Dear W:
Could you help settle an argument? My wife maintains that your administration is, in her words, "the spawn of Satan". She says you are all "demagogues bent on throttling freedom, enslaving emerging nations, and rendering the earth a noxious ball of belching gas and toxic discharge". I, on the other hand, hold that the typical administration official is merely a smug, self-righteous, hypocrite; a vindictive would-be despot who would imprison his own mother if she crossed him. Could you help clear up this question?
- Puzzled in Pottsdam

Dear Puzzled:
You raise some interestin' points there, fella. Of course I would argue that we aren't at all vindictivist, but I can see that the matter might be gone into at greater length. Why don't you let me know how to get in touch with you, so we can continue this discussion in more detail? Please send your name, address and telephone number to:

Presidential Chat
J. Edgar Hoover Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001

In your letter, just mention the points you brought up here, and tell'em I said they should treat you "special". And be sure and include your social security number so we know we got the right person


Dear W:
I am the chief financial officer of - let's call it a "large organization". For a number of years my office has formulated the organization's economic policies, and served as chief fiscal advisor to - let's call him the "CEO". After a period of unparalleled growth the organization is now experiencing a severe economic reversal. As luck would have it, this period coincides with a recent change in leadership. The new CEO is a man with whom I share many fiscal and social beliefs - in particular his plan to distribute larger - let's call them "bonuses" - to the - let's call them "board members". Largely due to our shared views, I've been at some pains to support him in every possible way. Unfortunately, the - let's call it a "redistribution plan" - rested heavily on economic assumptions that seemed reasonable in better times, but that now appear overly optimistic if not downright deluded.

As a result we face a painful choice: we can scrap the redistribution plan, and thus alienate the very board members who put the CEO in office. Or we can continue with the plan, thus causing significant hardship for our - let's call them "stockholders" - many of whom will presumably be reduced to a diet of sorghum and okra sandwiches. Our CEO favors the latter course, but I'm not so sure. What do you recommend?
- Let's call me "A.G. in D.C."

Dear A.G.
What kinda "organization" are you runnin' there, anyway, fella? No doubt about it, you should tell the board to go climb a tree. Your stockholders come first, of course. What kinda idiot is your CEO? Tell'ya, you should blow the whistle on that guy, that's what I think. At least that's what I think I think.

Dear W:
I am a seventh grade student at Dimwiddy Middle School, here in Diminishing Returns, Nebraska. Our teacher, Ms. Eunice T. Everbright, suggested I write to you.

We are currently studying Political Ethics (for some reason, Ms. Everbright always laughs when she says that). Our team is supposed to study Mr. Theodore Olson, your nominee for solicitor general.

At first we didn't know which Theodore Olson to study: There seemed to be so many of them. The one who represented President Reagan in something called the "Iran-Contra investigation"? The assistant attorney general who was investigated for deliberately misleading congress in 1985? The one who tried to help the Virginia Military Institute keep women out? The one who tried to prevent Colorado from enacting protections for gay people? The one who stopped affirmative action admissions at the University of Texas Law School? The one who's the friend and benefactor of a very scary rich man named Richard Mellon Scaife? The one who was once the attorney and adviser of a special friend of President Clinton, named Monica Lewinsky? The one who defended Florida when it took the vote away from its own citizens? Or the one who secretly worked with the "Arkansas Project", which has something to do with the illegal use of money to bribe witnesses so President Clinton could be impeached.

We were very surprised to learn that they were all the same person. Mr. Olson must be a very busy man.

But here's our question: Mr. Olson keeps changing the date he says he first learned of the Arkansas Project. Now he says it might have been "sometime in 1997", but we've found articles that show that he was involved as early as 1993.: We always thought lawyers had to have good memories. If Mr. Olson can't remember when he did or didn't do something, how can he be a good lawyer? Also, Ms. Everbright says that a lot of his answers to congress over the past few weeks have been exactly the same kinds of answers that he criticized President Clinton for earlier. Given all of this, do you still believe he's a good choice to be "The Nation's lawyer" ?
- Stevie B. in Nebraska.

Dear Stevie:
One day you'll understand that your memory is one of the first things to go. Heck, there are whole months between my 30th and 40th birthdays when I can't even remember what state I was in, much less what I was doin' at the time. I still sometimes have that problem even today like. But what's important is not my periodic memorial detraction, but the fact that I can still perform all of the important duties of my officialdom. For example, I sign lots of laws, even though I don't always exactly understand what they're about. But I sign them anyway, because that's my job - that and visitin' schools. (By the way, if you want me to come to your school, just drop a line to Dick Cheney, tellin' him where and when). So I don't hold Mr. Olson's faulty memory against him, but if I did, I probably wouldn't remember it anyway! (Joke!).

Now, about comparin' Mr. Olson and my former predecesseror. The big difference is that Mr. Clinton is a bad man, whereas Mr. Olson is a good man. Now, out of respect for your tender years, I won't go into all what Mr. Clinton did, except to say that whatever Mr. Olson may or may not have done, he kept his pants on all the time he was or wasn't doin' it. That's very important: I keep my pants on all the time, too. Mrs. Bush insists on it.

You can rest assured that Mr. Olson is a great choice for solicitor general. He has always been a staunched supporter of Republicanism and thus the American way. You mark my words, when Mr. Olson is compared to all the other solicitors generals he is the one most likely to be cited for solicitation.