Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

To have fair elections, we need campaign finance reform

Re: In governor's cash race, big GOP lead, Oct. 7.

Someone explain to me how we have fair elections when one party is already out-fundraising the other party in the race for governor by 4 to 1. Where is that money coming from? Special interests and wealthy donors. That money is used to influence the public to vote for the politicians who accept this money. Who do those politicians then represent? Special interests and wealthy donors.

Basically our elections are bought. He who raises the most money, gets the most air time, gets the most votes. The public should tune out every single television commercial or any other marketing device and only listen to debates.

We should have publicly financed campaigns to level the playing field. We pay for the campaigns anyway in roundabout ways. There are matching funds, and money spent by corporations on lobbying and campaign donations is really passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. We actually pay for it all and get no representation.

It is obscene the amount of money spent on political campaigns when it is so desperately needed elsewhere. Is that how we want to spend our money? We will not have fair elections until we have real campaign finance reform.

Money mars election process

The indictment of Tom DeLay on money laundering brings out some important facts for all of us to think about. I won't question his guilt or innocence, but I do question what big money can buy. Almost $200,000 made the difference in what party controlled the Texas state House. The majority then changed the makeup of congressional districts which indirectly altered the majority in the Congress. Imagine what $200-million does in our national elections.

Unless we take money out of the election process we might as well turn this wonderful country of ours over to the big money boys. It might already be there now.

More like a thug than a leader

Re: Giving the Hammer his due, Oct. 3.

I always considered Dick Gephardt a wimp, and this article confirms it. Evidently, he was "impressed" by the way Tom DeLay disciplined House Republicans by taking no prisoners, cutting off dollars to dissenters, and putting people on - or taking them off - House committees, and bluntly informing corporations that contributions to Democrats would hurt their cause in GOP councils. In other words give your money to us, not them, and we will take care of you. Which of course, is exactly what this administration has done since George W. Bush took office.

These are the actions not of a leader but a ruthless thug, and for Gephardt to be impressed by DeLay rather than appalled makes his disappearance no loss to the Democratic Party.

The article concludes by saying that without DeLay's "keen strategic sense," George Bush would never have become president, the implication being that DeLay deserves our thanks for putting him there. Considering that Bush has presided over the most disastrous five years in this nation's history, with three more years of the same yet to come, I would think that if DeLay deserves anything it would be blame and not thanks.

Also justice, of course, but given the partisan atmosphere in Washington with DeLay's cohorts in control, I would not count on him getting it.

Be clear on Iraq war and war on terror

In spite of numerous letters pointing out the difference, your paper insists on conflating the war on terror with the war in Iraq. On Page 2A of the Oct. 7 edition you have an article titled Report cites steady rise in cost of war on terror. But the article is about a Congressional Research Service study on the costs of the Iraq war.

On Page 3, you have an AP article about President Bush's speech on Oct. 6. It starts with his statement that the United States has foiled 10 planned al-Qaida attacks. But then the article goes on later to say that American support for "the war" has declined, even though this statistic concerns questions about the Iraq war.

President Bush has pointed out that al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center before the war in Iraq and, therefore, the war can't be cited as the cause of terrorism. He did not point out that it is equally true that al-Qaida was not in Iraq before the United States attacked it and, therefore, terrorism can't be used to explain invading Iraq.

It may suit the president's political needs to meld the two issues; it does not suit your readers' needs for you to do so.

Nobel recognition

Re: Peace's "unafraid advocate," editorial, Oct. 8.

It is good to see that the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency is given the recognition it deserves through the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mohamed ElBaradei.

Having worked alongside the IAEA safeguards inspectors at Nyongbyon in North Korea for a number of years (1996-2001), I know of the dedication of the agency's staff. These men and women from all parts of the world toil, sometimes under less than hospitable conditions, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It would behoove all Americans to support their work.

Will we now heed the truth?

Having determined the correct intelligence and being fortified by courage, Mohamed ElBaradei told the United States and the world that Iraq had no viable nuclear weapons program.

Armed with ignorance and fortified with lies, the Bush administration undermined ElBaradei's efforts, vilified his name and took us into an unjustified and tragic war.

Now the Norwegian Nobel Committee has honored ElBaradei with the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his good works and for daring to take unwanted truth to power.

One may only hope now that enough Americans will admit the truth that we have verified on the ground in Iraq and summon courage like Mohamed ElBaradei's to command our government to stop this treacherous war now.

Not much of a secret

Re: SOCom to open site in Pinellas, Oct. 8.

Am I missing something? The SOCom (Special Operations Command) operation is of a "secret nature" and is classified. So why does this administration allow the news to be trumpeted across the pages of a public newspaper in banner headlines?

Any self-respecting spy will be angling to get the cleaning contract or the air conditioning service contract for that place. James Bond had the wit to work out of a dummy office through which one had to pass to get to the real stuff. Our smart spies announce their operation in the paper. How about a neon sign with a flashing, pointing finger: "Secret Operation SOCom here"?

[Last modified October 12, 2005, 00:19:18]