Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

On Tuesday night Donald Trump officially announced his candidacy for the presidency ("Facing legal probes and GOP dissent, Trump running again," front page, Nov. 16). And some Republican leaders and conservative media are not pleased.

Is that lack of enthusiasm due to the fact that Trump inspired a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol? No. Is it because he created and perpetuated the Big Lie that, for many people, has eroded confidence in our elections? No. Is it because he undermined our long-standing international alliances? No. Is it because he's an emotionally unstable man who had to be held in check by his staff? Because he cozied up to dictators? Because he encouraged conspiracy theories? Because he's a bully who invents childish names to taunt his enemies? Because he used the presidency to enrich his businesses? Because he bragged about not paying taxes and abusing women? No.

It's because many of his endorsed candidates failed to win. Trump is no longer a kingmaker. And now, finally, some of the Republican leadership and conservative media are saying, "Uh, Donald, please just go away."

But what does this say about us as a society, as a country, when a major party can ignore such glaring flaws in a leader and only turn on him when he fails to bring in enough votes? Where is our moral compass?

And will we just select another leader, not because he's competent or worthy, but because he speaks to our fears and prejudices and, above all, is entertaining?

•••

Congratulations to the Republican Party for retaking the House. I believe the strong candidates in California and New York made the difference. I thought Trump gave a good speech in announcing his run for the presidency in 2024. His accomplishments in his first term, I believe, were the best of any president since Ronald Reagan. He kept inflation in check by keeping energy prices low, along with historically low interest rates. He rebuilt the military and would not have embarrassed the country with the terrible withdrawal from Afghanistan and loss of lives. He would not have gotten us into the Ukraine war, was tough on crime, supported the police and was against illegal immigration. If Trump stays on message and has a strong running mate like Nikki Haley who has experience previously being a governor and United Nations representative, I believe he can get re-elected.

Can you picture the vice presidential debate between Haley and Kamala Harris? In 2028 you would have the first female president.

Ron Kopp, Corcoran, Minn.

•••

Cartoonists and comedians rejoice! The rest of us, not so much.

Paul Walthour, Shakopee

•••

I was really hoping that the "surprise announcement" on Tuesday would be Trump offering his full support to Ron DeSantis and other Republican leaders seeking the 2024 presidency, and that he would offer whatever support they needed to win the hearts and minds of an American majority. But alas, that was not the case, and we might again witness "damaged goods" vs. "past his prime" competing for the presidency. We can certainly do better than this, given all the qualified, eager talent in politics today.

We are all exhausted from the abrasive politics of the recent election, and suddenly the heat is on for 2024 already. Politicians need to concentrate on the expectations of their constituents and should not be forever focused on re-election strategies and excessive campaign fundraising. Our mailboxes will be full of such solicitations for urgent help, during a time when we should be able to avoid such disruptive distractions. Legislators have a lot of work to do to actually accomplish something. We need a break to focus more on our families, faiths, careers and helping all those in need. Life is not all egos and politics; there is so much more ...

•••

Why doesn't he simply just go away?

John Henschel, Burnsville

I read with interest Ron Way's opinion piece "What's special about veterans?" (Nov. 9). Despite the headline, as a veteran who did serve in a risky job in a combat zone, I found that I agreed with much of what he said about the attention all veterans get, whether or not they ever found themselves in dangerous or difficult situations while on active duty. What Way described is the inevitable result of the ever-expanding use of the word "hero" and its synonyms to include not only those who do selfless and courageous things but all who wear a uniform.

I do not begrudge the benefits available to all veterans, some of which, like health care and education opportunity, should be available to all Americans. It is true that only a minority of veterans found themselves in combat zones or performed jobs that were any riskier than those held by working people in general. I must admit that I am annoyed by those vets who sacrificed little and faced no dangers in the course of their service yet revel in the hero worship that society extends to all veterans. I believe it is an annoyance shared by all vets who did perform, voluntarily or involuntarily, risky jobs in dangerous places. But I do not begrudge them the benefits available from the government.

Darrell Jensen, Anoka

•••

Way's commentary on veterans asks the question, "What's so special about veterans?" He then points out that many former service members aren't real veterans because some of them served in comfortable locations and may have not ever faced a life or death situation. We veterans always characterized that as, "All service is honorable; some duty stations are better than others."

But the main question is easy to answer. For 50 years America has had a volunteer military. The effect of that philosophy is that less than 1% of our population guards the other 99%.

This means that when confronted with President John Kennedy's Jan. 21, 1961, inaugural words that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty," only 1% of our population — without demanding comfortable duty stations or risk-free assignments — says, "I'll go."

Terry Larkin, Deephaven

•••

Several letters in response to Way's opinion piece completely failed to understand what he was writing. Apart from pointing out the hypocrisy of accepting veterans benefits while complaining about "big government" and "socialism," the point of the article was that a massive health care, wellness and social support system is being run efficiently and effectively by a department of the federal government! It's a system that supports millions of people every year, and yet the conservative factions repeatedly tell us that this is impossible. They point out the minor failings of the VA — failings that occur in for-profit medical systems as well — and cry that the sky is falling!

The letters published were from combat veterans, and we should all be thankful that they survived. I won't go into whether the wars they fought were necessary or truly for the protection of America. They served. That's what counts. And they now have access to veterans' benefits for the rest of their lives. Wouldn't it be nice if the average American could have that security as well? Perhaps then more people would be ready to serve as they did, or in many of the other ways that benefit America?