‘Loose Lips Sink Campaigns’

Let me get this straight. Tina Brown’s last sentence in her article, “Loose Lips Sink Campaigns,” stated, “Airheads are going to be the definitive swing voter on November 2nd,” required my reading that sentence over and over [On the Town, October 21, 2004].

Did Ms. Brown think only swing voters were airheads if they were leaning toward President Bush? Or did she really mean anyone who intended to vote for Mr. Bush is an airhead?

I have never been in the swing voter column as my intention all along was to support the president. Mr. Kerry did not make the case why anyone should support him.

He crafted a campaign promoting his four months of military service, skipping his Senate career and arriving on the campaign trail. Mr. Kerry had yet to explain his voting record in the Senate.

The liberal press consistently gave him a pass. Voting for him would have been analogous to buying a pig in a poke. Then why should anyone who intended to vote for Mr. Kerry with his multiple positions not be viewed as an airhead?

Perhaps Ms. Brown, in one of her future articles, can make the case for Mr. Kerry.

In one of her earlier articles, Ms. Brown wrote about a straw poll taken at a party she attended – undoubtedly all liberals with snobbish opinions of their collected intellect. She was astonished to learn someone had voted for Mr. Bush. Let me remind her, no one in elite Manhattan circles admitted voting for Richard Nixon, yet he won.

As a retired mathematics teacher who taught advanced placement calculus, I would be mortified to think I am viewed as an airhead because I voted for Mr. Bush.

MATTIE C. SYDNOR
Yonkers, N.Y.

Remembering Lincoln’s Visit

During the last few months, I’ve come to slowly become a Knickerbocker (and a Gary Shapiro) fan, with its New York City esoterica.

Monday’s Lincoln story was rather interesting, a tale only a true New Yorker could enjoy in a slow read-through [“Remembering Lincoln’s New York Visit,” November 8, 2004].

Mr. Shapiro has become a Scalici must-read. Please keep him combing through the city archives for more.

STEVEN SCALICI
Staten Island

Bloomberg and Giuliani

Julia Levy’s analysis of the two mayoral approaches to union negotiations brings to mind several observations, primarily as to the United Federation of Teachers [“Mike Is Tougher Than Rudy, Say Union Leaders,” Page 1, October 25, 2004].

(1) Randi Weingarten’s representation of “public histrionics” regarding UFT negotiations is subjective at best. The public should be entitled to hear and read synopses of negotiations, as they (we) are the taxpayers who presently and ultimately fund any and all monetary provisions. Furthermore, our children’s education is at stake, above and be yond who obtains a 2%, 5% or 22% increment.

(2) The UFT, during the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, has been adamantly opposed to a voucher system – enabling parents to obtain their choice of schooling for their children; ergo, perhaps a public referendum as to contractual change would be in order.

(3) Lastly, the police and firefighters’ selection of “binding arbitration” – rather than protracted, expensive legal maneuvers, seems a pragmatic solution. Perhaps, Mr. Bloomberg and the UFT should consider a similar tribunal – with non-partisan arbitrators. Our children’s future is the main concern, and should never be jeopardized.

NANCY JOYCE JANCOURTZ
Brooklyn

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.