Mr. Ludlow’s letter, of the April 30 Whidbey News-Times, followed the typical Republican attack, smear, obfuscate strategy. Rather than refute any of the points made by Ann Adams he went elsewhere in a letter that was inaccurate and failed to note historical context.

Carter’s 12 percent interest rate was caused by OPEC doubling the price of oil. If we’re going to cherry pick, while Reagan was president the interest rate reached its all time high of 20.5 percent. His use of the term “fornication palace” was an obvious mischaracterization of Clinton’s tenure (read Starr’s report and a dictionary). I’m still scratching my head about his comment on Johnson raping Social Security. Does he mean by adding a Medicare benefit? He was also off the mark with his “one that used drugs and was a notorious womanizer” remark. They all probably used prescription drugs. Had Johnson and Kennedy been vilified and scrutinized as closely as Clinton, they too would probably qualify as womanizers. Rest easy Mr. Ludlow, there will be no Gore or Kerry Whitehouse, they’ve both been permanently stained by the Republican smear machine and will not return. However hard you try, Ann refuses to hold the stain you try to apply, and she will continue to speak the truth and try to educate both the misinformed and uninformed.

I applaud the editor’s heading, “Hate letters don’t motivate.” It worked on many levels. Does it imply the editor thinks Ann’s letter is hateful?

Was the comment directed at Mr. Ludlow’s empty rebuttal? Is the truth more motivating than hate? I’m guessing it was directed at Mr. Ludlow’s letter, since Ann Adams’ letter appeared to me to be factual, while highlighting a few of Bush’s biblical shortcomings. Last time I looked up “truth” in the dictionary “hate” was not a part of the definition.

The only conclusion I can draw from Mr. Ludlow’s letter is that he hates to hear the truth.