Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Democrats’ strategy of division

April 23, 2014

To the editor: Like many Americans, I have spent a good part of the past five years upset and confused about what is happening to our country....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-23-14 8:25 PM

MIT: So, you're back...with the same right-wing bump-'n-grind.

You should try reading your own letter. It reeks of hard core resistance to fix significant age-old problems--that don't affect you, but hurt millions who aren't white, middle-class, middle-American, and self-satisfied...such as yourself.

Pull your head...uh...out of the sand.

It's the 21st century, pal.

7 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-14 9:26 PM

Oh that crafty commie socialist anti-American birth-certificateless foreigner imperialist white-hating African lyin’ Christmas hating muslim Obama! Dividing the country by not agreeing with conservatives on issues, stubbornly clinging to positions the people who voted him into office twice support rather than the ideals of the other party, and making the Republicans switch positions whenever he comes close to agreement with them! How dare he demonize the rich and not call out the mooching taker poor leeches and union thugs! How dare he sign executive orders as if he were a legitimate President! Why won’t he be nice like the kindly, mature and diplomatic Tea Party/Republicans?

6 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-14 11:14 PM

Oh, Michael. There's much legitimate criticism to be made, but you attack Democrats for having values and attempting to enact change in line with those values. Of course political posturing is part of their strategy, but that's not unique to the party.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 12:37 AM

I don't know many democrats that demonize the rich, we demonize the greedy. There is a difference. Not all greedy people are rich, and not all rich people are greedy.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 9:34 AM

In recent years, I've not seen anything more divisive in character than the letters of Michael Thom, constantly provoking division via the pages of the New Ulm Journal.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 6:13 PM

You all have done a wonderful job of proving one of Mike's points , attack the person. One might argue that the choice of Obama as president was a poor choice. If you were on the board of directors at a large corporation and were to elect a new CEO, his resume was law school ,no real trials or cases of any consequence ,community organizer ,and political candidate on the state level for two terms ,US Senator for two years and than started a presidential campaign. Would you hire that person as your CEO off that resume or would you say it is a little lacking in any real accomplishments? Remember this is for the largest "company " in the world. We hire for president based of celebrity status or likeability , not what are their accomplishments. Who we hire is a reflection of us as a society, this applies to all parties. I would think we would want somebody with foreign affairs ,financial experience, people management skills and other CEO qualities and accomplishments.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 6:19 PM

I would think it would be somebody with a track record of bringing people together and accomplishing things that accomplish things for both sides of the table while each side gives up some issues at the same time. I fail to believe that Republicans are racist ,greedy or evil any more than what Democrats are. We need to look deeply at our next presidential candidate , not how good looking , how well they speak or what they say they will give us for free in exchange for their vote. Act like we are board members electing a new CEO , not voting for the next person on the cover of People magazine. This senseless banter back and forth over which party is better accomplishes nothing and punishes our kids with the results.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 6:51 PM

Agitprop: claim Mr. Thom spews nonsense and should live alone? What kind of statement is that? Do you not realize your ranting seems a little overboard to a lot of people? Man..settle and quit the personal attacks. Michael has strong view points just like you.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 9:47 PM

That sounds like a great person, Deerhunt. It's too bad that he wasn't on the ballot last time. The guy that ran against Obama was good at issuing pink slips, venture capitalism, offshore tax havens and funneling money to the 1%. I voted against that guy.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 11:34 PM

Deerhunt: You made some excellent points. There's something about MIT that brings me to a boil.


I'm not so sure your CEO analogy is valid.

Truman came out of a corrupt Missouri political system and had been a haberdasher prior to his senate run. Hoover was one of the most admired and accomplished men in America with an impeccable resume. Reagan was a fumbling B-movie actor with some SAG experience and a governorship button. Nixon had the perfect resume for the presidency. And, how about Lincoln? He had one split term in congress about 15 years before his election. If anyone could have been counted on to fail it would have been Abe.

Truman, Reagan, and Lincoln: all-stars. Hoover and Nixon: disasters. And so on and so forth.

Truthfully, I thought President Obama had the "right stuff" for greatness. I, like 78% of my fellow Democrats, still give him strong marks.


There's still two years and change.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 7:49 AM

I find it interesting that you both feel it was Mitt Romney I was talking about. I was talking in general , I'm sure there is candidates in the Democratic party that have those same credentials I described. My point is that Obama had very little for credentials, even if one considers him a success, that would have been a huge risk to take based off his resume . I would have voted for the Democratic candidate in 2008 if he would have had a good resume, McCain is just a career politician. There are good qualified candidates on both sides with good resumes, governors would be a good place to look. Or we can continue down the same path we are on and let our kids figure out how to straighten the mess out. Next time you vote ,research the qualifications of the candidate ,not just listen to their lip service ,routine answers. See what they have accomplished in the past, it is a strong indicator of their future potential.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 8:22 AM

MCW , tell me in your view what made Obama so qualified to be president ? Don't include the Nobel Peace Prize , he didn't receive that until after he was elected.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 10:19 AM

There is one quality the left loved about Obama that propelled him into the White House while he possessed no practical work experience. Of course nobody wants to address that 900 pound gorilla.

The ironic part of all of this debate is the left felt compelled to destroy Sarah Palin in their so called "vetting" process and claimed she lacked the "experience" to be Vice President when all they were really doing was assailing her based only on her gender. Funny how quickly they abandon their ideals of "inclusion" and "equality" when somebody who opposes them runs for office.

Ok, Sven you are free to commence with your Sarah Palin cracks & insults now. Time to see those true liberal ideals at work, after all.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 10:42 AM

The mark of a truly good president: His or her own party will be mad at them 50% of the time.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 12:34 PM

JR: After you call President Obama a 900-pound gorilla (YOWZA!), anything I could add to the conversation would palin comparison.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 1:51 PM

Deerhunt, I viewed my vote for Obama as voting for the lesser of two evils in both of his elections. I would have preferred Hillary.

There hasn't been a good candidate in decades. Bush looked better than Gore, so I voted for him. I voted for Bush over Kerry, although I think that that may have been a mistake.

I honestly believe that the biggest problem in Washington is all the lobbyists that buy up our elected leaders.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 2:20 PM

I appreciate an honest answer. There does seem to be a lack of good candidates.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 5:36 PM

Mitt Romney was a terrific candidate until he got sheep-dipped by the far right of the GOP.

John Kerry made me proud, and he had all the credentials you could possibly hope for, including a chest full of medals--until the Texas Swift Boaters spewed their venom.

And, Hillary Clinton has all the brains and resume you could possibly want in a candidate, but at least 48.3% of the country already hates her.

I'm getting goose bumps thinking about an Elizabeth Warren run.

Even Jeb Bush would make a decent president...for you misty-eyed GOPpers.

All the above are/were accomplished and bright people.

Then the smear starts...and the "winner" gets an impossible job.

Why would anyone run, having seen up close what truly happens?

Maybe we should switch to a parliamentary system like the Brits.

I'll volunteer to be King, just to get things started. But only if I get to tool around Washington, with leggy blondes, in a BRG Aston-Martin.

Vrrooom. Vrrooom.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 6:47 PM

OMG..could you imagine if Eliz Warren took the nomination from Hillary. Cat fight! Being independent, I wouldn't mind seeing what Hillary could do--for one year.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 6:48 PM

I mean one term--not year

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 9:18 PM

Eh--maybe you got it right the first time, Randi.

Can you imagine Bubba as First Mate?

Yahoo! More interns!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-27-14 4:25 PM

A two woman ticket for the dems in 2016? Very interesting. I see Phyllis has made a cameo appearance. She is and always will be a nut case.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-27-14 10:07 PM

I think it would have to be something like that, Randi.


Too many people hate the Clintons--BUT an all female ticket would be soooooo in-your-face. And, unbeatable.

Maybe the GOPers will come up with Bush-Cheney again. Jeb and Liz this time.

It's all so possible.

Scary, too.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-14 1:57 PM

I wonder what a Sanders/Warren ticket would look like. The two are champions for the middle class. I honestly haven't looked to deep on how they stand on other issues, though.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-13-14 2:52 PM

MCW: Republicans have attacked Sanders as an "ineffective extremist"--so, you know, going in, that he's a great candidate.

Sanders also endorses Scandinavian-stye social democracy. My user name ain't svensota for nothin'.

Sanders/Warren is an inspired combination that the Founding Fathers (bless 'em) would love to see us elect in 2016.

You betcha'.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web