Ron Paul lacks honesty

Ron Paul's explanation of the racist remarks in his newsletter of 20 years ago is ridiculous. To say, as he has, that he published a newsletter that bore his signature and that he had no control of its content and that he never read it (yet signed it) and did not know who authored it, is constitutional baloney.

I do not think Paul is a racist; neither is he the constitutional white knight he pretends to be. But he has a duty as a candidate to be honest and forthright.

Is his explanation of embarrassing events any different from that of President Obama, who listened to the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for more than a decade, but maintained that he was unaware of his pastor's condemnation of the United States and his vitriol against Zionism and Israel?

William Juneau, Parkland

'Python safaris' a solution

I have been reading the articles about pythons in the Everglades, such as the Jan. 31 article "Pythons go wild." To echo comedian Bill Engvall, certain irresponsible people should have the word "stupid" tattooed on their foreheads so people won't sell them certain items or allow them to do certain things because of who they are. This goes for those who consider constrictors for pets.

Undoubtedly, they are the ones who release them into the Everglades when they become too large to care for or feed.

A good solution to the problem would be "python safaris." Companies would provide customers with rifles, ammunition and air-boat rides through the Everglades for a nominal fee, and people could shoot any python they see with no bag limits.

My guess is that in a year's time, the bleeding hearts will decree the pythons are an endangered species. Wouldn't that be terrible?

Ken Bailey, Coconut Creek

'Negative' ads just point to the candidates' skeletons

Thank goodness the Republican primary is over in Florida.

Mitt Romney spent money on TV ads that others are calling negative. Newt Gingrich paid for his versions of negative ads as well. Then they had rallies in which they criticized each other for using this negative campaign approach.

It is humorous to hear these ads described as negative or bashing the other candidate when the ads are just pointing out that each candidate has skeletons in his closet and has been lying about his moral, ethical and leadership values.

This is the party of family, faith and fiscal spending? Wake up and realize the candidates are out of touch with what the reality is for middle-class America.

Even funnier — or should I say sadder? — is that the voters still support them even when they see the candidates for who they are and not what they are selling themselves to be. Buyer beware is what I have to say.

Steve Coleman, Fort Lauderdale

Wealthy support Democrats to avoid fair share of taxes

Here we are again in a presidential election year. I have always been told the Republican Party is for the wealthy. If anyone pays attention to the dollars being donated, maybe this thought needs to be re-thought.

Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Clooney — lots of money from the rich is given to the Democrats. Could this be because they want to make sure they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes?

Annette Mastermaker, Hollywood

Republican voters and commentators hypocritical

I marvel at how hypocritical many Republican voters and commentators can be. They have been so hard on President Obama and most Democrats regarding past affiliations, personal behavior, and so much more. Yet they shrug off the same issues when it's one of their own.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, we heard Bill Ayers' name mentioned ad nauseam by the right-wing media as they attempted to make Obama a bad egg because he served on a board of directors with Ayers in the mid 1990s. (Get ready to hear that name again in a few months.)

Newt Gingrich had extramarital affairs while married, twice, but that was so 10 years ago. Heaven forbid if he were a Democrat. Then he would be a bad man with a bad past. Just ask John Edwards how forgiving the Republican press was about his personal disgrace.

Conservatives tried hard to connect Obama to Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae, saying he advised Obama on campaign and housing matters. That turned out to be debunked, but the right-wing media still published the story for sound-bite effectiveness for many months.

Gingrich was paid more than $1 million for giving his sage advice to Fannie Mae. I guess that's OK. So Gingrich cheated on his wife at the same time he was waving the "impeach Clinton" banner. He advises Fannie Mae for huge sums while it's contributing to our economic collapse, and he left the House of Representatives with his tail between his legs.

But that's all A-OK, because he's a Republican, so he gets a pass.

Steve Kalisher, Coral Springs

Romney's the only candidate who can defeat Obama

Of the four well-qualified Republican presidential candidates who ran in the Jan. 31 Florida primary, only one can defeat President Obama.

According to several polls, Mitt Romney is the only one who consistently does well against the president because he attracts so many independent voters. The Democrats recognize this and are already sponsoring negative TV ads against Romney. Some voters like the feisty former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. However, he has a 58 percent negative rating among the public, and Obama would defeat him by 20 percent.

Nominating Gingrich would make the November presidential election an exercise in futility for the Republicans.

Francis Mahoney, Fort Lauderdale

Copyright © 2021, Sun Sentinel