Readers Write (Oct. 30): Candidate endorsements, Norwood Teague

Is it the editorial position of the Star Tribune, as put forth in the Oct. 28 editorial endorsing President Obama, that Simpson-Bowles is the correct remedy for America's debt and deficit problem but that Obama declined to push for this solution because of voter backlash? The Editorial Board blamed both candidates, but Mitt Romney held no elected position; it was the president's duty to push this agenda. A discerning reader should be left with the hard truth, then, that the president was more interested in getting re-elected than in doing what was right for America. And this is the candidate the paper endorsed? No wonder we get bad government.

DOUG CLEMENS, BLOOMINGTON

* * *

It comes as no surprise that the Star Tribune endorsed U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar for re-election. It was a pleasant surprise that the paper called her out for lacking involvement and leadership on some of the most pressing issues for our state and country.

While the senator is indeed a nice person and does some specific things for specific people, her nearly unanimous support for the very liberal agenda of Democratic leaders is very disturbing.

I called the senator's office and asked two specific questions: What has she done to reduce the debt/deficit of this country, and what has she done to get the Senate to do its job and pass a budget? Her staff could not point to one specific thing she has done to deal with these pressing issues.

Klobuchar's lack of leadership on these issues clearly puts the bulk of Minnesotans at risk to the failed economic policies she has voted for.

* * *

I find the Star Tribune Editorial Board totally hypocritical in its congressional endorsements. It has spent the last year plus demeaning Congress for lack of cooperation and refusal to compromise, then endorses almost all of the Minnesota incumbents from this do-nothing Congress. Wouldn't it be more honest to give some new blood an opportunity to reverse the status quo?

CHUCK LECOUNT, BURNSVILLE

• • •

When U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack pledged allegiance to Grover Norquist, he forfeited his claim to represent Minnesota's Eighth District in the people's House ("Cravaack connects for second term," editorial, Oct. 29). He is part of the problem, not the solution.

DAVID STRAND, AITKIN

* * *

For the Star Tribune Editorial Board to say "Keep high court incumbents on job" (Oct. 23) seems simplistic and undemocratic. Maybe the headline should have just read, "We know better."

The unchallenged gubernatorial appointment process that takes place when judges retire before their terms end smacks of political favoritism and corruption, not fair and honest public service. Yet the Editorial Board would lead us to believe that knowledgeable insiders with expert opinions and governors are best fit to choose our judges, and that citizens should simply rubber-stamp those appointments, since we are less capable of discerning qualified candidates.

Why not just let a panel of experts appoint a president? No sense bothering citizens with the burden of knowing the issues and sizing up a candidate's qualifications.

PAUL WOODS, COTTAGE GROVE

* * *

I have no doubt that Norwood Teague is sincere as he professes his intentions for improving University of Minnesota athletics ("Schedule decision was not made lightly," Oct. 27).

What still mystifies many Minnesotans is the blind spot he and coach Jerry Kill have on the signal that the cancellation of the North Carolina games sends to the very loyal and long-suffering Gopher fan base. It says we are OK with six wins and a minor bowl game. Been there, done that.

What we had hoped for with this new regime was a goal of competing nationally, with Minnesotans, and of building a program that is tough, fun to watch and afraid of no one.

• • •

Teague's commentary should give all Minnesotans something to think about. Using the numbers he presented, 750 student-athletes and 220 athletic department employees, there are only 3.4 athletes per employee. Further, the cost per athlete, with an $80 million department budget, is $106,667 per year. Is this reasonable?