A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR CURBING 'ATTACK' ADS.

Advertising Age, Jan. 29, 1996: "Mudslinging begins early . . ."

Advertising Age, Oct. 26, 1998: ". . . politicians are on the attack."

So what else is new? Isn't there any way to end this kind of political sleaze and have a campaign truly devoted to the issues?

The answer is an emphatic yes.

If we look back in our nation's history, we discover there was a process for keeping personal attacks to a minimum. Thus, Alexander Hamilton refrained from further attacks on Vice President Aaron Burr after July 11, 1804. Charles Dickenson, a Tennessee attorney, discontinued his charges that Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachel, was guilty of bigamy after Nov. 20, 1806. The method was simple -- the use of a fine old American tradition: the duel.

Unfortunately, as this concept of holding one responsible for his or her words has disappeared from the American political scene, the language of politics has grown more strident, gross and obscene. Thus, the return of "combat between persons, armed with lethal weapons, which would be held according to prearranged rules, to settle a quarrel or a point of honor" seems to be an excellent way of improving the level of political debate and discussion.

If the return of the duel is the solution to this problem, how can it be brought back into the mainstream of 21st century American life? There seem to be no legal impediments, since the nation has no law barring duels. Given the strict constructionist approach of the current Supreme Court, there appears to be little chance of obstruction by the judiciary.

There do appear to be three requirements. First, each candidate must accept total responsibility for anything and everything said or aired by himself, his supporters or even by "soft money" affiliates. This is obviously necessary to prevent the assignment of "dirty tricks" to others and then disclaim responsibility. Not that this would ever happen for, in the words of Marc Anthony, "these (politicians) are all honorable men."

Secondly there must be agreement on the options. Any candidate challenged by an opponent could take one of the following actions: 1) he could admit that he or his supporters had lied and he would be required to publicize that admission through the use of advertising that cost twice as much as that spent on smearing his opponent, or 2) he could stand by his statement and proceed with arrangements for the duel.

Finally, there must be an agreement on the many minor but still important details apart from the rules governing the duel itself. Would the duel be a private affair, as in the past, or would it be held in public view in a large stadium? If public, would it be given to the networks, cable, or pay-per-view? How much of the receipts would be given to the candidates, their parties or others involved in staging the event? What about book rights, TV appearances and pistol endorsements for the winner?

But enough talk. Gentlemen (or ladies)! On the signal, walk ten paces, turn and fire!

Joseph Rosen

PSR Associates

Lincoln, Mass.

MilkPEP on agencies

I would like to clarify and correct the article " `Milk mustache' ads, Bozell come under fire" (AA, Nov. 2). It misquotes me and gives the impression that the National Fluid Milk Processors Education Program board assigned its advertising account without conducting a competitive review of agencies. This is incorrect.

In 1991, an industry committee conducted an exhaustive agency review. Written proposals were solicited from numerous agencies and final presentations were made by three finalists (DDB Needham Wordwide, Ketchum Advertising and Bozell Worldwide).

The recommendations of the industry committee were reviewed by the MilkPEP board and the board authorized awarding Bozell the business. Bozell continues to do an outstanding job as the MilkPEP agency.

E. Linwood Tipton

President & CEO, International Dairy Foods Association

Washington

redit for Dave Barry

I enjoy Rance Crain's editorial page comments. Keep up the good work. If memory serves me right, the "Venus and Mars" piece from Oct. 26, 1998 should be attributed to columnist Dave Barry.

P.S. I'm sure I am probably one of many who have noted this to you. (Hopefully, Dave's lawyer is not one of them.)

W.D. English

University of Mary-Hardin-Baylor

Belton, Texas

Editor's note: In the Rance Crain column "When Venus, Mars align, celestial peace abounds" (AA, Oct. 26, P. 31), material provided by professor Michael Rothschild as an example of miscommunication "floating around the Internet" is actually an excerpt from Dave Barry's copyrighted book "Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys," published by Random House.