I would like the opportunity to respond to Robert Previdi, whose letter to the editor appeared in the Nov. 27 edition of the Syosset Jericho Tribune. In his letter Previdi, who has contested Representative Peter King for the Republican nomination for Congress, wonders aloud about the congressman's support for President Clinton and asks whether King "supports the president because he believes it is right or because of the polls."

Previdi's letter is something of an oddity, coming three weeks after voters comfortably supported King's re-election. I'm surprised that he hasn't used this time to reassess what seems to be a perpetual candidacy, one that voters have not seemed inclined to support. While it is evident that he cares about ideas, Previdi should remember that elections are about past political performances. On four occasions, the voters of this district judged King's suitability for the job and did not find him wanting as to political philosophy or his priorities.

As to the specifics of his letter though, Previdi, like his past candidacies, comes up short in the end. Republicans and Democrats in Congress understand the gravity of the impeachment process and its consequences. If highly credible evidence of impeachable offenses is produced that meets the standards required by the Constitution, the process will go forward and appropriate judgments will be rendered. That Congressman King has not rushed to judgment because he is unconvinced that the evidence produced thus far rises to this standard, troubles Previdi. I believe it shouldn't.

Beyond the stated intent of his letter, I was left with the impression that Previdi seems to be getting an early start on yet another campaign for Congress. This is a democracy and that is his privilege. However, the larger issue for those who follow congressional matters is that Peter King has served this district and his country well. He has provided the president with the opportunity to state his case on each and every issue presented to Congress. He has worked with the Clinton administration on issues where he is in agreement and has opposed positions he cannot support on sound principle. An example of this was King's support for a ban on partial birth abortion, which President Clinton opposed. It was an issue so viscerally disturbing that even pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan supported the ban and characterized the practice as being too much like "infanticide."

Whether the issue has been education, national defense or international trade, Congressman King has always voted with a strong conscience and a resolve to do what's best for his constituents. Maybe that's why voters have consistently preferred him over the alternative choices presented to them.

Peter King has also distinguished himself by playing an instrumental role in advancing the peace process in Ireland and has been a leading voice on human rights issues. Indeed, Clinton turned to him for help in keeping the peace talks alive in Ireland, at a time when the entire process threatened to unravel. He has been an early and unwavering voice in raising public awareness about the devastating effects of breast cancer and the need for more research and resources to battle this disease. Advancing world peace and sparking hope in the desperate fight for a cancer cure are issues that touch the lives of many Americans. They are not partisan objectives. They are fundamental to what members of Congress should be concerned about. They are issues Peter King is concerned about. That's why he is our congressman.

Gerard A. Wendelken