DeJuliis positions mischaracterized
I appreciate The Sun's endorsement of my candidacy in the Second District, in your Feb. 27 editorial. However, in your effort to reduce the campaign to simple tit-for-tat sound-bites, you have seriously mischaracterized my positions.
To suggest that I am "decidedly . . . pro-gun control" completely ignores my record and my positions. I recognize that responsible ownership and use of guns for hunting, targeting practice, self-defense and other lawful activities is constitutionally protected. However, I have long been and remain concerned about the dangerous and irresponsible use of firearms and the impact on our communities.
It is also incorrect to leave the impression that I am not "pro-business." I have advocated for policies that reward hard work and community responsibility by employees and employers. Entrepreneurs and other businesses that invest in America through job creation should clearly benefit over those who are more interested in short-term profit-taking at the expense of our communities.
Equally incorrect is the assertion that I am opposed to federal spending cuts. I have repeatedly stated that it is time to make hard choices on budgetary matters and that to balance the budget, we must also balance the cuts.
I do oppose current efforts to make disproportionate and damaging cuts to programs that serve the elderly and working families, while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in our country.
Finally and most important, your editorial sadly did not address the main focus of my campaign over the past two months -- helping hard-working families like those in the Second District who have played by the rules. I also recognize the importance of reforming and strengthening essential programs like Medicare and college loans.
We need to bring some common sense back to Washington and get our priorities straight. And at the top of our agenda must be helping those working families who are increasingly squeezed between paychecks, worried about access to health care, and concerned about their children's education. That's a commitment I believe we all should endorse.
#Connie Galiazzo DeJuliis
Parsimony led to Colts takeover by Irsay
Carroll Rosenbloom asked for Memorial Stadium improvements that would have cost "peanuts" compared with the cost of the baseball stadium and the planned football stadium.
Time will surely prove the waste of so much money and point up the clear foresight of Mr. Rosenbloom. And why he left Baltimore to be saddled with Robert Irsay, who ran a good thing into the ground.
The writer was Colts ticket manager for 10 years.
Long tradition of wealthy candidates
Steve Forbes isn't the first candidate with deep pockets.
Before Michael Huffington came John Fitzgerald Kennedy, another famous father's son with political ambition and his father's deep pockets.
Poor Hubert Horatio Humphrey could not compete in the West Virginia primary.
Traffic lights cause problems
You have reported plans to install cameras at intersections that would automatically photograph vehicles running a red traffic signal. That would nab offenders and probably should be implemented.
The question is when, not only because of cost but also because adjustments can be made to alleviate the problem, which would yield a greater benefit.
The Baltimore metropolitan area has one of the worst traffic control systems I have come across.
First, the red lights are too long, enticing motorists to run them rather than sit through another lengthy sequence.
Second, there are unnecessary lights, leaving no room for motorists' judgment. It seems that if there's an intersection, there's a light.
Last, our system has not kept up with technology. Too often, vehicles are kept at a light when there is no traffic to be controlled.
We need a system that responds to the traffic conditions, not general conditions or a timer.
Before we put public dollars into a sophisticated photographic system, we need to upgrade what we have already.
Buchanan divisiveness is positive attribute
Your editorial, "Who is Iowa's real winner?" (Feb. 14), continued the liberal tradition of myth-making about Patrick Buchanan and the 1992 Republican National Convention.
The idea that Mr. Buchanan set the stage at that convention for George Bush's defeat in 1992 is extremely flawed. President Bush was responsible for his own loss to Bill Clinton by walking away from the Reagan legacy, specifically on taxes and in general by trying to appear more moderate than his predecessor (which lost him more support on the right than it gained him from the left).
If President Bush had continued with a strong presidency along the lines that Ronald Reagan had established, there would not have been any need for Pat Buchanan to challenge him.
Contrary to the myth about the off-putting "divisiveness" of the GOP convention, the Republicans actually got a boost in the polls right after the supposed long, dark night of hatred.
President Bush squandered this advantage by not vigorously campaigning until just before the election in a gimmicky attempt to finesse victory by trying to peak at the right time. Not only did the Democrats benefit from the presence of Ross Perot on the ballot and apathy toward President Bush, but they also ran a hard-hitting, divisive campaign from the start.
People on the left who use the term "divisive" as an accusation against political opponents ought to re-think the nonsense of pretending that it's just awful to be divisive.
Many famous people in history have been very "divisive" in what they considered to be a just cause: Jesus Christ, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all guilty of being divisive.
And many causes dear to the liberal heart (the civil rights movement, the protest against the Vietnam War, the legalization of abortion, etc.) all had (and still have) a tremendously divisive effect on America. Liberals have no business accusing others of being divisive.
Much of the hysteria about Pat Buchanan from "progressives" in the two major political parties stems from being a clear threat to those who benefit from politics-as-usual.
Despite the "Pat's-too-extremist" propaganda from those who feel threatened by his no-nonsense approach, Mr. Buchanan stands a good chance of doing quite well against Bill Clinton in November.
Besides representing social conservatives and people who are fed up with elitist internationalism, Mr. Buchanan also appeals to Reagan Democrats (let's not forget that Jimmy Carter was zTC thrilled at the prospect of campaigning against the "extremist" Ronald Reagan), Perot voters, and, in what ought to make liberal Democrats nervous about their base of support, lower-income voters, as well.
Charles E. Wilson Jr.