Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
LETTERS: Politics aside, siblings find plenty to still talk about
LETTERS

LETTERS: Politics aside, siblings find plenty to still talk about

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}

Politics aside

I’m sorry that John Kamenec’s sister has a brother who is so certain that he is right that he will cut her out of his life. Siblings are some of the precious few people who share one’s life from birth to death. My two sisters live in Austin, and they have drunk the Democrat Kool-Aid their entire lives. They are certain that CNN and NPR are purveyors of all of the “facts” that need to be known. Their minds are not open to any alternate sources of information, or even to the idea that “facts” are colored by the reporter. They also don’t realize that the failure to report stories is just as slanted as the choice of stories that are reported and repeated.

My right-thinking Austin brother and I share emails with links to our alternative news sources, but the four of us made a decision many years ago to leave politics out of our precious sibling time. The next generation, our 12 children, also keep their opinions to themselves at family get-togethers. The world is full of things to discuss besides politics.

Ann Aldridge Warapius, Woodway

Trump trial

Regarding my friend Mike Field’s letter on Jan. 30, I would add the following: I’m fairly close to ideologically neutral, and for me, Trump’s second impeachment is about our ideals and our laws.

The ideal of America is that the “more perfect union” we are building will outlive us. Is it the Republican ethos to craft hasty and harsh “course corrections” that can be swiftly overturned by presidential whim? Is the legacy one where an executive keeps all of his Cabinet “acting” or “interim” (and thus unstable) to avoid fighting in Congress over their lack of qualifications and/or hostile outlook towards their own departments? Moreover, is it the legacy of the Republican Party to shout about taking the fight to Congress and then retiring behind barricaded walls to watch people tear down the flag on TV? The GOP I knew in the 1980s was better than what Trump has turned it into.

Then there’s the law. There is no statute of limitations on impeachment. The Founders kept the rules vague so that Congress (our actual heads of state) could step in at the slightest hint of tyranny. But if so vague a process is distasteful to you, or if you feel it is being used in too cavalier a manner, then begin the process of constitutional amendment. If you get enough support, great. If you can’t get enough support, then you have your answer.

Regardless, I will give credit to Trump for one thing: He showed us the holes in our government we need to patch up. The question, then, becomes this: Which party is in favor of a nation of laws to protect tyranny and ensure liberty? Which party is in favor of preventing an autocrat and his family from dominating the will of the people?

Matthew Mevis, Hewitt

* * *

I am finding it hard to understand the logic to impeachment. Mike Field and others think the only way to save the Republican Party, and to ever have a Republican in the White House again, is to keep President Trump from ever running for office. But if that was true, why would the Democrats want him not to run? Seems like that would be a guaranteed way to forever keep the president, House and Senate controlled by Democrats. It just doesn’t make sense.

Sandy Barron, Hewitt

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Breaking News

News Alert