackers realize their hypocrisy, illustrated recently in a photo of the Supreme Court justices. Under the pic, the president who appointed each court member is named. Those appointed by a Democrat are utterly liberal (Breyer, Ginsberg); but those appointed by Republicans are a mix of conservative (Scalia, Renquist, Thomas), moderate (Souter, Kennedy), and liberal (O'Connor, Stevens).

The hypocrisy of Democrats is evidenced by the Senate's refusal to consider any Bush nominee who does not fit the profile of a liberal. The record speaks for itself.

Suspension of rights has precedent

Re: Selective civil liberties, editorial, Dec. 6.

The thrust of your editorial seems to be that even in times of war, American citizens should be afforded the rights of habeas corpus. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in her recent book, The Majesty of the Law, has a chapter on this subject. She relates how, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended these rights despite the objections of the chief Supreme Court justice at that time. At the end of the war, some 38,000 people from both the North and South were being held without any reference to lawyers or courts.

There can be no doubt that we are involved in a war, and one where a few terrorists can and indeed already have inflicted tremendous damage. There are a few who worry about the Patriot Act and the potential loss of civil rights. This is because they do not accept the fact that we are engaged in a real war.

To suggest that a citizen suspected of being involved in a plot to use a dirty bomb is an ordinary criminal and should be afforded any civil rights is absurd. For a suspect to be allowed to communicate with accomplices through a lawyer or for ideologues to insist that the government be required to present the same degree of proof as in a normal criminal case makes no sense. I am sure that most Americans want the government to err on the side of caution. Only the foolhardy would risk another 9/11.

I write this final paragraph on Sunday evening, Dec. 7, after watching Tora Tora Tora, the story of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Is it not strange? No one then thought there was an imminent threat.

Children died because they were there

Re: U.N. official: Why die 9 children die?, Dec. 8.

During the 1940s, when Germany bombed London, thousands of women and children died. I know; I was there. When we retaliated, thousands of children died in Germany. My wife was there.

When we bombed Hiroshima, thousands of women and children died. Now when we bomb Afghanistan, you look and print accusations against the U.S. military. Are you starting another "Vietnam" hate campaign against the U.S. military?

How many women and children died when the Twin Towers were destroyed?

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact the Times | Privacy Policy Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright