Letters to the Editors

Clinton gave us nothing to long for

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 16, 2000

Re: Clinton nostalgia reflects a favorable shift in attitude, by Jonathan Weisman, July 9.

I want some of whatever he's smoking! Clinton nostalgia? Webster's defines nostalgia as homesickness or a longing to return. Americans want more lying and cheating?

Bill Clinton has been in ethical free fall for most of his administration. He has been one of the most destructive, divisive presidents in U.S. history. He has embarrassed the American people to an extent never thought possible. When the words "oral sex" appear on billboards in South Africa, Bill Clinton immediately pops into mind. That's sick!

He has had no viable foreign policy. His laxity in national security is well documented. His thinking is provincial in our "global village." His mantra, "It's the economy, stupid!" insinuates his pandering to workers at home while dismissing national security.

His boast of taking credit for the economy is laughable. President Betty Boop or King Kong would have flourished with modern technology and Alan Greenspan at the helm.

Bill Clinton likes being president. He would stay except for term limits and the promise of the $18-million he expects to earn in 2001. He leaves without a legacy. A legacy implies something valuable, a bequest or gift, but this man has only taken from the American people, not given.

Clinton nostalgia? I don't think so.
-- Kathryn L. van Heyningen, Palm Harbor

Venom was for his foes

Re: Clinton nostalgia reflects a favorable shift in attitude.

Jonathan Weisman states that Americans' venom against President Clinton appears to be draining. If it appears to be draining, it is because there was no venom in the hearts of the majority of the decent moral American people. There was only sadness and compassion for a brilliant leader with a tragic flaw that his enemies sought out, and, with his help, came close to destroying him.

If the majority of the American people harbor any venom, it is for our president's mean-spirited, vicious enemies who forced us to attempt to explain to our children the meaning of aberrant sexual conduct. Our disgust is only for those contemptible self-righteous hypocrites who embarrassed our country to the world.
-- S.P. Thomas, Safety Harbor

Fright for the right

Re: Look no further than Clinton for Gore's perfect running mate.

Thomas Friedman's tongue-in-cheek column on July 10 is not as funny as it sounds. The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that "No person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice . . ." So Bill Clinton cannot be elected again as president, but where does it say he cannot be elected as vice president? Friedman is probably right; a Gore-Clinton tricket would be a shoo-in!

I think what really worries right-wingers is that if Al Gore becomes president, he will appoint Clinton to the Supreme Court. I hear the Clinton bashers chortling, "But what if he is disbarred?" Well, folks, the little known fact is that you don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.

Like Jason in the Friday the 13th movies, the Man from Hope will keep coming back to give conservatives nightmares.
-- William T. Lyons, Jacksonville

Keeping Gore honest

Re: Gore building little trust, July 9.

Congratulations to Philip Gailey for telling it like it is! Here is another fine, truthful and honest column, which puts the Clintonian standards for truthfulness on Al Gore.

It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Gore, who has stood beside Bill Clinton for more than seven years, might have adopted some of his mentor's approach to the truth. After all, Clinton has gotten away with stretching the truth for years and still has a surprisingly high approval rating among the misinformed populace.

Keep it up, Mr. Gailey. There are many of us out here who read your paper daily, and the truth is especially refreshing.
-- Sam Lasley, Clearwater

The plight of teachers

Re: Public school teaching ranks low in job rating, by Bill Maxwell, July 9.

Thank you for bringing to light the plight of teachers today. We are underpayed, underappreciated and are the fall guys for all the failures in the school system. Why would a college graduate want to become a teacher anymore?

One of my sons, who has worked in private business for only a few years, makes more than I do. I have 23 years of teaching experience, with a master's degree and more than 18 hours of credit beyond that. Something is very wrong with this picture!

I don't begrudge young college grads getting good salaries, but where are society's priorities? Teachers are the foundation for our future citizens. All we want is a little respect and the salary to go along with it!
-- Marilyn Satinoff, Palm Harbor

Reason to be queasy

Re: The Eminem paradox, July 9.

Hopefully, Gina Vivinetto was able to read Alisa Valdez-Rodriguez's July 8 column on the op-ed page (Violence no surprise considering music's misogynistic attitude). If she had, she would realize she has a great deal to feel "queasy" about. And while the damage these rhyming pinheads and their "art" potentially can do to young minds is a very real problem, I find myself equally fearful for our culture in general.

Let's face it, the popularity of this dreck is driven by business' quest to cash in on an incredibly lucrative demographic that doesn't know any better. Consequently, a large part of our popular culture, as well as the way the rest of the world perceives us, is being determined by 17-year-olds and the money-grubbing media that pander to them (aided and abetted by their foolish parents who fork over for the latest CD or concert ticket to placate the little darlings).

As the lion's share of our popular culture rapidly approaches its nadir and much of what we have to offer should be flushed, it amazes me that anyone else in the world would see fit to pay attention to it or us. Looking good, America!
-- Rob Douglas, St. Petersburg

An unneeded story

Re: Over the rainbow, July 9.

I cannot believe that your paper would print an article like this one about the Suncoast Resort Hotel in St. Petersburg. I, along with many of your loyal (and I use the term loosely) readers, don't want junk like this coming into our homes. There are countless young people who read your paper who do not need to read this type of article and view pictures like these.

Try as I might, I could find no real reason for that article. I neither care nor want to know what goes on in that hotel. By doing this you have showed your readers that you have no respect for them or their children.
-- Clarence Frazier, St. Petersburg

NRA hinders enforcement

Re: The feds give NRA reason to resist, letter, July 9.

The letter writer comments, "Yet, as the NRA rightfully states, why aren't the feds prosecuting more cases related to gun violence -- which leads to the stated scenario: "Why don't you enforce the gun laws currently on the books?' "

Here is the answer: Despite increasing workloads over the years in all areas, to include an explosion in gun ownership, gun dealers and gun crimes, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is today operating with the same manpower it had 25 years ago. Why? Because the NRA and its legislative friends have successfully resisted BATF's yearly requests for more assets, which would have enabled it to do exactly what the letter writer wants: prosecuting more gun crimes.

President Clinton's presidential initiative to increase BATF staff by 500 new agents was met, not by cheers, but by dead silence from the NRA.

The only two effective non-cirumventable gun control laws we have, which are not already riddled with NRA-induced loopholes, are the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act as amended and the Brady law. The NRA continually introduces legislation, not to strengthen these two laws, but to destroy them.

When one examines the reasons gun laws currently on the books cannot be enforced, one almost always finds the culprits to be NRA opposition to common sense, non-circumventable gun laws and the lack of law enforcement assets.
-- Arthur C. Hayhoe, Zephyrhills

NRA is a defender of rights

I support a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. I oppose the sale of assault rifles to the general public; I oppose the sale of armor-piercing bullets. And yet, in spite of this, I'm a member of the National Rifle Association.

Why? Because even though I disagree with some of the NRA's views, it is the only group I see out there that is fighting for our Second Amendment rights. It is the only group I see that is working to keep the Bill of Rights, as written by the founding fathers, intact.

As for your claim that the NRA's influence is overrated, I guess we'll have to wait until November to find out.
-- Thomas A. Timcik, Seminole

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.