Letters to the Editor

Letters: Readers discuss Warren censure, The Star’s language and political ads

Warren debate

I believe silencing Sen. Elizabeth Warren was deliberate and an attempt to humiliate her. (Feb. 9, 5A, “GOP’s silencing of Sen. Warren raises her profile”) When you are evaluating the nomination of a senator to a Cabinet position, how is it possible to not allow any negative views? Do the senators want to hear only positive views, and if so, how do they properly come to a fair conclusion?

Regarding claiming Rule 19, the leader of the Senate has abused his authority and made himself look petty and vindictive. He didn’t claim Rule 19 when Sen. Ted Cruz called him a liar. He didn’t claim it when Sen. Tom Cotton called Sen. Harry Reid’s leadership “cancerous,” and he didn’t claim it when Sen. David Perdue claimed Sen. Chuck Schumer’s tears were fake. Is it odd that he calls Rule 19 only when comments are made by a woman? It would appear so when the following morning four male senators read the same letter with no outrage by the leader.

Sue Thompson

Mission

The outrage over Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “silencing” by the Senate is misplaced. Her remarks during the nomination debate calling Sen. Jeff Sessions a “racist” and prosecuting “a campaign of bigotry” were interrupted only after repeated violations of Senate Rule 19, which prohibits senators from speech intending to damage the character or motivations of other senators. And she was hardly silenced. She made a Facebook video, called in to an MSNBC prime-time talk show, made other media appearances and used the incident to fundraise for an expected run at the presidency in 2020. Apparently Democrats feel any insult in the cause of resistance is justified, even in the world’s greatest deliberative chamber.

Chris Morgan

Kansas City

Certainly Sen. Elizabeth Warren should have been allowed to read the entire letter of Coretta Scott King. It was germane to the discussion and comes from a credible source.

Shelley Melewski

Kansas City

Dollars, not change

Sen. Roy Blunt, I am not a political person. I vote — that’s about the extent. I am a ruralite. Farm and work in Kansas City. For the first time in my life I am writing to a newspaper and hope they publish this letter.

The wise people of Missouri voted in this presidential election for change. Meaningful change. Tired of political games and waste, the people spoke loudly and clearly.

However, the confirmation of Betsy DeVos is disheartening. Among the thousands of potential candidates for the most important overseer of our most important resource, you voted in a billionaire who never was educated in a public school and who had her own children avoid public schooling.

After watching her confirmation hearings it was clear that this wasn’t a person who was anywhere near qualified. A person with zero passion to know the finer points of the role she holds.

What she did have, though, is millions of dollars, some of which she contributed to our president. Her choice. But if this isn’t pay to play in the biggest way, I don’t know what is.

We voted to drain the swamp, not put an addition on it. You represent us, so do so.

Jim Williams

Cowgill, Mo.

Word choice

The Star appears to have made an editorial decision to move to the right, as well demonstrated in the Feb. 9 headline, “GOP seeks to rein in the EPA.” (7A)

The choice to “rein in” as opposed to “weaken” sends an entirely different message about the Associated Press article itself. The body of the story actually recounts how Texas and Oklahoma interests within the government are leading the charge to diminish and ignore the role of science in considering climate change.

Stuart Bintner

Kansas City

Political ads

After a long and divisive campaign, I hoped for an extended period with no political ads. But, alas, it is not to be.

Apparently it is now appropriate to advertise the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice nominee. I have read why the Judicial Crisis Network is spending up to $10 million to advertise the qualifications of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Its reasons are not to shore up support for Gorsuch but are to threaten and badger elected representatives who might not confirm Gorsuch’s nomination in states where the president won the vote and representatives are up for re-election in 2018.

Thus, its advertising is political in nature. It’s a sad state of affairs that our highest judiciary offices are now being politicized in such a manner. Hopefully, I am not the only one who thinks so.

Kathleen Needham

Merriam

  Comments