Clinton’s Presidency

Re “Why Clinton Should Settle for One Term,” Column Left, April 6:

How can Zygmunt Nagorski claim “the GOP resurgence spells the beginning of class warfare” when the Democrats have long used class warfare trying to divide our country between the rich and poor?

Zygmunt states that “property, rather than quality of human life, has assumed priority status.” I personally am of the belief that without property rights, the quality of human life would be at its lowest. If you require proof, just look at the homeless. Finally, Zygmunt complains of the Republicans’ attempt to slash socialist programs while preserving defense and business interests.

Without business we would all be in poverty for lack of jobs and our quality of life would quickly deteriorate for lack of services and products businesses produce. As for defense, is there anyone who can truly believe our nation would exist without it? Defense is our government’s only true and necessary function.

MATTHEW WELKLEY

Los Angeles

Has Nagorski ever had to do real work in the real world? For this Center for International Leadership he presides over sounds like another blathering leftist think tank far removed from reality.

There’s not one sentence in Nagorski’s entire article that shows he’s conscious of what’s been going on in this country since 1980, when Ronald Reagan, in one of the most massive electoral landslides ever, came into office. And Nagorski is in total denial of what happened in the Democratic massacre last November. As a voting member of that colossal conservative wave, I entreat him: read our collective lips: Clinton and Gore are not wanted in positions of national leadership--neither one has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected.

The pathetically out-of-sync views he attempts to advance have already been repudiated on a humongous scale. Zagorski needs to return to his outer-space liberal time warp for emotional nurturing--perhaps he really belongs there.

RAOUL SWARTZ

Simi

The problem with the Column Left and Column Right is that they are both too extreme. What you need is a pundit in the middle. Someone who gives credit where credit is due and grief where grief is due.

April 6 both columns were in La La Land. First: Clinton is not going to step aside for Al Gore. Why should he? Do you think the electorate will buy this switcheroo? I don’t. Second: Newt Gingrich is in real danger of believing his own hype. The American people, thankfully, are not.

The pundits, policy wonks and think tankers need to take a vacation. I recommend that they don’t come back until after the ’96 election.

TONYA VALACAK

La Quinta

How can a newspaper of The Times caliber allow Richard Reeves (“ ‘Friends of Bill’ Add Up to a Legion of One: Hillary,” Commentary, April 5) to continue the hateful conspiracy against the President and the First Lady that began with the day after the November election in which he won the Presidency?

As usual, the column was heresy, mean-spirited and in some areas, plain false. Is honesty in reporting lost forever?

W. JOHN RANNA

Vista

When are the men in this country going to realize that it is acceptable of women to be bright and competent? I am one of the OFB’s who applauds the President for having enough self-esteem to believe it is perfectly fine to have a wife who can think independently and who can contribute something to the White House besides wallpaper. My advice to both the Clintons is “stay the course!” My advice to Reeves is “go find something more interesting to write about.”

B.J. MITCHELL

Hermosa Beach

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant, charismatic, caring, effective woman married to a brilliant, charismatic, caring, effective man with a host of friends. Reeves wrote a catty, gossipy article denigrating them. The result?

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant, charismatic, caring, effective woman married to a brilliant, charismatic, caring, effective man with a host of friends. And Reeves?

KEN MALONEY

JULIE FORD-MALONEY

Huntington Beach

It never ceases to amaze me! On the one hand, President Clinton decries the Republican Party as the party of the rich that continues to give taz breaks to the rich while taking food out of the mouths of children. Then, during the same weekend visit, speaks to the Hollywood elite at a $50,000 per couple fund-raising dinner, which nets $2 million (April 10). How does the guy get away with it?

JOHN V. FLORES

Alhambra