Clinton’s Ratings

In response to “Clinton Attacks ‘Brain-Dead Politics’ of Washington,” June 2:

It’s President Bill Clinton who doesn’t understand why his ratings have continued to plummet. He was elected by posturing himself as a “moderate” Democrat. Yet his budget plan contains the largest tax increase in history. Politicians like Clinton, both Democrats and Republicans alike, know one thing for sure--their power base stems from keeping people dependent upon their social programs. They talk of “empowerment” and “reducing entitlement programs,” but that is all it is--hot air.

Without realizing it, Clinton insulted the intelligence of the American people by saying that we are giving him such low approval ratings because “we don’t understand how his economic plan will work.” It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee, Mr. President. The very reason we are disapproving of your presidency is because we do understand your economic plan all too well. The public knows that the American dream is accomplished by individual hard work and achievement--not through government intervention and programs which seek to destroy such virtues.

RANDALL L. GOERTZEN

Glendale

* By constantly emphasizing the negative, and ignoring the positive, the press has created an unfair and distorted picture of the Clinton Administration. I want to cite an important example from The Times (June 5). Your lead article, “Guinier Asserts Clinton Was Wrong,” was a post-mortem on the failed nomination of Lani Guinier. But buried inside (“U.S. Reverses Bush’s Rejection of Environmental Pact”) was a major Administration move in the vital area of environmental protection and leadership, namely, the decision to sign the biodiversity treaty that was rejected by the Bush Administration. Clinton made this treaty--and U.S. leadership on the environment--a significant issue in the campaign. When he now follows through decisively on an important campaign promise, and on a substantive issue, The Times finds it barely newsworthy. I find that discouraging.

JEREMY WILLIAMS

Tarzana

* Reagan and Bush were in office for 4,380 days and managed to sell arms to the enemy, defied and blatantly lied to Congress, while their disastrous “trickle down” policies quadrupled the national debt and put the country into an irreversible depression.

Bill Clinton has been in office for 120 days and the right-wing conservatives (who got all the money in the ‘80s) say it’s all his fault. Go figure.

ROBERT EMBICK

Monarch Beach

* Take my subscription, please. Attacks by the press on President Clinton have the objectivity and content of a daytime soap. Meanwhile, the press corrupts our country by conniving not to report the big money lobbyists’ influence and control in determining our political process.

Why don’t we see the actual figures on who paid what to get whom elected, when it is relevant to issues being worked out in Congress? Also, who is meeting with which lobbyists on a regular basis. Without that knowledge, all your grunge-insider stories about political power struggles are just so much superficial pap.

DALE HAVILL

Santa Barbara

* President Clinton is doing a marvelous PR job for all his surviving predecessors. He makes Nixon look honest, Ford look competent, Carter look seasoned, Reagan look brilliant and Bush look like the guy we should have voted for in November.

RICH SEELEY

Los Angeles

* I just looked up the word “hypocrite” in the dictionary and Paul Conrad’s picture was there! I couldn’t believe his cartoon June 7, “The games people play.” He was chiding those--Perot, GOP, and the media--who were picking on his buddy Bill Clinton. Forgive me, Mr. Conrad, but aren’t you part of the media? Haven’t you used your position to rile President Reagan and President Bush for the last 12 years? Isn’t turnabout fair play?

RICHARD A. FRANKS

Laguna Hills

* Re your June 7 article on cronyism within the Clinton Administration, which compares it with the Harding (Republican) and Kennedy (Democrat) and Carter (Democrat) administrations:

Do these writers have short memories or did they purposely overlook the Reagan Administration, when he brought into the White House his so-called “Kitchen Cabinet” from Sacramento and elsewhere, many of whom eventually were indicted or left under a cloud to become a well-named “Outhouse Cabinet.”

FRED R. HOFELD

Los Angeles

* Question: What is the difference between a pack of jackals chasing a young antelope and a pack of newsmen chasing President Clinton? The answer: None.

ANDRE GROSS

Santa Monica