4 days Ago By Chicago Tribune
For the most part, I agree with Donald Trump’s Cabinet appointments and nominations for secretaries. However, I do not think nominating Matt Gaetz as attorney general is a wise choice. While he may be qualified and definitely a Trump “loyalist,” he is not very popular among his fellow members of Congress.
In order to get many of his policies implemented, Trump would need congressional approval. Choosing someone as controversial as Gaetz will only alienate many senators. I think Trump would be wise to withdraw Gaetz’s name.
Surely, there must be other qualified candidates who would be more likely to obtain Senate confirmation without causing the rancor that Gaetz’s nomination will undoubtedly cause. — Dan Schuchardt, Glen Ellyn Get ready for public health to take a gut punch thanks to anti-vaccine crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
With Donald Trump selecting Kennedy to oversee Health and Human Services and its $1.7 trillion budget, there are serious consequences ahead and life-and-death implications particularly for children, the elderly and those with disabilities. With Kennedy as health secretary, the U.
S. could see a massive spread of infectious diseases, even measles and polio, if proven science is ignored, misinformation runs rampant and access to lifesaving vaccines disappears. Under the pretense of “Make America Healthy Again,” this would be the beginning of the end for public health as we know it.
Trump’s declaration, “I’m going to let Bobby go wild on health,” gives a glimpse at a dim future for the nation’s public health spearheaded by a radical, unqualified politician with a vision founded in false narratives and conspiracy theories. Providers of care are driven by proven science and evidence-based medicine. Kennedy is not.
We can expect attacks on the health care delivery infrastructure and support services. Essential program funding could suffer severe cuts as consumer protections take a back seat to baseless health policy schemes. Frustrated and demoralized policymakers, providers and practitioners could head for the exits.
For all Americans, a dismantling of the public health system would pose real threats to their safety and well-being. Weakened by misinformation and distrust, public health is already underfunded and understaffed, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It shouldn’t be undermined any further and certainly shouldn’t be underappreciated.
— Lindsay Resnick, Chicago Donald Trump nominated former New York U.S. Rep.
Lee Zeldin, who voted against President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. He will be supporting the Supreme Court’s decision to keep intrusive industry regulations at bay, and he will be promoting the use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. In his statement on X thanking Trump for the nomination, he wrote: “It is an honor to join President Trump’s Cabinet as EPA Administrator.
We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of (artificial intelligence). We will do so while protecting access to clean air and water.” Restoring energy dominance (the U.
S. leads the world in extraction of oil and gas), revitalizing our auto industry (i.e.
, eliminating President Joe Biden’s incentives to build electric vehicles) and making the U.S. the global leader in AI (the U.
S. is already a leader) stands as curious remarks because not only is he claiming that he will have a say in the workings of the Departments of Commerce, Energy and Transportation, but also, he ends his statement, almost as an aside, with “while protecting clean air and water.” — Patrick Comer, Clarendon Hills As Donald Trump continues to fill his clown car Cabinet with incompetent people, he is showing his total distain for the government that was created to serve and protect the American people.
The damage that this will do to all Americans cannot be allowed to happen without any pushback. Rational souls in the Senate have to say no to the president, whatever the cost to their political standing. Legendary politicians were known to take unpopular stands.
Let’s hope they do this for our sake. — Armand Iaia, Chicago Here is required reading for President-elect Donald Trump and all those who voted for him: “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It details the right way to form a Cabinet for the good of the country, not personal retribution.
— Harry Ludewig, Chicago Lucianna Lopez speaks with a voter while canvassing on Nov. 3, 2024, in Tucson, Arizona. Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, canvassed 600,000 eligible Latino voters in the battleground state.
(Mario Tama/Getty) As the “sleeping giant” of the Latino electorate begins to stir, it’s making people nervous. The recent shift in Latino voting patterns has sparked significant attention and debate. However, attributing this shift to a single cause is a futile attempt to oversimplify a complex issue shaped by years of overlooked needs and diverse regional concerns in Latino communities.
For far too long, political campaigns have neglected Latino voters, often assuming low turnout without analyzing the reasons behind it. Campaigns have rarely invested in meaningful outreach, leaving nonprofits such as the one I lead to bridge the gap in civic engagement. Our mission isn’t to influence voters in one direction or another but rather to encourage participation and amplify the political voice of Latino communities.
It’s time for political groups to take responsibility, acknowledge our communities’ worth and invest time and effort to connect with us authentically. Latino voters are far from a monolithic group; we’re diverse in language, culture and concerns. Not all of us need to be addressed in Spanish, and our priorities vary across regions.
Some of us have deep roots in the U.S., stretching back generations, while others are newer citizens, supporting family members through their journey to citizenship.
These varied experiences shape our relationships with government, our perspectives on policy and our views of political candidates. Our diversity makes broad messaging ineffective and often leads to our communities being overlooked or misunderstood. We deserve political conversations that acknowledge these nuances — whether through personalized outreach, targeted ads or a national narrative that includes the issues most relevant to us.
Political parties must move beyond outdated assumptions or past voting trends, recognizing that Latino voters are looking for something meaningful and authentic. It’s time for campaigns and leaders to engage with us beyond a fleeting election-season effort. True engagement means understanding our unique challenges, hearing our voices and valuing our contributions in every election cycle and beyond.
Latino communities deserve interactions that affirm our role in shaping the future, ensuring that we feel seen, heard and valued — not just as votes but as integral parts of this democracy. Our voices are growing louder, and as we rise, we’re prepared to shape the future — whether the political establishment is ready to listen or not. — Jose Muñoz, co-chair, Illinois Latino Agenda First off, I wish to extend my condolences to Kamala Harris supporters.
I know how downtrodden I would have felt if the outcome had been in reverse. However, one thing I noticed during this election season were yard signs. I live in Homewood, a very mixed community that leans heavily for Democrats.
During Barack Obama’s campaigns, and to a lesser extent Biden’s, there were a myriad of signs in residents’ front yards. I bring this up because, this election on Ridge Road, which from my house to downtown Homewood is about a mile and a half long, there were only a total of about 10 yard signs. I mentioned it to several friends, and I saw it as a sign that there was tepid support for Harris at best.
I should have went with my hunch and bet on the election. Regardless, I think I’ve discovered a more accurate way in the future to assess the outcomes of elections than the multitude of polls that called this race a toss-up! — Rich Lindbloom, Homewood I am sensing a common theme among many Donald Trump voters following this election along the lines of: “Yes, Donald Trump is despicable, but he was better than the alternative.” There was a time to sort this out, though: the primaries.
However, rather than deciding to nominate a candidate with similar views to Trump who might govern in a proficient manner, the electorate decided to embrace what they knew: chaos, incompetence and cruelty. So they should at least be honest — they got what they wanted. — Michael Gershbein, Skokie Finally, the election is over, and whether the results were to your liking or not, one thing is clear.
We are still a very divided country. But that is not the reason for this letter. In the build-up to the election, we were inundated with TV commercials and literature in our mailboxes.
I felt sorry for the residents in swing states who were overwhelmed with the propaganda, misrepresentations, poorly edited speeches, etc. Donations from the mega-rich, super political action committees and middle- to upper-class people in our country totaled possibly in the billions of dollars. Our president-elect once stated that those who died defending our country were “suckers” and “losers.
” Well, I would say the real suckers and losers are those people who contributed to the Kamala Harris or Donald Trump campaigns. Whether it was for self-serving reasons or because donors truly felt either party had their best interests at heart, it was an absolute pipe dream. I like to refer to campaign donations as a money grab.
Too many people in this country have forgotten that sometimes you have to tighten your belt and live within your means. It was the lesson my parents and grandparents taught me having lived through the Depression. Knowing that the federal government will never put a cap on political donations or discontinue these ridiculous super PACs, I propose a life-altering solution.
How about for every dollar that is donated to a political candidate by an individual, union, corporation, super PAC, mega-millionaire, etc., half of that dollar must be donated by the campaign to support our veterans experiencing mental health issues, the homeless, the hungry, the downtrodden and those communities that have suffered loss from natural disasters? I’m not sure how this would affect our national debt, but I can assure you we would be putting at least half of these political donations to good use. And maybe, just maybe, our country would unify under one simple principle: “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
” — Mark Zavagnin, La Grange Park I applaud Christine Ledbetter’s op-ed ( “Harris lost because our country fosters institutional misogyny,” Nov. 13). She’s absolutely correct that Kamala Harris’ defeat wasn’t due to any one voter issue.
The handwringing of politicians and pundits is counterproductive and useless. Harris lost the election because she’s a woman, and being a Black woman didn’t help either. That’s it, plain and simple.
What other valid reason can there be that a vindictive convicted felon who depended on lies, fear and personal insults was chosen over a highly qualified, intelligent and compassionate woman? Other countries are ahead of us in electing female leaders. What does it say about us? What will children learn from this? Here’s another thought. Donald Trump’s influence will likely last longer than his term.
Chances are he will appoint another Supreme Court justice. Think about that and the long-term consequences of his victory. — Nancy Castagnet, Chicago Christine Ledbetter lazily promotes the theory that Kamala Harris lost due to misogyny, not the economy, raging wars or immigration.
She posits Harris’ campaign of joy lost to Donald Trump’s grievance campaign. Harris couldn’t motivate enough people to vote for her. Yes, her campaign started out as joy (mostly the joy that President Joe Biden was no longer the nominee); but she ended her campaign on calling Trump a fascist.
She never seemed to be able to articulate in interviews the difference between her vison and Biden’s; hence, she was tied to the Biden record. Polls suggested the economy and immigration were the largest factors in voting this season. You can say inflation is going down, but to the working class, wages are still lagging, and prices remain high; there has been no apparent deflation on household goods.
Immigrants streamed across the border. So perhaps this wasn’t misogyny. People looked at four years of Trump and liked it better than the last four years of Biden and Harris.
— Ken Nelson, Chicago Amid all the recriminations, explanations and accusations surrounding the 2024 presidential election, one very important, irrefutable conclusion appears to have been largely overlooked: The majority of American adults have willfully chosen an avowed authoritarian to be president of the United States! It is shocking to me what has become of our democracy; I no longer recognize who we are as a nation. — Anne Flanz, Glen Ellyn Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected] .
.
