I realize that consistency is not always achievable in an imperfect world, but I was struck by the subject of consecutive columns by Mike Welch. In the July 17, 2002 issue, Mr. Welch, under the headline "Sleeping with the enemy is tough decision," commends NAFCU for joining a group of bank trade associations and credit card issuers in a lawsuit challenging the new California credit card law. He states in that column that NAFCU needs to be credited with "putting members first." Makes sense to me! Just a week later, Mr. Welch editorializes about a Congressman (a sponsor and supporter of bankruptcy reform legislation that is near and dear to the hearts of almost all credit unions) who finds himself under an ethical cloud based upon a questionable loan from a large banking institution. Mr. Welch raises an eyebrow at CUNA and NAFCU for not "distancing themselves from some of their supporters" by refusing to criticize a lawmaker who has been supportive of much-sought-after bankruptcy reform legislation. In the July 24th column, Mr. Welch goes on to say (he) wonders if "the time has already come for credit unions to choose their friends by something more substantial than.how they vote.on important credit union issues." Huh? What is more "substantial" to credit unions than how someone votes on credit union issues? Talk about inconsistency! One week NAFCU is praised for looking out for its members and the next the trades are criticized for putting members first by not abandoning a strong supporter of legislation supported by the entire credit union community. I have to wonder if the criticism levied at the trade associations in the July 24th editorial were born out of simple inconsistent logic or just a desire to find fault. A. Dale Dalbey, CCUE President/CEO Mutual Savings Credit Union Birmingham, Ala.