The Case for Putting on the Dog in Politics

* I must strongly disagree with your editorial questioning the wisdom of canine candidates for public office (May 21) in general and for Sunland-Tujunga’s honorary mayorship in particular.

The inconsistency of your logic is reason enough to dispute your conclusions. When you write, “Decision-making skill and the ability to produce puppies are distinctly separate matters,” I would counter by pointing out that the ability to produce human babies and decision-making skill are also distinctly separate matters.

When you write: “Where’s the dignity in this [press release]: ‘The candidate spent the day chasing baseballs and licking babies,’ ” I would ask, where is the dignity when a human candidate throws baseballs and kisses babies?

Perhaps the innate dignity and honesty of canines makes them overqualified for human service, but surely not un qualified.

However, I do agree with one of your points: “The dog is not known as man’s best friend because it thinks for itself.” How true! Clearly it affords us the benefit of the doubt too lavishly. But we as a nation now believe that incumbency is intrinsically suspect, and if we believe in throwing the rascals out with term limits and recall elections, surely we can give our canine betters a chance. I hope Farley the dog prevails.

HILMA COHN

North Hollywood