- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 7, 2000

Texas teacher attests to Bush education success

With Election Day here, I would like to focus on one most important issue: education.

I have been an educator in Texas for 27 years and have seen the quality of education steadily rise under the leadership of Gov. George W. Bush. He has brought renewed emphasis to the fundamental right of each child to receive a quality education, beginning with learning to read. Mr. Bush's goal that every child be reading on grade level by third grade will be reached because of his ability to bring together people from all political persuasions, administrators, parents, teachers and students.

There is excitement and enthusiasm on the part of educators now that I have not seen in the past. This is because Mr. Bush is emphasizing reading instruction from kindergarten through third grade as it never has been emphasized before.

Not only has he set a goal, he has put his money where his mouth is and, by working with both Democratic and Republican legislators, has made research and training money available for teachers to receive the latest research-based techniques of teaching reading.

One very important aspect of Mr. Bush's education program is accountability. Teachers welcome accountability when they are supported in their efforts to succeed.

Also, contrary to some recently published opinion, the state-mandated tests in Texas have not been watered down, but have been made progressively tougher through the years. Teachers, along with dedicated administrators, and parents have answered the challenge in preparing students to be successful in all areas of the tests.

Education is the key to a better America. Texans are proud of the progress that education has made under the leadership of Mr. Bush and are looking forward to the progress education in our country can make under his leadership as president. We need a president who is dedicated to working to get things done for our country.


Whitharral, Texas

Bush is no 'Slick Willy'

Reader Larry Stanton claims he cannot vote for George W. Bush because he thinks lying to the American people is the offense for which President Clinton should have been removed from office ("Readers respond to Bush 'mistake,'" Letters, Nov. 6).

Mr. Bush did not stare at a television camera and say, "I did not get arrested for DUI 24 years ago"; that would have been a lie. President Clinton did say to the American people, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"; that was a lie.

Mr. Bush admitted his transgression when confronted with the evidence; President Clinton is still dissembling about numerous scandals during his administration and refuses to admit to lying. In fact, he believes the Republicans owe him an apology for impeaching him.

I would ask Mr. Stanton whom he would prefer as his president: a man who admits his wrongs, even though they were a quarter-century in his past, or a man who secretly sold arms to a terrorist nation. Replacing Slick Willy with Slippery Al would be a disaster for America.


Leesburg, Va.

Deciding factors for an undecided voter

Up until this weekend, I was one of America's undecided voters. I wasn't undecided because I thought of both candidates as unqualified. Rather, I think of both as very qualified. I agree with Vice President Al Gore's position on the environment. I agree with Gov. George W. Bush's positions on education and social issues. I've made up my mind though, and a couple of things have helped.

One is the way the vice president has been conducting his campaign recently the information about Mr. Bush's driving under the influence charge coming to light just days before the election and Mr. Gore's negative campaign ads. I can't believe that a Democratic candidate would assassinate someone's character like that. I've seen more negative campaigning lately than I ever have before, and it's all coming from Mr. Gore.

The other deciding factor was reading that President Clinton said that a vote for Mr. Gore is like a third term for him. I remember Mr. Clinton saying that he would have the most ethical administration in history. Now, after all of Clinton-Gore's ethical transgressions, I read in the New York Post that Chris Lehane, a chief Gore spokesman, may have had connections to the leak of Mr. Bush's arrest. I'm afraid now that Mr. Clinton's prophecy may come true. Perhaps a Gore presidency would be too much like Mr. Clinton's presidency.

I'm voting for Mr. Bush today. I think it's time we get someone in the White House who will accentuate the positives, not polarize the nation, and be a leader and a consensus builder. Lastly, I think that Mr. Clinton has taught me that character does indeed count.


Maplewood, N.J.

Morella is not a reliable Republican

Your endorsement of Rep. Constance A. Morella for Congress in Maryland's 8th District was certainly less than enthusiastic ("Morella for Congress," Editorials, Nov. 4).

I, too, have been frosted by Mrs. Morella's voting history in Congress. Your editorial lists many policy shortcomings of hers but neglects to mention a few of the most serious ones.

First and foremost is her indifference, if not hostility, toward the unborn. She was a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act (codifying Roe vs. Wade) and co-author of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (targeting pro-life protests at abortion mills). More recently, she voted to uphold the infanticide method known as partial-birth abortion.

Recently, Congress voted by an overwhelming margin to maintain its relations with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The BSA has come under fire from the politically correct for remaining true to its moral philosophies. Mrs. Morella voted present. Let all Scoutmasters and other friends of Scouting take note.

As I read your endorsement, it seems that your main, and probably only, reason for endorsing Mrs. Morella is the hope that she will vote Republicans into leadership positions in Congress. Though she has done so in the past, that is no guarantee of the future. In the Nov. 2 Montgomery Journal, when asked if she would consider voting for Rep. Richard A. Gephardt for speaker of the House, Mrs. Morella replied, "I don't know." In other words, she made no promise to vote for Republican leadership. Incidentally, her "I don't know" reminds me of the last time she held off on her final vote: When the House voted on the impeachment articles against President Clinton, she was one of four Republicans who voted for none of the articles.

In contrast, Brian Saunders, the Constitution Party candidate for that same seat, has made it clear that should he be elected, he will vote to secure Republican leadership in the House (since his own party will not be poised to assume leadership). He also embraces, and will work for, conservative principles.

In light of the above, The Washington Times should reconsider its endorsement for Maryland's 8th Congressional District.



Truth in advertising

Americans are being asked on television: are you voting to take away a woman's right to choose? More honestly, more logically, and more correctly, the question would be posed: are you voting to take away a woman's right to kill her unborn baby? Only the truth can make us free.


Frederick, Md.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide