Letters
More about Ashcroft
The Senate hearings on the confirmation of John Ashcroft are not following the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. This amendment states that a man’s religion should not be considered in the election or appointment of any federal office. Yet these same senators on this panel swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution is not a “living” document susceptible to change, but a contract protecting, not granting, our rights.
The confirmation of Ashcroft will be a welcome change from the present apologist currently serving as the attorney general. TOM PATON Temple Terrace
I can’t believe the hate speech I have been hearing and reading regarding Sen. John Ashcroft. Ashcroft is the same denomination as I am. He is a wonderful, ethical and grand gentleman. His father and grandfather were men of utmost moral and ethical vision.
I have been working very hard to stop religious persecution such as what is happening to Ashcroft. Regardless of what some people may be saying about the man, he will uphold the laws of this land regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. To say that a person cannot represent all the people – even those with differing views – would say that Janet Reno should not have been confirmed as attorney general because more than half of the nation considers her to be out of the mainstream as well.
Is it such a crime that he prays before making any major decision? Neither Abraham Lincoln nor even the majority of our Founding Fathers would be unable to serve if a strong faith in God automatically precluded anyone from serving. I would not be able to serve or teach because I have exactly the same beliefs as Ashcroft.
I hope and pray that your readers and our senators will not participate in the religious persecution of this man. This is not politics; it is hate. CORA G. CONTE Tampa
The Democratic leadership in the Senate never ceases to amaze me. In the Jan. 15 article “Ashcroft faces questions on ’84 campaign” (Nation/World), Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee are “most concerned about the implication that the prospective chief law enforcement officer in the nation might have skirted or violated the law.”
Where have these senators been for the last eight years? They didn’t seem to be concerned that the vice president might have skirted or violated the law in making questionable campaign fundraising phone calls, or that the president did violate the law when he lied under oath.
It’s ironic that these same senators suddenly care about the “law” when considering a Republican nominee for attorney general. Is there a double standard in the Democratic Party? ALLEN BANKS Tampa Support for Gale Norton
The U.S. Senate is poised to begin confirmation hearings on what, oddly enough, has become something of a controversial nomination – that of former Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton as secretary of the interior. Oddly controversial because no one has suggested that she is unqualified for the position. Instead, her nomination has become a lightning rod for extreme environmental special interests, who appear to be unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their opinions in any way.
This is exactly the type of politics Americans have seen enough of.
Norton has taken innovative approaches to environmental stewardship and land management. She also is a strong advocate of individual freedom, property rights and local decision-making in facing environmental challenges – all of which have been lacking in Washington, D.C., for the past eight years.
The groups criticizing Gale Norton as somehow being outside the mainstream demonstrate nothing more than how far removed from reason and compromise they have become themselves. There is no reason for the Senate not to swiftly confirm her nomination. PATRICK BURNS Washington, D.C. The writer is director of environmental policy for Citizens for a Sound Economy. On reversing policies
This is in response to the lead front-page article “Bush to review Clinton’s acts” (Nation/World, Jan. 14).
George W. Bush’s plan to cut off funding for abortions in foreign countries will only make poor countries poorer. Oh, right, that’s the point. Limiting aid to Russia will only make that poor country poorer. “America first” is very short-term thinking.
In the case of reversing Clinton’s forest policy, public land is just that, and we are the public. It’s only right that these kinds of decisions should be made by someone who received a majority of the vote and most of the public didn ‘t vote for Bush.
These lands were set aside for a reason – to conserve, not develop and ultimately consume, like the plague of locusts we have become.
I dub Bush king of the locusts and offer this suggestion: Replace the current flag with one that looks like a $ 50 bill, one that represents the new America – the land of capitalism and greed.
