Why did The Post allow tabloid-type commentary to be interjected into otherwise good coverage of the meetings between Nancy Reagan and Raisa Gorbachev? Maybe some of their comments were very candid, but why dwell on them in the negative? Believe it or not, there are cultural and political differences between the two first ladies, and these were reflected in the public images.

Mrs. Reagan, who was only a few weeks into recovery from major surgery, was a very courageous lady even to take on the task of being hostess during the Gorbachevs' visit.

Unless you plan to start marketing The Post at supermarket checkout counters, how about sticking to objective reporting of the news? -- Robert F. Thiem 'Not in Very Good Taste' I don't suppose this will be the only letter you receive from outraged readers concerning the "cartoons" in "Drawing Board" {Dec. 12}. The Russian delegation had just left town after what I suppose was a successful summit. Mikhail Gorbachev seems like a pleasant man, shown by his impromptu sidewalk handshaking. Then a cartoon in The Post portrays him with a hammer-and-sickle tattoo in place of his birthmark. The other cartoons were not in very good taste, either.

I would think that The Post is read in Moscow, or if not, the embassy personnel here in Washington read it. I don't think these cartoons will do much to cement the good will that I'd thought was established last week.

-- F. E. Bordenkircher Comics I Leonard J. Czajkowski suggests {Free for All, Dec. 5} that in order to give Bob Levey room for the Children's Hospital campaign, The Post take out each comic strip for two days rather than suspend two strips for the duration of the campaign.

I suggest an alternative: cancel 39 of the 45 so-called comic strips, leaving only "The Far Side," "Cathy," "Peanuts," "Sally Forth," "Calvin and Hobbes" and "Andy Capp"! -- Pierron R. Leef Sr. Comics II The Post has played Scrooge by dropping one of my favorite comic strips, "Crock," right at Christmastime and for two months no less.

How is it that a paper with so much savvy and with so many pages (egads, it weighs a ton) could not find another spot in all its pages for "Crock"?

May the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future haunt the editor who pulled the strip. Bah! Humbug! -- Art Wood 'Lie' or 'Lay' (Cont'd.) Three cheers for Thomas W. Dixon, the seventh-grade teacher who asked if anyone at The Post knows the difference between "lie" and "lay."

The Post may justify its grammatical lapses by saying that the newspaper is reflecting common usage. I say The Post is only condoning sloppy teaching.

Command of language is one of the keys to advancement in this country, as Dixon knows. Surely The Post, too, is aware of the importance of clear and correct expression.

A newspaper with a circulation the size of The Post's ought to be upholding linguistic standards, not wimpishly following common mis-usage. By failing to uphold the quality of standard American English in its columns, The Post becomes another of those forces of society that help to condemn many to constricted life roles through failure to master necessary language skills. Why not, instead, give your readers a little boost toward the top? Why not buttress Dixon's students in their attempts to speak accurate and grammatical English?

If seventh graders can learn the correct usage of "lie" and "lay," so can your writers and editors! -- Jean N. Olson 'Inquisitors' Richard Cohen, in his column "A Health Care Test That George Bush Flunked" {Dec. 15}, asserts that George Bush's ignorance of precisely how many Americans have health or unemployment insurance and how many children are born into poverty is a reflection of his and the Reagan administration's lack of interest in the plight of the poor. What nonsense.

A lack of encyclopedic knowledge of obscure statistics on random topics reflects very little. If in some future pop quiz a presidential candidate can't answer what percentage of U.S. Army field artillery is due for upgrading in the next year, no sane person will accuse that candidate of therefore being indifferent to our national defense.

The pop quiz of candidates is a dubious device at best. It may have some value when, as in the quizzing of former representative Mike Barnes, it discloses ignorance of such basic political information as the name of the Israeli prime minister. But when used as it was by David Broder, and the answers exploited as they were by Cohen, it reveals only the unsporting and partisan disposition of the inquisitors. -- Anthony Blankley