Michael Dresser's recent article, "Brown to launch run for governor" (May 10), was very troubling. For example, an implication is made that the only credible candidates in the election are those who have big, fat finance accounts. In addition, Mr. Dresser goes into speculative mode whereby he makes an assessment regarding who Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's competitors might be. He suggests names of rivals that typify the aspirations of people who hold political office today — that is to say, career politicians who want to expand their personal power and fame.
From reading Mr. Dresser's article, I would surmise he believes that anybody who has not amassed lots of money should not be taken seriously as a candidate. It is easy to conclude then that the questions, "Do you have money?" and, "Are you a politico?" provide the yardstick for what makes a good politician. However, I ask, what happens to essentials such as ideas and moral integrity of the person? Don't these qualify an individual to serve the public? Just because an individual does not want to be bought or has no desire to try to buy an election, this should not invalidate an individual from being considered as a serious and viable candidate for office.
Thus, Mr. Dresser's writing with limited vision concerning the criteria of what constitutes a serious candidate does not serve the public's right to know.
Ralph Jaffe, Baltimore