Last week, the Review-Journal printed an article about the availability of death penalty enforcement drugs (“Nevada is out of the execution business, for now,” Aug 15). The pharmaceutical companies are refusing to resupply the state with the drugs necessary for lethal injections.
But there are at least three other ways to carry out the death penalty: the electric chair, a firing squad or the guillotine.
Regarding Carl P. Leubsdorf’s Aug. 19 commentary, “Third parties likely won’t have impact”:
I agree that based on history it’s unlikely that a third-party candidate will win the presidential election. But I disagree with his closing comment that, as we near Election Day, voters will acknowledge that the “real” choice is between the two major-party candidates.
The two major parties have nominated extremely flawed candidates. Unlike previous elections, the Libertarian Party ticket is in fact more qualified than either major party’s ticket — Gary Johnson and William Weld were both two-term governors. Their ability to work across party lines (having each been elected and then re-elected as Republicans in blue states) is another way they are more qualified than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, who are each likely to raise partisan bickering to even higher levels.
In addition to the qualifications and basic personal decency of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Weld, their fiscal conservatism, social tolerance and advocacy for a strong defense will be very attractive to a large swath of the population. These are not the fringe positions often advanced by third-party candidates.
The common political wisdom has been wrong enough this past year that I think it’s safe to say that anything is possible in this election. But even if no third-party candidate wins, it’s both inaccurate and insulting to those of us who don’t march dumbly in step with the corrupt parties running our country into the ground to be told that a corrupt liar and an infantile narcissist are the only “real” choices.
Much to the chagrin of far too many, this season’s political battles will only rage on and intensify until Election Day in November. It is unfortunate that in this presidential election year, there is clearly a dearth of honor and honesty. While the only answer to the question of who’s to blame — all around — can be solved only when the votes are in, there are two specific reasons why Donald Trump should be held criminally accountable for his words and actions.
The first is his suggestion to his followers that perhaps “you Second Amendment people” might direct their anger at Hillary Clinton, innocently offering a thinly disguised incentive to commit murder.
The second, that President Obama “founded” ISIS, reflects Mr. Trump’s profound arrogance as well as his misunderstanding of foreign policy. The West is indeed responsible for the destructive Islamic state, but don’t blame Mr. Obama. That medal goes to George W. Bush whose decision to invade Iraq and depose Sadaam Hussein led to what became known as the Arab Spring and a political vacuum into which ISIS stepped to advance its goal of establishing an Islamic state.
I sympathize with the Republican voters and their congressional candidates who are conflicted over how to react to Donald Trump. They don’t approve of him, but their party insists they support him.
We have a saying where I’m from: If you don’t like the smell of manure, don’t hang around in the barn.
Santa Clara, Utah