Letters

More Ways Than One to 'Vote for Outrage'

I've been following Godfrey Sperling's columns approvingly, for the most part. The articles "How Loyal Should We Be?" (Oct. 20) and "A November Vote for Outrage" (Oct. 27) stirred me to want to thank you for hanging in there while so many of us remain silent. Thank you for taking the heat and for remaining fair and merciful.

William Penn said, "Believe nothing against another, but on good authority; nor report what may hurt another, unless it be a greater hurt to conceal it." I'm convinced that a very great hurt has been done to the country, especially its children, but also to all of us who have been misled by guile and brilliance and the "good economy" thing.

This could be a very important turning point if we can assert our prerogative to govern ourselves and send the message to our public servants that morality, integrity, honesty, and decency are as important, or more important, than brilliance, political expertise, etc.

We're having a humiliating experience - public exposure of all our dirty laundry. But isn't it going to be a relief to be free again, out in the open with a sincere desire to conquer the weaknesses? Outrage can be a good thing, directed properly. We have the right to correct ourselves first, and then our officials whom we place in positions of trust. I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate this in the voting booth.

So keep writing the truth - you are doing us a great service.

Joyce D. Rowse

San Diego

Are you indicating in the column "A November Vote for Outrage" that all Democrats are responsible for one man's immorality? And that the only ones that vote with any credence are the Republicans? My outrage is toward the attitudes expressed in that article!

The outrageous obscenities and immorality spread throughout the media stemming from the Starr investigation are due to the extreme, intricate details of an act that should never have been foisted on the public. Why else would parents or teachers ever be faced with how to explain the meaning of the sex acts depicted through this investigation?

I'm not a party voter. I do my homework, and the individual appearing the best for the office gets my vote. And I am rewarded with the evidence of the good our country is enjoying.

As you state in the article, yes, I abhor the stupidity of this man's immoral conduct. But my response is that those living in glass houses should not throw stones. The Starr investigation has done damage to our country's office of the presidency, making it the laughing stock of the world - that is the "outrage." Didn't you learn from your elders not to wash your dirty laundry in public?

Uerla Coone

Brinnon, Wash.

What has happened to "To injure no man, but to bless all mankind"? Columnist Godfrey Sperling finally shows in full his hitherto ill-concealed bias in his column "A November Vote for Outrage." By implying that Americans who approve of President Clinton's presidential accomplishments care little about his personal behavior, he impugns the moral rectitude of otherwise supportive people who indeed are deeply troubled by it.

Nevertheless, the overriding consideration as this registered Independent walks into a voting booth will not be the scandal, but the wretched excesses indulged in exposing it. Mr. Clinton has punished himself far more than we can ever punish him. My November vote for outrage will be to send a message to even the most even-handed Republicans that the party needs to purge itself of hatred and get back to real work.

Jo Ann Ridley

The Sea Ranch, Calif.

The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail, only a selection can be published, and we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.

Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com