Share

Opinion: Letters to the Editor

Letters for April 17

|
Opinion,Letters to the Editor

Deferring to a spouse is a sign of strength

Re: "Gabrielle: Bowing down is a 'sign of strength,' " April 14

"We're not sure how Gabrielle Reece was raised, but ..." began Elizabeth Larner as she criticized Reece's formula for success."She is definitely confused,"Larner piled on. But Larner is the confused one. Reece is right: Like the showing of mercy, spousal deference is a sign of one's strength, not one's weakness.

A wife-mother traditionally sets the tone for her household, and deferring to her husband is indeed a sign of her strength, especially in the case of a successful woman like Reece, who has been happily married for 17 years despite being in an industry where divorce is rampant.

Just as the adage that behind every great man is a great woman, the converse is also true.As the recently departed British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said,"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."Her husband Denis was famously supportive and deferential to her.

Reece is undoubtedly a lady and a very good role model at that.Larner should open her clueless mind and take note, not spew jealous vitriolic criticism of someone who is so well anchored as a woman, model, athlete, leader, mother and wife.

Martin Luther wisely said: "Let the wife make the husband glad to come home, and let him make her sorry to see him leave."

Laszlo Pentek

Arlington

ACU advocates spending cuts, just ones that make sense

Re: "Why is a conservative group opposing spending cuts?" April 10

The answer to this erroneously entitled column by Tim Carney is, we're not. In fact, the American Conservative Union supports budget proposals in Congress which include much-needed cuts in spending. We even advocate that both infrastructure and defense appropriationsshouldbe subject to reductions -- not "more federal infrastructure money."

But we believe in smart cuts. We take great exception to any insinuation that our motivation is anything other than to independently advocate for policies that wisely reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

And since this program has not even launched, Carney's allegation that "At least some of the money ... will come from the businesses that get the contracts" is incorrect. We have not even spoken with government contractors.

Government needs to shrink. But it also needs to fulfill the duties set forth in the Constitution, including providing national defense and infrastructure.

That's the constitutionally conservative position.

Al Cardenas

Chairman,

American Conservative Union

At-large race is not Romney vs. Obama rematch

Re: "Is the third time a charm for Mara?" March 28

Only in a D.C. Council race could being a Republican running against Democrats pass for a political attack. With a governing agenda fit for the 1970s, divisive rhetoric and a morass of ethical decay, D.C.'s political establishment seems to be struggling for words when it comes to articulating why voters should actually trust them with more legislative power than they already have.

Instead, they prefer to simply remind voters that their chief competition, board of education member Patrick Mara, is a Republican and therefore somehow disqualified.Nevermind that Mara holds markedly different views on marriage equality and environmental issues than his party leadership. And voters concerned about the quality of schools are supposed to ignore his efforts on education reform while others pined for the comfort of the status quo.

While Mara's Democratic counterparts enjoy the perks of office, citizens watch in horror as they brandish political and ethics reform proposals. Democrats and their independent expenditure groups would prefer this at-large race to be a straw-man referendum on Romney vs. Obama, but to quote the Gershwins: "It ain't necessarily so."

Ted Eismeier

Washington

View article comments Leave a comment