Candidates’ Positions

Re “Change in Agenda May Be Placing Clinton, Dole on Common Ground,” Washington Outlook, June 3:

During the 1992 presidential campaign I found myself believing George Bush a very decent upstanding man but for some reason frozen into non-action--seemingly beholden to a series of special-interest groups--just like the Democrats of the past. I wanted to see positive action on the economy. I ended up voting for Bill Clinton in spite of my trepidation about his character.

I have followed and admired Bob Dole for years. He seems a highly intelligent person of excellent character. But I have the same problem with him as I did with Bush. I believe he would find it difficult to act on his beliefs, given the single-issue constituencies to which the Republican Party seems to be committed.

It seems to me, though, that as Clinton pushes his strategy to preempt Dole on all the issues, he runs the risk of becoming a Dole. If Dole and Clinton become identical, there would be no reason to vote for Clinton. Dole would win my vote because of the character issue.

BILL MOSIER

Hermosa Beach

* According to most media polls, young pol Bill is playing Tweedledee to old pol Bob’s Tweedledum. Now if Bill can say “me too,” Bob can make both speechless by saying “no comment” to all questions. The presidential race will become a silent auction. Or is it already?

I admit I’m cynical, although I haven’t missed voting in any election since my absentee ballot aboard ship in 1944. At the very least it gives me the right to complain when I lose.

JEROME J. HAYDON

Los Angeles

* I’ve been watching Dole throw a cranky little fit every time Clinton agrees with him on some issue. Have the Republicans become so Gingrichized that they no longer see consensus or bipartisanship as a good thing? Here’s news: Most voters think it is.

Case in point: The Republicans are now running an ad that shows the president discussing five or six different time frames for balancing the budget. This is supposed to show us how wimpy his flexible, open-minded approach is (compared to the mean-spirited stubbornness favored by conservatives). Everyone I talked to agreed that the Republicans are paying for an ad that reminds a lot of voters just why it is they like Clinton. Is this clueless, or what?

ELLEN GRIFFITH

Los Angeles

* The liberals think Clinton is too conservative; while the conservatives label him too liberal. And so, Clinton “triangulates.”

JUNE V. HUGHES

Laguna Hills

* Re “In Foreign Policy, It’s Principle Over ‘Style,’ ” Commentary, June 3: Someone should remind Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that the average American doesn’t set as much on foreign policy as he or she did during the Reagan years. I read his column and it made very little impression. Almost every day lately the front pages of our newspapers feature headlines about the loss of jobs to Californians. Earlier this year AT&T; announced a loss of 40,000 jobs nationally. On June 2, Sizzler filed for bankruptcy and the close of 130 restaurant and lay-off of 4,600 workers.

The interest is still jobs, health care, crime, drugs--so Sen. McCain, “It’s still the economy, stupid.”

LILA MADDEN

Downey

* Never have the policies of the Clinton administration been more clearly articulated than by Sen. McCain. He succeeds in hitting the nail right on the head. Admittedly, it is difficult to define the direction of the Clinton administration, whether it be foreign or domestic, because of the ease it moves from one direction to another.

It is sad that the press and media are so reluctant to address this movement of positions by President Clinton as anything but good political strategy, rather than the obvious--he continues to lie to the American people whenever he feels it will give him a few more votes.

JOHN FRANKENHEIM

La Mirada