Quotes of the Day

Will Gore Get on the Trail?
I hope Al Gore will run for President in 2008 [May 28]. He has the intelligence a President needs to deal with complex situations both domestically and internationally. I am heartbroken that I did not realize that in 2000. I hope Gore will give me and many other voters the opportunity to make things right in 2008. I am surprised that our current President's thinking and reasoning have mostly remained dualistic, regarding people and nations as either good guys or evildoers, with us or against us, resolute or wimpy. The leader of the free world needs more than just conviction and resolve.
Jane Lin, NORTHBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.

You called Gore "improbably charismatic" and an "environmental prophet," which couldn't be further from the truth. A wooden, pseudo-scientific charlatan would be more accurate. This is not your finest hour.
Rick D. Smith, BUHLER, KANSAS, U.S.

Gore said he has "fallen out of love with politics," and many people are concerned that he might not run for President. In a way he has just made his politics specialized, and his current work addressing climate change confirms his leadership qualities. But let's be realistic: the environment would be only one of many problems he would have to face if he were to run. There are other promising Democratic candidates, and isn't global warming an issue important enough that there should be someone as competent as Gore to give the U.S. — and the rest of the world — an ecological conscience? It is a tough challenge to save the world. Please, let him focus on that! He shouldn't be distracted by a run for the presidency.
Tanja Schwarze, OLDENBURG, GERMANY

Thank you for your excellent article on Gore. Please, U.S. citizens, do not draft this decent man to run again. I do not want him to be soiled by the dirt of U.S. politics. Recent history has shown that a man like him can be cheated out of an election victory by a much less capable contender.
Norio Ohta, TAKATSUKI CITY, JAPAN

Moore Zooms In on Health Care
Filmmaker Michael Moore romanticizes the government-run health-care system in Canada [May 28]. I wonder if he really understands what a single-payer system would mean for Americans. The government would hold a monopoly over health-care coverage, offering one insurance plan with no alternatives. If the government decided to reduce funding or deny coverage for certain medical technologies or procedures, patients would have to forgo their use or pay for them out of pocket. Under the current system, if people are dissatisfied with their plan, they can simply switch insurance carriers. No one denies the moral imperative for reform to provide health-care access to all Americans, but a single-payer system is not the answer.
Janet Trautwein, CEO, National Association of Health Underwriters, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, U.S.

Multinational pharmaceutical companies are out of hand with their pricing. While it is acceptable that they should make a reasonable profit, they have gone beyond that in what they charge in the U.S. Some of their profit margins reveal their obscene greed. Why do medications cost 77% more in this country than they do in Canada? We have the best politicians money can buy.
Phyllis Ray, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT, U.S.

Inflating Football Salaries
I was flabbergasted to learn the sum of sponsorship money pocketed annually by the Premier League, National Basketball Association and National Football League [May 7]. The salaries of top players are augmented the same way. The majority of us would take a lifetime to make the amount of money these players earn in just one week. It is truly astonishing. I wonder whether they deserve such large sums. Wouldn't the money be better spent combatting poverty, global warming, AIDS? The list goes on and on.
Lee Boon Siew, KUALA LUMPUR

At an Impasse?
I was interested to read "The dying of the light," about how Mansour went from being Baghdad's glitziest neighborhood to one of its most dangerous [May 28]. It seems impossible for any side to win the war in Iraq. If the fighting were about land or money, maybe it would be easier for the U.N. or powerful nations to intervene and negotiate a settlement. But this war is about dominance and will. The Western countries involved have the technology and firepower, while the jihadists have the manpower and a willingness to die. I don't see how President Bush and incoming British Prime Minister Gordon Brown can come up with a better battle plan or a good exit proposal.
Lee Toon Hian, IPOH, MALAYSIA

Chrysler's Crash
Re"Buying a used Chrysler" [May 28]: The automakers have to stop thinking in terms of breaking their contracts with retired workers, who devoted their lives for these promises. The industry's problems cannot be solved by the unions or private takeovers. The U.S. car industry is just another casualty of insurance and pharmaceutical companies that have bought the White House and Congress, rendering medical treatment and insurance unaffordable.
Paul R. Del Vecchio, GUNNISON, COLORADO, U.S.

The collapse of U.S. carmakers sounds eerily similar to the impending bankruptcies of Social Security and Medicare. By failing to act now, the government is condemning us all to a worse future. There are fewer workers to support an increasing number of older retirees. What does the demise of the Big Three portend?
Anthony Trujillo Escareño, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, U.S.

A War of Words
Joe Klein referred to congressman Ron Paul's "singular moment of weirdness" as "proposing that al-Qaeda attacked on Sept. 11 because the U.S. had been messing around in the Middle East, bombing Iraq" [May 28]. I find it startling that Klein assumed the reader would see this perfectly reasonable notion as weird when it essentially echoes an observation made in The 9/11 Commission Report. I have to wonder where the weirdness really rests.
Joshua Glassman, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, U.S.

Klein called Rudy Giuliani's dismissal of Paul a "historic slam dunk" and said he "reduced Paul to history." Neither Giuliani nor Klein seems capable of debating Paul's assertion on its merit. Could this be because Paul's argument is too strong, too logical? Paul's assertion that our actions abroad reap consequences at home is the real slam dunk (in the pre-George Tenet sense of the term). Paul has not become history, but rather his view is grounded in history. I hope that other candidates will respond to his point. That could lead to a meaningful exchange in the grand Republican tradition of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
George Savage, MADISON, WISCONSIN, U.S.

• Moore Zooms In on Health Care; Inflating Football Salaries; At an Impasse?; Chrysler's Crash; A War of Words