Campaign 2012

As Nov. 6 nears, the choice becomes clear


The Biden-Ryan debate reconfirmed the choice voters face on Nov. 6 -- more of the same vs. the chance of a turnaround.

Vice President Joe Biden evidences his many senatorial years of lobbing devil-may-care platitudes, irrespective of the questions posed. He is unpersuasive as to a realistic vision of our nation's future.

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan is a talented young man with a personal stake in the quality of American life over the coming decades. He is accomplished and refreshing -- and is the future.

Voters have a clear choice -- the past or the future?


• • •

How much luxury (and the detachment it brings) does our country live in that our presidential and vice presidential debates are won or lost by style rather than content?


• • •

If you're still undecided about who you are supporting in the upcoming elections, perhaps you need to decide where you stand on some key issues:

• Do you believe lowering taxes on the rich will stimulate the economy, lead to job creation or lower the national debt?

• Do you believe most of the world's scientists are mistaken about mankind's impact on global warming?

• Do you think the government should control women's reproductive options?

• Do you feel that marriage, service in the military or membership in the Boy Scouts should be limited to heterosexuals ?

• Do you believe in enacting laws against voter fraud, even if such laws are likely to result in voter suppression?

• Do you think health care should be limited to those who can afford it?

If you can honestly answer these questions, your choices should be clear. If you are unsure where the candidates or their parties stand on these issues, perhaps you should start paying attention or abstain from voting.


* * *


Catholics remain divided over archbishop


As a Catholic, I was encouraged to read about our archbishop standing up for the crucial issue of marriage in the upcoming election ("The archbishop draws the line," Oct. 7). But I was saddened and disappointed by the article. Why such a negative tone?

I was offended to read the insinuation that the archbishop's motivations to rally the faithful behind the marriage amendment were tainted by a desire for advancement in the hierarchy of the church.


The Star Tribune alluded to his past support for traditional marriage as being connected to his current appointment. The many quotes by people and groups in opposition to the archbishop were not balanced by quotes from those who support him and the amendment.

The article smelled of bias by painting the archbishop as a scheming, power-hungry man using this issue for his own advancement. Shame on you, Star Tribune!


* * *


They work to afford learning opportunities


Normandale Community College Prof. Chuck Chalberg's Oct. 9 commentary ("Hardworking students? Yes, but ..." Oct. 9) expressed a distorted view of students' abilities. I'm a student at Normandale, and while I agree that students today are extremely busy, I have to question his conclusions about why, and about the consequences that come from such hectic lifestyles.

Many students work because they want to go to school. Lots of students value their education. When you put it in that perspective, an "extraordinary education" is not so much of a burden on our lives. The quality of my education is affected more by my own motivation and discipline than by where I go to school or by how much I have going on outside of college.


* * *


Worship sites should emphasize God's signs


It's fine for religious leaders to invite speakers to inform people about political topics. However, it's troubling to see places of worship displaying political campaign signs on their buildings or property, as I saw yesterday in St. Paul. It's just not right for religious leaders to tell their members or parishioners to "vote yes" or "vote no" on particular issues.