Nothing to gain?
In your Sept. 29 issue, columnist Joyce Ferriabough Bolling repeated the lie we’ve heard repeatedly since Christine Blasey Ford brought up her allegations: that by testifying against Judge Kavanaugh she had “nothing to gain.” Really? Perhaps we should look at Anita Hill, who also had “nothing to gain,” when she testified against Clarence Thomas. Hill went from teaching at Oklahoma to Brandeis (an upgrade, wouldn’t you say?), along with two six-figure book deals and films that portrayed her as a heroine. In other words, Hill had everything to gain, and she capitalized on it, reaping hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Does anyone think Ford won’t do the same? Nothing to gain? Pshaw!
— JT Nichols, Portland, Maine
Considering the rancorous political and cultural divide ongoing in today’s America, it is unwise to discuss publicly sex, politics and religion.
But given this orchestrated Democrat stunt of collusion with those in the left-wing media, pushing onto the American people two weeks ago this debacle of a three-ring circus characterized as a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the qualifications of Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, at least we now know why God made snakes and rats before he made politicians, lawyers and mainstream media-types. Because he needed the practice.
And by the way, as an American male who served this nation in the armed forces of the United States to help my GI brothers to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, “Hell will freeze over” before I let some unhinged junior senator from Hawaii tell me, “Just shut up!”
— Earl Beal, Terre Haute, Ind.
Time to breathe easily; the news we’ve all been waiting for: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is contemplating a run for president. It’s up to the voters to let her know how badly the country needs her to be president.
Does this mean that she already has the Senate seat won? Is she assuming victory based on her promise to do nothing to enhance Trump’s presidency? Is it because of being a one percenter that is supposedly fighting one percenters ?
Is it because her ACA backing has put a tremendous strain on small business and working individuals? Is it because she wants big business to have employees have 40 percent control of their boards, a precursor to nationalization?
She purports to being a progressive, my question would be, “Progressive to what end, socialism?”
One good thing about her re-election campaign: She has stopped ranting and raving on a regular basis so that we can observe her gentle side.
— John Lucente, Lexington
Adriana Cohen’s article had the wrong title. Instead of “Senator will dump Mass to serve her ambition.” It should read, “Senator has dumped Mass to serve her ambition.”
Elizabeth Warren condemns everything that moves, starting with the legal system, law enforcement, presumption of innocence until proven guilty and that billionaires are terrible people.
Her action encourages illegal immigration and she panders to every group that she thinks might vote for her.
While speaking, she does not tell us what she is going do for us, she tells us what the other guy is doing wrong.
Yet when all is said and done she will be re-elected even after condemning many of the groups that voted for her.
She has done nothing for her constituency in the past six years and will do even less after elected, as she campaigns for the 2020 nomination.
— Paul Quaglia, Billerica