I am writing in response to your Dec. 1 lead editorial, "Ecker v. Sauerbrey?"
The gist of the editorial was a prediction that Maryland's Republicans would choose Charles Ecker over Ellen Sauerbrey. Your prediction is not surprising since you have a long history of underestimating Mrs. Sauerbrey's support.
In fact, the editorial would have been downright unremarkable except for the following statement. You declared, "Where a Chuck Ecker or a Bobby Neall differs from an Ellen Sauerbrey is in the realization government isn't an evil that must be chopped down, but a well-intended institution in need of taming not maiming."
You're correct when you assert that Ellen Sauerbrey believes that state government is in need of dramatic reform and not merely fine-tuning.
The problem is that you could have substituted the name Parris Glendening for Chuck Ecker or Bobby Neall.
It would not be difficult to imagine the governor telling the voters that "government is a well-intended institution in need of taming not maiming."
The question for Maryland Republicans is whether to offer the voters a different shade of Parris Glendening or a woman with a vision to change the way we do business in Maryland.
Pub Date: 12/15/96