Here’s to Cheryl Reeve and our strong, talented, beautiful and civic-minded Lynx — Lindsay, Maya, Rebekkah, Seimone, Sylvia and all the rest. It’s because of you that my 3-year-old California granddaughter playing with a figurine in her “Little People” playground set said, “Rawr! I play gas [basket] ball!” I speak for thousands when I say, win or lose, you are OUR champions! Thank you for being the team you are!

Mary Ann Cogelow Hanson, Minneapolis


From Trump and John McCain to yard signs and Gary Johnson

The lead letter of Friday, Oct. 21 (“Clinton finds trouble; Trump will find solutions”) drips sadly and frighteningly with rage and alt-right talking points. The writer extols foreign hacking of private e-mails and a video produced from a source of questionable “journalism” because these “revelations” support the writer’s assertion that the nation has become a “Banana Republic” under President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. The writer argues, by contrast, “ … that Trump knows how to be a great CEO” who will put “into his Cabinet men [sic] of good integrity.”

I choose not to dwell on the sexism in the writer’s limiting his future Cabinet to “men,” or the letter’s championing of cybercrime and invasion of privacy, or even the fact that any hypothetical Cabinet is pure speculation. Also, I refuse to engage in rage-for-rage rhetoric.

Instead, as one who believes that duly elected leaders deserve respect, I offer this olive branch: I hope that, should Mr. Trump win, he is surrounded by citizens throughout the land who exhibit greater civility toward him and his administration than the letter writer seems to afford President Obama! At least, please, I hope letters about any new administration do not undermine the nation and its principles by condemning him in favor of unverified “evidence” or even verified crime and criminals.

Most of all, I hope that, whatever the electoral results, the nation can experience an emotional healing and a new era of respectful disagreement and civility that should be the hallmarks of who and what we are.

Mike Tillmann, Owatonna, Minn.

• • •

To the writer of the Oct. 21 lead letter endorsing Donald Trump: You and I probably agree on very little. I already voted for Clinton. After the election, I hope that we both can agree to support the peaceful transition of government, no matter who wins, and that we can work together to heal the country after this divisive presidential campaign. Can we shake on this? If not, our country really will become, in your words, a “banana republic.”

Caren Stelson, Minneapolis

• • •

I respect an Oct. 20 letter writer’s different take on my Oct. 19 letter indicating what I deemed to be a lack of enthusiasm for the national candidates. The writer stated that she is fearful of the incendiary views of Donald Trump’s supporters and that she chose not to have a sign supporting her candidate, Hillary Clinton, in her yard. Even if I did have enthusiasm for a national candidate, I had already made the decision not to put a presidential sign in my yard, but for financial reasons. In 2012, I strongly supported Mitt Romney. The day my sign went up, all the lights on my car in the driveway were broken. Was that because of the incendiary views of President Obama’s supporters? Please, let’s not pretend that the only ugliness is on the Republican side.

Gwen N. Milano, Plymouth

• • •

U.S. Sen. John McCain recently said he will block any Supreme Court nomination that Hillary Clinton proposes. This is reminiscent of Mitch McConnell vowing to block every policy of President Obama and his refusal to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination.

It seems to me that Donald Trump is not the only Republican who will not accept the results of the upcoming election.

April Spas, Minneapolis

• • •

An Oct. 19 letter writer said regarding Trump’s campaign and discussion of a rigged election: “That’s a great strategy. Just sow doubt, and suspicion will take root!” I believe during the last presidential election that then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, made the statement that an “anonymous source told him Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.” Any difference other than one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat?

Mike McLean, Richfield

• • •

In light of the recent debate, I think it would be a public service if the Star Tribune would publish an article on how it is very, very difficult to rig our election.

You could walk a ballot through its paces, step-by-step, showing who has control of the ballot at all times. At the various polling places, you could show how the voters are identified, what occurs in the voting booth, and how that information is gathered and who does the gathering, and where it goes from there.

If people knew all of the steps, hopefully they would realize how difficult it would be to rig it.

And after printing this, challenge other newspapers to do the same thing for their readers. If we hit this hard enough all around the country, maybe people will get how difficult it is to rig elections. Ignorance is a correctable problem.

Bill Hamlin, Golden Valley

• • •

After three painful, garbage-filled debates, I have come to realize that Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson is the best option for our nation.

The vote for Johnson is the clear, sane choice in this national election, and he’s on the ballot in all 50 states.

You may say “Gary Johnson will never win,” but neither Clinton nor Trump has a comfortable path to 270 votes in the Electoral College. A few states could very well determine the outcome. If no candidate gets to 270, the election goes to the House of Representatives, one vote for each state! You think they will agree on Clinton or Trump?

Johnson is not a career politician, he is an athlete and vetoed 750 wasteful spending bills when he was a governor! Check him out

A wasted vote is for someone you don’t believe in. Gary Johnson is our best chance for a sane America.

Bill Bratten , Stillwater


Let’s pull the plug on those TV pharmaceutical advertisements

It will take more than a special legislative session to reverse ongoing increases in health-insurance premiums in our state. It will take the political courage to pass laws that challenge the status quo by not allowing price differences depending on whether you’re in a business plan or in the individual marketplace.

We should also immediately ban pharmaceutical advertising in the state, as these expenses get passed directly to all consumers. Physicians would be able to prescribe medication without undue influence and consumers could research their medical needs without this added expense. Other discussed cost reductions would be to allow importing prescription drugs from Canada and setting up a reinsurance pool for high-cost consumers.

Going forward, and on the national level, we need to control the cost of chronic illnesses by caring for these individuals outside of the traditional insurance mechanism. Every cost within the framework of quality care should be stripped away for those with cancer, heart disease, and other chronic-care needs. The cost can be paid for by surcharges on existing health-provider plans or through a national public option plan.

Ed Scislow Jr., Burnsville