White House Character Issues

In response to Charles Krauthammer’s generally astute July 7 Column Right piece, I’d like to offer a few words on behalf of dishonesty. First, I don’t recall the right getting steamed up over President Clinton’s duplicity when he reneged on his pledge to allow uncloseted gays in the military. Apparently fudging isn’t always so bad, depending on one’s point of view.

And maybe that, in turn, explains in part the phenomenon Krauthammer discusses--the public’s unwillingness to reject a candidate on the grounds of bad character, and the mushy support for those who parade under the virtue banner. Character matters, but it’s not the only thing that does. Think: Given a choice between a slimy candidate and a sincere one, most of us probably say we’d prefer the sincere. But if the sincere one pledges to do things you don’t like, would virtue get your vote?

This assumes, of course, that we actually have such a choice in presidential politics. But if no third-party candidate has a ghost of a chance, our real choice is whether to settle for Slick Willie or for Tobacco Bob. When it comes to the character thing, is the difference so great?

JEREMY ANDERSON

Costa Mesa

* Krauthammer sounds hauntingly Carteresque when he blames a decline in American values to account for the Republican Party’s failure to make headway against Clinton. I suggest conservatives look not at the public but rather at themselves for the real reason why 54% of the public believes Clinton is not “honest and trustworthy,” yet he enjoys a 56% job approval rating.

Just what has Clinton’s primary job been for the last two years for which he has received such high marks? Answer: blocking the radical Republican congressional agenda. Evidently Americans place a higher value on this than on any other consideration.

PAUL JOSEPH GULINO

Santa Monica

* Ross K. Baker spends several hundred words lamenting the “conversion” of liberal Democrats into “New Democrats” (Commentary, July 9). He need not worry, and he knows it. For what he very carefully leaves unsaid is the obvious: The Democrats’ shift to the right is an election-year ploy, a classic bait-and-switch.

Everyone knows it, even the fire-breathing Dems whom Baker lists as having “fallen on their swords.” Even Baker knows it. The swords are all rubber stage props, which will be abandoned on the day after the election.

“Talk right; govern left” is the rule of the day. I know it. Baker knows it. And The Times knows it. The liberal wolves have temporarily donned sheep costumes.

JAMES F. GLASS

Chatsworth

* In Dan Schnur’s “Skip Aldrich, Get to the Real Abuse of Power” (Column Right, July 9), he refers to Rep. William F. Clinger Jr. (R-Pa.) as “dignified.” But Clinger’s behavior has been disgraceful. Clinger, in a nationally televised interview, accused Bernard Nussbaum of unethical and possibly felonious behavior. He based that on the fact that the Nussbaum name was stamped on the bottom of the request forms for the infamous FBI files. Clinger did not know that Nussbaum hadn’t even seen the request forms. Why? Because he never even called Nussbaum to verify the charge. When Nussbaum appeared before Clinger’s committee, he asked for an apology. Clinger refused to apologize. Is that what Schnur means by dignity?

Clinger released a letter to the press that Craig Livingstone had written to George Stephanopoulos requesting a job. Clinger was attempting to show that Stephanopoulos had hired Livingstone, not Vince Foster. What Clinger failed to release to the press, and it was in his possession, was the note from Stephanopoulos instructing his secretary to do nothing about the request. Was that dignified? Sen. Alfonse D’Amato did not fool the American people and neither will Clinger.

PHILIP GUSSIN

Chatsworth

* If nobody in the White House knows who hired Livingstone, I’ll bet somebody knows who approved his raises.

AL GILFORD

Oxnard