It’s a mistake for Obama to play nice with Hillary

To the editor:

In “Democrats take a risk not heeding the fury of a Culinary scorned” (Thursday), columnist Jane Ann Morrison correctly observes that the teachers union lawsuit over caucus precincts would not have been filed had Hillary Clinton received the Culinary union’s endorsement. To swallow Bill Clinton’s statement in Oakland that they had nothing to do with the lawsuit requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Bare-knuckle politicking is what it takes to get the White House, and the Clintons are merely gearing up for what will be a bloody battle against the Republicans. Too bad the Culinary union becomes a casualty.

The Clintons have calculated, correctly, that the union will come back to them in November, and Nevada doesn’t have that many electoral votes, anyway.

So this is business as usual for them.

Barack Obama should get the news that playing nice with Hillary is a mistake. He has two weeks before Super Tuesday and he’s still 10-plus points behind in the national polls. This race will be over if Hillary’s presumed inevitability is not seriously truncated before then. He knows he has a lot of substance to throw at Hillary, and he needs to bring out the big guns now and keep firing until Feb. 6.

If, as many suspect, Obama is only shooting for VP, this summer he’ll watch with regret as the Republicans dismantle Hillary (and Bill) using the same material that Obama knows now. And then he’ll have to go back to work until 2016. Ouch!

Rex Reese


Primary gripe

To the editor:

What do we have to do to ditch the caucus system in Nevada? The teachers union is right. Granting special caucus locations for some workers and ignoring others is asinine. If you want the best representation for our state, we might want to switch over to a primary election. All people who want to vote would be able to. Is that so hard figure out? Let us include all voters.

Truman C. Mince


Blacked out

To the editor:

My older children and I had hoped to watch the Democratic debate Tuesday night, as we have gained more insight throughout the campaign as we observe the actions and interactions of various candidates in this type of event. We didn’t realize until debate time that we would be precluded from watching, as we do not have access to Cox cable, do not budget for MSNBC as part of our satellite service, and do not have a sufficiently high-speed Internet connection to observe video broadcasts from our computer.

My parents, living in the far northwest portion of Las Vegas, likewise planned to view the debate and could not.

Apparently, it wasn’t in the interest of the candidates or MSNBC that as many people as possible be able to see candidates respond to issues that affect Nevadans. Yet the NFL Network can make available — on two major network — a potential record-setting football game.

Anne-Marie D. Wichael


No shot

To the editor:

What does District Judge Elizabeth Halverson, who just announced she’ll run for re-election, have in common with many contestants on “American Idol”? They are all so out of touch with reality that they actually believe they have a prayer of winning.

I suppose you could add Rudy Guiliani, Bill Richardson and Ron Paul, et al, to the list, as well.

Bill Essary


Like God

To the editor:

I am completely in agreement with the Review-Journal’s recent editorial “Medical liberty,” which rebuked the U.S. Supreme Court for not reviewing a ruling that terminally ill patients have no right to be treated with experimental drugs even if that means the patient will die before the medication is approved.

It’s bad enough that our justices have made many decisions negatively affecting our daily lives, such as rulings on eminent domain, the expansion of police powers and other issues. Now they have apparently taken on the mantle of God, usurping his authority in controlling the lives of innocent, terminally ill people.

I have often thought that we need a “Common Sense Court” to review the actions of our Supreme Court, and this case certainly would have been heard.

Leopold A. Potsiadlo


Burn clean

To the editor:

In response to your Wednesday editorial, “Green obstructionism”:

It seems a rather tall accusation to claim that the Sierra Club is against capitalism or for the destruction of our quality of life. The Sierra Club is for the “protection” of our quality of life. It is important for our human community to strive for the answers to the problem of global warming, which scientific groups all over the world have publicly stated is real.

The stance of the Sierra Club against more coal-fired energy plants is reasonable. Renewable energy technologies are tangible. It is up to us to pursue and implement these.

Independent economists have found that the cost per kilowatt-hour for renewables and efficiency is equal to or less than the cost of coal power. Coal-fired power plants are responsible for almost 40 percent of global warming pollution in the United States.

It is time to demand clean energy to protect our future.

Kim Esquivel


Thinking future

To the editor:

I don’t agree with a lot of the “facts” in your editorial about the Sierra Club and coal-fired power plants. But the main point that I don’t agree with is your idea that we should continue to use a method to create energy that will make our planet dirtier, just because you think it is cheaper.

You’re not looking very far down the road.

Now is the time to figure out ways to make solar, wind and geothermal energy work for us. There it is, just shining, blowing and, um, heating for the taking. You wouldn’t have to buy coal. You wouldn’t have to dig up the Earth to get coal. You won’t have any undesired by-products. We can make clean, renewable energy cheaper with just a little more work (if it isn’t already).

I understand that most people value their bank account right now above all else, but let’s think about our planet’s future, too.

Cathy Wilson


Empty gesture

To the editor:

What a generous move: Walt Rulffes gives up his pay raise to save the district money, seeking vacation time instead (Tuesday Review-Journal).

Your article, however, failed to point out that he gets accumulated vacation pay when he retires. Also, all district administrators retire with long-term health care. How much does that save the district?

Teachers get little for accumulated sick leave, no vacation pay is given, and they have very poor health coverage and no long-term care. Who is robbing the district and the taxpayers?

Virgil A. Sestini


Home Front Page Footer Listing