Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Focus on Harris' negative baggage, not her fashion frivolity

By Letter to the Editor
Published May 19, 2006

Re: Not her strong suit, May 16.

For a newspaper that obviously doesn't want to see Katherine Harris become a U.S. senator, you sure give her a lot of free press coverage. The article about her packing heat was bad enough. Now you focus on the way she dresses.

Why don't you continue hammering at her for the bad politics she represents?

Do you think the average voter cares about what she wore when she met the president? Actually, the photo you ran shows a woman with a nice figure who can wear clothing very well. Where she wears such clothing is of absolutely no consequence.

I won't vote for Harris because I remember how she helped George Bush win the election in 2000, not because of what she chooses to wear. I won't vote for Harris because of her obvious illegal dealing with big money interests.

Harris has so much negative baggage as a representative you certainly don't need such frivolous means to keep her in print. Make the negatives real - the ones that take away from the voters who will vote for her just because she's a Republican.

Paul Lukacs, Indian Rocks Beach

Harris thinks for herself

Re: Not her strong suit, May 16.

Katherine Harris is not a follower. She is a leader and a trendsetter, but apparently the fashion police view current fashion trends as frivolity. I, for one, am thrilled to see a little frivolity in this current political arena. Harris has shown repeatedly that she can think for herself. It apparently does not concern her when opponents choose to criticize her hair, makeup and clothes. She appears confident enough to reject the tight little box people try to impose upon her.

As a voter, I think all the nonissue stuff is really irrelevant anyhow. Personally, I loved the sea green suit with the ruffle. And I am sure George Bush did not care that she wore something others deemed frivolous. You go, girl!

Sharon Caldwell, Palm Harbor

Lightweight reading

Upon retrieving the newspaper from the driveway the other morning, I noticed the paper was extra light. It did not feel like a regular newspaper. No wonder it was lightweight. There was a lightweight article critical of how Katherine Harris was dressed!

The article dissected item by item how she was dressed while greeting the president in Tampa. Harris looked good, and the media should change their reporting style so as not to be picky fashion police! It gives the impression that is the only thing important for female reporters and readers.

Harris must be a strong, focused person to have to contend with the failed Tallahassee/Washington political manipulators and media fashion commandants. No wonder newspaper readership is falling.

Roger H. Wilson, Seminole

Media mockery wins a vote for Harris

I think I'll vote for Katherine Harris just because you folks at the St. Petersburg Times love to mock her. Why should you be deprived of what you seem to think is a good target in the years to come?

George Lear, St. Petersburg

Put substance over style

As a voter and a woman, I am much more concerned with the voting record of candidates, not their choice of outfits. Was it really necessary to have a story on Katherine Harris' attire? Petty doesn't even come close to describing the new low the Times has hit.

Fran Johnson, Tampa

Fashioning a new position

Re: Not her strong suit.

I am very thankful for the article and photo in your May 16 issue outing Katherine Harris as dressed for frivolity when meeting with the president. At first I thought her ensemble, a body-hugging, sea foam green suit with lace trim, slit skirt, open-toed slingback shoes, and a multistrand pearl choker was very attractive. I had been leaning toward voting for her in the general election because I agree with her policies. But now, thanks to your fine reporting, I am forced to rethink my position.

Her dress code must be a very important public issue or you would not have devoted almost a full page to this subject. We certainly don't want a classy looking lady in the Senate. That would detract from the important work of the Senate and certainly would send the wrong message to terrorists.

E. H. Foster, St. Petersburg

Sen. Nelson is not of much use

The state GOP shouldn't be too disappointed by failing to replace Rep. Katherine Harris with a more formidable opponent against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in the general election for U.S. Senate.

After all, Sen. Nelson tends to forget that he is a Democrat and often votes with the GOP-controlled Congress, as he did recently to approve the preposterous $70-billion election-year tax cut bill that mainly benefits wealthy taxpayers.

According to the May 12 chart, low-income taxpayers earning $10,000 to $20,000 will get only a $3 tax cut and those earning $30,000 to $40,000 will receive a $17 tax cut. In contrast, taxpayers earning $100,000 to $200,000 will get $1,350, and wealthier taxpayers will get bigger tax cuts at the expense of much-needed educational and social programs.

It's apparent that with Nelson's capitulation to the GOP-controlled Congress, average Florida workers and senior citizens no longer have a U.S. senator of either party representing their economic interests.

Our U.S. legislators should not capitulate to the privileged elite but should heed the advice of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who once said, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

Harry Palaynes, Valrico

Lower taxes stimulate the economy

Re: Republican leadership flunks Economics 101, May 17.

What a surprise. Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post has found a conservative economist who postulates conservative revenue increases from tax cuts using conservative assumptions of economic growth. He also reports that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted in the past that tax cuts would result in a reduction in federal revenues. What he does not tell us is that CBO predictions have historically been inaccurate because its methodology does not consider how tax cuts affect investor behavior.

The CBO did not predict the huge growth in revenues that resulted from both the Kennedy and Reagan investor-friendly tax cuts. The same is true now. Since June 2003, real GDP growth has averaged 4 percent.

What part of "the growing economy increases federal revenues" does the left not understand? Kennedy, Reagan and now George W. Bush have all demonstrated that lowering taxes for people who pay taxes stimulates the economy, increases tax revenues and increases opportunities for all working people.

Timothy S. "Mac" McDonnell, St. Petersburg

Fed up with Catholic bashing

Re: Catholics leave me incensed, May 17.

As I read Garrison Keillor's column, I could feel my blood pressure rise. While I appreciate honest debate and difference of opinion, my "take" on this column was that of pure, honest-to-goodness vitriol. His "point" was lost among words of hate and intolerance toward the Catholic Church. I know Jesus taught us to "turn the other cheek" but as a 52-year-old Catholic, I am fed up with the accepted bigotry toward my faith.

I guess it's okay for mainstream media and folk "icons" to bash the church I grew up with and continue to follow. If he had written with such malice toward another religion or belief, he would be ridiculed as "intolerant." But I guess bashing Catholics is accepted. So I am left thinking of one of my favorite song titles: "Jesus May Love You, But I Don't."

Denise Browsky, Tarpon Springs

[Last modified May 19, 2006, 17:32:33]