To the editors:
I would like to thank Mr. Joravsky for the first fair article I have read about Edwin Eisendrath since he started his campaign for the House [February 16]. Frankly, I have been very disappointed in the media's treatment of him. They criticize him for implying that Yates is too old, but at the same time the very basis of their criticism of him is that he's too young. (How interesting that Yates must have been thirty-eight when he was first elected, but at thirty-two Eisendrath is an "upstart.") They criticize him for playing the political game, but also for not playing by the rules, for not waiting for the party nod to run. Is that a legitimate criterion for judging a candidate? They criticize him for being too wealthy; Mr. Yates is a millionaire. They criticize him for running an expensive campaign, when it's Mr. Yates who has not made public the amount of campaign funds he "doesn't like" raising. So he "doesn't like" raising money. Is that supposed to be noble? Does that mean that other candidates "like" it? So Eisendrath is forcing Yates to actually campaign for the primary, is that supposed to win my sympathy? Apparently the media thinks it should. Mr. Yates says he's still in good shape for the office. If so, let him run.