This letter is in response to Jonathan Bracewell’s Feb. 24 letter “View of president poor, regurgitated,” which was in response to the Feb. 21 column “Patriotism more than presidential support” by Darryl Frierson. First off, I respect Mr. Bracewell’s support of President Bush.

However, I feel there are certain flaws within his letter that need to be verified. In his opinion column, Mr. Frierson had every right to question the president and even criticize his intelligence. Publicly elected officials are public servants, which means they are open to all types of criticism and scrutiny by their constituents.

Mr. Frierson is a constituent of Mr. Bush and, therefore, should not be questioned when he chooses to pass judgement upon Bush’s intelligence and capacity as a leader. It is vital to the survival of democracy and the First Amendment that leaders should be questioned all the time. Otherwise, tyranny and corruption would again plague us all as it did 300 years ago.

Secondly, it may be true that Lincoln was called a Republican, however, he today would be considered a Democrat, just as Jefferson would today be considered a Republican. Party titles have stayed the same while their platforms have changed within the last 200 years.

It is also true that Lincoln had a role in freeing slaves. However, it should be known that Lincoln began the Civil War to bring the South back into the Union — freeing slaves in the South developed as an afterthought when it was realized that it would help the North win the war. In fact, I believe that Lincoln himself had owned slaves.

For Mr. Bracewell to defend Bush’s leadership as a great president simply because he shares the same party title as a historically great American leader is simply ludicrous. It is fine to defend Bush, but find stronger evidence (aside from party affiliation) to do so.

Finally, I have a problem with Bracewell’s description of publicity against war as a product of the “liberal media.”

This is such a clich‚ term that often depicts the media as slanted towards the liberal democratic ideology.

It is ironic that during the Lewinsky scandal the same “liberal media” constantly criticized Democrat Clinton for his extramarital affairs and, consequently, his ability to perform his presidential duties.

I feel it is unfair for Bracewell to pigeonhole journalism and discourse against an Iraq war as nothing more than products of a liberal media. Again, it is fundamental for the survival of this great democracy that information against presidential policy be allowed to be freely distributed to the masses.

Imagine if the Daily or any other paper always agreed with Bush or any other president’s polices in their editorials. It would seem a bit too much like a communist regime, would it not?

In closing, I find Mr. Bracewell’s letter in response to Frierson’s column rather disheartening.

It is truly not a good thing when an American citizen personally criticizes another fellow American for scrutinizing and criticizing elected officials — officials who are the employees of voting citizens.

Joe Danielson

Sophomore

Political Science and English