Progressives and the election.

• Author: Krecker, Jon
• Position: Letter to the Editor

I read the columns of Ruth Conniff ("Triumph of the Bland," April issue) and Molly Ivins ("Kerry, Sigh," April issue). Conniff criticizes Senator Kerry for raising funds to run against Bush's $250 million. Any candidate would be stupid not to raise funds to go against an incumbent with the largest campaign war chest in the history of the world.

As for bland, here's what I know about Kerry: He rides a Harley Davidson motorcycle, snowboards and skies, plays ice hockey, kite surfs, hunts, can play a guitar, and can fly a jet. I believe it would take a lot of smarts and talent to be able to do all of those things. Besides, he's a good Senator. Why not try and find his strong points and contrast them with those of Bush, DeLay, Cheney, Hastert, and all the other Republicans who did not go to Vietnam?

Jon Krecker via e-mail

What's a progressive to do when mainstream candidates would rather pledge allegiance to corporations than democracy? What's a progressive to do when both major parties prefer a state of war to public well-being, security, and rights? What's a progressive to do when both parties, for over two decades, have failed to represent progressive ideals and values? What's a progressive to do when voters themselves are mostly reactionary, ignorant, or at least willing continually to accept inadequate representation and the lesser of evils?

Both Ruth Conniff and your editorial ("Nader's Wrong Turn," Comment) in your April issue note that Democratic nominee-apparent John Kerry is beholden to the "corporate paymasters." A conclusion Conniff seems to reach is that, in nominating Kerry, progressives again will find no voice in the Democratic Party. And Molly Ivins calls Kerry "our boring stiff."

But your Comment...