- The Washington Times - Saturday, December 8, 2001

Anti-gay ad themes may have cost Earley election

Your Dec. 4 editorial "Gilmore departs" mentioned several reasons why Democrat Mark Warner defeated Republican Mark Earley in the race for governor of a thoroughly Republican state. You write, "In Virginia, victorious Democrat Mark Warner campaigned as a fiscal conservative and moved quickly to distance himself from liberals on gun control and other crime-related issues."

What about the unfortunate steps Mr. Earley took to distance himself from centrist and independent voters in Virginia? Absent in your explanation of the Republicans' failure is any mention of the anti-gay themes in Mr. Earley's campaign ads, which turned off many voters who might have looked more favorably on his economic plans for the state. The centrist voters who decide elections don't give second looks to candidates who go to the extreme on social issues, and Mr. Early miscalculated.

Exclusion loses and inclusion wins it's that simple. Republicans who win elections understand this fact. Inclusion gives them the opening to sell our party's core conservative message on the issues about which most voters really care, issues that unite us as Americans. Mr. Earley's failure is a textbook example of what rightfully results when campaigns choose intolerance instead of inclusion to fashion their message.


KEN BYRER

Deputy director of public affairs

Log Cabin Republicans

Washington

Our campaign in Afghanistan is no Vietnam

Op-Ed contributor Thomas H. Henriksen's take on the similarities between Vietnam and Afghanistan fails to take into account the major premise of the former engagement: that it was based on the lies and deceptions of President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara ("Armchair generals' Vietnam," Dec. 6). These dissembling elitists designed a non-strategy based on wasting American lives and treasure while at best holding the communists at arm's length. The strategy for Afghanistan is to accomplish measurable results and allow the military and naval experts to strategize and win.

Mr. Johnson's greatest contribution was to withdraw from his campaign for re-election. As for Mr. McNamara, I can't think of anyone in our proud history who has shed the blood of so many and still is civilly received in certain circles.


DAVID WALLACE

Atlanta

In Cyprus talks, 'the past should not be the enemy of the future'

The Dec. 5 column "Beyond geopolitics for Cyprus" by Jim Kapsis neglects pivotal facts crucial to negotiating success.

First, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) lags the prosperity of the Greek Cypriot administration because of a punishing inhuman 38 year old omnibus embargo placed by the former on the latter.

Second, a 1975 Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement between the two states makes the idea today of unrestricted movement on the island no more practicable than a return of millions of refugees or displaced persons in Palestine to Israel. The TRNC supports a global settlement of property claims, which is customary in such circumstances.

Third, a longstanding resolution of the Greek Cypriot House of Representative makes ENOSIS (union with Greece), which is illegal and unconstitutional under the 1960 international treaties and constitution that created the partnership Republic of Cyprus, official policy.

Fourth, Greeks and Greek Cypriots initiated communal violence in 1963 by shredding the equal partnership constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and launching a campaign styled "genocide" by The Washington Post and killing Turkish Cypriots like cattle in an "abattoir" by United States Undersecretary of State George Ball.

Turkish Cypriots, nevertheless, are elated by the December 4, 2001 agreement between Greek Cypriot leader Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot President Rauf Denktash to direct talks next month without preconditions. The past should not be the enemy of the future.


DAMLA GUCLU

Second secretary

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Washington

If we're all air marshals now, why not allow us to carry guns?

In the Dec. 7 Commentary piece "We're all 'air marshals' now," Christopher Matthews makes the case for each of us being responsible for our own safety. This is nothing new, in fact the concept has been around since the founding of our country.

Mr. Matthews says, "It will be a battle of fists, shoes and laptops against the killers wielding the box-cutters or whatever other potential weapon they've managed to sneak aboard." Why should the battle be so uneven? Why shouldn't the passengers and crew be better armed?

Our Founding Fathers probably did not envision air travel. However, they did give the average citizen the means to protect themselves the Second Amendment. Why not enable our citizens to look after themselves by repealing the various laws and regulations which prevent the carrying of firearms?

Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


HOWARD LAST

Great Neck, N.Y.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide