GOP primary doesn't need Independents

I disagree with the proposal to allow Maryland registered independents to vote in Republican primaries.

Proponents believe independents voting in our primary will be more likely to vote Republican in general elections, enhancing our likelihood of victory.

Taken to its logical extreme, Republicans should all register as independents. Then we would have a bigger party and a better chance of beating the Democrats. We could figure out an ideology later.

No thanks. I'm a Republican because I believe in lower taxes and less government; individual rights, not group rights; free enterprise with less government regulation; a hand up, not a hand out; a good education for all, not just more public education spending; and a stronger commitment to public safety and national defense.

A Republican victory absent these principles would be meaningless to all but the most cynical politician.

I am a white Republican male. In 1997, I won election to the Annapolis City Council in a 70 percent Democratic, 65 percent African-American ward. My campaign was built on basic Republican ideology -- clearly and energetically disseminated door-to-door.

I discovered that most voters are Republicans. They just don't realize it yet. We have to help them see it.

This is not a new concept. Ronald Reagan, and later the Contract with America, applied it, and Republicans won big. George Bush ignored it and lost. The 1998 congressional Republicans ignored it. They "me tooed" the Democrats on education and counted on President Clinton's negatives to save the day.

They lost seats, as did scores of county and state Republicans who softened "their message to appeal" to Democrats and independents.

To paraphrase Harry Truman, if you offer the voters a choice between a Democrat and a Republican who tries to act like a Democrat, they'll choose the Democrat every time. Unfortunately, most Maryland Republican candidates haven't figured this out.

Republicans who want to open our primaries to independents are following a formula of pandering to votes that failed in 1998.

I prefer President Reagan's strategy: Define the Republican message, stay on message and take your case to the people. Through this strategy, many conservative Democrats and independents will join our cause and being a Republican will mean something besides not being a Democrat.

Herbert H. McMillan Annapolis

The writer represents the 5th Ward on the Annapolis City Council.

Outlawing 'loitering while black'

Annapolis Alderman Herbert H. McMillan claims that he has introduced an anti-loitering ordinance because that is what the African-American community wants. Right.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concern about this bill on constitutional grounds. These two organizations know that these kinds of bills always hurt members of the black community and are used to harass our youth.

Recently, the Rev. Barbara Sands, Asbury Broadneck United Methodist Church, raised the issue of "racial profiling" by the police. Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Clayton Greene Jr. has expressed concerns about this practice. On a national level, many people have expressed concerns about "DWB," i.e. "driving while black."

Now, we have an alderman who wants to create an "LWB" law, i.e., "loitering while black." If the alderman really wants to help his constituents, he would be fighting for jobs and better recreational facilities.

If I recall correctly, he won his election by 28 votes. You can be sure that he will be a one-term alderman. If he thinks that he can use this issue to run for mayor, he had better rethink his options.

The Black Political Forum proudly joins with the NAACP, United Black Clergy, the Maryland Forum of African American Leaders and the ACLU in opposing this ordinance.

Michael T. Brown Sr. Annapolis

The writer is chairman of the Black Political Forum.

Parents must take the lead with children

While I may have had strong feelings in the past on certain columns, I have never felt compelled to respond in writing.

However, Michael Olesker's May 6 column, about the suspension of a Windsor Farm Elementary fourth-grader and his parents' response to this issue caused me to respond from the heart.

I do not question the Anne Arundel County school system's response to this issue. I do not question Mr. Olesker's assertion that "sometimes, perhaps, we lose a sense of perspective and common sense."

I do not question that perhaps a 9-year-old would not draw a connection between a picture of a gun he had drawn and the Colorado tragedy.

However, I question why a 9-year-old has a James Bond video game. I question why his parents would permit him to "spend too much time with it."

As a parent of a toddler and a mother employed outside the home, I certainly appreciate time demands and stresses we undergo in our daily lives. When Americans are asked what is the most important thing in life, family is inevitably a top response. However, I question the validity of this response.

If, in fact, we allocate our time, money and resources according to our values, and if we value our families more than anything else in our lives, we ought to see that the allocation of our time, money and resources shows that. Does it?

Our children know that we spend the most energy on what we care most about. It's long overdue that we take an active interest in our children.

Our children are not the responsibility of a governmental "village." The responsibility lies with us parents.

Amy J. Seipp Pasadena

While I totally agree with the "Parents appeal to TV sponsors" advertisement on May 3, I do not feel this is the complete picture.

Parents must place their children first. Our children must be our priority. Parents or guardians must know where the children are, what are they doing and who their friends are.

Years ago, we had what was called the "Legion of Decency." This program helped parents decide what children should or should not see.

We also said the Pledge of Allegiance everyday, and in doing so, renewed the honor and respect for ourcountry, God and human life. Then, before the school day started, we all prayed.

Marge Griffith Pasadena

Hanover gets slighted in BWI-area planning

I just attended the small area planning meeting for Baltimore-Washington International Airport/Linthicum, and once again Hanover is getting the short end of the stick.

Hanover is split up into three small area planning zones. The western part of BWI/Linthicum area; the northern part of the Severn area, and the eastern part of Jessup-Maryland City.

The BWI/Linthicum area has members from Towson to Annapolis, including members from Linthicum-Ferndale.

They rejected all those from Hanover who applied for committee membership, even though Hanover comprises one-third of the BWI/Linthicum small area planning zones.

This means that if you live in Hanover and are concerned about where you live, you must go to three meetings around the county to find out what is happening.

And finally, they gave out a "Small Areas, Big Visions" flier listing the meetings as the first and third Mondays of every month. In actuality, they are the second and fourth Mondays of each month.

Misinformation like this makes it very difficult for concerned members of the community to actively participate in the local area planning.

Art Lisowsky Hanover

Making progress on abortion debate

Your editorial, "No new day for GOP," May 3, referred to the Republican demise and whether to make abortion an issue in the 2000 elections.

There is a solution. Most people would prefer to be anti-abortionists if the following conditions were met:

Free prenatal care by a qualified physician.

Adoption of all unwanted children, primarily by caring, anti-abortion voters.

This would also cut welfare costs, and give these people the tax cut they desire.

Isn't it gratifying to know there is a way to make these good people's wishes come true, if they really want to try, rather than just talk about it.

Charles Johnston Pasadena

Taking needed stand against Milosevic

I remember listening intently as former President Carter sadly explained that the United Nations could only intervene when one country invaded another. I agreed at the time that we did not have the will or precedent to stop genocide as long as it was intranational. Millions of people have died since the Holocaust, even though we pretend otherwise and solemnly intone, "never again."

Finally it became too much as we watched one part of Yugoslavia rape, murder and assassinate another part of the country and send those not shot from their homes across wintry mountains as refugees.

President Clinton seemed to vacillate a long time, giving Slobodan Milosevic, the latest murdering tyrant, one chance after another until I lost hope that we might bite the bullet. And I was the original anti-Vietnam protester.

But we did bite the bullet, and it has turned out badly for the people we wanted to save. The tyrant's retaliation has been horrible for them.

With all other Americans, I hoped for better. But whatever happens, a stand has been taken.

The next time a two-bit monster decides to slaughter his own citizens, he will have to face the fact that he will be likely to have to pay.

Patricia L. Aiken Annapolis

To letter writers

Readers are encouraged to write to Letters to the Editor, The Baltimore Sun, 8131 Ritchie Highway, Pasadena, MD 21122, or you can fax letters to 410-315-8916.