Democrats’ Discord Won’t Help Win the White House

Re “Party Chief Won’t Break Up Scuffles,” Dec. 30: As a lifelong Democrat, I am saddened by the level of discord in the Democratic Party. Party “leaders” are missing the point that they disappointed a great number of Democrats when they wholeheartedly supported President Bush and his policies (Iraq, tax cuts -- the list goes on). They surrendered their power because of Bush’s poll numbers.

The rise of Howard Dean is a testament to the fact that when one speaks truth, people will respond in large numbers. Dean has tapped into the anger of Democrats and independents. I am a strong supporter of Dean and will do whatever it takes to help him not only secure the Democratic nomination but also the White House. Dean is the only candidate who can take on Bush and make it an interesting race.

If we as Democrats are serious about winning back the White House in ‘04, the infighting and bickering must stop.

Terry L. Smith

San Diego

*

On Dec. 21 Michael Ramirez accused Dean of “flippant & false & misleading statements, lies & distortions.” On Dec. 30 he claims again that Dean distorts (editorial cartoons, Commentary). Both of these cartoons wouldn’t be half so sad if it weren’t for the fact that the Bush administration and George Bush himself have taken the lie, the distortion and the misleading statement to new levels in American history (i.e., we’re attacking Iraq because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is part of Al Qaeda).

Ramirez is part of the process of extremist right-wing dissembling and falsification that works on the theory that if you repeat a lie often enough it will become the truth in people’s minds. His works are not thought-provoking; they are simply repulsive in their shallowness and hatefulness.

Neil Reichline

Sherman Oaks

*

Ronald Brownstein’s very informative Washington Outlook (Dec. 29) reinforces my fear of a Dean presidency -- a fear that I hope his followers will seriously consider. We already have an arrogant bully in the White House. Why should we want another one?

Bette Balliet

Mission Viejo

*

Re “For Howard Dean to Win, He’ll Have to Beat Nixon,” Commentary, Dec. 29: Mark Kurlansky is going to have to study his history a little more thoroughly. He states that in 1968, Sen. Strom Thurmond “had recently become a Republican with the understanding that Nixon would choose a running mate that would please states’ rights Southerners.” In fact, Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. Nixon had recently lost a race for the California governorship and had no immediate prospect in politics.

Kurlansky also tries to portray Gov. Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s 1968 running mate, as a racist. Agnew in fact had won his governorship as a racial moderate, a Rockefeller Republican, and had defeated a Democratic candidate who had taken an openly racist approach.

T.A. Heppenheimer

Fountain Valley

*

Kurlansky just condemned everyone living in “the South” as racist. And not just your ordinary racist, but the kind who uses code words to communicate foul ideas and instructions to an unknowing public. How elitist, mean-spirited and insulting!

By his reasoning, most of America must have been a big racist melting pot, since Nixon was elected in the 1968 election. Looking back over the last 35 years, I’ve seen a huge movement in the South toward tolerance and acceptance. There’s a “great melding together” going on. Too bad this guy missed it.

Mitzi Twaro

Fayetteville, Ark.

*

Having read Kurlansky’s purported analysis of the 1968 presidential election, I have just one question: Has the author ever heard of someone named George Wallace?

Tom Cotrel

Burbank

*

In response to a Dec. 27 letter regarding Dean’s lack of expertise on foreign policy: At least Dean has the sense to admit his ignorance, not like the person we have in office now; and he also has the sense to want to choose someone to run with him who has foreign policy expertise. By the way, what experience did President Reagan have?

Kenneth E. Mangen

Valinda