Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, October 27, 1993 TAG: 9310280357
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Mary Sue Terry replied in part as follows: ``No, I believe very strongly that Virginia has been served very well by separating its races from federal races. It's enabled us to keep our races in Virginia focused on the issues that matter to Virginia.''
George Allen, on the other hand, replied in part as follows: ``I wouldn't say I'm absolutely in favor of this, but I'm in favor of looking at how much it would save the taxpayers to run elections on a schedule which is consistent with federal elections. Secondly, having elections with the presidential elections and U.S. Senate elections would have a larger turnout, more participation, which is also a salutary goal.''
I would have let it rest there except for a comment Ms. Terry made recently. In attacking Allen for his moderate position on abortion, regarding a 24-hour waiting period, she was quoted as saying something to the effect that Allen does not trust the women of Virginia to make the right decisions without this short delay.
My question to her, her running mates and Democrats running for the House of Delegates is: Why you do not trust all voters of Virginia to make the right decisions if state and federal elections were held simultaneously? On the one hand, you claim Republicans do not want a large voter turnout when they oppose voter registration by mail, and yet you obviously do not want as many people voting in state elections as in federal elections. This is sheer hypocrisy.
In the Roanoke Times & World-News on Nov. 11, 1991, an editorial was headlined, ``Spare us from constant elections.'' I quote this selective part: ``OK, so Byrd-machine Democrats wanted yearly elections to minimize turnout and to avoid running with national Democratic tickets. Why are we still stuck with the system?'' I could not agree more with this editorial writer.
RICHARD C. RAKES
ROANOKE
Pollster spread the dirt on Allen
WE RECEIVED a telephone call recently from someone who was taking a political-opinion poll. She wanted to talk to the oldest male voter in our household. My husband proceeded to answer questions related to Virginia's upcoming election.
After asking questions that established who my husband would be voting for, the caller made statements to the effect that George Allen had slandered Mary Sue Terry regarding her family life and that Allen was being backed by Pat Robertson. She made several other negative statements about Allen and then asked if this poll would make my husband change his vote. At this point, he asked if the person calling was affiliated with the Democratic Party. She responded by saying that she was with an independent group from out of state that was hired to conduct the survey.
Ms. Terry keeps trying to make everyone think Allen is resorting to mudslinging, but she seems to be the one resorting to negative campaigning. This survey proves it.
NORMA PRINTZ
ROANOKE
Farris' rhetoric harmful sham
I WONDER where the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor gets his information on South Carolina? During the recent televised debate, he said he wants Virginia to follow South Carolina's system of having the General Assembly approve, or vote on, rules and regulations proposed by various state agencies and departments.
No doubt he wants to give the impression that he supports good, representative democracy. But as one who spent eight years in the South Carolina General Assembly, I think his rhetoric is a harmful sham.
In the years I served, only once or twice, when a special-interest group lobbied very hard, did the General Assembly ever disagree with rules and regulations submitted to it.
A legislature member's time is limited, and bills that must be voted on are numerous and often require considerable study. Constituents demand and deserve a member's attention. In addition, a member is still responsible for his or her personal and family obligations. To expect members, on top of all this, to be honestly knowledgeable about new or changed rules and regulations of dozens of state agencies and departments is totally unrealistic.
The Republican candidate's proposal is not only misleading, it's dangerous. It gives people expectations that cannot possibly be fulfilled, and is on a par with selling people snake oil and promising them it will cure all their diseases. It doesn't work and may postponea real cure.
NANCY STEVENSON
FLOYD
Lake patrols can't end all risks
STAFF WRITER Ron Brown's Sept. 10 news story (``Warden: Fewer patrols mean greater danger'') questioned whether boating accidents are on the rise because of cutbacks in the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The answer is no.
As a native of Franklin County and a lake resident, as well as a boater, fisherman and hunter, I'm aware of the situation. I observe game wardens in action and their activities on night patrol. From what I see, the wardens have an adequate number of boats and are able to patrol the water adequately, so additional boats and wardens are not needed.
Game Warden Lt. Karl Martin shouldn't feel guilty because two boaters lost their lives this season. By reading newspaper accounts, Smith Mountain resort- area citizens easily concluded that two lives would have most likely been lost anyway, even if there had been more wardens and more money spent.
Fall is at hand, so there'll be an estimated 95 percent reduction in boating; the department can reduce its patrols as well.
Lake citizens do not want or expect wardens to overpatrol. We know that Martin and his men cannot patrol away the risk to life, accidents and injuries. However, their daily work and efforts are appreciated.
Why does Martin go to the media about every little whiff that occurs on the water? I don't see anyone with the Virginia State Police clamoring to the media to patrol away all the death and accidents on the highways. It would be nice if it could be done, but that's impossible.
Leon Turner, of Fincastle and a member of the state's Game and Inland Fisheries Board, is a responsible and stabilizing voice. And I agree that he's taking the negative approach by not giving the department credit for its achievements and management.
As a concerned citizen, Martin should express any manpower concerns he has to his commander or his legislator. It's their job to analyze, answer, provide for and supervise. It seems that his job should be to get as much done as possible with what he has to work with, rather than running to the media.
DAN E. BOONE
WIRTZ
TV show should not be blamed
IT'S TRAGIC and very sad when a child dies. However, to place blame on a television program is absurd. I'm referring to the 5-year-old from Moraine, Ohio, who started a fire that killed his younger sister and was said to have been influenced by the MTV show ``Beavis and Butt-head.'' I do agree with the fire chief who said that a child of that age is easily influenced. Isn't it a mother's responsibility to decide what her children should or should not watch on television?
I know of no television program, magazine, newspaper or radio show that anyone is forced to listen to, watch or read. Today, it's popular to blame someone or something when a tragedy occurs.
The program should not be taken off the air or altered in any way. It's time parents and others take responsibility and stop making excuses. Have you ever heard of the on/off switch on the television or the remote? Use it! It's a wonderful device.
STEVEN L. KNOWLES
CHRISTIANSBURG
No to military training at Baldwin
I AM WRITING to express my disapproval of the proposed military-style Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership to be housed at Mary Baldwin College. As an alumna of Mary Baldwin, my education there gave me the critical-thinking skills to develop my personal creed as a pacifist and a feminist. As a pacifist, I will not support military education for either men or women. As a feminist, I will not support any program that allows an all-male institution, such as Virginia Military Institute, to continue its discriminatory admissions policy.
Although I personally do not believe in military training for men or women, I do not approve of the denial of women's admission to VMI as long as it remains a part of the state-supported educational system in Virginia.
Even if plans for Mary Baldwin's leadership institute are merely coincidental to VMI's search for an ``alternate program'' for women, I do not approve of a military program that would reside on the campus of my alma mater. I believe that a superior academic system, which Mary Baldwin has always provided for women, liberates us from the need to resort to militaristic tactics to succeed as leaders in the world of today.
KATHERINE W. BURKHART
BLACKSBURG
by CNB