I am not a regular reader of the Elm, but my girlfriend called Charles A. Hohman's column to my attention in last week's edition. After reading the piece, I found it hard to believe that Mr. Hohman could praise an adulterer who abused his powerful position. There are very few things in the Clinton legacy that can be praised; certainly his last minute pardons are not one of them. However, staying mostly out of the limelight is commendable. But Clinton even blew that when he spoke out and said it was America's fault that radical Islamic terrorists attacked and killed 3,000 people.
According to Mr. Hohman, Republicans resented Clinton because he was a middle-class redneck. The Republican's showed Clinton no respect because he was truly a disgrace to the Presidential Office. Just because he could talk his way out of "new quagmires" every week does not make him a good president. In fact, being in those situations is what tarnished his presidency. Besides the fact that he was the most vocal pro-choice president ever.
Let us not forget about the economy either. Bill Clinton did not turn the economy around. If he did, then he also started the recession that we are only now starting to recover from. Reagan, my friend, put forth the policies that brought about dramatic growth in the 1990's. The current President Bush inherited Clinton's slumping economy.
Moving on to closed door policies. Why did the Republican's scream about full-disclosure? Hillary Clinton was involved in closed-door proceedings. She is not an elected official. Therefore the public cannot hold her accountable. The President is an elected official and is held accountable through elections. All of that aside, nothing was done to save Enron. Sounds like a long shot for the Democrats in order to pass Campaign-Finance Reform.
So Bush bombs defenseless countries too. Afghanistan was ruled by terrorists who killed 3,000 people; talk about defenseless. How many random bombs did Clinton order launched on third World Countries? The number is not so important as the timing. Did any liberals ever notice that bombs seemed to fall when important witnesses took the stand in front of Congress? Clinton used the military for his own agenda, not for the defense for the nation. If he had cared about national defense, he would have put Bin Laden away when he had the chance; he had three.
Lets all be thankful Bush is in office and not Gore or even worse, another four years of Clinton. If they were, we would probably be giving money to the families of the terrorist who committed the suicide attacks.
Dan Holler
x8956
Every once in a while, I'll pick up the Elm and read what the opinions are on campus. However, to my great misfortune, I have read two horrendous articles by a Charles A. Hohman that are, well, despicable. Therefore, I have enclosed a much-needed guideline, as follows:
1) Having one's own column is a very hefty responsibility, and should by no means be abused. After all, people read your obviously biased slop and actually listen. Therefore, take heed of what you are saying, pick a stance, and prepare for the fight. This is particularly true if you are to continue using a phrase such as "pure evil"-your opponent may have better aim.
2) Always try to win your audience over. Your piece, if written in a professional manner, would lead those from either side of the issue to at least be respectful of your opinion. Hey, if Robert Novak and Sam Donaldson can still shake hands at the end of the day, why do you prefer a clout on the head?
3) Be sure to back up any allegations made. Although your column is opinion-based, that by no means allows for outright stupidity. If you cannot win your entire audience over with the subtle (say, about Enron going out of business because it tried to buy too many people), than why bother. We want wit in a writer, not another fellow complainer sitting at the bar and letting his mouth run off.
Aimee Brown
300 Washington Avenue, Chestertown, Maryland 21620 | 410-778-2800 | 800-422-1782