Castro and Cuba

In response to the letter of Thomas Fuentes (Dec. 10):

Fuentes, Orange County Republican Party chairman, seems distressed that journalists chose Fidel Castro over Ronald Reagan in 1982. In retrospect, were they wrong? Reagan’s disastrous economic policies have been proven, over time, to have decimated the middle class, damaged the financially insecure, and enhanced only the lives of the well-to-do! Despite Castro’s posing and endless rambling speeches, he has not done much economic damage to the United States, aside from the ban on Cuban cigars. And the rich still smoke them. So, from my viewpoint, Reagan and his successor, George Bush, have been far more destructive than has Castro.

And the media endorsement of Bill Clinton stems, perhaps, as much from fear of a Quayle presidency and what that would engender as it does from any “infatuation” with Clinton.

EDGAR SMALL

Beverly Hills