Re “Forget white swing voters. To win Congress, Democrats must appeal to LGBT, minority voters” (Viewpoints, Nov. 13): Op-ed writer Tim Monlina seems to have forgotten that the major campaign messages of the Democratic Party in the last presidential election were aimed at minority and LGBTQ voters. By seemingly narrowing their approach to get them out to vote, Democrats alienated many voters outside these groups. As a declines-to-state voter, I voted Democrat for most races because I could not agree with the GOP. But many other independents did not vote because they felt the Democrats no longer represented them. The Democratic Party needs to address all voters, no matter their race, religion, national origin, sexual preference, or age. The aim should be to unite the party and the country with an approach that speaks of a better economy, lower taxes for the middle class, improvements to the infrastructure, greater availability of job training and college education, participation in the global agreements on climate change, and the resurgence of American industry.
Eileen Glaholt, Sacramento
Never miss a local story.
Re “‘We’re embarrassed’ by Trump’s climate hoax remark, Jerry Brown tells Chinese” (sacbee.com, Nov. 14): We will be wiped out by California’s taxes long before we are wiped out by climate change. After a lifetime and generations of our family living in California, I have told my grandchildren and great grandchildren it's time to move to another state where fiscal sanity still exists and you will be able to keep some of your hard earned money. The high-speed rail boondoggle should be just about rounding completion when the unbearable heat is suppose to hit the valley, so you will be able to escape the heat by riding the air-conditioned choo choo. By then, the cost of building and operating this train system will be well over $100 billion dollars, all but a few billion paid by you, the taxpayer.
Ted Hart, Rancho Murieta
Re “In bringing McGregor Scott back as U.S. attorney in California, Trump did something right” (Editorial, Nov. 14): As the former Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California, I was asked by a Justice Department official to describe the ethics of McGregor Scott's office during his tenure and I chose the term “ethically challenged,” particularly in the repeated failures of several assistants to fulfill their constitutional obligation of timely disclosing exculpatory evidence. Neither his immediate predecessors nor his successor suffered the same criticism. Adding McGregor Scott's name to the executive branch roster of an ethically clueless president is most definitely not the right move.
Daniel Broderick, Sacramento