Liberal Democrats
This refers to the Sept. 24 article in your paper by William Thompson claiming that the Democratic "liberal" leadership has disavowed Ralph Gies in his bid for a seat in the House of Representatives that would replace Republican Wayne Gilchrest.
In this article it is stated that Ralph Gervasio, acting executive director of the Maryland Democratic Party, said the party could not support Mr. Gies because of his views -- views which are taboo to the liberal manual of the Democratic Party.
I have been a Democrat for my entire life and don't hesitate to say that I am forced in each election to split my ticket in joining other conservative Democrats when the other party presents a more attractive candidate for the same office . . .
Mr. Gies is a gentleman of outstanding character and possesses a litany of virtues he would bring to the office he is seeking.
If he were elected his voice would join the hallelujah chorus that would serve as music to the ears of conservatives within the Democratic Party who are greatly disheartened with some of the choices we have had in the past.
It is interesting to note that many Democratic candidates running for office in this election are shying away from the president, as they feel an endorsement from him would hurt their chances of winning; yet in reality their liberal advocacy coincides with the philosophy of our chief executive.
Mr. Gies should take some consolation in the fact that while he has not won the support of the local Democratic hierarchy, the same ideology that denied Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania the opportunity to speak at the last national convention, reflects the liberal rejection of ideas many voters share in the hope of restoring some sanity to a political fiasco created by a band of liberal thinkers.
George T. Murray
Odenton
Cracking Up
Jonathan Paul Yates' Oct. 18 commentary piece on why health care reform went nowhere cracked me up -- and it wasn't even very clever.
Mr. Yates cites two examples in support of his contention that the legislation failed because it was too broad.
One of them concerns the abortion provision. "Everyone, irrespective of personal conviction, would pay for abortion services," he says. What that translates to is something like this: because I'm against it, I'm going to deny it to you, even though it's perfectly legal.
On the matter of mental health, Mr. Yates zeroes in on depression and alcoholism with this mind-numbing statement. "Mental-health provisions would have allowed anyone to check himself into a hospital for therapy (or a warm bed and hot meal) . . . As most homeless people have mental or substance abuse problems, hospitals would be turned into de-facto shelters."
I'd be glad to take Mr. Yates on a walking tour so we can ask the homeless if they'd like to come with us to a hospital.
Does he really think people who won't go to a shelter for fear of being robbed will jump at the chance to enter a hospital where strangers will stick them with needles and keep them from supply of alcohol, if they're alcoholic?
If Mr. Yates would care to, he can look up the estimates about what depression and alcoholism alone cost the country in lost productivity and illness. He can start with the 20,000 plus folks who die on the highways each year in alcohol-related accidents.
Mr. Yates suggests that we ought to be frightened by any attempt to address one-seventh (the amount we spend on health care) of our economy.
The fact that we spend nearly 14 percent of our gross national product on health care should be what frightens Mr. Yates.
That number is roughly 50 percent more than is spent in any country against which we compete.
And it's growing faster than the economy is. And it doesn't include all our citizens, which isn't the case in other developed countries.
William Bowie
Baltimore
Beautiful Flowers
My heartfelt thanks to whomever is responsible for the beautiful wild flowers being planted in the median strip of I-83, north of Hunt Valley. What a feast for the eyes!
I carry the impression of those graceful pink and red bobbing and weaving blossoms through a busy day, and it never fails to bring a smile to the lips and heart. Good to know someone in a bureaucracy loves nature, too.
After you've admired the flowers, drive by the Glencoe Gardens on York Road and drink in the beauty of the three trees out front for as long as their beauty lasts -- all three trees aflame with autumn's glory. Enjoy it while it lasts, friends.
Lillian Broadwick
Monkton
Decision Was No Setback for Mrs. Sauerbrey
As a long-time Maryland Republican, I routinely hear the Republican community complaining about The Sun's purported bias against the party.
In the past, I have dismissed these charges as nothing more than spasms of paranoia from the far-right minority. One recent article, "Sauerbrey, GOP suffer court setback" (Oct. 12) lends a considerable measure of credence to these allegations.
Prior to the Maryland primary, Ellen Sauerbrey agreed to accept public financing, which limited her expenditures in the general election to $997,800.
After the primary election, the attorney general of Maryland, a Democrat up for re-election, issued a letter of advice on the public financing law that stated that all expenditures that in any way promote Mrs. Sauerbrey and are made with the mere knowledge of Mrs. Sauerbrey or one of her agents are to be imputed to her for purposes of the $997,800 cap, regardless of whether or not she consents to the expenditure.
And all expenditures made by the Maryland Republican Party or any of the 24 county central committees are attributable to Mrs. Sauerbrey whether or not made with her knowledge.
Whether politically motivated or not, the attorney general's interpretation of the law subjected Mrs. Sauerbrey to potential civil penalties, criminal prosecution and the risk of forfeiture of office on account of expenditures made without her consent.
Also, the Maryland Republican Party and the county central committees were as a practical matter deprived of the ability to include Mrs. Sauerbrey's name in their promotions of all Republican candidates for statewide office.
And, candidates all over Maryland were in a state of uncertainty as to whether they could align themselves with their party's extremely popular gubernatorial nominee without unwittingly triggering a violation of the public financing law by the nominee.
As a consequence, the Maryland Republican Party and the Frederick County Central Committee filed suit seeking an evenhanded and workable interpretation of the public financing law.
Such an interpretation was rendered on Oct. 11 by Circuit Court Judge G. Edward Dwyer Jr. Judge Dwyer held that attributing expenditures of unrelated third parties to Mrs. Sauerbrey based on mere knowledge was unconstitutional.
In addition, he held that while the portion of expenditures by the state party mentioning Mrs. Sauerbrey are to be attributable to her, expenditures by the county central committee and other Republican candidates are only to be attributable to Mrs. Sauerbrey if such expenditures are made with the consent of Mrs. Sauerbrey or her agents.
Finally, the court enunciated clear standards by which these allocations are to be made to Mrs. Sauerbrey.
The Sun characterized the decision as a "setback" for the Sauerbrey campaign and the Maryland Republican Party. The Maryland Republican Party, the county central committees and all the Republican candidates could not have asked for a more reasonable decision.
Although it may simply be the product of sloppy journalism, The Sun's reporting of the event will likely serve as fodder for the growing legions of political moderates who question The Sun's objectivity.
By the way, the Washington Post's article (Oct. 13) was entitled "Judge's Ruling Gives GOP Room to Aid Sauerbrey."
Jim Godey
Cockeysville