Letters to the Editor

Citizens of Virginia deserve better

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

It was nice to read that Democratic and Republican members of the General Assembly agreed that an evenly split, bipartisan committee should study and recommend another plan for redrawing electoral districts for Virginia. However, this can be foreseen as window dressing since subcommittees and committees and the Assembly must vote for passage. The previous General Assembly session ignored the two post-census, non-partisan plans submitted for consideration and went forward with gerrymandering as usual, as has continued for decades. It is difficult to see the process as anything but self-serving.

Sometime later, post-election results brought about another evenly divided (a very appropriate word) Senate. That status produced Commentary columns by Sens. Donald McEachin (D) and Ryan McDougle (R) on the matter of party power. Both columns struck me as insinuating fault by the other party, preaching to their choirs rather than to your readers and not addressing the real, underlying problem.

The citizens of Virginia deserve better. We deserve a non-partisan committee recommendation with no more than one-third being partisan members and with General Assembly (partisan) approval. This would allow election results to determine majority/minority party status instead of the craftier majority political party, which has been the standard practice for too many past decades.

One can only hope for such non-partisan legislating.

Scott Broaddus.

Glen Allen.

Media should tell the real election story

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The real story of South Carolina's primary results was not Newt Gingrich's victory, but the ineptitude of the media, pundits and pollsters. Their instinct of regurgitating conventional wisdom's "electability" mantra underscored their limited focus on candidate personalities rather than the more important aspects of the candidates' positions on national issues.

Gingrich has distinguished himself by offering real, workable solutions. Compare his position on dealing with Iran, or his recommendations to fix Social Security and Medicare. His approach to education's problem is straightforward, underpinned with common sense. Untypical for a politician, Gingrich delivers his message using clear and concise language. He forsakes the typical format that emphasizes political considerations as more important than the message.

It is essential that the media more closely examine the candidates' positions. A case in point is Gingrich's desire to adopt the Chilean model of social security that gives people ownership of their retirement accounts, greater financial security and establishes a willable estate.

W. H. Pfahl.

Stephens City.

Environmentalists got what they wanted

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

You scored a slam-dunk with your editorial, "Uranium & Keystone: Studiously Ignored." Republicans in Virginia, especially in Southside, are trying to have it both ways by pretending to pay homage to the tried and true conservative tradition of demanding jobs ahead of extraneous environmental claims while, at the same time, caving in to the environmental elite on their assertions about uranium mining in Virginia.

The economic benefit and the effect on energy independence by this proposed mine has been well established in scientific studies by the state. And, the path to safely mine this mineral for both workers and the environment has been equally delineated in these studies. Yet Southside Republican legislators and their cohorts statewide have instead adopted the tactics President Obama just used in delaying and possibly killing the Keystone oil pipeline project by asking for more studies.

That is exactly what the environmental crazies wanted in both cases. And, that's exactly what they got from their president and some of our state Republicans. Go figure.

Ann Campbell.

Chatham.

'Words' editorial had nothing much to say

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

What is the intention of the editorial, "Words, words, words"? The particulars are about President Barack Obama's speeches. How easy is it to critique, yet have no words to explain the obvious disappointment and lack of hearing concerning the real issues facing the nation. Are your quotes taken from a reputable source? The implications are screeching to a fault and bogus at best.

You say Obama's oratory targets a different audience. This is true. He speaks to those who actually hear — try listening with a keener ear. Your editorial is an obvious undisclosed presumption of sorts appealing to like minds with nothing much to hear and a trivial pursuit.

Jacquelyn Wilson.

Richmond.