I agree with Howard Bluth's frustrations over the obscene inequalities of wages, unemployment remedies, the continuous-without-break money chase, the influence of money in politics, etc., but I differ with his remedy of not exercising his franchise, and especially the suggestion to vote for a third party candidate to express one's disgust with the status quo ("Voting is an exercise in futility," Oct. 18).
Enough people did that in the race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and that resulted in eight years of the Bush administration, a huge escalation of the national debt, a greater disparity between the rich and the poor, and a totally fabricated reason for a protracted war in Iraq! The thought of a repeat of that third-party suggestion is abhorrent to me. Trigger-happy neo-cons must be salivating over the prospects of dragging the U.S. into another engagement in Syria if Mitt Romney is elected.
As much as the influence of money plays on politics, who do you believe will be more willing to stem the flow? Mr. Romney with his billionaire buddies or President Barack Obama whose monetary support also includes small donations from many of us?
Ajax Eastman, Baltimore