Kerry Impresses and Depresses

I desperately wanted Sen. John F. Kerry to do well in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention. He more than exceeded my expectations. I saw in him a real person, a compassionate and passionate individual. He is not, as many have tried to portray him, a stone-faced Frankenstein. I saw a man with ideals in which he truly believes. He does not want to perpetuate the politics of fear -- the strategy of President Bush and his cronies.

The possibilities of hope and help offered by Kerry and Sen. John Edwards are potent antidotes against the addiction to fear that Bush and Vice President Cheney have pushed.

Barbara Dellamarie

Burbank

*

Though I’m absolutely, positively voting for Kerry, there is one item from his acceptance speech that I cannot believe. When he’s elected, why don’t we all write to him every month asking, “When do we get our congressional healthcare benefits?”

Barbara Toohey

Van Nuys

*

Someone in the Bush campaign thinks he can blunt Kerry’s lead in the polls by suggesting Americans focus on the results of Bush’s policies. Really? OK, here goes: the loss of jobs across the country, the loss of respect around the world, the loss of our budget surplus, the loss of our environmental protections, the loss of hundreds of young soldiers’ lives in a war based on lies -- I could go on, but I just lost my lunch.

Dave Whisenhant

Northridge

*

I’m 46 years old and have voted Republican in six of seven presidential elections. Like many Democrats, I am concerned with how the president has handled much of the war in Iraq. Looking for an alternative, I tuned in to the convention and Edwards’ stump speech about the “two Americas.”

The hypocrisy made me want to vomit. If there are two Americas, Edwards lives in the other one with his millionaire friends -- and running mate. He will never need to worry about his health insurance or his children’s education. Edwards can claim the title of “uniter” until he is blue in the face. But shouting that message from the rich America to those of us in the other America isn’t going to cut it.

Rick White

La Verne

*

The right truly believes the word “liberal” has negative connotations, and so they trot it out to give the back of their hand to positions and people. However, it’s time they started listening a little better.

Kerry’s speech at the convention gave me hope: Hope that in a Kerry administration national energy policy will be decided in public and that national defense will be conducted by people who listen to military experts. I can’t remember another time in my 52 years when these sensible proposals would be given a back of the hand.

Lecia Mountain Raintree

Los Angeles

*

Re “Kerry’s Craft,” editorial, July 30: I am surprised you take Kerry to task for changing his mind on Iraq. Kerry, like the overwhelming majority of the Senate, believed, and had a right to believe, that the executive branch and the intelligence services were giving the Senate and the American people accurate information about Iraq. I would be worried if he had not changed his mind.

I think that one should look less favorably on those who, in light of recent information and events, doggedly still believe that we should have unilaterally started a preemptive war that has fueled the fires of terrorism.

Greg W. Garrotto

Los Angeles

*

I watched Kerry’s speech with great anticipation, hoping to find some specifics of how to achieve the lofty goals we all aspire to. Although he covered everything, he said nothing.

Arthur L. Wisot

Rolling Hills Estates

*

The Republicans seem to take great pride in the fact that Bush has made a lot of bad decisions about Iraq, but has done it quickly and has no intent to change course.

Perhaps if either Bush or Cheney had served in Vietnam, they’d know the value of changing course.

Doug Hall

Los Angeles

*

The Times’ July 29 headline promises to explain “Why a Conflicted Kerry Voted Yes -- and Later No -- on Iraq,” but you omit crucial details.

You specifically fail to note that the Iraq resolution authorized the president to use force only if “necessary” to defend our national security. This is entirely consistent with Kerry’s vow not to support a unilateral war absent an “imminent” threat, as well as Bush’s promise that he would wage war only as a last resort to disarm Iraq. As we now know, that promise was not kept and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction that made war necessary or appropriate.

You also neglect to mention that Kerry opposed the $87-billion financing bill because it was inadequately funded, and that he supported a comparable bill paid for in part by rolling back Bush’s tax cuts. It’s not surprising that the GOP sidesteps such facts -- thus facilitating its disingenuous claim that Kerry flip-flops -- but I expected better from The Times.

John J. Manier

Sherman Oaks

*

Your July 29 lead editorial (“Window-Dressing Platform”) was right on. The Democratic Party platform is indeed “vaporware.” But its foreign policy planks are even worse, as you imply. If implemented, they would again yield an over-powerful military and narrow foreign policy, which got the U.S. into the present mess in the first place.

What is needed in this area is strong action in aggressively building the peace and international infrastructure, not war infrastructure. We should learn from the evolution of the European community on shared responsibilities.

Dale C. Krause

Santa Barbara