Letters

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Aug 27, 2000

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

This Election Day truly will be a crossroads

Despite the ponderous and compelling issues being contested in this election year - everything from gun control, to Social Security, to tax cuts, to education and socialized medicine - this presidential election is more a battle waged over the fundamental nature of our union. It is a contest over the Constitution itself.

Will we, as a republic return to the laws established by our Founding Fathers in the forming of our federation of states? Will the original Constitution be restored?

Or, will we hurtle down the precipitous path along which the current administration has propelled us? A path where states' rights have been seriously eroded. A path where authentic "inalienable rights" - explicitly enunciated at the outset (such as "the right to life") - have been subordinated to implied rights, only suggested in our civil society (such as "the right to privacy").

A path where the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of religion has been so distorted that the state - which was confined to being neutral to religion - has become unscrupulously hostile to it. A path where criminals enjoy more rights than victims. A path where government competes with entrepreneurs in the marketplace, but profits from a monopolistic position while saddling free enterprise with onerous regulations and taxes.

A path where an oligarchy dictates how the income of the citizen is disposed of, and the personal conduct of those citizens.

This election is the inexorable march to a fork in the road: To proceed under the canopy of democracy, which our Constitution has provided - or to blaze this questionable path so clearly carved out in the last eight years?

Deborah C. Arangno, Colorado Springs

It wasn't about adultery - but lying under oath

In response to Millie Hawkins' letter ("Lieberman showed constitutional knowledge," Aug. 23), adultery may not constitute malfeasance in office, but perjury certainly does. The issue never was adultery. That issue is between Bill Clinton, his wife and God. Perjury, however, goes against the rule of law in our society and violates the trust inherent in Clinton's oath of office. That is malfeasance.

George Hufford, Monument

Presidential character is on the line

I am continuously amazed at the lack of comprehension of my fellow citizens when it comes to the issue of President Clinton's impeachment. He was impeached for lying and attempting to deprive a fellow citizen of her rights, not adultery. Come on folks get it right.

David L. Pompili, Colorado Springs

Democrats ought to take a look in the mirror

Shawn Yocum-Alford ("Paying off debt would be a benefit to all," Letters, Aug. 22) accuses George W. Bush and the Republican Party of employing "self-righteous innuendo" in an effort to win the White House, but everyone knows that it is Yocum-Alford and her fellow Democrats who are the experts at this particular sport. All perceptive Americans know that it was Bill Clinton and his cronies who pioneered the use of the smear-by-implication tactic, and it is the Democratic Party that stands today as the uncontested champion of self-righteousness.

It was the Democrats who dredged up Dick Cheney's congressional "No" vote on sanctions against South Africa and suggested that Cheney really voted to keep Nelson Mandela in jail. Likewise, it was the Democrats who claimed George W. Bush's visit to Bob Jones University was tantamount to an anti-Catholic bias. As well, it was the Democrats who circulated unsubstantiated stories about Bush's alleged cocaine use while conveniently ignoring Al Gore's self-admitted marijuana habit. And let's not forget the oldies-but-goodies: Republicans want to starve children, kill the elderly and oppress the minorities.

More to the point, what could be greater self-righteousness than the Democrats - the party of the quota, the party of the glitterati, and the party of class warfare - claiming to be the party of the people?

Ivo Fronzaglia, Colorado Springs

Democratic Party is based upon envy

Bill Clinton had the opportunity to sign into law a tax cut to eliminate the marriage-tax penalty. He vetoed it because he said it favored the rich. How does anyone with common sense believe that? Whether you are rich or poor, the exemption per individual should be the same, regardless of your marital status. Percentage-wise, this favors poor and middle-class people much more than rich people. The dollar amount is the same, but the percentage of tax cut is much higher for lower-income people.

The death tax is another unfair tax. The Democrats believe only the rich people pay (not true), but why don't they look at the tax on its merits? What gives the government the right to any portion of an estate when someone dies? How can anyone defend this tax, unless it is pure greed and envy?

The issues in the next election are very clear. The Democrats are full of envy, jealousy and use class warfare as their standard. How long will many minorities and liberal special-interest groups continue to support them? Have they really helped you?