Thank you to the Tribune Editorial Board for the Sept. 15 editorial “Mayor Johnson kicks off a reelection campaign with a speech full of bile.” Why did Johnson, the incumbent candidate for mayor of Chicago, target the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in his campaign kickoff speech when that group is not involved in the race?
Rather than do the work of improving life in this city or balancing the budget, Johnson finds it easier to drum up support by drawing on the politics of division and hate. His dog whistle was also out last month on the “Let’s Be Clear” podcast, when he seemed to connect bombing Palestinians with dollars withdrawn from Black communities.
Johnson said that to label his critiques of Israel as antisemitic is “witchcraft.” The scary thing is that picking on a small minority could work for a desperate candidate running in a crowded field. I hope Chicagoans show him that it won’t.
— Josh Singer, Chicago
Mayor, run on your record
Mayor Brandon Johnson, kicking off his reelection campaign, made clear that you can’t be a “true” progressive if you take money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or Michael Sacks.
It’s a litmus test: Any support from either, and you fail. AIPAC has become a scarlet letter for candidates — take its money, and you’re barred from the progressive party regardless of your views or your record.
The implication is that AIPAC contributions buy votes on Israel-related issues. But that only holds up if you believe campaign donations always deliver the outcome the donor wants, which is never guaranteed. I’m not sure why Israel should factor into a race for Chicago mayor at all, but Johnson can’t resist dragging AIPAC into it to pander to progressives. It’s easier to attack a donor than to run on your record — particularly a record as thin as Johnson’s. If I were in his shoes, I’d look for distractions too.
The attacks on Sacks are more troubling. This is a man who backed Barack Obama; he’s a longtime Democrat who has supported candidates across the party, including JB Pritzker. If Johnson had governed even reasonably well, I suspect Sacks would be supporting him too. Instead, Sacks gets lumped in with AIPAC.
The truth is that Sacks cares deeply about Chicago. Even Pritzker has defended him, calling him “good, decent, honorable” and someone who cares deeply about Democratic values. But to Johnson, he’s just red meat to throw to the progressive base.
Here’s a suggestion to Johnson. He should run on his record. If he really thinks he’s done a good job, he should let his work speak for itself. But please, put the distractions aside. We deserve more from our leaders.
— Dean Gerber, Chicago
Mayor an imitator of Trump
I wholeheartedly agree with the Tribune Editorial Board’s assertion that Mayor Brandon Johnson is very Trumpian. He has been over his head from the first day he took office. His handling of the Bears stadium situation brought to light just how ill-suited he is for being a leader. His agenda is to uplift the less fortunate in the city, but it seems that at every turn, because of his lack of business knowledge and simple common sense, he has put the constituents whom he says he’s championing in jeopardy.
He has shown he is nothing more than a cheap Donald Trump imitator. The real thing is more than enough.
— Todd Swift, Chicago
Another Johnson for mayor
When I first looked at the Sept. 14 front page, I was a bit perplexed. Bears head coach Ben Johnson and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson both were highlighted in stories.
I don’t live in Chicago, but I read about the mayor and his task of getting reelected, even though he is far behind in his fundraising. Then I read about the Bears coach, who isn’t a Chicago resident and therefore cannot run for the mayor’s job. However, after Bears fans saw the Bears win 59-37 against the Carolina Panthers, I would say Ben Johnson — Chicago resident or not — would be a shoo-in for the mayor’s job.
We know it’s not realistic, but it sure starts the week off in a great mood.
Go Bears!
— Joel Wineberg, Wilmette
Red Line Extension overdue
For more than half a century, the Far South Side has waited for the Red Line Extension — a project that should have been built when families like mine were raising 10 children in Englewood and opportunity depended on access. The need for this extension was clear as early as the late 1960s and 1970s, when planners first discussed extending the Dan Ryan part of the Red Line beyond 95th Street.
Had Chicago acted then, the cost would have been under $500 million, based on rail construction costs of that era. Today, after decades of delay, the price exceeds $5 billion.
That difference represents more than inflation. It reflects decades of lost economic growth, stalled development and missed opportunity for communities that needed transit equity the most. Now, at long last, the Red Line Extension is moving forward.
This moment — long overdue — is the result of leadership that has been steady, experienced and deeply connected to the communities the project will serve. One of those leaders is CTA Chairman Lester Barclay.
Barclay’s connection to the CTA spans more than 40 years. He grew up in Englewood, relying on the CTA for daily life. During college, he worked at the agency, and later, as an attorney, he represented the CTA in complex legal matters. His legal mind has been central to protecting the interests of riders, employees and taxpayers — and it has been instrumental in navigating the complex political and regulatory landscape that surrounds major transit projects.
Experience matters. And Barclay’s experience is unmatched.
He was appointed to the CTA Board by Mayor Lori Lightfoot and retained by Mayor Brandon Johnson, and now he has been appointed by Johnson to serve on the new Northern Illinois Transit Authority (NITA). That level of confidence speaks volumes. It reflects a leader who is steady under pressure, respected across government and trusted to guide the region through a historic transition.
Chicago is entering a new era of regional transit governance under NITA. Funding is approved. The structure is in place. The region is aligned. This is the moment when continuity matters most.
The South Side waited more than 50 years for the Red Line Extension. We cannot afford to repeat the leadership failures that stalled this project for generations.
More Top Picks Best Laptops For Students Under 500
— The Rev. James T. Meeks, founder and pastor emeritus, Salem Baptist Church of Chicago
Archdiocese needs expert
Like lawyer and letter writer Jim Figliulo (“Archdiocese’s mishandling,” Sept. 10), I would like to see the Chicago Archdiocese’s process for reviewing allegations of the sexual abuse of minors changed. Its policies on the clerical sexual abuse of minors became the basis for the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, which archdiocese official Leah Heffernan references in her letter (“Archdiocese’s investigations,” Sept. 2). The charter requires that the review board include a member with “expertise in the treatment of the sexual abuse of minors”; that is, a professional who treats people who have abused minors. But it does not have a parallel and complementary requirement that the board include a member with expertise in the treatment of sexually abused minors.
Including a professional with an understanding of victim/survivor trauma and behavior would help in evaluating the veracity of their allegations.
— Michele Beaulieux, Milwaukee
Decision belongs to patient
My mother used Maine’s Death with Dignity Act in 2021 after being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. She chose to end her life before the disease took from her the independence, control and dignity she considered essential to living. It was not an easy decision, nor was it made casually. It was deeply personal, and it was hers.
What troubles me in the editorial (“Illinois’ right-to-die law meets the right to say no,” Sept. 11) is the assumption that requiring a physician to provide information or a referral amounts to participation in assisted suicide. My mother’s physicians did not tell her that Maine law gave her this option. Her children did. And once she decided to pursue it, navigating a law that had been enacted only two years earlier was difficult; many physicians were themselves unfamiliar with its requirements.
A legal right means little if patients cannot find out that it exists or cannot reach someone willing to help them exercise it. No physician should be forced to prescribe medication in violation of conscience. But neither should a physician’s religious or moral beliefs become a barrier between a competent, terminally ill patient and a lawful medical option.
A referral is not participation. It is recognition that the decision belongs to the patient.
— Marc LeClere, Chicago
Fear drives no bargains
Three recent letters on Illinois’ End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act illustrate the causes of the deep sociopolitical divisions in our country.
Sebastian Nalls, a healthcare policy analyst at Access Living in Chicago, writes in his letter (“People with disabilities at risk,” Sept. 14) that his organization “remains steadfast” in its opposition to the act. Access Living is “deeply concerned about the risks this law poses to people with disabilities.”
Unfortunately, nothing in his letter substantiates these concerns, as he spends the rest of his argument on what isn’t being done to help sustain the well-being of those with disabilities. I’m disabled myself and lost a son to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Nalls makes valid points on this subject, but he seems to oppose the act out of baseless fears.
Edward Gogol, of Crystal Lake, does an excellent job in his letter (“Explain law; don’t insinuate,” Sept. 15), countering those fears with facts. The facts are that it would be impossible for a person with disabilities to have their life ended prematurely through this act. The law is written with restrictions so limiting that the act can only be taken as a matter of personal choice and responsibility.
Colin C. Campbell, of Geneva, in his letter (“Interference by religion,” Sept. 15) addresses the argument often cited in sociopolitical debates: that the law is a sin. As he so logically reminds us in this land of the free: “’I can’t do this because my religion forbids it’ is freedom of religion. ‘You can’t do this because my religion forbids it’ is authoritarianism.
Choose the debate in this country: right to die, right to choose, right to life, right to marry, right to carry, gender rights, immigrant rights and equal rights. Take the religion out of the argument and put the facts into it. Then remove the need to control others’ choices to quell unsupported fears. Suddenly, there’s little for us to argue about in this country of Independence.
Few lose a freedom by granting it to another under our Constitution. Yet, so many fear it.
Fear, rather than freedom, drives no bargains. It takes the breath out of every friendship, tempts lies instead of truths in the drive to win at all costs and chooses the dark instead of lighting the future.
Fear didn’t build America. Nor will it sustain it.
— Linda Finley Belan, Chicago
The way to fight teen takeovers
The way to fight street takeovers is with arrests, fines, vehicle impoundments and curfews. So why are so many of our officials opposed to these measures? They are probably playing to their voter base. They are doing what their voter base wants them to do.
— Larry E. Nazimek, Chicago
How to spur action on bridge
The way to get things moving on a replacement for the Cortland Street bridge is for the alderman contact President Donald Trump and ask him to make a statement saying he opposes it.
It will be done before you know it.
— Steve Roess, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].