Advertisement

Letters to the Editor 2/10

February 12, 2001

Letters to the Editor 2/10



Use tourism cash for sewers



To the editor:

Pay off the sewer debt! If the stadium issue really is dead and it appears every worthwhile organization as well as our commissioners are looking for ways to "use" the money brought in by the increased hotel tax - pay off the $54 million sewer debt.

Then there would be additional funds for charities, schools, and escrow accounts and police departments. An additional benefit would also be a better credit rating for Washington County.

Even if the stadium effort is only hibernating through winter and only monies for one year are available, put the funds towards the debt. There are always many good ways to spend "extra" money and many worthwhile organizations to help. But this tax was supposed to be for funding a new (or rebuilt) stadium and paying down the sewer debt.

Advertisement

Why don't the commissioners do it?

Alys Wright Kerns

Hagerstown

Bush's victory



To the editor:

Just a few thoughts arising from the AP story "Two Bushes, vast differences."(Jan. 15 A-7) This item of "news" is biased and misleading (untruthful) in much of what it says - even people at The Herald-Mail know it - yet they publish it anyway.

It spins details to put President Bush in the worst possible light when in fact the opposite is more accurate.

It begins by saying that the two Bushes "share last name, but little else." That alone should get one's attention. George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush actually share first, middle and last names.

It is true that the elder Bush had more national and foreign policy experience, and that he was elected on the coattails of a popular president and a good economy and that Bush the younger lacked those advantages.

But that makes his election that much more remarkable. Al Gore should have won as handily as the elder Bush did, but lost. The coattails were Gore's - the experience and the popular president and the good economy, and the press were all in Gores favor - but Bush still won the election. Chalk one up for Bush the younger!

The story goes on to say that "the younger Bush won the White House with neither a majority nor a mandate..." Both of those statements are untrue and the media know it. Yet because their guy lost, and because they want to undermine the Bush presidency as much as they can, they continue to perpetuate these and other lies.

In the USA the president has been, and hopefully always will be, elected by the majority vote of the electoral college - that is the only vote that really matters. George W. Bush won that vote by a majority, and the media need to get over it. No one has ever been elected president because he won the popular vote. It wouldn't have made any difference if Gore had won the popular vote by a billion votes. If he loses the electoral college vote he loses the election. That is the law. That Bush is the first person in a long time to win the electoral vote but not the popular is a noteworthy historical fact - but that is all it is.

When it happened before, the candidate who won the electoral vote became president, just as Mr. Bush did. That is the law.

It is also not true that Bush does not have a mandate to govern. In another AP story in this paper on Dec .17 only 13 percent of those polled thought the details of the election would keep Bush from being an effective president - 75 percent said he should pursue his agenda despite the slim margin of victory. Add to that the fact that Bush won 2,447 counties to Gore's 677, 29 states to Gore's 21. Sounds like a mandate to me.

This article also continues to mislead/lie to the public by reporting that the U. S. Supreme Court vote that stopped the illegal recounts in Florida was 5-4. In truth there were seven justices who voted to strike down the Florida supreme court ruling that allowed the illegal recounts and two (Ginsburg, Stevens) who voted to continue them.

The 5-4 vote was on the ruling that there "was no constitutional way to repair the faulty legal logic of the Florida court." Bush's victory in the U.S. Supreme Court was not so narrow and partisan as the media want us to think.

The most telling line in the whole story is the one which reveals that the media are not content with reporting the news - they also want to make news. The reporter writes (threatens) that Bush "knows that reporters in the months ahead may well demonstrate that he probably also lost Florida in the electoral vote." It is reporters - the media - who are now down in Florida, not counting votes but casting votes. They have decided that they themselves have the ability to decide the mind of the much-heralded, pre-election hyped, undecided voters rather than acknowledging that these ballots prove that they do in fact exist.

So much for unbiased journalism. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just read the newspaper and expect journalists to be honest?

Edward L. James

Hancock

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|