Letters to the Editor	Letters Archive

Dean editorial misleading

I was disappointed with your editorial on presidential candidate Howard Dean's change on his position on the death penalty [Dean's Deadly Flip Flop August 2003].

You state "But now, as a candidate for president, Dean says it's okay to execute those convicted of terrorism, killing a police officer, or raping and murdering a child." The wording "as a candidate for president" suggests that he just switched his position before running when in truth on "Meet the Press" he said he changed his position during the Polly Klaas murder case nearly 10 years ago, way before he even considered running for president.

View our poll archive

For flip flopping presidential candidates you should take a look at Dennis Kucinich whose voting record in the house is consistently pro-life but had the nerve at a pro-choice presidential forum to tell the attendants he was pro-choice. His website states that he "had a journey on this issue."

Charles
via the Internet

The editorial did note Dean's claim to have begun his "reconsideration" of executing prisoners in the mid-90s. His campaign, however, did not respond to requests for documentation of that claim. (And in any case, Dean may well have cast his eye on Washington years before announcing his run.)

You are right, though, to underscore that Dean's motivation (hard to know, impossible to prove) should not be the central concern. Dean's flip flop is egregious because he has moved horribly in the wrong direction. Dennis Kucinich's abortion switch is to be applauded, since, with whatever motivation, he now endorses reproductive freedom.

Dean didn't deliver

Kudos to The Guide for pointing out Howard Dean's willingness to embrace the death penalty [Dean's Deadly Flip Flop August 2003] as he prepares to run for President. Unfortunately, your article does not mention that Dean's record as governor of Vermont is not as pristine as some gay voters might assume.

As governor, Dean pushed for legislation to recognize civil unions instead of marriage between people of the same gender. The difference is significant.

The Constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings or every other State." Therefore, a marriage performed in one state would be enforceable in the courts of another state. Had Vermont enacted a marriage statute-- instead of a civil unions law-- a gay couple married in Vermont would be entitled to all the rights of marriage in the courts of any other state. Unfortunately, a couple obtaining a civil union in Vermont are not entitled to those rights.

Governor Dean forewent the opportunity to push for full marriage rights for gay/lesbian couples. Your readers should recognize that although Dean's support of the death penalty is troubling, it is not the first time that Mr. Dean has chosen political expedience at the expense of principle.

Marc Anthony Diamond
via the Internet

Why subscribe?

I'm currently a subscriber to The Guide. Is there any advantage to paying $30 a year for the print magazine when I can apparently get the same info on-line?

P.R.
via the Internet

Many find the print magazine a more convenient format, especially when traveling. You also get to see the ads, which can be handy when on the road. But, yes, we do put all our editorial content on our website, yours for free.

Baaaa... baaaa... ahhhh

I seek a maker of quality inflated sheep (with wool). Can you help me?

Jim
via the Internet

No, Jim we don't know who has what you're looking for. Readers?