Save Money in this Sunday's paper

comments

Observer Forum: Letters to the editor

In response to “At a crucial time, uninspiring choices for president” (Oct. 21 editorial):

Observer was doing OK until those last few paragraphs

The editorial staff laid out a mostly fair and balanced evaluation of the two candidates. Then, right at the end, like Cam stretching past the first down marker, the Observer fumbled the ball and fell back to your old ways. So in endorsing President Obama, you tell us that a person with no plans and unlikely to fix the economy, deficit or really anything else, is preferable to a person with plans that might lack some fleshing out or not be the plans you would pursue.

Chris Bovi

Indian Trail

You couldn’t pull the trigger, but showed there is hope

I was astounded by the softness of your endorsement. It looks like if you followed your mind rather than your touchy-feely instincts, you might have even said we endorse no one or, God forbid, we endorse Romney. There may be hope for you yet.

Bill Wallace

Charlotte

Tepid endorsement was confusing; get some backbone!

An “uninspiring choice” encourages voters to sit at home on Nov. 6 and do nothing. This election will take our country in one of two profoundly different directions. By stating the editorial board is underwhelmed and challenged to recommend either candidate confuses voters and devalues the endorsement. A newspaper editorial board without conviction has no value to the community.

Mary and John Gaertner

Charlotte

Underwhelmed by Obama and Romney? There’s a third choice

Since I don’t pretend there are only two parties, like the Charlotte Observer, I have found an inspiring choice for president – in Gary Johnson. He’s on the ballot, he has a proven track record, and he most closely matches my views. Be libertarian with me just one time!

Timothy Cole

Charlotte

U.S. can’t be led by someone who doesn’t believe in us

Mitt Romney characterized almost one-half of Americans as irresponsible and uncaring when speaking to $50,000-a-plate donors behind closed doors. It’s unclear why someone who holds almost 150 million Americans in such low regard would even want to be president, or what he could do to restore greatness to a nation whose people he doesn’t respect. If his motive is to save half of us from the other half, then that’s not leadership we either need or deserve.

Rather, it’s a formula for the same kind of divisive, hyper-partisan politics that threatens to make this country ungovernable, and our problems unsolvable. America can do better, but only with leaders who believe in us.

Pat McCoy

Charlotte


In response to “Early voters a disappointment with 16 days, 1 debate to come” (Oct. 21 Forum):

Disappointed in early voters? We’ve seen all we need to see

What a shame that Mr. Schulman cannot comprehend that some voters have made up their minds not after just two debates, but after nearly four years.

If I have a gallon of milk that has gone bad, I do not have to drink all of it to realize it needs to be dumped. One whiff is all it takes.

Jeff Suerdieck

Indian Trail

Like facts? you should have no problem with fact-checkers

I read with amusement Karlyn Bowman’s Viewpoint piece (Oct. 22, “Is the rise of fact-checkers a good thing?). Ms. Bowman stated that factual information is not the be all and end all in terms of public judgment. That is the problem with today’s electorate. Too many voters do not use factual information in making decisions.

Tom Rafferty

Charlotte


In response to “Protect military members’ fundamental right to vote” (Oct. 21 For the Record):

Hegseth misleads by playing military voting card

Pete Hegseth is being extremely misleading in his argument for military voting rights in Ohio.

Policymakers in Ohio passed legislation to limit early voting for nonmilitary residents. The lawsuit sought to restore early voting for all Ohio voters, military and nonmilitary. The Supreme Court agreed, with no noted dissents.

My husband is retired Army and my son is currently serving in the Air Force and I am saying, “Shame on you!” for playing the military card in a deceptive way for political advantage.

Stella Stroud

Davidson


In response to “Stop vandalizing political signs, let each side have their say” (Oct. 21 Forum):

Only one side’s signs are being stolen; what scares thieves?

I too am having trouble with my Obama signs being stolen from my three yards in Landis. It doesn’t appear the Romney signs are being disturbed.

Could it be that the Republicans are that afraid of an Obama sign?

Jennie Murphy

Landis

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email local@charlotteobserver.com to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.

  Read more



Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email local@charlotteobserver.com to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.

  Read more


Quick Job Search
Salary Databases
Your 2 Cents
Share your opinion with our Partners
Learn More