Republicans and Maryland Politics
The Sun has made some interesting initial points in recent days regarding the Maryland Republican Party and its candidates for statewide office for 1994 in the light of this year's elections.
It was said by Barry Rascovar (column, Nov. 8) that the GOP should not nominate a "career diplomat." Then I was named in an editorial (Nov. 9) as "not a suitable candidate . . . a Washingtonian who happened to live in a Maryland suburb."
I entirely agree with the editorial's conclusion that Republicans need "credible candidates with clear programs who know how to communicate with the state's voters." That is what the election season of 1994, which has not yet begun, will give the voters of Maryland an opportunity to determine.
In 1990, with a shoestring campaign budget and a message that we had to get the state's finances in order, I received 40.4 percent of the vote, the largest statewide Maryland Republican vote percentage since Sen. Charles Mathias' last campaign in 1980. . .
I have spent much time before and after the 1990 election talking with Marylanders in every county and in Baltimore. I would welcome the opportunity, at any time, to prove to those who need such proof that I "really understand the state, its people and its needs."
For with one-party domination at the White House, both Houses of Congress, the governorship, both houses of the Maryland General Assembly and mayor of Baltimore and all seats of the Baltimore City Council in the hands of the Democratic Party, I strongly feel that Maryland voters will see the need for a Republican governor in 1994 who can set priorities, get the job done and hold the line on taxes.
Let us compare the programs of the candidates when there are candidates and see.
Maryland can be one state, and Baltimore need have nothing to fear if executive power for the first time goes to Montgomery County, following the new demographics. The point is to work together, and use the strengths of all Marylanders toward common goals.
When executive power is transferred next in Maryland, by the way, it will be a full 10 years since I was a career diplomat and Washington-based. That is old news.
The task ahead is to show which candidate, and party, will have the best program for Maryland. I have a hunch that whoever prevails will need in good measure those skills of persuasion, thoroughness and the ability to see the other person's point of view that are the hallmarks of the career diplomat.
For those are precisely the qualities that will be most needed in the next Maryland state administration, and if a Republican is elected governor, the first politically divided administration in a generation.
William S. Shepard
I have noticed the overwhelming denunciation of Gov. William Donald Schaefer's endorsement of President George Bush in the letters you have chosen to publish.
I never thought that I would be defending a governor who recently signed into law one of the worst pieces of pro-abortion legislation in the history of our nation.
However, like six out of every 10 voters, he had a right to vote against the frightening prospect of a Clinton administration.
The attacks on Schaefer's recent actions remind me of a line from "H.M.S. Pinafore" which gives advice on climbing the political ladder: "I always voted at my party's call and I never thought of thinking for myself at all."
If more of Maryland's Democrats had had Governor Schaefer's courage to think for themselves rather than obeying their party and believing The Sun, maybe we would not be stuck with the most liberal pro-abortion-industry law in the country or the alarming prospects of the economic and moral future of our nation.
A Perfect Fit
Your Nov. 5 editorial on the outcome of Maryland's eight congressional races, while highly amusing, demands a response on several important points.
The Sun lamented that Roscoe Bartlett, the Republican who won the race for the open seat in Maryland 6th Congressional District, "never articulated any specific issues other than trimming the size of government, eliminating regulations and reducing taxes."
Might I respectfully suggest that you guys to use an overworked phrase just don't get it!
The Sun correctly observed that President-elect Clinton had no coattails in Maryland. But why would you consider the victory of a Republican candidate in a majority Republican district "surprising?" The 6th District voted for George Bush, too, with a strong majority.
The folks who voted for George Bush and Roscoe Bartlett didn't want a congressman with a legislative agenda.
They wanted a guy who would instinctually vote the way they would, if they sat in his chair. They got one in Roscoe Bartlett.
The fact is that Roscoe Bartlett is a Republican and a perfect fit for his district, just as Wayne Gilchrest is in the 1st.
Carol A. Arscott
The writer is a Republican Party official in Howard County.
Sell, Sell, Sell
The "sit-commercial" launched by Bell Atlantic Corp. made page one, but Whittle Communications published an even more revolutionary selling idea with apparently no announcement.
They bring to literate adults written commercials in non-fiction literature. Lit-ads?
In Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s 83-page "The Disuniting of America," published by Whittle, Federal Express has 16 pages of paid (I assume) advertising. That's nearly 22 percent of the book.
Two-page ads appear at the beginning of each of the book's five chapters.
Two pairs of ad pages also appear in the middle of Schlesinger's text and one ad at the beginning and end of the book.
Surprised? This reader was as flabbergasted as the Randallstown librarian to whom the book was shown.
Friends' reactions vary from "an outrage!" to, "I guess books will become more profitable now."
Reflection, however, yields only questions: Why did Whittle select Federal Express to buy ads in this book? Why did Federal Express buy them? Is this a one-shot pioneering effort, or will other publishers follow Whittle's example?
What effect will the ads have on the readers of this book and others in the Whittle series called "Large Agenda"? Whose agenda is it?
Less serious questions also arise. Suppose the authors of a previous generation had to await publication until a proper advertiser was found?
Who might have been selected to advertise in Dickens' "Oliver Twist?" Toys R Us, perhaps, since Oliver had none. How about "Gulliver's Travels?" A hotel chain, Hilton or Holiday Inn? It's fun to speculate.
But let us turn to current books. Will the next volume of Blanche Wiesen Cook's biography of Eleanor Roosevelt carry ads plugging American Express cards since E.R. left home so frequently for just about everywhere?
Perhaps Goodyear Tires should have been asked to advertise in Joyce Carol Oates' fictional discussion of the Ted Kennedy accident at Chappaquiddick, assuring us that its product would have held to the road.
One can play party games with these marketing decisions or one can just wonder how ads will affect the quality of future writing and the delight of reading.
We can expect to see tons of cosmetic ads in popular romance novels, cigarette ads in young adult books, a pitch for headache pills in mystery fiction.
The declining ad industry can flourish once again, and authors may have to submit corporate prospects for commercials with every manuscript.
By the way, I suggest that The Sun market an appropriate ad next to my comments.
Browning-Ferris, a waste disposal firm, may be just right for the Whittle publishing idea.