Fred Branfman isn't entirely accurate in characterizing the furor over Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky as highlighting something new about the frailties of our presidents. The American public is often more aware of our past presidents' shortcomings than their accomplishments. Ask anyone about Jefferson and the name Sally Hemings will more often than not precede any mention of the Declaration of Independence or the Louisiana Purchase. Certainly Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding are remembered for nothing but their scandalous presidencies.

We have a long history of putting up with rascals in the Oval Office or its previous iterations. It is very rare that we have had a commander in chief with the dignity of a Washington or a Lincoln. For the most part we will elect individuals as flawed and conflicted as ourselves. And we must accept that the hurly-burly of modern politics may compromise the choices laid out before us.

If we want to "restore dignity" to the office it is ultimately our own responsibility. We must demand and seek "character" in our highest office, not allow a candidate's acolytes to decide for us what we are privileged to know or not know. Only once we do know, we may decide whether to elect what we deserve.

-- Erich S. Huang

Fred Branfman is wrong about Clinton's supposed "demystification of the presidency." Election mentality is different from incumbent mentality. If Clinton had another election to endure, he would lose over Monicagate. The public would vote him out simply to avoid the further interruption in the public's business. But when citizens invest their most prized political tool (their votes) in a candidate, those who would remove that official must leap over a higher bar. The Republicans tripped over it in 1998.

Branfman does note that "in the old days," the public was hypocritical and used divorce as a disqualifying factor in Rockefeller's case. But there is no evidence that the public has become much less hypocritical since 1960. Perhaps divorce is no longer a factor; but, in the hands of party spin-operatives and breathless media, evidence of hard drugs usage is still a non-starter for any presidential wannabe. Certainly for Republicans ... look at their own polls about W and drugs.

Our government won't improve until competent, average citizens decide to run for office, and that won't happen if they think the garbage cans of their private lives are going to be ransacked. Candidates, when asked questions of a personal nature, should all say, "Next!" Eventually, the media will get the idea: It's the issues, stupid!

-- Ron Duplantis

Fred Branfman writes, "What if he were addicted? Sold the drug? ... Why did he stop? Did he think about the potential harm it could do to his father's political career if he got caught?" These questions don't go to the heart of Bush's character, they go to the heart of Branfman's imagination. I would hope that candidates would be judged by their character in the era in which they're running. Bush has stated he hasn't used drugs in more than 20 years, which is still disclosing more than the public needs to know. He doesn't use drugs now nor does he endorse their use. The man that may be president is the George W. Bush of 1999. If he has the political qualifications and speaks to people's needs now, the decisions he made concerning his personal life 20-odd years ago shouldn't matter.

-- Stacey Pasco

Don't ask, he'll tell
BY AMY SILVERMAN
(08/31/99)

Amid surreal opposition, Steve May is doing a good job in the Arizona Legislature. Though it bothers me, as a gay man and a lifelong Democrat, to approve of a Mormon Republican, I have stopped laughing. Go Steve! Keep telling -- and get rid of that stupid policy for good!

-- Frank Hartigan
Tempe, Ariz.

Isn't it misleading to describe May as an openly gay Mormon? The Mormon church explicitly disapproves of homosexual activity and ordinarily excommunicates members of the church who willfully practice, much less publicly advocate, a homosexual lifestyle or political agenda. I think that point should be made. Otherwise your article appears to normalize the homosexual lifestyle -- "Gee, even Mormons can be openly gay." This is very misleading. I suspect May would concede that his alleged Mormon identity and his avowed gay identity are quite contradictory.

-- Dave Frame

"Log Cabin Republicans"? When you consider that the most forward-thinking Republican is a good 20 years behind the curve, wouldn't gay Republicans be better off supporting their friends, rather than making excuses for their enemies?

-- Michael F. McCarthy Jr.
West Palm Beach, Fla.

Next page | Is Houston seeking fame -- or notoriety?