PUBLIC FORUM\Readers respond to attacks on Buchanan.

As a Jew and a supporter of Pat Buchanan, I would like to respond to Richard Cohen's latest attempted smear of Buchanan ("Birds of a feather," Opinions, Feb. 28), this time via a "comparison" with Louis Farrakhan.

I have actually read or listened to much of what Buchanan has written or said. Cohen uses Nexis searches to select "juicy" quotes out of context, and has evidently not read the body of Buchanan's writings.

Buchanan is accused of anti-Semitism. I have found nothing in his works that would lead me to believe this of him. However, for the sake of argument, let us grant that he harbors anti-Semitic feelings. Would President Buchanan begin building gas chambers and constructing concentration camps? Not a chance. Can I live with a president who would not delight in my company? Certainly.

Cohen accuses Buchanan of "nativism." If it is nativist to oppose the conversion of our country into a Third World nation, then both Buchanan and I are guilty of "nativism."

Cohen takes Buchanan to task for his characterization of Martin Luther King Jr. as "immoral, evil and a demagogue." That this characterization is largely accurate, although intensely politically incorrect, matters not to Cohen.

- James F. Glass

Chatsworth

The parallel drawn by Richard Cohen between the reluctance of many prominent Republican leaders to condemn the bigotry of Pat Buchanan and the failure of many black leaders to repudiate the racism of Louis Farrakhan is extremely will taken.

Both these men are demagogues whose inflammatory rhetoric and policies pose a great threat to our republic. However, it must be observed that the failure to condemn goes far beyond the leaders mentioned in Cohen's article.

Every time a potential voter fails to vote, or to get involved in the debate about our country's future, he makes it easier for the radicals at both ends of the political spectrum to prevail.

- Michael Levine

Encino

In response to Molly Ivins' column, "Buchanan's good 'ol boy yin and yang" (Opinions, Feb. 26):

Again, inflammatory language is lined up with the name "Buchanan." Ivins refers to him as a "racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic anti-Semite." The truth is that those of us who are voting for Pat Buchanan are doing so for what he is "pro," not for what he is "anti."

Buchanan is pro-family. He is pro-life - allowing a baby to be born rather than be killed. He is pro-country - immigration must be controlled. He is pro-work - welfare does not build a person's spirit. He is pro-equality - there must be no discrimination based on race, sex or religion. He is pro-rules - if you break the rules you pay the price.

Our country is in a real mess because too many people don't want to keep the rules. Maybe it's time.

- Vicki Van Camp

Sylmar

Marianne Means ("He is a political masquerader who has played with the press," Opinions, Feb. 23) accuses Buchanan of duping the press and the people by leading some sort of double life as both a journalist and political hopeful.

First: Does she actually believe that we all take commentators' words as fact, or is that common only among her readers? As far as truth and the press are concerned, Means says it herself: She is in the "opinion business."

Buchanan, George Will, Bill Safire and the other commentators and columnists she mentions never pretend to be anything other than what they are: people paid to spout their opinions.

That she believes Buchanan has somehow taken advantage of his position as a CNN commentator and prior syndicated columnist says a lot about what Means really thinks of those of us who read and watch media pundits: Obviously we hold the media in such high esteem as to be unable to separate a journalist's opinion from fact, and will gladly hold those opinions as our own.

I must say it's a good thing Means has no intention of taking her views on the campaign trail.

- Mark Armour

West Hills

The 'coverage gap'

There is a flip side to Michelle Malkin's "Health-care extremism contributes to coverage gap," Viewpoint, Feb. 25. The current trend in today's health-care market is to ratchet down access to benefits - either directly by reducing the benefits package, or, more commonly, indirectly - by denying access to covered benefits by claiming that they are experimental, investigational or not "medically necessary".

It may be true that, as Malkin suggests, some state mandates go too far. But left to their own devices, so do private health plans that are driven by competitive forces to reduce the financial bottom line, regardless of the impact their cost-cutting may have on actual health care.

On behalf of the California chapters of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and as someone who has MS myself - and therefore cannot buy private health coverage in my own right - I care a great deal about filling the health "coverage gap" to which Malkin alludes.

The time has come to take a more balanced approach. We need a health system that offers universal coverage for a package of benefits that is broad enough and flexible enough to meet individual health-care needs in a cost-effective way.

If we ignore this important point, we're liable to find that whatever dollars we may manage to shave from our health-care budget today will just be shifted to the welfare budget tomorrow.

And as great as the financial cost of that shift may be, the cost in wasted human potential will be even greater.

- Laura Remson Mitchell

Government Issues Coordinator

Multiple Sclerosis

California Action Network

Winnetka

Malkin does make a valid general conclusion that mandated excesses do exist in our health insurance system and spread coverage too thin. She boot straps her argument by sighting such covered procedures - none of which have I seen in any of my health plans - as acupuncture, chiropractic care, in-vitro fertilization and toupees for balding men.

Toupees aside, there are those in mainstream medicine who feel the first two examples are legitimate and cheaper alternatives to more conventional medical procedures. Toss some of the bath water but do hold on to that baby.

- Michael Lazarou

Encino

Credibility gap

I read in the Feb. 24 Daily News that the Department of Commerce reports that the gross domestic product for the final quarter of 1995 rose at an annual rate of less than 1 percent, and that the economy grew during 1995 at a little more than 2 percent.

I thought that Bill Clinton told the American people in his State of the Union address that the American economy was vibrant and strong, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and that the economy's growth rate was the highest in decades - all as a result of the Clinton administration's economic and foreign trade policies.

It seems as if a credibility gap exists here.

- Ralph Joseph Novotney Jr.

Woodland Hills

'Propped up wage'

Regarding "A propped up wage," Editorials, Feb. 28:

Whoever wrote the editorial is obviously misinformed. The rally was not a union rally - it was a construction rally for everyone.

Those people most helped by a "prevailing wage" are often times not as well paid as union workers. These people may benefit with a temporarily increased wage that will allow them to have more disposable income, which will help themselves and their communities. A union person on the same job gets no more than their standard wage.

I believe this attempt to save money is another blow to the working person.

- William Singlehurst

Van Nuys

Cuban exiles rebuked

It is time for the government of the United States to reprimand the Cuban community living in South Florida under the protection of the stars and stripes when it violates the air space of another sovereign nation.

These Cubans who insist on repeatedly testing the government of Cuba, using our shores as a sanctviuary, must take and accept the responsibility for whatever happens to them. This time it was two out of three planes shot down; who knows what's next. These people seem hell-bent on involving the United States in military action. It's time to tell them "no way."

- Philip W. Wilt

Van Nuys

Tax-checkoff proposal defended

The Daily News' Feb. 26 editorial, "The governor's gimmick" does a disservice to the people who read this newspaper.

Let's examine the information presented. Crime is a hot-button issue. We all agree with this but wring our hands regarding what to do about it. Wilson proposed giving the people a say-so with their income tax dollars. There is nothing wrong with that.

The editorial states, "It would be far better if the state simply sent the $150 million that Wilson hopes to raise with tax checkoffs directly to local agencies." In essence he is doing that, but allowing the people to have a say in where it is spent in local government.

The editorial states that, "The idea is studded with serious technical problems," but only brings up minutia that Legislative Analyst Elizabeth G. Hill's analysis identifies: That instead of $150 million, she believes it may generate $100 million and "that some local officials would be reluctant to assume long-term obligations by hiring more personnel."

The last paragraph of the editorial is a conflict in terms, "The state should start returning the money it rudely took from local agencies and let local officials decide how to spend it. After all, that's what they were elected to do."

I thought that people elected to office were to represent the people of their jurisdiction, and we want crime stopped and our streets returned to us. I congratulate the governor on wanting to return power to the taxpayers.

- Donald O. Manning

La Canada

CAPTION(S):

PHOTO

2 Photos