Most Commented
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
20 comments
-
19 comments
-
16 comments
MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan enterprise whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for news-intense people who care about Minnesota.
Donations and pledges totaling $25,000 or more have been made by each of the families and foundations listed. For a list of all donors by category, see our most recent Year End Report.
This is a lame column. Did anyone ask Candidate Obama how, once he was elected, exactly would the rise of the oceans slow? Did anyone ask after the third debate with McCain how Obama could claim he would produce a "net spending cut" once in office? Of course not. This will likely be a new media narrative on Romney, to take attention off the drubbing Obama took in the debate.
This column ripped Romney for not providing more specifics on tax code reform (never mind that Pres. Obama offers hardly any specifics for a second term), but Mr. Black's prior column lauds Obama for not making any promises he cannot keep for a second term. Isn't it better to have both candidates be as specific as possible so voters can make a reasoned decision? Or is that obligation only on the Republican candidate?
"Harry Nisky," the platform committee chairman mentioned in this article, is actually Harry Niska. Ms. Harris also reports she was told that Mr. Niska is in his late twenties, but a quick check of a previous MinnPost article by Cyndy Brucato would have revealed Mr. Niska's correct name spelling and age (31).
...
So Republicans are now the party of no, but during the Bush Administration Democrat dissent was the utmost form of patriotism. Why should Republicans vote for a bill that they (joined by a majority of Americans) believe is catastrophic for the country? Even if that bill contains a few reforms that are acceptable to Republicans? I reject the perspective that Republicans practice politics at all costs, ends justify the means, while Democrats otherwise have the pure public interest at heart...