Letters: KC readers discuss the USPS, obnoxious political ads and SCOTUS unfairness
A basic service
The idea of undermining the U.S. Postal Service is unbelievable to me. Delivery of the mail is a vital support to the lives of all Americans.
Universal postal service is an example of how countries can cooperate rather than fight. If I mail a letter to friends or businesses in Tanzania or Sweden, I have reason to expect they will receive it. If countries across the globe can cooperate to deliver the mail, shouldn’t governments be able to work together rather than fight?
President Donald Trump has no basis for disrupting such an important service that has a universal impact.
- Charity B. Gourley, Lenexa
Tune them out
For Pete’s sake, enough is enough. To the Democratic and Republican sponsors of TV political ads, have mercy. You’ve been running these same ads for months. Do you understand that your ads serve zero purpose other than to make money for the stations that run them and to annoy the living daylights out of viewers?
According to sources I’ve seen and read, the vast majority of Americans have long since decided who they’re voting for. Therefore the ads serve no purpose.
Missouri viewers are no doubt tired of the ads for Kansas candidates, and we Kansans are likewise exhausted with the ads for Missouri candidates. I confess my wife and I even mute the ads for candidates we favor simply because we’re so darned tired of them.
And to the creators of the ads: How can all the candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, be “extremist” and “radical”? Do you think the average voter believes this stuff?
So please, to both political parties, stop running the ads before my mute button wears out.
- Jim Hall, Lenexa
Wrong person
Molly Baumgardner’s career at Johnson County Community College has for many years consisted of teaching students the commercial techniques of presenting a compelling story. She is a master of presentation and of the art of leaving out vital details.
The Star Editorial Board clearly did not consider Baumgardner’s skill at storytelling, nor the documentation of her role in creating the Brownback tax disaster that drained the state foster care services of desperately needed resources.
Now that the political winds have shifted by challenger Becca Peck calling her out, she pivots to paint a picture of concern over the funding mess she helped create.
Baumgardner has honed her presentation skills for many years, having made a career of teaching students how to paint verbal fiction, as she does. Members of the editorial board apparently were so taken with her showmanship that they completely overlooked her record as they wrote the fawning endorsement of this disingenuous incumbent. (Oct. 20, 7A, “Star endorses incumbent for this Senate seat”) They are now party to Baumgardner’s misleading the voters of Johnson and Miami counties.
This grossly flawed endorsement should be immediately retracted, reviewed and replaced with one referenced in footnoted facts.
- Rick Blumhorst, Paola, Kan.
Not the plan
Michael Ryan’s column of Sept. 22 set forth a litany of reasons as to why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was justified in rushing a new Supreme Court nomination before the Nov. 3 election. (9A, “Of course it’s fair for Senate to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg”) I contend that Ryan’s reasoning is out of touch with the beliefs of most fair-minded Americans.
Merrick Garland was nominated by President Barack Obama nine months before the 2016 election yet never received the courtesy of a Senate hearing. Ryan argues that Senate members had the right to vote down anyone they believed objectionable. In fact, Garland did not receive a vote. As a moderate judge, Garland had support from senators both Democrat and Republican. McConnell’s refusal was pure dirty politics.
To use McConnell’s logic, a new president could have Supreme Court nominations blocked for the length of his or her term. This could occur as long as the Senate majority party was different from the president’s.
I do not believe this was what our framers of the Constitution had in mind.
- James Randazzo, Kansas City
This story was originally published October 22, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Letters: KC readers discuss the USPS, obnoxious political ads and SCOTUS unfairness."