Clinton’s Presidency

* Re “Clinton Should Resign Before Being Indicted,” Column Right, Feb. 13:

Paul Craig Roberts, the Reagan administration’s assistant treasury secretary, calls for President Bill Clinton’s resignation over Whitewater. He says we should use the same yardstick for Democrats that we do for Republican presidents.

My memory may be hazy, but Roberts did not call for Ronald Reagan’s resignation over “Irangate” nor for then-Vice President George Bush’s (“I was out of the loop”) resignation for the same illegal activity (both Republicans).

Will Roberts continue calling for President Clinton’s resignation after the American people reelect him in 1996--and by an overwhelming majority!

LOUIS ROBINS

Van Nuys

* Let’s make a deal with Roberts that if the president indeed is not indicted for any wrongdoing and the Whitewater panel finds nothing illegal, that he resign his post at the conservative think tank that pays him to write the venomous lies he spreads. No indictments, no smoking gun, and now he’ll have us believe that the Republicans would “drop the matter if it could be done without establishing the principle that the president is above the law.” Has he asked Sen. Al D’Amato about that one?

Be assured that the voters will not be fooled by the blantantly partisan diatribe coming from his pen (who cares what some British ex-Cabinet member thinks). The big issue coming out in the news now that must be scaring the conservatives is the Republican presidential primaries and the exposure of their candidates. Since they know that they can’t beat Clinton in the election, maybe they can tie him up in the courts, bankrupt his family and make other moderate Democrats think twice before running for president. It’s the only way they have half a chance.

GARY W. GRAY

Costa Mesa

* John Sears’ commentary (“Ignore the Buzz, Clinton Far From Sure Thing,” Opinion, Feb. 11) appears to follow the adage that if you say something often enough, it will become true. Unfortunately, through ceaseless repetition it has become part of the conventional wisdom that Ross Perot cost George Bush the race in 1992. As is often the case, there is little support for the conventional wisdom.

The consensus among scholars is that the Perot vote would have been evenly split between Bush and Clinton. Perot’s absence would not have affected the outcome, nor significantly changed the margin of victory.

CRAIG CHOISSER

Santa Barbara

* In case anyone has forgotten, it was not that long ago that Clinton was busing himself around the country talking about the virtues of “greater public investment” (translation: higher taxes), “universal health care” (translation: socialized medicine), and “univer- sal opportunity” (translation: racial quotas and set-asides). What a difference the 1994 GOP landslide made. The post-1994 Clinton would have us all believe that he has abandoned these objectives and rediscovered the “New Democrat” views upon which he campaigned in 1992.

However, merely paying lip service to conservative ideals during a politically motivated State of the Union address is disingenuous and should be insulting to an American public that is oriented toward moderately conservative policies. More than a year after sending its unambiguous message to Washington, the nation regretfully continues to wait for implementation of these policies as the president continues to vacillate.

Clinton was never good at dealing with hard problems, like the war in Vietnam. As president, he can continue to avoid the difficult decisions from now until election day. However, they are not simply going to vanish--unless, of course, election day brings the nation a real leader.

RAY BEEMAN

Torrance