It is astounding that the morning after U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney received a trouncing in her Wyoming primary, she would have the audacity to say, “I think I will run for president.”
Is that the message she got from her defeat?
— Sue Atkenson, Franfort
In the Aug. 15 editorial “Is the GOP blowing its midterm chances?” the Tribune Editorial Board writes, “Job one (for the GOP) is to send Trump packing in some face-saving but determinative way and get behind dignified alternatives.”
It would take a tremendous amount of courage for a Republican politician to tell the truth about Donald Trump. U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney has that courage. As a result, she first lost her Republican leadership position in the House, and on Tuesday, she lost the Republican nomination for her Wyoming district’s House seat.
So Republican politicians believe they have a choice between doing the right thing and losing their jobs, and continuing to pretend that Trump is not a disaster and keeping their jobs. They will not have any trouble convincing themselves that in order to do good, they must stay in office.
We’ll know in November how that worked for them.
— Vic Presutti, Dayton, Ohio
It’s interesting that the Tribune Editorial Board is editorializing against the federal deficit and the ever-expanding national debt (“Like termites, deficit spending gnaws at the federal budget,” Aug. 12). It seems that the only time the editorial board is against deficit spending is when a Democrat is in the White House. Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump — have presided over great deficits and increases in the national debt. Where was the editorial board then?
It seems that the Republican strategy is to complain about fiscal irresponsibility when Democrats are running things. But when Republicans are in control: “Let the good times roll!”
The editorial board should stop playing this partisan game. It should support reducing government expenses, such as Medicare drug costs, and increasing taxes on large corporations, such as what the Inflation Reduction Act just passed by Democrats will do, considering these corporations have not paid their fair share in the past.
— Frank L. Schneider, Chicago
The Aug. 12 editorial regarding deficit spending describes a threat to our national security that requires a Pearl Harbor-type response from our nation. The beneficiaries of much of that deficit largesse are descendants of the greatest generation. I am one of those beneficiaries.
The question is: Does my generation have the commitment to this nation that my ancestors did? Are we willing to sacrifice a meaningful measure of our comfort in order to protect our democracy? Is “the grooviest generation” only interested in protecting its claims to entitlements, and is that more important than protecting our nation?
We must stand and deliver, beginning right now. Our politicians formulate policies in a manner designed to keep themselves entrenched in positions of power. The electorate must sweep away the distracting arguments created by our politicians and adopt the single-minded purpose of electing officials who will rein in spending and plug the hole in the dam.
To be sure, reducing government spending will inflict pain, and the sacrifice will be borne in a less than perfectly fair manner. “Taxing the rich” is not the answer. Cutting spending, which translates to receiving less help from government programs, is the only practical solution. Everybody must be willing to shoulder the burden. We are at the point in which a protracted discussion to ensure fairness would waste valuable time. There is a clear and present danger; we must take meaningful large-scale action now.
Will we sacrifice to save our nation, or will we just sit comfortably idle and watch the threat grow to disastrous proportions?
Envision the robust nation that you wish to leave and force politicians to make difficult fiscal choices, to mobilize the requisite administrative war machine that will breathe renewed life into this nation.
— Victor Tamosaitis, Mokena, Illinois
Rabbi Michael Myers was quite audacious claiming to speak for Judaism in his letter (“Judaism’s position on abortion,” Aug. 17). Judaism is a very diverse religion encompassing four major denominations in the United States alone, as well as numerous smaller sects. The largest sect in the U.S., Reform Judaism, explains its position on ReformJudaism.org by saying, in part: “Reform Judaism holds that abortion is both a medical and spiritual decision and that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is one that, in all circumstances, should ultimately be made by the individual within whose body the fetus is growing.”
Further, a rabbi in Florida is suing the state on the claim that Florida’s ban on abortion forces Jews to violate Jewish law.
At the core of this disagreement between groups is an agreement that, within Judaism, the fetus is not considered an independent being. As Rabbi David M. Feldman wrote in an opinion of the Rabbinical Assembly in 1983: “The fetus is deemed a ‘part of its mother’ rather than an independent entity.”
In consideration of all this, it is Myers who owes an apology, not only to letter writer Alice Marcus Solovy but also to the Jewish community for believing he can be a spokesman for all of us.
— Mark Michaels, Chicago
Students are heading back to school soon, and we’d like to know your thoughts if you’re a teacher, a parent or a student. Any anxiety? Hopes? Goals? Send us a letter, of no more than 400 words, to [email protected]. Please include your full name and your city/town.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism