Confusing Campaign Logic

To the Editor:

The logic during this campaign is getting quite confusing.

Veterans are angry with the candidate who voluntarily fought in Vietnam, but supportive of the candidate who evaded going to Vietnam by entering the National Guard through personal connections. Veterans are questioning the candidate who received three Purple Hearts, but favor the candidate who denigrates this honor by allowing bandages with Purple Hearts to be distributed during his party’s convention and whose service in the National Guard is in question.

Veterans who fought for the right to disagree are upset with the candidate who had the courage to present his views to Congress, but support a candidate who self-servingly twists the truth by taking sound bites out of statements in order to misrepresent the meaning and intent of the speaker. Will everyone who plans to run for office in the future have to scrutinize every word uttered for fear it may be taken out of context as has been done in this campaign?

Since when is it smarter to “stick to your guns” rather than to question, be open to new information and ideas, and be willing to change your mind based upon consideration of the new information? Do adults dressing up as dolphins and chanting “Flipper” represent what is at stake in this election? Or do we listen to those who explain that it wasn’t the appropriation of money to fight the war that was the problem, but the source of the money. Rather than repealing the tax cut, the national debt would be greatly increased, raising our taxes for the future, while the wealthy enjoyed their tax cut. No previous president has ever supported a tax cut for the wealthy during wartime.

I understood that both candidates came from wealthy backgrounds. Why is the candidate who gave tax cuts to the wealthy, signed into law a prescription drug plan that confuses the elderly while giving free reign to drug companies, and spends more time blaming the recession on the previous administration than working to help keep jobs in America for Americans looked upon as the candidate of the common man; and the candidate who wants to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and raise taxes for the wealthy represented as the candidate of the rich?

Why is the candidate who promoted No Child Left Behind patting himself on the back for helping to the educate the children of America when as a result of its passage not only are many children being left behind due to insufficient funding, but many of our best teachers and those who would become our future best teachers are either leaving the profession or not even entering the profession because they no longer perceive themselves as educators?

Sadly, why is the press, who is supposed to be the watchdog for democracy and honesty, more interested in television ratings than the truth? Why aren’t they shaming the candidates into talking about the issues rather than exploiting the vicious dishonest attacks by private groups supported by funds from personal interest groups? How do we teach our children integrity when the media to which they are exposed no longer values it?

And last, but not least, why is “girlie economics” a slur? I thought that women in America had equality and the right to vote. Is “boy economics” different than “girl economics?” If so, please enlighten the women of America.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Horvath

Phyllis Lane, Newtown                                             September 7, 2004