Voice: He was right about most things in his anti-GOP letter

February 23, 2001

Mr. Wesley W. Weir, I am absolutely correct about the Electoral College. Ask any historian or any constitutional scholar. The overwhelming majority have for years advocated getting rid of the college because of its very nature.

Of the most powerful democracies, we are the only one that elects our president in such a way that a person can get substantially more votes than any other person and still lose the election. Which makes my point of negating the will of the people.

As for the Iran-Contra affair, if you paid attention you would have seen where I said I believed Oliver North was one, but that's semantics and I can admit you are right about North. I confused him with Caspar Weinberger. Wasn't he secretary of defense at the time? Anyway, me mixing up the names between North and Weinberger doesn't negate the fact what they did was much worse than Marc Rich (a private citizen) because they were officially representing the United States.


You also claim Rich committed treason by trading with a terrorist state. If that's the case, what do you call what Weinberger and Sununu were doing? Oh, I'm sorry there must be a difference between trading with terrorists and giving over $100 million in arms to terrorists. I guess when you trade with them it's treason but if you give it to them that's patriotism.

You seem to think because the hostages were released that somehow makes it right. In other words, the ends justify the means. Wrong! These people gave over $100 million to terrorists!

But you know the funny part is former presidents Reagan and Bush claimed they knew nothing about it. Oops, I'm sorry, it was they didn't recall anything about it.

Isn't that the same thing Republicans hammered Clinton about, not recalling things they felt he should have been able to? The question is if they didn't recall or didn't have anything to do with it, why pardon them?

I really don't want to get into the Monica or Paula thing because we both know that was a political witch hunt, which would lead to how Paula's so-called Republican friends left her to flap in the wind after she posed nude.

As far as the $2.5 million home, even if what Nancy Reagan said was true (which I doubt), the Clintons basically did the same thing with their house in New York and again Republicans had a cow about it.

You also claim I was wrong about Republican hypocrites. Let me give you a couple more examples; term limits and ex-president speeches. Before Republicans took over Congress in 1994 one of their main complaints about Washington was the entrenchment of incumbents, especially Democratic incumbents. Term limits were the answer. That's because they weren't in the majority. Then came the takeover and you haven't heard word one from the Republicans about term limits.

Last but not least, Republicans complained about Bill Clinton getting somewhere between $100,000-$150,000 for his speech in Florida. But they seem to have forgotten again that Ronald Reagan not only set the bar he shattered it by taking $2 million for a speech in Japan!


El Centro

Imperial Valley Press Online Articles