To the editor: The debate “takeaway” related to Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., began on an off-putting note.
It has to be said that at no time was Buttigieg anybody’s pet, let alone a mineral pet (in other words, a “pet rock,” as the article describes him). Nor should he be reduced to being referred to as “cute” or “fun.”
Would anyone find these sorts of epithets acceptable if we were talking about, say, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)? And, if not, why would it be OK to use them in regard to a gay man?
Buttigieg is as much of a serious candidate as any of the others. So, let’s talk about him as if he were an actual adult male, not someone’s idea of a cute and fun gay man.
Paul Lewis, Long Beach
To the editor: I am disgusted with those participants in the debates who constantly interrupt others and regularly talk over their allotted time.
Why? Because they know that they can game the system to get more camera time to mouth their canned talking points, while not answering the question, with no consequences.
The “30 seconds to respond” results in an inordinate time taken up by feuding participants. Instead, after a 10-second warning light, the speaker’s microphone should be turned off.
Whatever happened to civil discourse?
John Posta, Westlake Village