Re: Susan Rushton’s column, “Pomp and Circumstance,” (Journal, Jan. 20).
As Ms. Rushton’s former student and I believe a friend, I was chagrined by this column. Many of the opinions expressed by Rushton seem to me misguided, unfounded or gratuitous.
Of course, none of the recent presidential candidates were “the best.” I would have preferred Abe Lincoln but he is dead. FDR would also have been great, also dead.
However given the choice we were given: a woman abuser and pizza salesman, a man of bloated ego and vocabulary and tiny ethics, a religious zealot and a greedy, heartless multimillionaire, or Barack Obama, Obama was clearly “the best.”
Obama couldn’t swear the Hippocratic Oath; he’s a politician not a physician. His Republican opponents wreaked havoc on his attempts to fulfill the presidential oath he did swear.
There is no evidence that President Obama is or has been “randy, idiotic, incompetent, ignorant, deceptive, a war monger,” during his last term, or ever.
Obama does listen to advice from others, and carefully considers his options for important decisions, unlike his predecessor, G.W. Bush, the “decider”; may he be forgiven his decisions.
Compared to his predecessor, or to his campaign opponents, Obama is the personification of humility, lightheartedness and intelligence.
Finally, concerning a “mensch” for president: Preserve me from such mensches as LBJ, (Vietnam) or GWB, (Iraq and Afghanistan). I would rather have a man or woman, humble before their maker and their fellow men and women, who takes great care unleashing the dogs of war.
I hope Susan Rushton remains my friend. She taught me a lot about writing and thinking. She is an excellent writer, editor and teacher, but apparently we disagree about desirable presidential attributes.
LOUIS A. LING, M.D., Colfax