Letters graphic

Why Tom Steyer?

Why Tom Steyer? He only declared for president a few months ago and has made headway some would say faster than other candidates, qualifying for the debates in October and November.

Also, he is pushing ahead for climate change. Climate change which would help in the flooding that the Council Bluffs area has had to deal with over the last few years. Flooding which has forced residents to abandon their homes and to relocate sometimes with only the clothes on their backs.

Tom Steyer was the first to call for the impeachment of Mr. Trump and has succeeded with the need to impeach movement that has garnered over 8.3 million signatures.

He has ideas for creating a better economy with investing in the people and making sure that the government works for the people, not for big businesses. I also asked with being fresh out of college how to pay off the debt and making it easier for finding a job. With lowering the interest rates that schools are lending and making it easier for students to repay the debt so they aren’t paying off their student loans till they are old and gray.

Why Tom Steyer? Because he is different, has a plan and knowledge on how to beat Donald Trump, rebuild the economy and make the government work for the people instead of big corporations.

Why Tom Steyer? He is someone different, and is willing to listen to make a difference.

Bill Bos, Council Bluffs


On Grassley and Kavanaugh

Despite Sen. Chuck Grassley’s admirable support of the current whistle blower, I cannot help feel resentment that he did not extend a similar kind of respect toward Professor Christine Blasey Ford during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings a year ago.

Professor Ford was, after all, another whistleblower. Grassley ruled not to pursue interviews or depositions of additional witnesses, and did not encourage the FBI to investigate relevant leads. As the manager of those hearings, the senator failed to rule out of order the undeserved railings of Sen. Lindsey Graham against the Democratic members of the committee and the outrageous outbursts of Justice Kavanaugh, particularly those directed toward the Democratic female members of the committee.

Many of the nation’s most outstanding lawyers and law school deans reprimanded Kavanaugh for his rantings and cited them as reason enough to disqualify him for confirmation, arguing that they demonstrated a temperament ill-suited for a Supreme Court justice.

In contrast, Professor Ford demonstrated the kind of demeanor and the straight-forward, non-dissembling responses to questions that Grassley should have demanded of Kavanaugh. Clearly, Kavanuagh knows that his reputation is badly tainted.

It explains why the most recent four law clerks accepted by Kavanaugh are all women. He is desperate to dress up his image and to cast aside the shadow of being a sexual predator that has stalked Justice Thomas to this day. Frankly, Senator Grassley fumbled by not taking seriously, and by not encouraging his fellow Republican senators on the committee (who were all men) to take seriously, the highly contentious confirmation hearings of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2006.

A thorough vetting of this candidate if demanded by Grassley undoubtedly would have led to rejection of Kavanaugh and spared all of us immeasurable misery and embarrassment.

Steven Pokorny, Urbandale

Sign up for The Daily Nonpareil news alerts

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.