Reaping What We Sow
Re "Life Without Credit" [Nov. 3], Bill Powell is spot on in identifying what this financial mess is all about: too much debt. But it is distressing that the only proposed solutions involve rewarding more debt. Let's, at least for the short term, raise taxes on well-off corporations and wealthy individuals, stop senseless wars financed by debt and eliminate the income-tax deductions for home-mortgage interest. Plus, don't artificially lower interest rates this punishes those who saved sensibly. And we must all prioritize our spending wisely. I'd rather have fewer mortgage brokers and more architects or engineers rebuilding this nation's decaying infrastructure.
Joseph Oppenheim,
Rancho Bernardo, Calif., U.S.
Battling Election-Day Glitches
Michael Scherer's article is full of good information and good reporting [Nov. 3]. In the future, perhaps it would be useful to do a companion article on what steps are being taken by states, counties, political campaigns and independent groups to mitigate some of these potential problems. That ought to include information on what a voter can do on the spot when a problem is encountered at a polling place. Are there officials who can be contacted in case of a problem? Are there people from each campaign standing by ready to help?
Gail Goldey,
Santa Fe, N.M., U.S.
Bad President, Great Film
I'm not sure Richard Corliss and I watched the same movie [Nov. 3]. Oliver Stone most certainly did have a point of view in filming W., his slice-of-life depiction of George W. Bush. The genius of Stone is that he can duplicate the emotions in the movie theater that we all feel in real life: confounded disbelief that a person like Dubya could ever become the President of the United States. Bush is perhaps the worst President we have ever had or, hopefully, will ever have. The first election, in 2000, was engineered, jockeyed and ultimately stolen. The second, in 2004, was actually won by Bush. To cite the phrase that he himself found so difficult to utter: Fooled us once, shame on them. But the second time around, shame on us. W. should be required viewing in every political-science class in the country.
Linda Calcagno Melchione,
Easton, Mass., U.S.
The Obama Effect
The media make much ado about the so-called Bradley effect [Nov. 3]. And it doesn't take a genius to see that John McCain and Sarah Palin have counted on this racial motivation to help them overcome the consequences of their poorly run campaign. But we must now factor in an even more potent quotient: the Obama effect that quality whereby the more you get to know a politician, the more you like and trust him or her. Across the board, Obama's ratings have steadily increased with key groups that had been cool toward him before. Likewise, regarding key questions like, Whom do you trust to improve the economy, be Commander in Chief, handle taxes or handle the housing crisis? Obama leads McCain in recent polls. Obama endures. He grows on you. He is the new kid on the block you decide not to like but find yourself secretly admiring and then openly supporting. In future elections, politicians will have to factor in the Obama effect.
Lynn Capehart,
Los Angeles
The Bradley effect? I predict a reverse Bradley effect this go-round. It will be fueled by sweet old ladies who have been voting Republican since Eisenhower and rugged blue-collar workers who were Reagan men but who can't bring themselves to press that button and vote for McCain-Palin. They won't admit it to their friends and family or the exit-poll people.
Margie Shepherd,
Free Union, Va., U.S.
You mention the Bradley effect without also alluding to a more modern, and possibly more significant, effect: the cell-phone effect. Polling is done by telephone to land-line customers. Surveys don't reach those who have abandoned land lines for cell phones voters who are by and large younger and less prejudiced. While Bradley-effect voters may lean Republican, the unsurveyed cell-phone-effect voters will be leaning, and voting, Democratic.
Chris Chrisman,
Los Angeles