Reno’s Decision

Your Dec. 3 editorial makes it difficult for me to continue in my self-appointed role of chief apologist for The Times. Hey, I’m as much a Commie pinko draft-dodging boomer as any 50-year-old devoted reader of your paper. However, I can’t let this one slide. You put so much spin on Reno’s decision not to appoint an independent counsel she came off as some kind of hero: “These are not the actions of a presidential lap dog.” I beg to differ. There’s only one way that the Clinton-appointed attorney general can keep her nose clean in this mess and that’s by naming an independent counsel.

Your most egregious omission, however, was Louis Freeh’s position on the matter. Nowhere did his name appear, yet his opinion that she could be setting a dangerous precedent should have been considered. You considered the opinions of “howling” Republican congressmen, why not the Clinton- appointed FBI director?

MARK SANFORD

Redondo Beach

*

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly claims that the American people aren’t interested in campaign finance reform. But following Reno’s special prosecutor decision, I discovered at least three Americans who are: Henry Hyde, Orrin Hatch and Dan Burton. Hey, righteous conservatives, now that the questionable fund-raising practices of Bill Clinton, Al Gore (and by extension, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and every other member of the House and Senate) have been certified “legal” by the attorney general, isn’t it time to change those laws with immediate, significant campaign finance reform that gets big money out of politics?

DAVID POTORTI

Los Angeles

*

Hey hey, ho ho

Janet Reno has got to go.

DEVON SHOWLEY

Cypress

*

I have one question for those Republicans who are fuming over Reno’s decision: Were you equally upset when President Ford pardoned Nixon during the Watergate indictments? I didn’t think so.

WILLIAM BRENNER

Los Angeles