Reading Aaron Blake’s Feb. 13 article “McLaughlin’s poll shows tie with Jones” may lead some to believe that Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) is currently tied with his primary challenger Joe McLaughlin due to Jones’s controversial stance on the occupation in Iraq. I was just there in North Carolina’s heavily military 3rd district, and while this is a part of the reason, it is only that — a part.

Jones’s record on taxes is the rest of the reason. Jones, elected in 1994, is no longer the fiscal conservative the people of the 3rd district are counting on in this coming election. Having signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge the year he was elected, Jones has strayed far from his fiscal conservative roots.

Recently, Jones has broken his pledge not once, but twice — once in voting for the farm bill, a $7.8 billion tax over 10 years, and again in voting for the recent energy legislation, an $8 billion tax over 10 years.

I am personally supporting McLaughlin, who has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. I can attest firsthand that fiscal restraint and a strong tax record are pivotal issues to the voters there and a pledge-breaker like Jones is losing ground fast.

Jones’s record on voting for not one, but two pledge-violating tax increases within one year, after repeated warnings that these votes will result in tax increases, are proof enough that he is no longer the true conservative candidate in this race.

Washington

Clinton unfit to be commander in chief

From Peter M. Borromeo, esq.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) states “one of us (Democratic candidates) is fit to be commander in chief.”

As an old (literally and figuratively) political professional, now retired, who has served in senior positions with Democratic and Republican congressmen, as a presidential appointee (Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican George H.W. Bush) and, uniquely, with both the Democratic and Republican national committees, I find the thought of Hillary Clinton as commander in chief frightening.

Her tears just before the New Hampshire primary brought her the women’s vote in such record numbers that she cynically repeated the scene in Connecticut before Super Tuesday. However, I found myself wondering: Does America really want a president who would break out in tears if she didn’t get her way with Russia’s Vladimir Putin (who will undoubtedly become Russia’s prime minister and stay the true power after their upcoming election)? Is that the image of America’s leader that we want?

Years ago, when Sen. Ed Muskie broke out in tears in New Hampshire, it cost him the chance to win the Democratic nomination. Can anyone imagine FDR publicly crying when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Or JFK when Russia tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? Do we have different standards for women candidates?

Can anyone imagine Britain’s Margaret Thatcher or India’s Indira Ghandi publicly crying if they didn’t get their way politically? Or Germany’s current chancellor, Angela Merkel? Would Israel’s great prime minister, Golda Meir, have broken out in tears if Egypt’s Nasser had frustrated her? I doubt it.

Do we really want a leader of America and the free world — and our military’s commander in chief — appearing so weak?

Hilary Clinton claims 35 years of experience (wasn’t she a student 35 years ago?) and claims the right to be president because she has more Washington experience than Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) (Is she thus saying that her husband should never have been elected president since he had zero days Washington experience when he was elected?) And she now claims that a tearful Hillary is what America needs leading our military and our nation. This is really just one more reason why Hillary is unfit to be president.

Arlington, Va.