Candidates Draw Sharp Distinctions

* During Tuesday night’s debate, the difference between Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore was easy to see. They each have different ideas about fairness. For Bush, fairness means treating everyone the same. That is why his tax plan gives a tax cut to all working Americans, whether they be wealthy, middle class or poor. Gore has a different concept of fairness. In his approach, fairness demands that the wealthy help the poor, the strong protect the weak, the advantaged helped the disadvantaged. For Gore, fairness demands that we think in terms of communities.

There is much to commend either view of fairness. At issue this November is which definition of fairness will prevail.

PHIL GUSSIN

Chatsworth

*

I cannot vote for a person who makes up “facts” and always tries to exaggerate his importance in the way Gore does. I will vote for Bush. Bush sometimes makes verbal gaffes and might stumble over a word or two (like I do) but he is a man I can trust.

CARL BURTON

Sacramento

*

It is impossible to see any useful purpose in electing a man to head a federal government who is an adversary of the government’s role in protecting programs which serve fundamental needs of citizens. Some states are simply not interested in this sort of responsibility. Remember the voting rights problem? The idea that any ordinary individual can put enough money into a savings account to pay for a surgery, let alone a catastrophic illness, is ridiculous. Or try driving from New York to Los Angeles without using the Interstate system.

R.W. TOLBERT

Long Beach

*

I have watched the three debates and firmly believe Bush got his clock cleaned in each. I am dumbfounded that anyone can believe otherwise. Can someone please explain to me how meeting exceedingly low expectations makes Bush presidential? Wake up, America, before the nightmare really begins!

MARK ROBERTS

Tustin

*

Re Robert Scheer’s Oct. 17 commentary: Gore has taken credit for everything from our wonderful economy to inventing the Internet. Has anyone considered how this surplus came about? Perhaps the answer is the income taxes paid on the wealth created by stock options and stock sales. The year 2000 will be very different, thanks to the huge downturn in the very tech stocks that made so many instant millionaires.

MARCIA LEONHARDT

Northridge

*

Bush keeps reminding us that the tax surplus belongs to the people, but he has never indicated to whom our huge national debt belongs.

NATE RUBIN

Los Angeles

*

Bush earned my vote during the debates because he was firm and clear in defense of the pro-life position. Although he recognizes that little can be done from the executive position to ban abortion, he promised to do everything within his power to limit abortion, through parental notification requirements, 24-hour waiting periods and a ban on partial-birth abortion.

And more fundamentally, Bush identified Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as ideal judges. Even if only half of Bush’s appointees fit that ideal, pro-lifers will do very well under Bush and certainly better than under Gore, who promises to impose a pro-abortion litmus test. As a pro-lifer, I am not just proud, I am thrilled to vote for Gov. Bush.

CHRIS SPLENDINI

Los Angeles

*

For those who reduce Gore to an attack dog, Bush must then be the wolf in sheep’s clothing in the third debate. Under the guise of pledging straight talk, bipartisanship and raising the tone of government, Bush obfuscated the blemishes on his record and surreptitiously attacked his opponent while chiding Gore for being negative and divisive. Now I know why Gore was so frustrated in the first debate.

CHRIS VAN STEENBERGEN

Long Beach

*

After watching the presidential and vice presidential debates, I am convinced that it would be best for the nation if vice president candidates Dick Cheney and Joseph Lieberman would run for the presidency. The winner, with the most popular votes, would become the president while the other would be vice president. I could be comfortable with that.

ROBERT BRACH

Desert Hot Springs

*

Who is this Jim Lehrer and why didn’t he ask or allow any questions in any of the three debates on immigration, corporate power, the stock market, the failed drug war, the increase in prisons, global warming, wasteful military spending, fair trade, homelessness or poverty? Where were Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather or dozens of other journalists who might have asked tough questions instead of the softballs thrown by Lehrer?

Why weren’t we allowed to hear what Ralph Nader has to say?

Bush is an embarrassment. He doesn’t know anything, can’t or won’t pronounce his “g’s” and makes Dan Quayle look statesmanlike.

AL SHEAHEN

Sherman Oaks