![[Mailbag]](../images/mailbag.gif)
Gutless Wonders
To the Editor,
The defeat of the Democratic Congress is a complete failure of the liberal movement. Our democratic "leaders" lack the stomach for a good fight. President Clinton is a perfect example of this failure. Whenever one of his nominees faces a little pressure, he caves in--and most of these have been minority appointments.
The liberal roots of the '60s were opposed to government. We fought the draft, we fought states that condoned racial hate, and other abuses of power. We fought for all the little people.
The Clinton view of the Democratic Party has now become the problem. We have more police brutes and governmental buffoonery today than we ever had in the '60s, but it is ignored. Instead, we talk "feel good" issues and ozone. Babies are starving, people are dead because they can't afford medical care, and old people eat dog food, and live in misery. We liberals spend our time fighting for animal rights.
It will take the young people today to re-invent the protest and demand honest, caring results. Old liberals are now the fat cats. And the Republicans beat the shit out of these gutless wonders.
--Randall J. Marchese
Sensitive Man
To the Editor:
At the risk of a possible suit for slander, I think that it's time someone blew the whistle on Jeff Smith. The persona we all know and love or love to hate is strictly that. He may try to convince us that he really believes everything he writes, but his life belies many of his words. In all the time I've known Jeff, I have probably used as many scatological epithets as he has, and I'm a little old lady in tennis shoes!
Aside from being a brilliant writer, Jeff is one of the most sensitive men I've known. He has collected more IOUs than most would collect in a lifetime as a result of his penchant for the underdog.
He has a home with disobedient dogs, cats, a horse and mule, all of whom adore him, and he them.
Next time you read his column, remember his obligation to you is to make you mad enough to think about whatever it is he's writing about, and possibly even get you whipped up enough to act on your beliefs.
As he might say, somebody's got to do it!
--Mary Hills Munroe
Money Matters
To the Editor:
Gov. Symington's plan to eliminate the restrictions on campaign contributions is on the right track, it just doesn't go anywhere. Jim Nintzel's article ("Cash Flow," Tucson Weekly, February 9) looks at the negative influences of big money in politics but does not focus on what gives the big bucks power--radio and TV ads.
Restricting all candidates on the ballot to equal time on the radio and TV would go a long way toward cleaning up the mess we have now. Remember, the airways belong to the public, to be used for the common good. Just as speed limits on public roads apply to the rich and poor alike (sort of), access to televisions for campaigning can and should be restricted.
Unlimited personal campaign donations, with full disclosure, would be more acceptable if public property (radio and T.V. broadcast frequencies), was used to improve the election process, not to "buy" elections. Would you allow a candidate's banner to be displayed on city hall, or the public parks? These are times of fundamental changes; they don't have to be at the expense of our common well-being.
--Jack McGhie
 |
 |
© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|