Political parties should insist on ‘extreme vetting’

Although not a GOP supporter, I believe the Republican Party could easily have avoided what eventually may become known historically as the “Trump fiasco.”

All candidates wanting to become the party’s nominee for high office should have been required to undergo a non-public version of “extreme vetting” by party officials. This could include reporting to those officials their tax returns, audio or video of any embarrassing incidents or other past actions that potential candidates’ would not want to be made public.

Party officials could even quietly initiate internal “opposition research”-style investigations of their own candidates, to ensure no disturbing issues likely to emerge are left undetected. Prospective candidates unwilling to undergo such internal party vetting should not be allowed to seek nomination as a representative of that party.

This type of organized and deliberate approach to evaluating party nominees could have prevented the fiasco of Donald Trump, which may sink the electoral prospects of many other Republican candidates. Adoption of such an approach by the Democratic Party also might not be such a bad idea. Given widespread availability of electronic records of one’s past actions and comments, all political parties should know that it would be far better for them to discover a candidate’s problematic past before it becomes public.

If the parties do so, voters can focus on comparing the candidates’ policy prescriptions and relevant experience, rather than on which of their indiscretions is worse, and the health of our democratic process is likely to be the beneficiary. KEN PERKINS

Squirrel Hill throughout the world, and then ask themselves which candidate and which party has demonstrated a sustained interest in these priorities. LINDA HALLER

Mt. Lebanon

The letter from Sister Mary Traupman glorifying Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of why I left the Catholic Church (“Hillary Clinton Is the Better Candidate for the Range of Life Values,” Oct. 19). The church has totally abandoned any remnant of biblical Christian values and has bowed to the god of secularism! BENJAMIN JEZOVNIK

Harmony

Like me, I’ll bet most of you don’t really like either candidate for president. But the real final issue is pretty simple.

If you like the way the country has been run and is going, then, regardless, you have to vote for Hillary Clinton. Then it will be at least four more years of the same. If you are not happy with the way the country has been run, then regardless of how you may feel about personalities, you have to vote for Donald Trump. Pretty simple. You can thank me later for solving your voting dilemma.

BILL YORK Upper St. Clair

We welcome your opinion

So Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Is everyone too young or memory impaired to recall that in 2003 almost everyone voted for the Iraq War? Not only in Washington.

I was a member of an interfaith discussion group in the East End. The question of an Iraq invasion was raised. Every man in the room voted for it, and every woman in the room, with one exception, voted against it. This is not a claim for superior female intuition. It’s simply a reminder that 2003 was a time of misinformation and a slightly crazed national mindset. JOAN GAUL

Shadyside