Presidential ‘Dirty Campaign’

How The Times can accuse Dukakis along with Bush of running a “dirty . . . deplorable . . . cynical . . . contemptible . . . ugly . . .” campaign is beyond my imagination. “The Dirty Campaign” does not offer a single example of such behavior by Dukakis to back the accusation. In fact, Dukakis has run such a clean and pretty campaign that he has failed until recently even to refute the lies and misleading statements spat by Bush.

The editorial asks rhetorically: Does anybody know where the candidates stand on the issues? The point is taken with regard to Bush. I doubt voters know what he intends to do to our country. But Dukakis has made his intentions quite clear, in part by outlining proposals on several fundamental issues: Education (extensive college loans with enforced repayment), health care (mandatory employer-paid health insurance), housing (looser restrictions on the use of tax-free savings), foreign trade (an end to laissez-faire policies with selfish partners such as Japan), etc. On the most important issue--honesty--no policy statements are needed: The enormous difference in the candidates’ positions is obvious.

The media have the unique ability to compel candidates to answer to the issues. If The Times believes the candidates have not answered to the issues, it has only itself and its peers to blame.

DANIEL SLOCUM HINERFELD

Los Angeles