Let Biden live out his days in peace
Re: “Democratic leaders must reckon with the Biden coverup,” May 25 commentary
I am angry at Doug Friednash and furious at Jake Tapper. Joe Biden is no longer president and has now been diagnosed with late-stage prostate cancer. Do we need to beat a dead horse? I recently asked a friend, “What purpose is Jake Tapper’s tell-all book about Biden except to enrich his own wallet and time in the spotlight?”
I will not read his book, and it is terrible to demean and ridicule a man who served in the public spotlight for five decades, who lost a wife and daughter in a terrible car crash, and one of two sons to brain cancer, and now will be fighting a deadly disease. Can he just be left alone to die in peace?
The piling on to Biden is even more mystifying when Trump has been impeached twice, convicted of sexual assault, knowingly prompted an attack on the U.S. Capitol while his supporters chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” and then pardoned these insurrectionists and other convicted criminals to go back out into the streets (see Bannon, Stone, etc.)
Friednash has “jumped on the bandwagon” of blame. Does it matter now? The results of the 2024 election (Trump) will be harmful to 90% of the U.S. population as the effects unfold, and history will be not be kind to this administration. They are unqualified hucksters, with a lawyer overseeing all medical decisions of trained doctors, and a Director of Homeland Security that has only the vaguest knowledge about the Constitution and U.S. laws. The attorney general is a puppet who spouts verbatim the same nonsense that Karoline Leavitt does, verbiage that has nothing to do with actual facts.
Looking backward accomplishes nothing at this point. Let the man die in peace. He served his country well, perhaps waning in his last years. No one talks about Trump’s decline, which is also evident to all, and is also being covered up by every single sycophant in his administration and the GOP Congress. It’s obvious in the exact same way Biden’s was.
Wendy Hall, Buena Vista
Was President Joe Biden’s physical and mental condition “concealed” from us? Most likely. Although not justified, this would not be the first time a president’s condition while in office was hidden from the public.
Woodrow Wilson was partially paralyzed, and his wife secretly acted as president. Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack after golfing in Colorado and Crohn’s disease. George H. W. Bush had Graves’ disease. Chester A. Arthur had a sever kidney disease. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease and many speculate he had his first symptoms while in office. Grover Cleveland had jaw cancer.
None of these, including the issue of Biden’s health are criminal or illicit. But the cover-ups of Donald J. Trump are. After the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Trump labelled it a “Day of Love”, even though more than 140 police officers were injured, four committed suicide within a year, and there was over $2.7 million in damages. Since then, he pardoned 1,500 of the rioters who already pleaded guilty or were convicted and serving jail time. False facts to obscure and shroud that January 6, 2021, was an insurrection.
In the summer of 2023, he tried to delete Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage to obstruct the Justice Department’s investigation into his removing classified, “Top Secret” documents from the White House. In early 2024, Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts because he covered up crimes in his business records. Two more cover-ups.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Ronald Fischer, Lakewood
Re: Sunday cartoon, May 25
The political cartoon depicts three Democratic donkeys mimicking the three monkeys: “See no evil,” “hear no evil” and “say no evil.” They sit on the head of former President Joseph Biden. I have no issue with this cartoon because I feel it’s true. However, in all fairness, the same cartoon could be redrawn today, subbing in three elephants on the head of our current president. This issue is usually ignored by the mainstream press.
Mariann Storck, Wheat Ridge
Tax cuts for the rich cost the poorest among us
Re: “What to watch as bill moves to Senate,” May 25 news story
The article from the Associated Press about sticking points for Senators considering President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” mentions the lack of savings, cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, questions about making the tax cuts permanent, and the extension of the debt limit.
Left out of the discussion is the fact that each of the top earners, whose wealth is counted in millions, if not billions, of dollars, will receive about $390,000. This is enough for one individual to repay almost 400 of the lowest earners for the money they will, in effect, be giving to the highest earner.
These lowest earners will have an income loss of about $1,000, considering the losses of medical care and food on the table projected under this bill, in addition to the increased costs due to tariffs.
Also not mentioned is the even more dangerous so-called “poison pill,” a late addition that would protect officials retroactively from punishment for contempt of court, effectively freeing the administration from any obligation to follow court orders. This is the perfect recipe for full autocracy in a formerly democratic United States of America.
David Schroeder, Arvada
Listen to the professional investors
Re: “Economy: Trump ignores warning signs,” May 25 news story
The article has a valid point, but what about you and me? Are we also ignoring warning signs? Yes, we are. President Donald Trump has been involved in major bankruptcy cases and two recent significant legal cases in New York: falsifying business records and misrepresenting his wealth and property value. He is known to be very loose with the truth, and his ethics are in need of improvement.
Thousands of men and women around the world are professional investors who seriously study the economy. They are not playing the political game. When a solid plurality finds Trump’s economic policy suspect, the opinion should be respected.
Why do millions of Americans consider Trump a financial genius and ignore the wisdom of the professionals? We are ignoring the obvious and sowing the wind. We will reap the whirlwind.
Paul Bonnifield, Yampa
What happened to grassroots politics?
Before COVID, I attended a vibrant Denver Political Action Day at Civic Center Park. While I didn’t agree with every booth or viewpoint represented, I valued the open exchange of ideas and the people who were willing to speak their minds. That same week, I went to a community event at the Blush & Blu bar, supporting a local LGBTQ candidate. The energy in the room was electric — people were hopeful, engaged and excited to build something new.
Since then, Denver’s politics have felt more disconnected. While major issues are still front and center, the visible presence of grassroots groups, especially ones rooted in working-class communities, has noticeably declined. In the absence of consistent grassroots organizing, I see a growing dominance of voices backed by out-of-state interests or polished through institutional filters. Many individuals trying to engage by speaking at city council meetings, forming advocacy groups, or running for office seem to experience increasing difficulty in breaking through or gaining meaningful opportunities to pursue important issues.
I’ve started to wonder: Are today’s political alliances and endorsements built on local relationships and mutual struggle, or are they increasingly tied to out-of-state or corporate influences?
A healthy civic culture needs community engagement, strong identity networks and stability in order to foster shared action. Without a vibrant grassroots presence, we risk allowing others — who don’t necessarily reflect the values of many across Denver’s diverse spectrum — to dominate public discourse.
How can we rebuild that vital connection between everyday people and political power?
Rodney Baker, Denver
Examine the law that established public broadcast
Re: “Pros and cons of PBS content,” May 25 open forum regarding “Make public broadcasting great again by shaking it up,” May 18 commentary
Respectfully, the issue is President Donald Trump’s May 1 executive order “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media.” The reality is there will be less “to be taken by the lapels and shaken” at PBS and NPR when one’s existence is made more difficult because a revenue stream has been shut down in violation of our First Amendment.
Not agreeing with the narrative is not a legitimate basis for Trump to engage in censorship. The amount of free speech otherwise available will be significantly reduced.
Freedom of speech and the press are what allow leaders to be held accountable by freely questioning and sharing observations and concerns respecting gaps between said leaders’ assertions and reality.
Further, history shows that our 1967 Congress was well ahead of its time. On November 7, 1967, Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which created the nonprofit Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
That led to the creation of PBS and NPR. And one of the six congressional declarations of this 1967 law’s policy states “that it furthers the general welfare to encourage noncommercial educational radio and television broadcast programing which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, and which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence.”
Therefore, censoring such legendary and noteworthy nonprofit institutions in such a tyrannical manner is part and parcel with authoritarianism.
Lou Horwitz, St. Louis, Mo.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
