Letters: Sanders' courage needed; beware of McGinty, Toomey

ISSUE | CAMPAIGN 2016

Rendell & Co. set sights on Sestak

Remember when Ed Rendell's good friend and neighbor, Sen. Arlen Specter, switched to the Democratic Party to avoid another primary contest with Pat Toomey in 2010? And how distressed then-Gov. Rendell and the rest of the Democratic establishment were when that upstart congressman, Joe Sestak, defeated Specter in the Democratic primary?

Now, in what could be called Rendell's Revenge, the party bigwigs have thrown their support behind a lackluster candidate, Katie McGinty, who placed last in a field of four in the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial primary ("McGinty the best Democrat for Senate seat," Monday).

The Democratic establishment in Pennsylvania seems more interested in defeating Sestak in the primary than Toomey in November.

|Bernard J. Enright, Lansdale

Toomey's no centrist

Brian Rosenwald's commentary gave an excellent explanation of how the Republican Party has undermined the term moderate and taken the party further right ("Tracing disappearance of centrists in Pa. GOP," Monday).

It's preposterous and counterproductive for Democrats to host fund-raisers and heap praise on Republican Sen. Pat Toomey. He's a tea partyer in moderate's clothing. Let's not be politically correct and call him a centrist or middle-of-the-road politician for fear of being labeled liberal - he's not.

We need more Tom Ridges, not Pat Toomeys.

|Michael Miller Jr., Philadelphia, michamille@comcast.net

Green: Sanders' courage, conviction needed

Our political system is corrupted by money. We pay a price for politicians who depend on that money. It is a cancer at the heart of our republic. Bernie Sanders' Democratic presidential campaign is desperately needed chemotherapy. By rejecting big money, his campaign has inspired and motivated millions of citizens. It is a revolution without a shot being fired.

As long as the courts rule that money is speech, the rich will continue to own the airwaves, dominate the discussion, and unduly influence elected officials.

Eight more years of the Clinton money machine is not the change we need. Bill and Hillary Clinton's insatiable thirst for money - personal and campaign contributions - should be illegal. Their getting $159 million in speaking fees is immoral, greedy, and unacceptable. Worse yet, she refuses to disclose what she told these special interests.

Why did Goldman Sachs pay her $675,000 for three speeches? Why would she accept it from a company that was under investigation for financial misconduct that contributed to the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression?

She has a history of bad judgment, Iraq being the most egregious example. That war helped break our economy, weaken our military, and further endanger Israel. It fanned the flames of hatred in the Middle East, as then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Sanders knew it would. It strengthened Iran, emboldened Russia, and spawned the Islamic State.

So I'll take Sanders' sound judgment, consistency, and conviction. He knows who he is and says what he believes. Clinton is for Iraq, then against it; for NAFTA, then against it; for ocean drilling, then against it; all over the place on the minimum wage and the Keystone XL pipeline. She does and says whatever it takes to win. In 2008, she did all she could to stop America's first black president.

It took courage and conviction for Sanders, trailing Clinton by up to 64 points, to set sail. Thousands of Americans sensed they were his cause and blew $27 worth of wind into his sails. That breeze became a gale, that gale a hurricane. I intend to follow its path to the White House.

|William J. Green, former mayor and U.S. representative, Philadelphia

Best for Sanders to bring on change carefully

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' claim to fame is that he showed good judgment 14 years ago, when he carefully considered the ramifications and unintended consequences and voted against giving President George W. Bush the authority to attack Iraq. But now his message is to "think big" and not worry about the details. He criticizes former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's careful approach to climate change as "incrementalism."

Does he understand the ramifications and unintended consequences of breaking up large financial institutions, immediately increasing the minimum wage to $15 nationwide, and pushing for socialized health care in this political environment? While progressives support these ideals - just as we all hated Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - we need to be thoughtful about how we do things.

|Greg McCoy, Chadds Ford