Letters

To the Editor:

Ron Rosenbaum’s “Larry David, Have You Jumped the Whitefish? A New Fan’s Lament” piece [The Edgy Enthusiast, Oct. 17] was right on the money—very funny and insightful. What I liked even more about it was that it wasn’t a cheap-shots free-for-all; it was constructive criticism of the show and actually reverent of what Mr. David has done well. I liked Seinfeld the first year (no one else knew it was on). It was the latter-day fans, starting with year two, endlessly quoting “runners” and premises that were merely O.K. that forced me into creating a balance.

In other words, they thought Jerry was better than Groucho, so I wrinkled my nose, shook my head in dismay, became a vocal naysayer and rented old Monty Python episodes to get a giggle. And thanks to Mr. Rosenbaum for articulating the tuba problem. I heard it, bristled, groped for reason, but he nailed it.

Kim Crawford

Brentwood, Calif.

To the Editor:

“Have you jumped the whitefish?” Now there’s some edgy material! Give me a break. Mr. Rosenbaum’s rants about Curb Your Enthusiasm would seem much more scathing if he could offer us any reason to believe that he ever got the show in the first place. But hey, at least he wasn’t unfathomably condescending about it. He judges Larry for being “anti-P.C.”—and by the way, he claims to like the first four seasons, but no one I know can pinpoint any difference, myself included, which leads me to believe that the show has always been like this—but he flaunts his negative attitude about Seinfeld as being unheralded and different. Ken Tucker would be proud!

Sean T. Snell

Nova Scotia, Canada

skinnyblueline Letters

Clinton Kerfuffle

To the Editor:

I know, of course, that Michael M. Thomas was being somewhat facetious [“Who’ll Clean Up the Bush Mess? Gore and Clinton (Bill, That Is),” The Midas Watch, Oct. 17], but still, his thinking is brilliant. Brilliant. That’s the only proper way to describe the scenario that he proposes. But now I wonder: Why not? To get around the constitutional problems, the Clinton on the ticket could be Hillary. This would create the kind of dream ticket that the boys in the “smoke-filled rooms” of my youth would die for. Thank you.

William A. Brown

Salt Lake City

To the Editor:

While I think Mr. Thomas’ aggravation with President Bush transcends party loyalties, I have to disagree that Gore and/or Clinton are the solution. While it is true that a Bush mess will apparently need to be cleaned up if circumstances do not change in the next three years, I doubt that Al or Bill could help. After all, Bush inherited a C.I.A. that was still fighting the Cold War, intelligence-spending cuts, Clinton’s missed opportunity to nab Osama bin Laden in the Sudan, a stock market with poor oversight and numerous other problems. Does Bush bear responsibility for many of these issues? Of course. But let’s be frank: Clinton was asleep at the wheel for eight years on a number of issues, and whether or not it is fair, Gore was a part of Clinton’s team and should be judged accordingly.

Chris Collins

Clearwater, Fla.

skinnyblueline Letters

W. Stands for Wha?

To the Editor:

Richard Brookhiser’s column on Harriet Miers [“Modest Abilities Trump Modesty of Inclination,” The National Observer, Oct. 17] is the best I’ve read on the topic. He cuts to the heart of the matter and pulls no punches. The President deserves every bit of it.

David Schmitt

Alpharetta, Ga.