Readers Write (Oct. 14): The Wetterlings, the 2016 presidential campaign, congressional races and the medical-device tax

Jerry and Patty Wetterling are a continuing inspiration to all.

Jerry and Patty Wetterling never cease to amaze me. For 27 years, they hoped for Jacob's safe return, and now they continue to hope for others ("Wetterlings look to the future with hope," Oct. 12). They could have filled their hearts with rage and hatred, which would have been a normal human reaction for any parent. But through the grace of God, they let hope guide them instead. Faith, hope and love — so polar-opposite of fear, revenge and hatred, which seems to be the daily headline. People of Minnesota, we are truly honored to have the Wetterlings in our midst.

Fallout from the Donald Trump "Access Hollywood" tape provides important lessons. For some women sexually assaulted by Trump, it provided the affirmation necessary for them to come forward ("Women say Trump acted improperly," Oct. 13). Many of the women allegedly were assaulted while they were on the job. That they felt they could not come forward should come as no surprise. The risks of reporting on-the-job sexual harassment or assault are significant and range from the victims' claims being dismissed to retaliation ­— or even the possibility of job loss. The amount of time women have to report on-the-job sexual assault or harassment is extremely limited. In Minnesota, it is only one year. Given the fact that victims are often placed in an "it's your word against his" situation, many will decide to ignore the situation rather than turn to human resources (which is there first and foremost to protect institutions, not individual employees). If the perpetrator is a superior, failure to welcome unwelcome advances or reporting the behavior can surface months later in annual reviews. At this point, the woman can pretty much kiss her career goodbye.

• • •

In two recent "revelations" about our presidential candidates, we learned two supposedly shocking things about their attitudes. We learned that in private, Trump has vile, arrogant and predatory views toward women. About Hillary Clinton, we learned that in her private views, she is an economic moderate who believes in the role of Wall Street as an important part of the U.S. economy. But to anyone who has followed these two for the last 20 years, these are far from shocking revelations — they are not even real news. Let's move on and examine their actual governing policy prescriptions — we have an incredibly complex country that needs competent government.

• • •

While it may come as a surprise to some tiny minority of the ignorant proto-fascists who support him that Trump gooses women less than half his age, the Clinton centrists have much less to worry about. Hillary's private server, whether or not it contained classified material, wasn't hacked. Unlike the NSA, a self-important protector of U.S. hegemony that was twice breached in the last three years, Hillary has only been breached in private conversation. Republican initiatives to discredit Hillary, whether over Benghazi, her e-mail servers or pay-to-play have all been discredited.

This nation faces a huge debt of gratitude to the global community that the U.S., despite its bad judgment regarding the Arab Spring and having screwed up as often as it has, is still regarded not merely as the most powerful country in the word but as the most morally upright. And then the Republican Party posits Trump as its presidential candidate. C'mon, Republicans. Your party is disintegrating for every good reason, and those who stick to the party of my birth are closer to Hitler than to Eisenhower.

• • •

This year's election has generated a great deal of emotional response. So far the reactions have mostly been about e-mail servers, federal taxes paid, previous sexual encounters of a candidate's husband and most recently about "locker room talk." I, too, have found that I react very strongly to some of these emotional hot buttons. But what surprises me is that most people have not responded to what I see as the most striking difference between these two candidates. It's a difference that isn't defined by party affiliation or being liberal or conservative. It has to do with a worldview based on pessimism vs. hope.

There are two types of people in the world: those who identify problems and those who look for solutions. The people whom I label "problem-identifiers" seem to believe that the biggest need is just to identify as many problems as possible. They seem to have no interest in finding solutions. I find that they live in a world that lacks hope and vision. I would find this to be a very depressing world in which to live.

Problem-solvers, on the other hand, don't see the glass half-empty. They know that there are smart and creative people everywhere who can solve almost any problem in the world. If you look at the great leaders in history, they all led with optimism and hope for even better times to come. No one wants to follow a leader who is a pessimist and sees the world through this dark lens. On Nov. 8, I will be casting my votes for the leaders who will lead us all with optimism and hope for a better and more unified world.

My deliberation on voting in the national elections is based on two key factors: leadership integrity and party platforms. Unfortunately, this year's candidates cancel themselves out for obvious character flaws. Moral leadership is lacking. However, even so, the new president will have a definite voice in candidate appointments to the Supreme Court. Appointment ratification will, however, come from Congress. That may be a saving outcome.

The party platforms do differ significantly on the issue of "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life." I agree with a "woman's right to choose," if that is a subelement of "all humans have a right to choose (or exist)," even though the most vulnerable have no voice. I will vote to the right based on Congress' wisdom in ratifying a moderate justice and that "all humans have a right to choose (or exist)."

There is no question this has been a very unusual election year. I have tried my best to understand where most of these candidates are coming from. I live in Columbia Heights, so neither of the following races affects my support for Keith Ellison. But recent television ads and information in print from the Election Guide the Star Tribune printed on Oct. 12 has raised some questions for me.

One of the accomplishments listed for Republican U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen in the Third Congressional District is that he "supported legislation" to eliminate the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) tax on medical devices. His district does include Fridley, the home of Medtronic's "American" headquarters. Medtronic is a medical-device maker based in Ireland, with a very large presence in Minnesota.

Yet a television ad produced by the National Republican Congressional Committee condemns Angie Craig (Democratic candidate for the Second Congressional District) for supporting a tax break for her employer's "industry." That employer was, of course, St. Jude Medical, a medical-device maker. St. Jude is based in Minnesota.