Letter: Bush not perfect, but better than alternatives

Monday, Feb. 20, 2006 | 12:31 p.m.

James Peck asks in his Feb. 16 letter, "Just what is it that's 'disgustingly apparent' that we would be worse off with Al Gore or John Kerry as president?"

I would ask what positive contributions Al Gore or John Kerry have made since losing, which would give any indication that one of them would have done a better job than President Bush?

While I agree that President Bush has proposed too much spending and not enough cutting, it does not require a crystal ball to know that we would have higher tax rates, higher deficits and less national security if Gore and/or Kerry had been elected. Real Democrats in the Kennedy or Truman mold must be embarrassed when the current leaders open their mouths.

I would like to know what Mr. Peck knows that makes the Bush administration "the most corrupt." Please look up the definition of "corrupt" before sending in your list.

Mr. Peck's claim that Bush "has only been elected by the public once, four years after he had been installed in that position by the right-leaning Supreme Court, even though he lost the popular vote," needs correcting.

The left-leaning Supreme Court (even after two Bush appointments we only have a centrist court) correctly interpreted the Constitution and told the state of Florida that it could not change its election laws after the fact! As per the United States Constitution, the Electoral College then elected the president as has been the case since our country was founded. The Constitution worked exactly as written.

F. Jay Harrell, Las Vegas