_______________GOP NEWTERED BY JOAN WALSH (11/04/98)
	While I'm relieved that efforts to increase voter turnout prevented the percentages from dropping significantly, I think it's pathetic how few people actually voted. The fact remains that most of the people who would actually agree with my views didn't vote, and that's what the Republican leadership wants -- a decrease in voter turnout. Republicans know that hate, anger and disgust motivate more of their supporters while discouraging many of those who would vote for Democrats. Fortunately, Democrats made an effort to contact those who actually registered as Democrats. I was called five times on Monday and Tuesday. Living in Utah, however, still resulted in no agreeable federal or state representation for yours truly. Republican efforts to make themselves look non-bigoted to racial minority groups were countered by their efforts to intimidate minority voters, which they called "investigating voting fraud in Democratic dominated districts" and later called "demographic studies." Personally, I think you should get a certificate when you vote that can be used to claim an income tax credit. Perhaps, more modestly, a group could hand out bumper stickers and buttons that say "I voted" at voting stations. It's pitiful, I know, but I think if a presidential candidate declared his support for eliminating the Bill of Rights, we'd still only get up to the 50 percent range. Newt Gingrich will never be on a presidential ticket because so many people would show up to vote against him. Of course, Republicans would oppose any idea to increase voter turnout, just like they opposed the "motor-voter" laws making registration more accessible. I don't see anyone mentioning that with regard to the effect on voter turnout, by the way. -- Bill Faulk Salt Lake City Don't overlook South Carolina's U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races. We had a Democrat (Jim Hodges) upset the Republican, Christian Coalition-backed incumbent governor (David "I never cheated on my wife" Beasley), and Senator Hollings held on to his Senate seat by a comfortable margin. Hollings' opposition was rabid-right Clinton hater (and now former S.C. congressman) Bob Inglis. Inglis was on the House Judiciary Committee and has been saying for months that Clinton should be impeached. (Hollings did call Inglis a "goddamn skunk" and caught a lot of flak because of that remark. I heard the skunks were going to sue for defamation of character.) We're not all backwoods rebel-flag-wavin' rednecks in S.C. Some of us are in touch with reality. Keep up the good work. -- Ron Wright Columbia, S.C. In general, I found Joan Walsh's article well-balanced. However, her surprise over Gray Davis receiving more support from female voters than Barbara Boxer surprised me! Do women always have to vote for other women? I thought one of the goals of feminism was to reach a point where a woman could vote for someone who truly represented her views. Boxer, more liberal than Davis, doesn't necessarily speak to the more moderate Democratic female. Women aren't all alike and shouldn't vote all alike. -- Jennifer Jank I just wanted to thank all of you for your excellent coverage of this year's elections. While we're waiting for the tallying to be completed, I feel that your fair and uncompromising assessment of the races and issues were a much needed breath of fresh air in the frenzied political atmosphere that we've all grown to loathe. Your coverage seemed to me to be the only refuge from the inanities spewed forth by the usual political pundits (they know who they are). Also, thanks for Table Talk. The discussions in the Political threads were enlightening and lively. Disagreeing to disagree, your members are intelligent, politically savvy and, I might add, true participants in democratic debate. Continued success to all, keep up the good work. Thanks again for being an oasis from the usual crap. -- Roger Burck I keep hearing that the Democrats won thanks to African-American and Hispanic voters. You have missed the biggest reason of all: The Republican voters, fed up with the Christian Coalition-led Republican leadership and their witch hunt, voted a straight Democratic ticket to topple the extremist GOP leadership. If you turn away a good number of your own party, you can't win. Period. -- Carol Levy New Orleans
_______________WHAT IT ALL MEANS SALON PUNDITS ON THE ELECTION RESULTS (11/04/98)
	Regarding David Horowitz's comments: Let me get this straight. The party of Al D'Amato, Lauch Faircloth and Newt Gingrich tried to be fair and didn't win some key races because the Democrats played dirty politics? Perhaps they did, but the Republicans were easily as nasty and below-the-belt as the few select Democrats Horowitz was able to find. (Faircloth used a TV ad this year to compare his opponent to a Nazi.) The Republican Party has been using nasty, below-the-belt tactics for 50 years, the most egregious example being when Richard Nixon (remember him?) was involved in forging documents to destroy his probable Democratic rival, Sen. Edmund Muskie. As for Horowitz's claim that Republicans balanced the budget, it just isn't true. The budget was balanced thanks to Clinton's 1993 plan that raised taxes on the rich, which not a single Republican voted for. Perhaps Salon can find a Republican revisionist who isn't quite as reality-challenged as Horowitz. That being said, I think it's important to note (in contrast to Al Franken's, Todd Gitlin's and Joe Conason's optimistic tones) that this is not a victory for the Democrats. Republicans still control the Senate by a solid margin, they still control the House and they have 31 governorships, including the states of New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Texas. Plus, George W. Bush has been given a major boost for his presidential bid. Finally, last I checked, the Democrats didn't have a particularly clear agenda and they weren't presenting a viable liberal alternative to the Republican party. -- Greg Machlin I agree with Katha Pollitt that Monica Lewinsky has been ground up and spat out by the Starr Chamber. But when Pollitt writes, "She never did anything wrong and she is the most famous person in country, " I have to object. Lewinski went down on someone else's husband. Not uncommon, not illegal, not grounds for Clinton's impeachment or even censure, but still wrong. -- Dale Keiger Complaining about "vicious" Democrats twice in one paragraph isn't convincing, especially when their Republican opponents in question were of the ilk of Al D'Amato, Fob James, and Lauch Faircloth. The epithet "vicious" must be reserved for those who call black voters "communistic" in their support for Democratic candidates. African-Americans are like any other faction in American party politics -- they vote their interests, and it just so happens that they see that the Republican war on affirmative action is not in their best interests. -- Ann M. Little Rather than reasoned discourse and sound argument, writers and "thinkers" of Anne Lamott's ilk resort to hysterical rants and ad hominem name-calling to express their views -- like Lamott's calling D'Amato "a piece of shit," or the equally profound Al Franken's sophomoric diatribe: "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot." Well, Anne Lamott is a talentless phony, and Al Franken is a bespectacled, unfunny nerd whose best days were 20 years ago. -- Tom Gordon Manhattan In Anne Lamott's post-election satirical piece, she wrote, "that prick Henry Hyde. Of course he got reelected. He's the incumbent, so he got reelected." In fact, there was no major-party candidate opposing Hyde in this election; if the Democrats had bothered to nominate someone against him before the "Snodgrassgate" business came up, he might have lost. But we'll never know, will we? -- Angus MacDonald Concord, Calif.
_______________DR. LAURA, HOW COULD YOU? BY PATRIZIA DILUCCHIO (11/03/98)
	I detest most of what goes into your magazine, but thank you for the Dr. Laura article! I have had the mixed pleasure of listening to her show, and I think she has far greater problems than anyone who calls her show. Her attitude is vile, absolutely not what people with troubles need to hear. I think she has some points to make -- her callers are often in need of some smacking around -- but it is impossible to imagine her as any kind of "shrink," as she calls herself. As for the pictures, I went to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura, as you kindly advised, and there they were (long live the ubiquity of Usenet)! Dr. Laura in various stages of the buff. Nice, actually -- I'd make her my "shack-up honey" any day. In addition to the educational graphics, the newsgroup is full of posts on various hypocrisies and bad behaviors in her own life, past and present. Aside from the pictures, it was very informative to see these other posts (some with cites) explaining various facets of her personality. I will never listen to her quite the same way again. Now if you would just stop defending Clinton's crimes.... -- Noah Ravitz Brooklyn, N.Y. I just finished reading your article about Dr. Laura Schlessinger and the nude photos. I have one question: Who would want to look at naked pictures of this woman when most people can barely stand to look at her fully clothed? I hope she knows her "dirty little secret" is safe with me. No one I know wants to have a peek. -- Mona Cain Box Elder, S.D. SALON | Nov. 9, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| MAIL ROOM DISPATCH ...

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.