Sunday section devoted to hating on conservative ideals
Re: June 2 Sunday Perspective section
Who are the contributors of divisiveness, hate, corruption of truth, and avoiding facts of democracy? It is any contributor to last Sunday’s Perspective. The leader is the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman, followed by The Denver Post’s own Megan Schrader, Doug Friednash, and Krista Kafer; let’s include the LA Times’ LZ Granderson.
It was a continued mass depression of corrupted hatred of 75 million conservative voters who want to return to a previous common sense democracy provided by President Donald Trump and his entire administration. The lead victims, of course, are Trump and Rep. Lauren Boebert.
There is nothing anywhere or any reference to the socialist left, Biden and his and their failed policies, economic destruction or millions of South and Central Americans crossing the southern border illegally, and no mention of crime, taxes, war, or debt.
As we now know, members of the Biden family have received millions of dollars, but the corruption will never stick to “Dad” because he has been found incapable (mentally acuity) of being found guilty by a jury, thanks to the Department of Justice.
Paying $130,000 in hush money is not a crime — ask anyone in Hollywood — but turning that into 34 felony convictions is a New York City court miracle. How do 12 jurors know what those 34 charges were when even CNN or MSNBC can’t explain it to me. Now Biden claims it was a state and city trial not federal, but the lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, is a former senior Department of Justice official. Typical Biden lack of facts (truth).
Trump’s number one obsession is to clean up the Biden destruction, economy, border and wars. His second importance is to get even with the Biden corruption, which has hurt individual citizens. Clean up and clean out the swamp.
Hank Urbanowicz, Englewood
Biden/Trump dilemma? “Spare me the hand-wringing”
Re: “Biden is unfit for office, but so is Trump. What’s a voter to do?” June 2 commentary
Doug Friednash states that both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are unfit for office, so perhaps he won’t vote. Spare me the hand-wringing about age and the false equivalencies about fitness for office. The choice is stark and consequential.
We have two candidates. One is old; the other is old and dangerous. One is old and has done his job effectively for almost four years; the other is old and is an adjudicated fraudster found libel for sexual assault, and a convicted felon. One is old and comports himself with dignity; the other is old but bullies and name-calls like a petulant child. One is old and believes in democracy; the other is old, admires Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and has threatened to be a dictator if elected.
Whining about not getting your dream candidate and threatening to not vote is a childish and shameful disservice to all who gave their lives and liberty to secure that right for you.
Vote, Friednash. It’s your civic duty. And if you really can’t figure out which old guy to vote for, call me.
Marla Williams, Denver
There is a huge difference between physical unfitness (speculative) and ethical-moral unfitness (demonstrated). They are not equivalent. The worst-case scenario of a morally unfit president clearly aspiring to be a vengeful dictator is far worse than a decent president dying or becoming unable to fulfill the duties of office. The latter has happened before, and democracy survived without a cataclysm. The likely outcome of a stridently amoral/immoral/unethical/authoritarian presidency is far more dire. This is reason enough, now more than ever, for disaffected citizens to vote for the survivable outcome.
Please don’t leave it to chance. Remove emotion from the decision and use logic.
Valerie Neal, Boulder
In his commentary, Doug Friednash laments about our looming rematch for the presidential election. I was encouraged that he included Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a potential “X factor.” However, he goes on to quote Democratic strategist Eric Koch’s opinions of RFK Jr, spreading the same deceptive sound bites found in all liberal media.
Rehashed rhetoric to devalue Kennedy — really? Friednash didn’t bother to do his own research on this candidate, but I encourage your readers to do so. There are numerous online in-depth interviews/podcasts where you can listen to his stance on issues you value. You just might discover a thoughtful, intelligent, challenging, competent and inspiring candidate.
I’ll happily make that leap of faith instead of voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all.
Lori Cicero, Fort Collins
The headline for this opinion piece is misleading. It falsely implies that Biden is unfit for office, while Friednash actually argues only that he polls as too old, too physically unfit, and too unpopular to be the best Democratic candidate. No disagreement here.
The ethical shortcomings, lack of respect for democracy, constant lies, incoherent utterings and criminal status of the felon Trump are offered as proving his unfitness for the White House. Simply put, a conscientious voter, as Friednash claims to be, would weigh the differences between the two and, factoring in the total unfitness of Robert Kennedy Jr., vote for Biden. Let’s hope that Friednash and similar voters in the battleground states feel the same.
David Schroeder, Arvada
I, too, have voted in every election in my lifetime and will again this November.
I am frustrated by the hand-wringing by people across the political spectrum, apparently only now noticing that the two major parties have created the situation Friednash writes about.
The nation had an option, which I supported with donations to No Labels and outreach efforts to my circle. No Labels is an established group that also helped create the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus to work for common-sense solutions in Washington.
No Labels had achieved a line on ballots in 18 states (147 electors), including Colorado, with petitions awaiting certification in several more states. They had pledged to only proceed with their “insurance policy” if the American people were dissatisfied with the candidates of the two major parties and if two willing candidates (one Republican and one Democrat) came forward. The first condition was clearly met, as evidenced by polling by many reputable polling sources. However, the willing candidates did not come forward in time for 2024. Therefore, on April 4, No Labels abandoned the 2024 push.
So, there was an option, but now we have what the two major parties are dishing up.
Cathy Wanstrath, Denver
Punitive measures on homelessness not effective
Re: “Aurora ‘work first’ strategy distinctly different than Denver approach,” June 2 commentary
Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman has another homelessness stunt. As a health law physician and public health expert, I oppose the Aurora mayor and his council members’ proposal for addressing homelessness. The proposed enforcement measures raise civil rights issues, violate constitutional protections, and are unlikely to get people off the streets or into the workforce.
This proposal — like his “Homeless Mike” stunt, where he spent a few days pretending to be homeless — shows a mayor more concerned with politics than genuinely helping people. These performative actions are designed to garner publicity rather than implement meaningful, evidence-based solutions.
The 9th Ninth Circuit case Martin v. City of Boise sets a clear precedent: penalizing individuals for sleeping outside when no shelter is available violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Aurora’s policy of immediate encampment abatement without notice is likely unconstitutional. During oral arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson, currently before the Supreme Court, the justices questioned the logic of penalizing homeless individuals when insufficient shelter options exist.
Public health research supports the “Housing First” model. Housing First prioritizes stable housing without preconditions, enabling individuals to engage with supportive services. Mayor Coffman, along with Mayor Pro Tem Dustin Zvonek and Council Members Steve Sundberg and Curtis Gardner, disregarding the expertise of public health professionals and housing specialists, are experimenting with punitive measures that lack empirical support to win political points rather than responsibly addressing the root causes of homelessness.
Greg Whitman, Creede
Higher standards benefit police officers
Re: “Don’t lower standards for police cadets,” June 2 editorial
Many law-abiding citizens are outraged by the number of vehicles on Denver streets with outdated temporary license tags. I recently was behind a car with a 2022 temporary tag.
Obviously the limiting of police enforcement of such offenses has been an ongoing practice for some time. Law enforcement is essential to an over permissive society where the laws are for everyone but me attitude.
I fully support and respect police officers, what is not clear is why on earth would the training or standards of potential candidates be reduced? These men and women put their lives at risk every day, and when hiring them, the standard of mental and physical preparedness should be increased, not decreased.
Denver cannot be allowed to follow in the footsteps of cities like New York and Chicago with their revolving door type of law enforcement. The bottom line is to hire more qualified police officers and pay them a living wage.
Elaine Little, Denver
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.
