In response to Becky Ann Frederic’s Friday (Oct. 3) column, ‘Could JFK Be a Democrat Today?’ Yes, John Kennedy would still be a Democrat. He would still believe in the need of the federal government to step in at times and do some things for our economy and our people that the private economy will not and cannot do. He would still believe that government needs to do many things that are best not left to private enterprise. This is, in my opinion, the heart of what it means to be a Democrat.

You quote President Kennedy at length on gun control where he appears to have supported a well-regulated militia. Ms. Frederic do you and your group believe that a militia is well-regulated when we see a private citizen shoot a president and one of his aides, when kids can annihilate students at school with assault weapons and when people can easily carry concealed and unconcealed weapons in stores, schools and bars?

Curious too is your comment that it is liberal to support solar and wind power. That sounds like an ad from Paul LePage or a comment from the playbook of the Koch brothers.

You say that you stopped supporting candidates on the basis of ‘personalities and charisma’. I think that that is a very good choice but IMHO ‘personality and charisma’ is all that Regan and W. had going for them and they got us into grave difficulties with which we are still contending.

Even if you do not support ‘social justice,’ I find it sad that your group does not know what it means. Your comments remind me of the time Republicans denigrated Obama for being a ‘community organizer.’ Also, Jesse Jackson has not been a media presence for about 10 years. Better would have been to have inserted Al Sharpton’s name there.

Brian Hirst
Harpswell