Reagan And Bush

To fairly reduce the massive deficit, why not tax those most responsible for its creation--all who voted for Reagan and Bush? ROBIN WEITZ Playa del Rey

Max Boot and Michael Ramirez (June 10 commentary and editorial cartoon) both try to draw comparisons between Ronald Reagan and George Bush, based largely on some policy similarities. But they are ignoring a crucial aspect of Reagan's personal appeal over the years, even to those who disagreed with his politics: He was honest and humble about himself. Reagan connected with the common man because that's what he was. He was born poor but built a decades-long career in entertainment and politics.

The media should ease up on President Clinton. Just like Yeltsin, he has a difficult job in coping with a Marxist legacy. Yes, Reagan and Bush where Marxists: not followers of Karl but of Groucho. JACK W. JONES Orange

Re "Street Will Honor Clinton, but Not for Long," July 20: It's nice that West Hollywood wants to honor President Clinton, albeit temporarily. Of course, there's always been Clinton Street, one block south of Melrose; while giving directions in Hollywood, I've had occasion to say, "Make like Ken Starr and turn on Clinton." Don't be surprised if, in the next administration, Wilshire and La Brea become Reagan and Bush. KEVIN DAWSON Sunland

We should all remember that North, a convicted felon, was released due to the kind of legal technicality that Reagan and Bush have characterized as one of the major weaknesses of our criminal justice system. They are beginning to convince me. JOHN R. SHIBAN, Westlake Village

It was no accident that Bush pardoned Weinberger and others during the holiday weekend. His lawyers have served him well. However, the one incredible thing I have always heard about the Iran-Contra investigation is that it has cost the taxpayers almost $40 million. If the immense power of both the Reagan and Bush administrations had not been used to cover up the truth and if everyone had come forward with the truth, then the investigation would have been real cheap. Instead, both Reagan and Bush have left us with the legacy of their cheap and corrupt values.

Re "Street Will Honor Clinton, but Not for Long," July 20: It's nice that West Hollywood wants to honor President Clinton, albeit temporarily. Of course, there's always been Clinton Street, one block south of Melrose; while giving directions in Hollywood, I've had occasion to say, "Make like Ken Starr and turn on Clinton." Don't be surprised if, in the next administration, Wilshire and La Brea become Reagan and Bush. KEVIN DAWSON Sunland

Gee, did I miss something back in the dear dead '70s? According to Kevin Phillips ("Just When Clinton Felt Safe in the Water," Opinion, Dec. 26) Richard Nixon was impeached! He correctly states that Johnson, Reagan and Bush "were the subject of some impeachment talk." Phillips may only be guilty of wishful thinking, rather than historical ignorance, but I am surprised that your editors didn't catch the error. THOMAS A. CHAPMAN Carlsbad

Re Conrad's cartoon (Oct. 29) depicting David Duke as the creation of Reagan and Bush: Conrad is wrong, as usual. Duke is the creation of liberal, soft-headed judges and a Congress controlled by the Democrats over the past 40 years. The voters are sick and tired of the permissiveness that has destroyed this country, and there will be many more David Dukes in the future. THOMAS KOPE Baldwin Park

The Soviet Union has agreed to a single luncheon meeting Dec. 7 between Mikhail S. Gorbachev, President Reagan and President-elect George Bush, a U.S. official said today. The location has not been decided on. Two sites are under consideration, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Governors Island in New York Harbor. Reagan and Bush are not considering their meeting with Gorbachev as being on the level of a summit.

Re "Admit It; He's Not Perfect, but He's a Great President," Commentary, Feb 1: If only Robert Scheer had half the grasp of economics as he does of socialism, he would realize that the economic boom we currently enjoy has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Most economic cycles, especially ones as huge as the United States', take over 10 years to produce results, and given the fact that Clinton was elected in 1992, I would be hard-pressed to believe that he had anything to do with our current prosperity.

Re "Clinton Creates 3 National Monuments," Jan. 12: How excited I was to read of the protections President Clinton brought to lands north of the Grand Canyon, the Agua Fria and the coastal islands and reefs along California's shores. The "land grab," as described by some in Arizona and Utah, is really an act to protect lands from destruction by the politicians who willingly hand over our public lands to the real "land grabbers"--the developers who have one purpose in mind: to trash pristine natural land into real estate developments for their own personal gain.

In Opinion on Feb. 9, Michael Kazin writes a piece in which he dooms Clinton's chances of ever being considered to be a great president by history. One could argue that this is a matter for history and future events to decide. Kazin doesn't even have an accurate vision of the past, let alone the future. He states, "In 1956 [Eisenhower] became the first Republican candidate in the 20th century to capture Florida, Tennessee and Texas." In fact, Eisenhower carried all three in 1952 and so did Herbert Hoover in 1928.

Gee, did I miss something back in the dear dead '70s? According to Kevin Phillips ("Just When Clinton Felt Safe in the Water," Opinion, Dec. 26) Richard Nixon was impeached! He correctly states that Johnson, Reagan and Bush "were the subject of some impeachment talk." Phillips may only be guilty of wishful thinking, rather than historical ignorance, but I am surprised that your editors didn't catch the error. THOMAS A. CHAPMAN Carlsbad

The media should ease up on President Clinton. Just like Yeltsin, he has a difficult job in coping with a Marxist legacy. Yes, Reagan and Bush where Marxists: not followers of Karl but of Groucho. JACK W. JONES Orange

To fairly reduce the massive deficit, why not tax those most responsible for its creation--all who voted for Reagan and Bush? ROBIN WEITZ Playa del Rey

The New Hampshire primary reveals that the emperor has no clothes. The fact that an extreme right-wing Republican can get 37% of the vote shows that Bush is very vulnerable. More and more voters are beginning to realize what history will conclude--that the presidencies of Reagan and Bush have been moral and economic disasters. Unless things change radically in the next six months, a Democrat (be he Tsongas, Clinton or whoever) who wages an effective campaign will be the next President.

Galbraith knows very well that deregulation, Reaganomics and lower taxes are not equivalent to laissez-faire philosophy. Pointing to Presidents Reagan and Bush as champions of the free enterprise system would be like calling Adam Smith a champion of socialism. Galbraith knows that all coercive legislation, whether from the left or right, has long-range effects, which may take decades to evolve. He also knows that the problems he enumerated in his column are not solely caused by the activities of Reagan and Bush.

It was no accident that Bush pardoned Weinberger and others during the holiday weekend. His lawyers have served him well. However, the one incredible thing I have always heard about the Iran-Contra investigation is that it has cost the taxpayers almost $40 million. If the immense power of both the Reagan and Bush administrations had not been used to cover up the truth and if everyone had come forward with the truth, then the investigation would have been real cheap. Instead, both Reagan and Bush have left us with the legacy of their cheap and corrupt values.

Please tell Ronald Reagan that no one "won the Cold War." He bankrupted both Russia and the United States over it. Reagan and Bush can use their influence belatedly to strength the United Nations peacekeeping forces. Using our military might in other countries' problems is just an excuse to spend more of our taxes on armaments and military hardware. Interfering abroad is a thankless task; damned if we do and damned if we don't. Somalia and Bosnia will be quagmires--getting out is going to be nasty.