Baltimore’s ‘weak’ mayor won’t tackle the big issues

Kudos to letter writer David F. Tufaro, who nailed serious problems plaguing our city that reflect Mayor Brandon Scott’s inadequacies and lack of leadership (“Baltimore’s mayor goes missing on taxes, crime and schools,” Oct. 1).

The mayor seeks safe, easy projects and then gets airtime to get some credit for these initiatives. But he is silent on the state of the schools and the education program in Baltimore, as well as the high taxes in Baltimore and the rampant juvenile crime. Why? Because he refuses to step up and accept the challenge of something he may need to work hard to achieve or fail to accomplish.

Tufaro, a former Republican candidate for mayor, stated that the biggest problem facing Baltimore is our weak mayor. I’m pleasantly surprised The Baltimore Sun printed his letter. In my opinion, the newspaper usually shields the mayor from criticism. I hope Mayor Scott realizes that he needs to take quick action before too many people are lost to other states. This exodus sure makes Baltimore less charming.

— Stas Chrzanowski, Baltimore

Walz doesn’t need congressional experience

Armstrong Williams states that JD Vance has congressional experience but Tim Walz does not (“Armstrong Williams: A preview of the upcoming VP debate,” Sept. 27). He was only a teacher and a high school football coach, so he cannot be an effective president? Walz has executive leadership experience as a governor.

Vance and Donald Trump falsely claim that migrants eat our pets. What kind of governance is that? Walz never said any of that. Walz follows the path of many leaders who did not serve in Congress, but went from being governor to the White House, such as former President Ronald Reagan.

— Hilda Coyne, Baltimore

Why vice presidents matter

Armstrong Williams missed the single most important reason that the office of the vice president is important (“Armstrong Williams: A preview of the upcoming VP debate,” Sept. 27). Simply put, whomever we elect as our vice president becomes a future president almost a third of the time. Fifteen U.S. presidents have served as vice president. They include presidents as consequential as Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Thomas Jefferson. The next one could well be Kamala Harris.

— Marc Goldstein, Owings Mills

Why I’m voting for Hogan

There have been many partisan articles and letters to the editor in The Sun, as well as a barrage of television ads targeted at Maryland voters telling them what they should consider in evaluating Larry Hogan and Angela Alsobrooks (“Pro-Hogan super PAC is buying huge chunks of airtime in Senate race, outspending Alsobrooks’ counterparts,” Oct. 3).

I haven’t seen one that focuses on the interests of the moderate voter, no matter who wins the presidency. American voters are being faced with a choice for president between an erratic man-child and a woman who presented herself to the American public four years ago with leftist policies that she has completely rejected today and the American people rejected back then.

Voters have a lot of information to evaluate Donald Trump’s drawbacks versus accomplishments (there are some). A serious voter can decide for themselves how to see through political talking points about him. Voters have very little information about Kamala Harris, while her transparent political strategy is to keep it that way.

I could whine about the lack of respect the Harris strategy shows toward my right as a voter to know where she stands on energy, climate, foreign affairs, immigration, education, mental health, etc. Or I can take the one action I have control over as a Maryland voter. I can vote for the Senate candidate who will vote against the worst and most extreme tendencies of a Trump or a Harris presidency. We have evidence from how he governed that not only will Hogan do that, but that he will also act in concert with serious colleagues from both parties who are more interested in governing than grandstanding.

— Mary Jo Hofmann, Parkville

Trump deserves better protection

Two assassination attempts on the only man who can restore not only the integrity of the U.S. but the balance of power in the world. And the official response to protecting him is feeble at best (“Hearing on Trump assassination attempts says Pennsylvania failure was with Secret Service,” Sept. 26).

Two glaring security failures that a child could spot in a split-second produced excuses like high heat and a roof that was too slanted. Did I hear that right?

These two things show a subterranean level of competence. These two things are proof enough of not only a lack of interest in protecting former President Donald Trump, but make me wonder about something one hates to think of — complicity.

— Elizabeth Ward Nottrodt, Baltimore