Friday, October 16, 1998

These are the times

Desperate times make for desperate measures. I've just seen Charlie Stenholm's latest TV ad attacking Rudy Izzard, and it makes me sick. I am disappointed with Stenholm for his decision to launch negative ads against Izzard.

I saw Stenholm's other ads talking about how he represents "our values." One of the values I find most attractive in a potential representative is integrity. Stenholm apparently has lost his. In his attempt to retain his seat, Stenholm has sacrificed his basic integrity.

I've always thought integrity means the person you are when nobody else is watching. Now that the spotlight has been turned on Stenholm's record and his tenure of service, he can't find a way to win this race without making nasty comments about someone else's character.

Stenholm himself has complained for months that Izzard will run a negative campaign. Now Stenholm has decided the only way he can keep his congressional seat is to tear down someone else in the process. I guess all of Stenholm's talk about "values" was just that, talk.

Stenholm may win this election. However, to win he will have had to sacrifice his own moral character in the process.

That's something to be proud of, isn't it?

CRYSTAL SHERROD

San Angelo

Friend of farmers

I have farmed my entire life in Tornillo, Texas. The last 15 years, I have worked through local farmer organizations and the National Cotton Council for sound agricultural policy and against unfair regulatory burdens. Throughout these years there has been no better friend, no more consistent ally for the Texas farmer than U.S. Rep. Charlie Stenholm.

Stenholm has fought for thoughtful agricultural policy for Texas producers. In all the turmoil in Washington, D.C., these days, Charlie is at the right place at the right time. His main interest is in seeing Texas farmers and ranchers get as much assistance from Congress as possible to help them ride out the current economic and disaster crises they face.

As a 10-term member of the House Agriculture Committee, his senior leadership in helping get needed assistance to farmers is nothing new or surprising, given the many times he has provided similar assistance in the past.

Stenholm has proven time and again an ability to work with both parties. His experience will be needed when it is time to debate new farm policy. He also is a strong trade advocate, which is critical for agriculture.

Agriculture and rural America need to keep Charlie Stenholm in Congress. There should be no question about his ability to represent the interests of farmers and ranchers. The record is there; the record is clear. It is up to the people of the 17th District to keep him in office.

WILLIAM LOVELADY

Chairman, National Cotton Council of America

Negative ads tiring

Our president shames himself and the nation, and our congressman can't breathe a bad word about him. Yet he can spend thousands of dollars to call his opponent bad names and falsely accuse him of lying.

Charles Stenholm ought to be ashamed of himself. He's running trash advertisements and defaming a good man's character. I don't like many politicians period, but Rudy Izzard is a good man - and I don't think Stenholm's mean personal attacks are fair or warranted.

Hasn't he been in office for a long time? He should be able to give us a good reason to vote for him instead of a false reason to vote against his opponent.

Negative ads are a turn-off, Charlie Stenholm. Clean it up.

LA SHEONDA MARTIN

Abilene

Where's aid for oil?

In the Oct. 13 business section there was a story about 13 governors who urged President Clinton to halt the import of "unfairly priced, dumped and subsidized" steel products from economically battered countries. This is being done to save American jobs.

It must be wonderful to have that kind of help from your elected officials. We in the independent oil business don't! The United States imports 11 million barrels of oil per day from countries that do not pay severance taxes, county school taxes and county hospital taxes. They also do not pay the wages we pay American workers. There is no way we can compete, so American workers lose their jobs.

We need a floor price on imported oil so we can compete. A tax would be added to each barrel when the price falls below $17. When the price is above that there would be no tax.

Five hundred thousand people lost their jobs in 1985 in the last oil slump. Unemployment rates were in double figures in Texas. The Texas economy was in a big recession. We are losing thousands of jobs each month. What are our representatives doing?

Mr. Stenholm fought for subsidies for sugar growers in Florida, signed the bill backing quotas and taxes on computer chips for California and for wheat growers to save American jobs. Then why won't he try to save mine? Why won't Gov. Bush help us? Why won't our state representatives fight for us? They call every night wanting me to contribute so they can win and do nothing for me.

JOHN WOLCOTT

Abilene

The help he needed

I survived the World War II campaigns (1943-1944) on Tarawa, Saipan and Tinian, detached to 2nd Marine Division, F.M.F., in the field. I served as a pharmacist's mate 1st class (corpsman) and got hit with shrapnel in my left jaw and cheek.

U.S. Rep. Charles Stenholm helped me no end at the dental clinic of our VA Hospital in Temple. Also, I applaud him for his work with VA to get a community-based outpatient clinic for veterans in Eastland, Stephens, Palo Pinto, Hood and Parker counties. This outpatient service is most needed for local veterans.

Thanks, Charlie.

JOHN SLAUGHTER

Breckenridge

Charlie at it again

Charlie Stenholm is at it again. Trying to scare senior citizens into thinking their Social Security is in trouble when he knows the same bank that pays Social Security will have to pay his $2.5 million pension - the U.S. Treasury.

Some recent letters have tried to paint Charlie as an upright and honest man. But just how honest has he been with those he represents? He's running commercials that say he won't play politics with Social Security, yet he voted against a Republican bill to save Social Security - just because it was a Republican bill.

Now the Democrats are upset about that bill because it gives some of us who overpaid our taxes a bit of money back. But it sets aside billions of dollars to save Social Security. And it protects that money from being used and abused by people like Stenholm.

Ask Stenholm why that money we've been paying into Social Security isn't there. Shouldn't he have been protecting it for the past 20 years? He probably will not tell you he voted four times to raid the Social Security trust fund. And that's the main reason why those funds aren't there now.

Charlie's had 20 years to deal with this issue. But it seems the only one with a secure pension after all this time is Charlie.

COY TATE

Abilene