Election was a win for reproductive health Show proof of fraud
The Joe BidenKamala Harris win is a victory for the reproductive health and rights of millions of vulnerable people around the world.
Organizers and volunteers from California’s # Fight4HER campaign worked tirelessly over the past several months recruiting volunteers and spoke to almost a thousand Californian voters about electing reproductive rights champions and the importance of voting.
That work helped put Biden and Harris in the White House and reelect Representative Ami Bera to Congress, and we’re not done yet. In January, we’ll be there, pushing our elected officials to end restrictions on U. S. aid for comprehensive reproductive health care programs abroad by passing both the Global Health, Empowerment and Rights Act and the Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act.
This is a new era for reproductive freedom worldwide, and I look forward to seeing the change that Biden and Bera have promised.
Graciela Flores, Los Angeles
Confused by support
As an openly gay man, I’m mystified that President Trump, despite a record of banning transgender people from the military, supporting antigay cases at the Supreme Court, and not allowing queer Americans to be properly counted in the 2020 census, was able to get over 25% of our country’s LGBTQ vote. Did Trump’s nativism and racism appeal to a certain segment of the queer community?
If so, some gay and lesbian people really need to reexamine their values. How can LGBTQ people expect acceptance from all other citizens if we don’t extend the same courtesy to them?
Edward RandallClarke, Berkeley
Major loss on radio
Regarding “Krasny prepares to leave his ‘ Forum’ ” ( Nov. 11): So sorry to learn that Michael Krasny is leaving “Forum.” As Holly Kernan said, “Michael is a Bay Area jewel,” and he truly is. I have enjoyed him in the mornings for many years on KQED, and I believe we in the Bay Area will all suffer a large loss in talent when Krasny leaves.
Margaret Stortz, El Cerrito
Here’s a question for all of the letter writers who are complaining about a lack of fairness and transparency in the 2020 presidential election, and who continue to support President Trump’s decision not to concede defeat to Presidentelect Joe Biden: Can you actually prove that there was massive voter fraud, or are you merely believing another of Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories?
An investigation by The New York Times found little evidence of ballot irregularities in any of the 50 states reporting election results. Those citizens who remain under the control of Trump’s cult of personality fail to understand that truth must be supported by actual facts, not mere allegations.
Denise Lehman, San Carlos
A question of rank
Regarding “Harris may prove to be highimpact in VP role” ( Front Page, Nov. 10): Your article got me wondering: If Kamala Harris as vice president is president of the Senate, doesn’t she outrank Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?
While she only votes in case of a tie, can’t she force votes in the Senate that McConnell wants to sit on and at least expose to all the obstructionists that the Senate Republicans are? That would be high impact.
David Dibble, Anderson
Most dangerous man
Regarding “Dems denounce dismissal of defense chief by Trump” ( Nov. 10): This should have been Page One news! As you said, “Presidents who win reelection often replace Cabinet members, including the secretary of defense, but losing presidents have kept their Pentagon chiefs in place until Inauguration Day to preserve stability in the name of national security.”
In 2009, a documentary by Judith Ehrlich called “The Most Dangerous Man in America” about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers was released and won an Academy Award nomination.
It turned out that Ellsberg was not a dangerous man — he was of great service to his country. Maybe Ehrlich will make another documentary about the man who, right now, is the most dangerous man in America. She could simply name it “The Most Dangerous Man in America, 2020.”
Judith Keenan, San Francisco
Soulsearching for Dems
Regarding “Biden our next president, but celebration won’t last” ( Willie’s World, Nov. 8): I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged to read that Willie Brown thinks the Democrats have some soulsearching to do, and that the party has become aligned with the elite.
My fear is that the Democratic leadership will go right back to placating their corporate donors while blaming progressives for any and all setbacks. This thinking of ignoring the needs of real people is what brought us President Trump the “populist” in the first place.
In reality, the progressive wing of the party was uniquely successful in this election: All but one of the cosponsors of the Green New Deal won their races; candidates who campaigned in favor of Medicare for All overwhelmingly won their races ( while those who ran away from it often lost); and a Fox News ( Fox News!) poll showed that 72% of voters would favor a governmentrun health care plan. Brown is right that the Democrats need to listen to what people want and need, and I can only hope the leadership listens to Brown, before we are saddled with another fake populist in four years.
Avilee Goodwin, Richmond
Fascism isn’t a joke
I feel like I’m living in Wonderland, or Bizarro World! I just heard Secretary of State Mike Pompeo say, “There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” Some people are taking this as a joke, but to me it seems like were in the midst of an attempted fascist takeover of the U. S. President Trump has ignored the vote tallies, and has simply declared himself president for another term.
How is this different from what dictators do, and have done for centuries? If it were just one deluded man, somebody could send the men in white to take him away, but almost all the Republican officials are backing him up. In the past, talk like that would have gotten government officials charged with treason.
But I’m not hearing anyone, other than a few CNN hosts, suggest that this kind of talk is extremely dangerous, and subversive of our democracy. I remember the 1960s, when we talked about taking care of one another, no matter what the government did. But how far can we let them go in taking our government away from us?
Gerald Nicosia, Corte Madera
Progress in compromise
It was remarkable, I thought, to read the accounts in The Chronicle on Nov. 11 about the downsizing of the Better Market plan, the new political balance on the Board of Supervisors, and the push for reopening classes by the school board.
Outside observers of San Francisco politics often assume that since the city is blue, that every elected official must agree. Insiders understand that the divisions between moderates and progressives are complicated; take affordable housing or transit, for example. Some issues you’d naively consider robin’s egg blue are actually indigo.
After years of working in city policy, these differences don’t surprise me. What does surprise me, and what brings me hope, is the thoughtful tone of pragmatic compromise in the speakers.
But after four years of political rancor and divisiveness in national politics, it’s refreshing that the San Francisco message in the paper is of concord and cooperation.
Peter Albert, San Francisco