Reader's write about the presidency, Ashcroft and energy crisis

E-mail this article Print this article

The White House

Changing of the guard in hostile territory will draw fire

Editor, The Times:

There is one underlying message in Washington, D.C., and the media this week: The much flaunted "spirit of bipartisanship" has disappeared and been drowned out by the hate-filled bigotry of liberal Democrats against Christians and conservatives. Their ultimate hypocrisy is totally amazing, but only because the media fail to point it out.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman could talk about anything he wanted - how much God means to him, how much God influences his decisions, etc, etc. And this was accepted and applauded by the public at large and the media, because it showed "what a man of integrity he is."

The other obvious hypocrisy is the change in demeanor of the Democrats about Sen. Ashcroft. When he avoided any legal challenge to Jean Carnahan in the race for his Senate seat, Democrats praised him as a man of sterling character and shining principle. Now, only 10 weeks later, he is suddenly a racist, a homophobe, and unfit to serve as attorney general because his personal beliefs will cause him to choose which laws he will uphold.

Sen. Ashcroft has principled views on the authority of law, on the U.S. Constitution, and his willingness to hold all citizens, no matter how high or how low in station, accountable under the law. This is the real reason the liberal Democrats hate him and fear his ascension to the post of attorney general. They are afraid that he will turn over the rocks Janet Reno left behind and find real, serious lawbreaking that has occurred in the White House and the Justice Department these past eight years. Unlike Reno and Clinton, Ashcroft never had any difficulty enforcing the law, even those he disagreed with.

I urge my fellow Americans to contact their senators to vote to confirm this man of high integrity, high intelligence and absolute allegiance to the principles of our Constitution. Article Six of our Constitution says, simply, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The liberals are showing that their real religious test is one of ideology. Apparently men and women with real integrity that have not been corrupted are to be feared and hated, because they do not believe in the Senate's overriding religion: Power corrupts!

Michael Ochoa, Woodinville

Liberal and proud of it

In Greg Osborne's letter to The Times (Jan. 12), he quoted a line that he was obviously fond of: that if you're still a Democrat when you graduate college, you don't have a brain. "A conservative proverb," he proudly postulates.

My question is: Why if he believes that conservatives are so intelligent, would they vote for a man who walks so light in his loafers? Surely, there must have been someone who was more than a C student that they could set up for the nation's top job.

Think about it: The word conservative, in and of itself, implies narrowness, tight spaces, unopeness. Liberal, just the opposite. We "liberals" recognize intelligence as being a good thing. At least we're intelligent enough to recognize that not being greedy and bigoted, and being careful of the Earth's resources and all its people is a very positive and desirable trait for people who work for the human spirit to excel.

I can't in good conscience address conservatism and its extremes without mentioning the terrible consequences of a man like John Ashcroft being in a position to be attorney general. I couldn't be more opposed. His record should run cold chills down the spine of every intelligent and feeling person in this country.

I can't even feel any legitimacy to any of Bush's appointments. I still feel, and always will, that he is the president-select, and I truly believe that he will go down in history as just that.

Elly Worden, Mukilteo

Mandate's opposite

President-(s)elect George W. Bush's chief campaign mantra was that, if elected, he would be "a uniter, not a divider." Unfortunately, at least three of his choices for Cabinet posts have proven to be very divisive. It is transparently obvious that the nominations of Linda Chavez (secretary of Labor), John Ashcroft (attorney general) and Gale Norton (secretary of Interior) were all political paybacks to important Republican constituencies, and were politically motivated to further the very conservative Bush domestic agenda.

Fortunately, Chavez is no longer with us. The remaining pair of Ashcroft and Norton are being met with very stiff opposition from social-justice groups, labor, women's organizations and environmentalists. In the case of Norton, even a Republican conservation group joined in with 17 other organizations recently to condemn her nomination. Ralph Neas, of People for the American Way, has called Ashcroft one of the worst Cabinet nominations in history.

Make no mistake: Both John Ashcroft and Gale Norton represent the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. Further, despite the racial diversity of the Cabinet nominees, can one really say that the Cabinet was chosen because of its diversity of ideas? Hardly. It's a Cabinet - with a few exceptions - of refugees from the Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations. The lone Democrat, Norman Mineta, at Transportation, was a safe choice, and with his aerospace executive experience could come in handy when it comes time to ask Congress for the countless billions it will take to implement "Star Wars."

Despite the post-election controversy, in which the very legitimacy of his presidency remains in question, George W. Bush has acted as if he has a mandate to implement the platform on which he ran. The opposite, however, is true.

Bush and Cheney (who seems to be running the show behind the scenes) are plotting a course in domestic policy that, if implemented, will further divide the country. A better domestic plan for Bush would be to make more than a cursory nod to the opposition, but he hasn't - and won't - unless the cacophony of protest becomes a political cross too hard to bear.

Thus, his claim as a "uniter" is bogus; just as bogus, in fact, as his presidency.

Tim Withee, Auburn

John Ashcroft

Half the country objects

John Ashcroft should not become attorney general. But opposition to his appointment should not center on attacking his character. Such attacks will only exacerbate the already poisonous political atmosphere created by the endless attacks on (the admittedly somewhat vulnerable) Bill Clinton. Furthermore, since Ashcroft seems personally to be an upright sort, attacks on his character are likely to backfire.

We should oppose Ashcroft not because he is personally bad but because he is politically and socially bad. He is wrong on every major issue an attorney general is called on to deal with, from the "war on drugs" (increased penalties and decreased treatment) to the war on free speech (censorship of the Internet and crusades against pornography) to the war on reproductive rights and civil rights for sexual minorities.

Presidential appointees are not usually denied confirmation purely on policy grounds. But these are not ordinary times. George Bush insists that the ideas he campaigned on won the election, but they didn't. They lost by half a million votes.

Bush may sit in the White House by virtue of some dubious flukes in Florida, but that does not give his policies the right to reign in the nation. In particular, it does not give the most extreme exponents of his party's retrograde social, economic and environmental policies the right to impose those policies on our government. We have the perfect right, on behalf of those half million voters whose voices were drowned out, to deny the Ashcrofts, the Nortons and their fellow extremists the right to act in our name.

Charles Bell, Mountlake Terrace

A quandary

If John Ashcroft strongly believes that life begins at fertilization, and that all abortion is murder, not to be condoned except to save the life of the mother, I cannot imagine how he can promise as attorney general to enforce the laws of the land as they exist, rather than as he wishes. To do so would be to do violence against his own soul.

That George W. Bush, also a professed Christian who has stated his opposition to abortion, would put Ashcroft in such a terrible position is incomprehensible.

Kathryn Bartholomew, Bellevue

He will overcome

Why would President Bush pick such a controversial character as John Ashcroft for the position of attorney general?

Considering the criticisms against Sen. Ashcroft, how could you choose a qualified man for the job of attorney general that wouldn't be controversial? Ashcroft's many years of public service have shown him to be a man of integrity (a rare commodity among those who are now judging him). He is criticized for taking an active role in controversial subjects. Isn't that what senators do?

The alternative is to not have an opinion. He is a man who speaks his mind. Would they rather he told them what they want to hear and do otherwise? He is criticized for being a man of principle. Do they want someone who is unprincipled?

He has strong moral convictions. Would they rather he had no morals? He is strongly religious. His religion teaches him to submit to those in authority and obey the laws of the land. He obeys God's laws also, submitting himself to a higher standard than he expects from others. This is bad? He has voted for justices who are tough on crime and fair, regardless of color.

Ashcroft's principles would force him to uphold the law with integrity. This may be his critics' greatest fear. Righteousness and integrity may erode their power.

Robert Dean Gunderson, Bow

How does he do it?

During the confirmation hearing, Sen. Joseph Biden questioned John Ashcroft about his interview with The Southern Partisan magazine. Ashcroft's praise for the magazine's historical accuracy is akin to commending Hitler for improving train service. If he didn't, as he claims, know the nature of the magazine, how did he manage to form his opinion of its content?

The hairsplitting and unapologetic excuses that John Ashcroft offered in response made my skin crawl.

Kate Gregory, Seattle

A record of defending rights

John Ashcroft is the most qualified, most principled candidate for attorney general. He is a man of impeccable integrity - something that we sorely need in Washington, D.C. As a graduate of Yale University and the University of Chicago Law School, and having served two terms as Missouri's attorney general, two terms as the Missouri governor, and one term in the U.S. Senate, John Ashcroft brings exceptional educational background, knowledge and experience to the Department of Justice.

His record shows he strongly supports civil rights. He appointed one of the first minorities to the Missouri Supreme Court. He supported 26 of 28 black nominees for federal judge. He signed Missouri's first hate-crime law. He made Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a state holiday in Missouri.

He is a defender of the unborn child and has stated that he will vigorously enforce the laws of the United States.

As a final sign of his integrity, he didn't even contest last November's senatorial race in Missouri - a race that he lost to a dead man. Even though everyone knows a dead person can't be elected to the Senate, John Ashcroft did not contest the election, even though he had every right to do so.

We need John Ashcroft as attorney general.

Jeff Matson, Sammamish

Energy Static

Nuke the obstructionists

Make no mistake about this: "Ecoterrorists" are directly responsible for this looming energy crisis. Amory Lovins of the so-called "Friends of the Earth" once said that "even if I thought nuclear energy were clean, safe and socially benign, I would still be opposed to it." His operatives then went about abusing the courts, blocking streets and deadlocking politicians and the populous with fear to guarantee their bogus but dire assertions.

They delayed and blocked at every turn safe and environmentally sound processing plants and permanent repositories for nuclear waste. They obscured the vast distinction between the safe U.S. power plant designs and the irresponsible disasters made by the Russians so as to taint everything nuclear. Even the hospitals had to change the name of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging to MRI because the common man was so terrorized by anything nuclear.

The delay and obstruction tactics quadrupled the price of building the power plants, making them much more expensive than anticipated.

Yes, I call them terrorists, because that is exactly the result they wanted and are now getting. Blackouts, brownouts and skyrocketing costs in everything are their results. The economy will crash as industries close and communities fill with despondency. We need to take steps immediately to reverse these negative effects. We need to conserve immediately to stave off the immediate crisis.

We need to take our own nuclear plant out of mothballs and ramp up the newly completed waste repositories. We need real leadership to replace our knock-kneed politicians.

Steven Marquis, Fall City

Reward economizers

We are being urged by the local power utilities and by the governor to reduce our power consumption and use energy during off-peak hours instead of peak, but there is absolutely no incentive for us to do it. The solution is obvious: Provide an incentive!

Here's a call to the governor and to the utilities (and to the regulatory bodies that govern such stuff): Give customers a lower price for off-peak power. Do I need to add the obligatory "Duh!"?

Laura Gjovaag, Bothell

Turn out the lights already

After reading the recent letter commending downtown businesses for taking down Christmas lights, I have observed Christmas lights all over downtown. Even out at Seattle Center. Someone informed me that it's called the Festival of Lights, to brighten up the winter season.

Well, how bright will it be when our rolling blackouts begin? At my downtown office, the office staff has been diligent about turning out office lights when people are out for the day, or even out to lunch (prompting one attorney to loudly ask, "What is this? A rolling blackout?").

I am keeping the kitchen light out in my teensy studio apartment. Then I see frivolous decorative lights around businesses and homes (even a lit Christmas tree in a house above Aurora Avenue late last week) and tons of lights in offices downtown left on after hours and on the weekends.

Are we conserving or not? Turn the dang lights out!

Lisa McGlashan, Wallingford

Spin cycle

Trudy Weckworth's excellent letter (Times, Jan. 17) suggesting that the generators on mothballed warships be used to help us through the current electrical energy crisis brought to mind an interesting question.

What do Democratic leaders like Gov. Gary Locke and Gray Davis (governor of California) call empty reservoirs, rolling blackouts and rising electric rates? The answer, of course, is "an energy policy."

Robert L. Crocker, Chehalis

Initiative 54

Manifesto, sort of

I appreciate the exposure given to our campaign, but I must protest the misinformation contained in your Initiative 54 editorial.

First off, your suggestion that I-54 has supporters is false, bordering on libelous. I'm not sure who you talked to, but if they called themselves a supporter of our initiative, they were lying. We don't consider this misnomer entirely your fault, but we're actively searching out this purported supporter and will deal with them appropriately.

Also, you write, "no harm would come from a mayor sitting in a tank of water... " You obviously didn't give this much thought. The date of this dunk-tank-ridden celebration is Nov. 30, and need I remind you that Nov. 30 is cold as all hell?

Our initiative has many things worth criticizing, so get on the ball, or we're going to have to start an opposition group ourselves.

Ben Livingston, Campaign Manager, Initiative 54, Seattle