Letters to the editor
Sen. Harris should wait on a presidential bid
Re: “Despite all the signs, Harris still undecided” (Page A1, Jan. 9):
As a lifelong Democrat and huge admirer, I urge Sen. Kamala Harris to reconsider making a run for president of the United States in 2020.
She has been a senator for two years with no prior experience as a mayor of a city, county council member or governor of a state. I’d ask her to please get some experience, stay in office for a couple of terms, maybe run for governor.
Working as the attorney general does not prepare a person for the highest office. Being a senator from the great nation state of California is a great honor. I hope Sen. Harris works with Sen. Dianne Feinstein to advance the interests of our state. Young people are impatient about the next big thing, climbing the ladder, but this time I urge Sen. Harris to wait.
I look forward to supporting her with my vote in the future; I voted for her.
— Joseph Mayen, San Jose
Was it right to give Trump larger platform for speech?
Re: “Thiessen: Trump won the night while Schumer and Pelosi lost it” (Opinion section, Jan. 10):
Mark Thiessen is as delusional as his president. Trump lost this debate before he started it with his government shutdown because he has spent his entire presidency undermining what little credibility he had coming in to office.
The fact that he’s taken two years to use the Oval Office as a backdrop, and that he read prepared remarks from a teleprompter rather than speaking as he does at his beloved freeform rallies, serves only to show how little he cares for anyone he hasn’t already duped into supporting him.
There was actually debate about whether giving him a larger platform to lie from was the right thing to do. More than likely, it would not have aired without the Democratic response.
As for compromise, based on his tantrum the next day, he lied about that too.
— Bill Gascoyne, San Jose
Our complex world needs government on duty 24/7
Re: “Letter: How can one person cause a shutdown?” (Mercurynews.com, Jan. 9):
The people need to break the deadlock with a U.S. government fully on duty 24/7 bill.
In today’s complex interconnected world, the smooth functioning of the government is a necessity. From national defense and national parks to food safety and everything in between, the United States government functions best when all of its departments and agencies are working for the American people.
If a budget for a federal agency, department or function cannot be agreed upon through the normal budgetary process, the department should continue functioning at its current funding level until the legislative process increases or decreases its budget.
— Randy Woods, San Jose
Dems want border security that’s smart, not medieval
Re: “On border security: What do Dems truly believe?” (Letter to the editor, Jan. 10):
Trump said the wall would be paid for by Mexico, not taxpayers.
The facts are that our borders can be secured with smart technology. We don’t need a medieval wall.
The Democratic Party fully supports border security. We just don’t support a president who would:
1. Lie about the funding and
2. Shut down the government. Who is defending our border now, with thousands of federal workers on furlough?
The letter-writer can vote any way he wants. I full support the Democratic Congress’ decision to say “no.”
By the way, if the wall was so important, why didn’t the previous GOP Congress fund it?
— Andrea McAuley, San Jose
OK for leader to declare national emergency if …
Re: “Letter: How can one person cause a shutdown?” (Mercurynews.com, Jan. 9):
It seems to me that the right of a leader, regardless of political affiliation, to close down the government or declare a national emergency is acceptable only if the leader in question bases his actions on verifiable information, facts, logic, after serious consideration of the consequences of such actions.
— Kathleen Moe, San Jose