Clinton’s Character

* I read Susan Estrich’s “Playing to the Crowd” (Opinion, June 20) with interest. I found it, for the most part, a thoughtful analysis of President Clinton’s many failings in his first few weeks in office.

However, I must take issue with two statements that just simply are not true.

First, Estrich states in error that “character is an issue in every presidential election,” then goes on to say, “George Bush’s lost the presidency not only because the economy turned sour, but because Americans had decided he stood for nothing. That was about character.” Nonsense. That was about the economy, and nothing more. Had the election been about character, Americans would not have elected a man who admitted to cheating on his wife, dodging the draft, and various other points of fact that point to weakness in the man’s character. No, Ms. Estrich, this election was decided by “the economy, stupid.”

Second, Estrich supports Clinton’s contention that he has been decisive “particularly in insisting on deficit reduction.” She states, “That is true.” No, it is false. Estrich does a disservice to the public when helping to propagate the myth that Clinton is aiming for deficit reduction as his most sincere goal. The budget numbers indicate that the deficit will increase under President Clinton, and will increase by a larger dollar amount every year of his budget. So to support his ludicrous statement that he is fighting for deficit reduction is to be sucked in to the “praise Bill at any cost” syndrome that sincerely well-meaning Democrats find themselves drawn into.

DAVID STEELE

Brea

* I thought that the American people decided that the “character” thing could be laid to rest when we elected Clinton President.

Why does Estrich take such exception to “trial balloons”? Isn’t it healthy for the country to be made aware of the many options the President is obliged to consider. We can handle it . . . and we may even prefer this type of character to the one so locked in secrecy that only a major wire-tap scandal can expose it to the light of day.

ELLIE BERNER

San Diego

* Estrich correctly perceives the White House problem as a problem of Clinton’s character, in which people do not know what the President stands for. What seems to elude Estrich is the troubling thought that Clinton may stand for nothing more than his own advancement. Perhaps the sobriquet “Slick Willie,” which he earned in Arkansas, is not misplaced. For years, the exemplar of political opportunism has been Richard Nixon. We now have a new wearer of that mantle.

SIDNEY BALDWIN

Cypress