Skip to Content

David LaPorte

Roseville, MN
Commenter for
2 years 12 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 02/02/13 at 11:17 am in response to Minnesota GOP insiders wonder where they go from here

The GOP considers itself to be inclusive because it’s full of extremists who are fighting about which far right agenda is the most important. Is it banning abortion, suppression of immigration, opposing taxes on the wealthy, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which is already illegal), expanding gun rights or any of a multitude of other issues? This is not inclusiveness. It’s factionalized extremism.

The concept of Tom Horner as a liberal is laughable. If Horner was...

Posted on 01/21/13 at 02:28 pm in response to Obama's best argument for getting around debt ceiling? Lex posterior derogat priori

Eric:

Could you use the word "compromise" rather than "cave-in" or "limited/partial/temporary surrender"?

One of the problems that the political parties face in working together is the perception that compromise is a form of losing. I think that the conservatives should be applauded, not mocked, for their new-found flexibility. If we humiliate them, they're less likely to compromise in the future.

If we make this about winners and losers, the true losers will be the...

Posted on 01/08/13 at 07:28 pm in response to How cycling can be dangerous to your health

I find it ironic that an article about bicycle safety uses a photo of a cyclist without a helmet as an illustration. I'm a year-round bicycle commuter and never ride without one.

Posted on 11/29/12 at 02:25 pm in response to Klobuchar, Franken cheer potential filibuster reform

I support the filibuster, since it makes it harder for the majority party to steamroll those in the minority. But I also think that it's much to easy to implement. If the threshold was higher, it would only be used on really important issues.

I like Franken's requirement of an affirmative vote to continue the filibuster. If the minority party can't get 41 senators into the chamber to vote to extend the filibuster, then it must not be all that important to them.

I also like...

Posted on 11/29/12 at 10:23 pm in response to Minnesota’s progressive groups, fresh from victory, ready to push their agenda at Capitol

Key to the Republican's loss was that they promised to work on the economy, balancing the budget and jobs, but got distracted by their other agendas. If the DFL makes the same mistake, they will be out of power again in the near future.

Posted on 11/07/12 at 01:11 pm in response to After winning back Legislature, triumphant DFL takes care not to ‘overstep’

It's good to hear that the DFL learned from the missteps of the Republicans about the risks of overstepping to declare victory too early.

But they also need to learn from other Republican missteps. They need to govern rather than get distracted by their pet issues. They need to work on job creation. They need to keep their promises.

Most of all, they need to establish a bipartisan working relationship with the Republicans. The DFL had no traction when they were in the...

Posted on 10/22/12 at 03:51 pm in response to Next debate: Obama, Romney should be asked about the decision to invade Iraq

Mr. Swift:

I would like to think that no one would use either of these tragedies as a political "Got cha'". That would be disrespectful of those who died or were wounded.

Of course, someone probably will. Such is the state of political discourse in our society.

David

Posted on 10/12/12 at 03:01 pm in response to Debate winner: Ryan on style, Biden on substance

One of Biden's most effective tactics was to demand that Ryan provide specifics. For example, Ryan excoriated Obama/Biden on their handling of Syria, so Biden asked what Romney & Ryan would have done differently. Ryan's response was vacuous.

I suspect that Romney, in particular, has avoided specifics because his position changes so often that he can't keep them straight. Ryan seems to following the lead of his would-be boss. Good for Biden for calling them on it. You may be...

Posted on 10/03/12 at 11:48 am in response to NOM, which hasn't named donors in MN, loses disclosure case in Maine

The First Amendment guarantees citizens (and apparently corporations who, unaccountably, are considered to have the same rights as citizens) the freedom of speech. It does NOT guarantee the freedom of ANONYMOUS speech. Anyone can state their beliefs, but they should have the integrity to state them publicly.

Posted on 10/02/12 at 11:57 am in response to Low-key vote-yes ads frame marriage issue as one of voters' rights

The anti-gay marriage amendment IS a voters' rights issue, but not the way that's being presented.

Gay marriage is already against the law, but laws can be changed as the culture changes. With young people more tolerant of gay marriage than older people, the time is coming when that law will change.

The goal of the anti-gay marriage movement is to make that change much harder by embedding their bigotry into the constitution. Constitutions are much harder to change than laws...