Donor Visits to White House

Re “Clinton Led Move for Donors to Stay Night in White House,” Feb. 26:

Although I am an ultraconservative Republican, I just cannot get worked up over the question of who the president invites to sleep at the White House. Like it or not, the White House is the home of the president. It is public property, but it is more and different: It is the secure home of one whose unique responsibilities prevent him from living and entertaining elsewhere. I’ll be damned if any of you are going to inquire into who sleeps at my home and why, and we must afford the president the same privilege, albeit limited by the nature of the thing.

I frankly am much more alarmed that Clinton’s FBI won’t investigate bad local cops, until the matter becomes a cause celebre, than I am that a high roller is invited to socialize with him.

MICHAEL J. KENNEDY, Joshua Tree

*

Once again, the Clintons (and the Democratic Party) find themselves on the defensive for their antics in raising money. Who’s surprised by these latest revelations?

In similar fashion to his response to Whitewater, the FBI files, Travelgate, the coffee klatches and other potentially damaging episodes, President Clinton sidesteps and dodges the obvious while expecting the American people to swallow his latest stretch in truth--the White House wasn’t for sale.

Sorry, Mr. President, this time you can’t hide behind White House staffers, the DNC and other political cronies. The proof is in your own handwriting.

JOHN G. HERNANDEZ, Claremont

*

So the government is now being sold to the likes of Barbra Streisand, Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. I’ve never been so relieved. These show-biz types are certainly a cut above the oil and tobacco interests who owned the place when the Republicans were in charge. Going further, I even favor Buddhist monks over Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I guess this makes me a Democrat.

TARJA BLACK, Lancaster

*

In the Paula Jones lawsuit, President Clinton cited his busy schedule as a key reason for postponing the trial. Now we learn that the president has become the Tom Bodett of Motel 1600, keeping the light on and the coffee brewin’ during all hours of the day and night for a steady stream of more than 900 “close friends.” Where did he find the time?

JIM FITZGERALD, La Jolla

*

Are the Democrats raising funds illegally, or are they successfully “networking” like the Republicans have always done? Bob Q. Guy may be amazed at six degrees of separation, but the political world operates at about two degrees of separation, or less. Who would know that better than the clubby Republicans? For a time in the ‘80s it was hard to tell the difference between Bechtel Corp. and the Reagan administration. Now it appears that the Democrats have closed the networking gap. As usual, Bob Q. Guy is not complaining. But Bob Q. Oligarch is.

CHRIS LAUER, Los Angeles

*

Your article puts the lie to President Clinton’s statement that “the Lincoln Bedroom was not for sale.” But rather than dwell on the corrupt past, we should focus on the future. Let the president continue to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom for $100,000 per night and himself for $50,000 per coffee break. Add to the catalog rides on Air Force One, seats at state dinners and any other perks the White House marketing geniuses can come up with. Just give the money to Treasury to balance the budget. Although he won only 49% of the votes, Clinton has a talent that everyone can acknowledge. Let the nation benefit.

MICHAEL K. FRIEDLAND, Tustin

*

I think The Times is using far too much ink on the White House “Pajama-gate” scandal. Your relentless need to uncover scandal within the Clinton administration has become fanatical and your credibility is in question.

Most organizations that solicit donations offer the highest donors access to the people who run the organization. Is this really news to anyone? Money buys access. That’s the American way.

JOHN DI MINICO, Los Angeles

*

I don’t believe it. With all the money at the White House’s disposal, officials can’t afford a paper shredder.

EDDIE LONDON, Los Angeles

*

By now it’s no surprise to me that our president has been involved in, if not directly responsible for, another sleaze operation--this time “renting” the Lincoln Bedroom. Illegal? Maybe. Unethical? Most probably. But what bothers me as much as anything is that the taxpayer is footing a good part of the bill for entertaining these contributors, whose political motives and persuasion are anything but nonpartisan. And although Clinton may deny that we pay the cost, you can bet we pay plenty to furnish, paint and otherwise maintain the Lincoln Bedroom, and provide the impeccable service expected by the affluent and influential guests.

This latest ethical firestorm should convince even the most crass in Congress that campaign reform has a long way to go.

JERRY G. EICHER