To the undecideds, a final delineation


If anyone out there is still undecided, here are a few thoughts to consider. When you step into that voting booth, you are not only voting for the candidate, but for the party behind that candidate. Mitt Romney is trying to appear "presidential." He is being asked to smooth over the venom and hatred that make up the Republican Party. This was on full display during the primaries. It is the party of business, by business and for business. Republicans play to win at all costs and do not believe in compromise. All the talk about government being bad and privatization being good is nothing more than a Trojan horse to make more inroads into our personal wealth and equity.

By contrast, the Democratic Party has consistently stood for the common man, regardless of race, color or creed. It is the party of the people, by the people and for the people. It offers a harbor when the big winds blow. You decide what you want for the next four years.


• • •

The choice between Romney and President Obama couldn't be more stark. One candidate (Romney) believes in personal responsibility, smaller government and getting our debt and deficit under control, and the other (Obama) caters to minority groups, wants more and more people dependent on government, pits one class of people against another, and has no idea how to attack our $16 trillion debt. And undecided voters can't figure this out? Do they have trouble picking out what pair of socks to wear in the morning, what type of toothpaste to buy, and whether to come inside and get out of a thunderstorm?

This is not rocket science, folks. Either you believe in addressing our nearly insurmountable, paramount issues as a country, or you don't. I can explain it to the liberals, but I can't understand it for them.


 * * *


The arguments you haven't heard yet


"Adoption" is a word you don't see in articles like "Marriage amendment guards societies stake in procreation" (Oct. 29) and "Gay marriage would actually discriminate" (Nov. 1).

The argument that child-bearing ability and intent is the only true justification for marriage is part of a woefully incomplete world view with no place for homosexuals ... and apparently no place for adoption.

The reality, which was noted in another article ("The evidence doesn't support claims of harm to children," Oct. 29), is that homosexuals not only have parenting drive and instincts, but are just as likely as male-female couples to be successful adoptive parents. Biological-only parenting proponents also skip over the real-world fact that many families (same-sex or male-female) have one adoptive and one biological parent. The need for couples willing to adopt is as great as ever, due in no small part to unrealistic policies on birth control and sex education by the same groups pushing the marriage amendment. Adoption needs encouragement, not more burdens.

In the 1920s, children like my father were targets of bullying simply for being adopted. For same-sex families, the marriage amendment is legal bigotry, and a de facto endorsement of the bullying in many forms -- from the schoolyard to the deathbed.


• • •

The Nov. 1 Letter of the Day suggests that if you vote "yes" on the marriage amendment now, thinking your life will not be affected if it is approved, you might have difficulty explaining your vote if you later learn, for instance, that a relative is gay.

I disagree for the following reasons, among others. First, how you vote will affect you regardless of familial relationships. Second, if you vote your principles, whether it be for or against, you should not have difficulty explaining your vote -- if asked -- to anyone. If they do not accept your principles, that's their problem.


• • •

Regarding the proposed constitutional amendment to require photo identification from voters, the public and media are misinformed. The true purpose is not to minimize fraud. Instead, making voting a bit more difficult for the individual might deter the uninformed voter from voting, thereby attaining a more informed electorate. Although this may sound a bit elitist, shouldn't the voter have some knowledge of the candidates and issues?


• • •

And the winners get nothing! That's the story. No reduced voter fraud when there's none to be found. No marriages saved by phony supports. No improved elections throwing dollars at phantoms. No welcoming state when the signs say "Not Welcome." No strengthening democracy when voters are turned away. No moral high ground looking down on others. Vote "no," "no" and "no" -- the third for the legislators who thought this was legislating.


* * *


Make it Republican, keep Dayton in check


In 2010, I wrote that electing Tom Emmer as governor would balance the Democratic-controlled Legislature and force a compromise to balance the budget. We were all surprised by the 2010 election, in that Republicans won majorities in the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. The result was a compromise of sorts (accounting shifts and using tobacco settlement revenue) as both sides played to their respective bases.

This year, with Gov. Mark Dayton in control and pledging to raise taxes, the only way a compromise is possible is by electing a Republican majority in the House or Senate. Therefore, one may have to consider a Republican candidate(s) in one of the swing districts.