Presidential election: The uncommitted plan could backfire
Re: “I’m voting “uncommitted” on Super Tuesday to give Democrats a choice,” Feb. 25 commentary
I’ve always admired and respected former Rep. David Skaggs. And I’m sure he knows his history. So, I have a question for him. To save the country from another Donald Trump presidency, he suggests that President Joe Biden “should step aside” from the 2024 presidential race and give another Democrat a chance, just “as Lyndon Johnson did in March 1968.” Well, Mr. Skaggs, just exactly how did that 1968 election go for the Democrats?
Paul Chessin, Denver
As an 80-year-old lifelong Democrat, I must disagree with David Skaggs’s request that I vote “uncommitted” in the Democratic primary election to help convince President Joe Biden to “face the political realities” and “step aside, as Lyndon Johnson did in March 1968” and open the race to a Democrat who could defeat Donald Trump. I would point out to ex-Rep. Skaggs that Richard Nixon (R) won the 1968 election.
Trump is only three years younger than Biden, and like Biden, he is most likely too old to be running for president. But, in reality, barring unforeseen circumstances, Biden and Trump are going to be the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees. Voters should pick the one of the two who most represents their beliefs and values.
Look carefully at the vice presidential candidates since they have an excellent chance of becoming president. Not voting or voting “uncommitted” in the primary or for a third-party candidate in the general election means other people get to make this decision for you. Based on that criteria, I’m voting for President Biden.
George Burson, Louisville
Unfortunately, both parties need a real choice. The commentary glosses over the failures of Biden and his administration:
• the terrible exit from Afghanistan and breaking promises and leaving behind Afghans who assisted the U.S. forces;
• allowing Russia to invade Ukraine when a show of force before it happened would have been the correct move to deter Putin;
• the disaster of a border situation and the consequences of millions of “mirgrants” entering the U.S. to seek asylum or work illegally.
Trump did many good things, but I wish we could move on beyond both Biden and Trump. As one who lived through the Jimmy Carter administration, I am sad to say that Biden is even weaker. His health and failing mental issues are a serious concern. Heaven forbid he has to resign or die in a second term, and Vice President Kamala Harris is next in line. She laughs and smiles at serious issues, making me question her intelligence. Just imagine what Vladimir Putin would attempt with her in charge.
Save the nation. My wish is that Biden does the right thing for the nation and steps aside, likewise with Trump. Neither should be our choice for the next president. I pray both parties can work behind closed doors to get both to move on and then put forth some better choices – maybe people that have excellent records and experience outside of government – with better personalities as well.
Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him? Best president in my 77 years, hands down.
Joseph Moore, Denver
While I can certainly understand where David Skaggs is coming from with regard to his decision on voting “uncommitted” on Super Tuesday, I have to wonder, ultimately, what is the point. I agree that President Joe Biden, while having accomplished some truly good things while in office, has some definite baggage. But the reality is that, come November, the choice will be between Biden and Donald Trump. From what I can see, there really is no other Democrat out there that has the name recognition and gravitas to potentially win nationwide. If Mr. Skaggs has some names of superior alternatives, I would happily and eagerly listen to him!
Paul Ruzicka, Aurora
Offer true rehabilitation before parole
Re: “Parole violations drop 50% in 6 years,” Feb. 25 news story
Rehabilitating prisoners is a lot like raising children. A good parent/program will restrain a child/offender and enforce the responsible behavior necessary to succeed as an adult. At the same time the parent/program will provide education and training to develop necessary success skills. Eventually, the child/offender internalizes the behavior norms and uses those skills to become a successful adult.
By contrast, Colorado fails miserably in rehabilitating offenders. Any person who spends several years in prison should come out with a GED, job skills, and personal success skills learned in courses like anger management. However, Colorado does not put in the resources to make those courses available in every prison unit.
Then, we follow up with a parole system that no longer punishes people for getting drunk, doing drugs, or just walking away from the program. How can anyone internalize behavior norms when we do not require responsible behavior? Given that environment, we should not expect any prisoner to be rehabilitated. The fact that some offenders succeed despite the obstacles is a testament to their courage and determination.
Ray Harlan, Denver
You buried the lede in your story about parole violations. Suppose drug and alcohol violations are the main contributors, and treatment is both more effective and less expensive than incarceration. Why wasn’t the pitiful lack of treatment options the focus of the article?
Are we looking for solutions or simply revenge?
Steve Caplan, Durango
It seems a lot like marketing a 6-ounce can of soda and bragging that “it has only one-half of the calories of our regularly sized soda!”
Joe Pickard, Littleton
The world is producing desperate refugees
Re: “Between a rock and a hard place, we must care for the South American migrants,” Feb. 25 commentary
I applaud the places working to support desperate refugees and totally agree with columnist Krista Kafer that there are no good solutions, and these cities have made the best choice. But we do have to push the government to address this issue at the national level. America can no longer absorb refugees like it has in the past. The nation needs to work hard to promote a more progressive world that does not produce millions of desperate refugees.
Edward Corcoran, Lakewood
Must we put up with drone invasion?
Re: “Drone deliveries could start soon,” Feb. 25 business story
With great trepidation, I read the article on drone deliveries. So this is what we have to look forward to? Being woken at 6:00 a.m. by the creepy mosquito-like sound of a drone delivering our neighbor’s Starbucks coffee? Drones flying overhead day and night delivering this, that, and whatever?
Whatever happened to the notion that citizens could live their lives without the constant bombardment of annoying noises? It is only in the last two paragraphs of this article that potential environmental impacts are discussed. One person assures us that drones are not seen or heard. Are they now employing some new stealth technology? Possibly a cloaking device from the Star Trek movies?
This is more than an annoyance. This will be a further assault on people’s sanity… or what’s left of it.
Patrick Oliver, Arvada
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
