Senate Debate

Re “Boxer, Fong Differences Spotlighted in Debate,” Aug. 27: I cannot believe that in the course of a full hour debate Sen. Barbara Boxer was asked three questions regarding the Clinton-Lewinsky matter and was not once asked about more substantive issues like Ward Valley or her stance on gun control. Likewise, I find it absurd that no one even mentioned Matt Fong’s desire to reinvent the “Star Wars” defense system or his belief in eliminating the ABM treaty.

What are we thinking, California? Shouldn’t we all be paying a little more attention to a debate focused on the differences between these candidates? Or is it truly more important to spend our time sensationalizing a controversy to see if we can make the candidates uncomfortable?

KELLY GRAY

Torrance

*

Where does Boxer, a zealot feminist, stand now that Bill Clinton’s sexual transgressions have been exposed? She says, “I’m proud to have his support!” She never said that of Sen. Bob Packwood, though he was a consistent supporter of women’s issues. Packwood’s abuses pale in comparison to Clinton’s. However, the best that Boxer could say against Clinton is that “clearly, he was wrong to have that relationship in the first place.”

She and her other attack-dog cronies marched on Packwood and hounded him out of the Senate. You would think that the president’s conduct would come under at least the same scrutiny. Hypocrisy, thy name is Barbara Boxer!

RON REBUCK

Castro Valley

*

Fong criticized Boxer as “soft on crime” for appointing federal judges who have overturned death penalty cases. Is Fong suggesting that a death penalty conviction should never be overturned on appeal, no matter how gross the errors that occurred at trial? Or is he saying one should have the right to appeal but a judge should never overturn a conviction, no matter what? One does not have to be against the death penalty to see the absurdity of his statement.

GARY GROSS

Los Angeles