October 1
Steve:

Here's a little piece I wrote tonight to send to the Sentinel Editorial Board, in an effort to make them feel really bad about themselves when they endorse McCollum. I'll also cc it to the entire board, even the ones who didn't interview me, plus my friends on the staff to try and cause some dissent. Just love stirring things up.

Since none of the following was covered in the Sentinel, I thought I'd take the opportunity to fill you in on what your boy, Bill McCollum, has been up to in the last few weeks, while the media, in general, have been obsessing over the Clinton scandal.

Although it wasn't covered in your pages, the House passed HRes 117, (formerly HRes 372) two weeks ago, stating that marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug with no medicinal value. This resolution was written by Representative McCollum, and, of course, flies in the face of most credible medical evidence to the contrary. It is an unusually harsh and politically motivated measure, put forward by a man who once co-sponsored legislation approving the exact opposite of what he now espouses. Bill McCollum would rather see the sick and dying go to jail for attempting to alleviate their own suffering, than appear "soft on drugs." It's omission in the Sentinel was noteworthy. Since you have already gone on record as opposing Florida's State Ballot Initiative for Medicinal Marijuana, it begs the question of why you didn't cover this story. (By the way, did you also not know that a medical marijuana patient was arrested for smoking her medicine in McCollum's Capitol Hill office while the vote was being taken in Congress?)

In the same week, the House passed HR4300, the "Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act." It's passage, as well, went unnoticed by the Sentinel. However, last Sunday's N.Y. Times did mention that while this bill, written by Bill McCollum, and promising to reduce the flow of illicit drugs into our country by 80% over the next three years, passed the House, Drug Czar Barry McCafferey was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noting that the 80% figure was, "completely unrealistic." If this is drug policy, it's being waged by the Keystone Cops! The fact that this completely demagogic piece of legislation will cost us $2.6 billion dollars and end in utter failure, is less frightening than the notion that lives that will be put in jeopardy, by giving state-of-the-art military hardware to South American regimes whose human rights records are questionable at best. I wonder whether Bill Clinton's sexual misadventures are putting as many people at risk?

Another piece of news that was completely ignored by your paper was the inclusion of McCollum's controversial Juvenile Justice bill as an attachment to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children re-authorization act. Now, in the past (July 31, 1997), your paper has said that "Mr. McCollum's measure is a needless distraction for local and state officials." Perhaps, if you glanced at the Washington Post, or even the St. Petersburg Times, last Tuesday, as I did, you might have read William Raspberry's condemnation of, not only, "the content of the juvenile crime bill Republicans have crafted, (but) the way they are trying to railroad it to enactment." I recommend it. It's an astute and knowledgeable piece of writing. You might also wish to read Anthony Lewis's N.Y. Times piece of Sept. 30th: "House Republicans have already acted under cover of the Lewinsky turmoil to try to sneak a harsh new measure on juvenile crime onto the statute books." One can only wonder why the Sentinel failed to cover this particular piece of McCollum mischief.

Now, credit where credit is due. You did mention in an editorial last week, that you were "astounded" to learn (particularly in light of the 21 tornado-caused fatalities in his own district, this past spring) that Bill McCollum would vote on a bill to weaken safety standards of mobile homes; an act backed by the Manufactured Housing Institute. I would point out, however, that your astonishment rings somewhat disingenuous. It reminds me of the comment by Claude Raines' Capt. Renault, in the movie "Casablanca," who declared he was, "shocked....shocked to discover gambling going on....," in Rick's Cafe, as he was being handed his winnings. Everyone in Central Florida knows, and surely you do too, that Bill McCollum has been, and continues to be in the pocket of every special interest that donates to his endless reelection campaigns, and can usually be counted upon to vote their way, even to the detriment of his own constituents.

If you remember, in my Editorial Board interview, I stated that your paper was greatly biased in Bill McCollum's direction. Your underreporting of these items, which could only tarnish McCollum's standing, simply adds weight to my argument. And, if your failure to cover these important stories was not due to your kid-gloved treatment of my opponent, I can only conclude that your reporting of important news to the people of this area is far below the standards of what your paper should be. So shame on you, either way. However, if I am correct in my judgment call -- if you are continuing to coddle Bill McCollum -- I can only stand in wonder and ask, why?

There was an interesting piece in last Sunday's N.Y. Times on the notion, that we, as a nation are acting as "enablers," vis-a-vis the behavior of Bill Clinton. Like the wife of an alcoholic, we the people, continue to be locked in denial, blocking out any alternative action, other than staying with the guy we came to the dance with. We make up excuses for the boorishness of our loved one and try to put a good spin on every reprehensible act he commits. This enabling behavior, allows the miscreant to continue his waywardness, knowing that whatever he does, he will be taken in, cleaned up, gently scolded and then let loose to sin again and again.

This sounds eerily like the Sentinel's continued endorsement of Mr. McCollum. Again and again, you let him get away with passing bad legislation, working against the interests of his constituents, and voting in opposition to your own editorial stands. Once in awhile you chide him, but year after year, he knows that you will continue to back him up as he continues his wayward assault on our collective well-being. You simply refuse to see him as he is, and for some reason continue to send him back out to sin, every election year. Bill McCollum's career in Congress has moved steadily over the years from lackluster to dangerous. Yet, your paper, for some reason, is in thrall to his continued tenure in Congress.

Mark Twain once said, "The citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal." Don't you think it's time to really reexamine your stance, both in the news you choose (or don't choose) to report and the worn-out political suit you continue to clean up and mend? How long will you allow yourself to play the role of the wronged, yet enabling handmaiden to Bill McCollum's machinations, gently chiding him, but ultimately encouraging him to repeat his bad behavior. Isn't it time to be courageous and break this cycle, so that your paper's credibility can be reclaimed and an uninspired Congressional career be put to pasture? Twain's quote, as I stated in my endorsement interview, is the theme of my campaign. My question to your paper, therefore must be, "Where is the Sentinel's loyalty, and why do you regard it so cheaply?"

Yours truly,
Al