Make the best
In the interest of full disclosure, I did not vote for Donald or Hillary or the other candidates for president. I wrote in my choice.
The saddest and most pitiful part of the post election is the constant crying by the losers, as evidenced by the letters to The Star and by the media in general.
After all, it isn’t like Hillary was this wonderful choice.
The best thing we can all do for our country is try to support the winner and see whether we can get some improvement over our current White House resident, who has set an embarrassingly low bar.
We may deeply regret Donald, but at least we can say goodbye to Hillary and Bill.
In her Dec. 16 column, “Let presidential election stand,” conservative columnist Megan McArdle writes that she “would be the first to call for ... impeachment and removal of the president-elect if he knew” that “the intelligence community had hard evidence that the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee.”
Isn’t “hard evidence” a rather subjective term?
Was she thinking of Donald Trump’s request during a televised campaign event that the Russians continue hacking Hillary Clinton emails?
Or the Trump campaign’s sole objection to the Republican platform: the portion that condemned Russian aggression against Crimea?
What about Trump’s selection of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a regular contributor on RT (Russia propaganda TV), as national security adviser? Flynn looks perfectly at ease in a photo of him and Russian President Vladimir Putin dining together.
Or Trump saying Putin is a better leader than our president?
How about Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Exxon Mobil’s Rex Tillerson, who was awarded the highest honor Russia bestows upon foreign citizens?
Or Trump’s support for Russian puppet Bashar al-Assad, who has murdered half a million Syrians and is at war with the rebels whom Americans trained for years?
What does Ms. McArdle regard as “hard evidence”? A surreptitious video recording?
At the table
In his Dec. 18 column, “Should we be wary of a looming plutocracy in Washington?” (29A) Jonah Goldberg tries to justify president-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks.
“There’s nothing undemocratic about what Trump is doing,” he writes, citing historical precedent — Woodrow Wilson’s “dollar-a-year men,” for example.
Big players at the table making deals with other big players. That’s business as usual, and therefore acceptable to Mr. Goldberg. Writing about the creation of the Affordable Care Act, he writes, “The lobbyists for big business explained at the time that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
This point is foremost: The American public is not at the table. That the big players are getting things done does not in any way indicate they are representing anyone but themselves.
Mr. Goldberg says he knows Todd Ricketts, finds him “a great pick” to serve as deputy secretary of commerce and notes, “Rich people can be fine public servants.”
I don’t know Todd Ricketts. A quick search online reveals that besides being a Trump supporter, he was a cheerleader for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a union buster.
Do you think he is looking out for the American people?
We lost the larger battle. Trump is going to be president. I hope Congress will check and balance his cabinet picks.
Charles Krauthammer’s Dec. 20 column (7A, “Torching of Cabinet agencies will justly leave liberals ashen”) gleefully anticipated the gutting of federal agencies, among them the Environmental Protection Agency, which he characterized as “rogue.”
I suppose the emasculation of the federal government and the relaxation of regulations that might impede the accelerated acquisition of wealth by the already rich go hand in hand.
I had been hoping that “making America great again” meant reverting to a time when Republicans weren’t scornful of science, and breathable air and drinkable water were bipartisan issues. Silly me.