Campaign mailers all negative
Re “Attack mailers are polluting voters’ mailboxes” (Viewpoints, Oct. 18): Many of us are getting bombarded with political mailers as the races heat up. One day last week, I received two mailers from a single candidate. The next day I got two more from the same candidate. None of them said anything about what the candidate has done or pledges to do if elected.
All four mailers were nothing more than slams against his opponent. Negative ads must work, or there wouldn’t be so many of them out there.
Here is my pledge to all candidates: If your ad is positive and lets me know what you intend to do about some of our societal challenges, I’ll read it. If it is nothing more that a negative ad against your opponent, I’ll just toss it out and scratch you from the list of possible choices when I enter the voting booth.
Douglas Lent, Citrus Heights
Election ads a waste
The election direct-mail pieces are beginning. How do we stop this enormous waste of money and resources?
Let’s respect voters’ ability to make election decisions without the aid of photos of candidates with their family, hugging their children, saying they will really bring change and, of course, that they are endorsed by everyone who really matters.
Jeff Pulverman, Sacramento
Sign of misunderstanding?
Re “A coarsening of the political discourse” (Editorial Notebook, Oct. 16): For the first time in a political campaign, some person is removing the “Bera for Congress” sign from my front yard in Folsom. Is this due to a lack of understanding about free speech and property rights by the person or by the candidate he supports?
I will continue to replace the sign.
Dolores Filloon, Folsom
Stick to what’s relevant
I’m sick and tired of meaningless campaign ads. I don’t care who made how much money while in Congress, or when he or she earned it. I head straight for the mute button when this sort of advertising appears. Trying to sift through the meaningless has made it tough to find just a few relevant things. Global warming and privatizing Social Security are my worries. Ami Bera should hang these on Doug Ose’s nonscientific neck. The heck with whose daddy is richer.
Joanrae De Luchi, Fair Oaks
Ortiz column raises questions
Re “Media are off-limits, state says” (The State Worker, Oct. 16): The column by Jon Ortiz regarding comments made by CalPERS board member J.J. Jelincic was interesting not only for the main subject, but for a sentence within that story that “CalPERS put Jelincic on full-time paid leave in 2012 to tend to board business.”
Really? State and public funds are being paid to Jelincic to sit on the CalPERS board, where Jelincic gets to vote on issues that directly impact his own retirement and benefits or those of his friends and family? Is this not a gift of public funds? Was this ever reported before?
With regard to the main story it is not clear just what basis or experience Jelincic has for making his determination of the fitness for the job by Ted Eliopoulos. Is this based on personal knowledge or experience? Did Eliopoulos or CalPERS ever discipline Jelincic in his capacity as an employee or board member?
Robert Gorham, Sacramento
Criticism out of bounds
In quoting J.J. Jelincic’s view that CalPERS did not want him talking to the press, the column missed the point of the CalPERS board’s objection to Jelincic’s actions. He criticized, in public, the suitability of an employee for his job.
Policy decisions, investment strategies and many other actions that CalPERS considers or takes are always open for discussion and public debate, but employees should be treated with respect, whether in the public or private sector. Jelincic was out of bounds on this one.
Bill Slaton, CalPERS board member, Carmichael
Obama late again on Ebola
Re “Obama hints he might name an ‘Ebola czar’ ” (Page A2, Oct. 17): Once again, this administration’s leading-from-behind policy is costing Americans too high a price. President Barack Obama has consistently shown an inability to make decisions in a timely manner. The Islamic State and the border crisis are just a couple of issues that have received little, no, or late action that could have dire consequences.
Now, with open travel from Africa continuing, Obama seems willing to wait until perhaps hundreds of Americans die from this disease before demonstrating the leadership that, for six years, we’ve been waiting for.
Will Carpentier, El Dorado Hills
Wrong on flu, wrong now
“I’ve asked every American to take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu: Keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you’re sick; and keep your children home from school if they’re sick.”
In 2009, President Barack Obama said that about the H1N1 flu pandemic that officially killed 18,500 worldwide, though later estimates were that between 151,000 and 575,000 eventually died. In 2009, the president refused to shut down air traffic from infected countries. Unfortunately, history proved him wrong.
The Obama administration is taking a similar stance today toward the Ebola outbreak. If we are too dumb to learn and adapt, we will have the opportunity to restart anew once half of the world population has been sacrificed to political correctness.
Eric Chevreuil, Folsom
Why expose troops?
Why does the president want to send 3,000 of our healthy young troops to the place where one would have the highest chance of contracting Ebola? This after a nurse wearing a protective full body suit has contracted the virus.
David Brannan, Citrus Heights
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.