What are Republican leaders thinking, taking the roof off the proposed stadium? I'm a Republican, and I'm embarrassed -- for them! The whole point of investing tax dollars in this structure is to receive some additional revenue throughout the year, not just from the 10 games from August through January.
Bringing in additional events (the Super Bowl, the Final Four, monster truck pulls, concerts) guarantees additional revenue in the form of tourism and jobs. Why would they eliminate this stream?
I prefer my tax dollars to go to the stadium, since it is an investment in our community and not, say, a study of deformed frogs (which, thankfully, has been discontinued) or light-rail transit that serves a fraction of our population.
Why do they choose now to play hardball on something so important to our state when we needed them for other stupefying bills that have been passed? Put the roof on and get this done as planned!
LORIE COUSINEAU, MEDINA
• • •
To read and hear the hoopla over the recent proposal to finance a football stadium without a roof, one might think a city can't have a popular and successful football team if it has to play in the cold. Tell that to the Packers, the Patriots, the Steelers, the Bears.
DAVID MORRIS, MINNEAPOLIS
• • •
I have to believe that a lot of people are sick of the stadium debate, as am I. I bleed purple, and frankly, if we have money for nonessential trains and bike paths, it seems to me that we can find the money for a new stadium.
Here is my message to the Vikings: I don't want you to move, but you have my permission -- if for no other reason than to end the endless discussion about the stadium. Let's face it: We want to watch the football, and we like the fact that we have a professional football team, but we don't want to pay for it. We are too caught up in class envy to really see the big picture.
WILLIAM ALBRECHT, BROOKLYN CENTER
* * *
President Obama is receiving the applause for getting Osama bin Laden one year ago. Obviously, any president would have made the same decision. However, would it be above him to give some credit to the CIA interrogators and the Bush policies that actually got the name of the courier who eventually led them to Bin Laden?
It would be such a treat to hear Obama give praise to someone who actually set the stage for this great achievement. He obviously has no trouble blaming everyone else for the failures of the past three years, and lord knows there are plenty of those. One could start with Solyndra and the eight other energy companies that got billions and are now bankrupt.
GORDON SCHMIDT, LORETTO
• • •
The comments by Obama strategist Robert Gibbs on Sunday on "Meet the Press," suggesting that Mitt Romney may not have taken the same steps the president took to rid the world of Bin Laden, served only to convolute and encourage a faux Republican accusation that Obama is politicizing that nation-unifying event.
Gibbs' remarks were petty and somewhat eye-rolling -- indeed, he buried the headline in responding to Republican operative Ed Gillespie, who just moments before had stated to moderator David Gregory that Obama was the most "divisive president in this nation's history" because of the appearance of a victory lap a year after the assassination of Bin Laden.
It is one thing to fault the man for spiking the ball without provocation; it is a completely different proposition to leave the president with neither sword nor shield to combat the onslaught of Republican hypocrisy that he has endured on his foreign-policy acumen since his candidacy.
In fact, in 2007, Obama stated flat-out that were the high-value target of Osama Bin laden found to be in Pakistan, he would as president enter that country to remove him; Romney had nothing but disdain for the notion, suggesting that he would not move "heaven and earth" to track down this nation's most wanted criminal.
And in a Republican debate that same year, Romney derided Rudy Giuliani for taking the same position as Obama; how ironic that Giuliani now stands side by side with Romney as the presumptive 2012 nominee blasts Obama over this nonissue, which might only be described as the audacity of gall.
RYAN PATRICK SEXTON, COON RAPIDS
* * *
I love dogs, all breeds, and I have met some sweet pit bulls ("City's shelter overrun with pit bull dog breeds," May 2). Certainly any dog can bite. All dogs are a product of how well they have been trained and socialized. That said, I would never own a pit bull -- or a Rottweiler or a wolf! I am tired of all the rescue groups who talk about discrimination against pit bulls as if it were canine racial profiling.
Certainly, it is not the dog's fault that it has a large head and a huge jaw that can apply 235 pounds of pressure per square inch that it uses in a hold-and-shake manner. That is what these dogs were bred for.
Speaking from statistical and anecdotal experience as a former postmaster, I can say that pit bull injuries are generally more severe than other dog bites. Some attacks have been fatal. Insurance companies track these incidents. Just as not all drivers under 25 are irresponsible, the statistics with real data calculate real risk.
As a responsible pet owner, I will choose one of many other breeds that can also be rescued, with less potential risks to my family, my neighbors and my letter carrier.
ROCHELLE EASTMAN, SAVAGE
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.