This is noteworthy because it is an area of MN that is considered a stronghold for Reagan Democrats.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/editorial/9942217.htm

Posted on Sun, Oct. 17, 2004

Sen. Kerry for president, and a call for unity beyond Nov. 2

Democratic challenger can best address local needs while fostering global respect

The promise (of 2000) has eluded us, and the man who pledged to unite the country and the world has failed in that mission. It's time for a change.

At the end -- if one could be identified -- of the 2000 presidential election, Americans seemed divided as ever. Both Democrats and Republicans claimed their candidate had really won the race, the balance of power in the Senate lay in a single vote, and Washington seemed destined for intractable deadlock. What little hope there was of forging a government that could function, let alone one that would form a more perfect union, lay in the promise of the newly sworn-in commander-in-chief to be a "uniter, not a divider."

How distant that hope now seems, and in retrospect, how almost trivial the worries of that time. Though the economic boom of the 1990s was headed toward recession, the country still enjoyed a $5.6 trillion surplus. Though al-Qaeda operatives were well along in their evil mission -- unbeknownst to both the outgoing and incoming administrations -- that would change America forever, the country still reigned as the world's only uncontested superpower, and one at peace.

And less than a year later, when Osama bin Laden's ghastly plot was realized, the United States gained even more power in the world, supported by the offerings of sympathy, respect and resolve against terrorism from every civilized nation on earth.

But sadly, the promise of those times has eluded us, and the man who pledged to unite the country and world has failed in that mission. It's time for a change.

We are polarized to degrees not seen since the Vietnam War, if not the eve of the Civil War. Internationally and domestically, the unity felt on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, has evaporated, and even the coalition that joined the United States in its campaign in Iraq has largely disintegrated. War rages in that country with no visible end or obtainable goal in sight, and bin Laden remains at large while Americans die at a rate hauntingly reminiscent of the losses in Vietnam.

At home, the recession has been reversed but the surplus wiped out, replaced by a
$4.3 trillion deficit about which the president displays little concern. Jobs have grown scarcer and health care costs have skyrocketed for individuals and businesses. And in a nation awakened to terror, few profess to feel any safer in the color-coded confusion alerts emitting from Washington.

Sen. John Kerry is the best hope for regaining America's promise, offering the country a fresh start internationally and a return of the presidency to an office of stature and respect. While the down-home folksiness of George W. Bush may make him a better companion in a bar or coffee shop, the gravity of war and the economy demand more than simplistic platitudes. They also require the leadership qualities that will return the office to one where the buck stops, not one that blames failures on faulty intelligence or a bad economy held over from a previous administration. Indeed, in answer to a current Bush commercial asking "Has any president been dealt a tougher hand?" the replies are as numerous as they are obvious -- Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington, if not Nixon, Madison or any number who succeeded assassinated predecessors.

So will Kerry's plans for America -- and for our parochial interests, his policies that affect northern Minnesota -- work? Obviously, he offers no silver bullets, but his attention to affordable health care addresses a major concern in our extraction industries. Likewise, his environmental policies -- crucial to Northland tourism -- show promise. Though his opponent charges he cannot achieve those goals and eliminate the deficit, at least Kerry has announced the intention of cutting it, halving that debt by 2008. On international matters -- and that means the security of the nation and the world -- Kerry has a far better chance at regaining the respect that Bush has squandered.

While we believe Kerry to be the better choice, there is something at stake greater than which candidate wins on Nov. 2 (or beyond that date should the ghosts of 2000 reappear). Specifically, it's the reunification of Americans into a populace that can support a leader who in turn respects and honors their differences. The words of the president truly dealt the worst hand in history may dictate the duty for us all today:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right let us strive to bind up the nation's wounds (for) a just and lasting peace."

Otherwise, divided against ourselves, we cannot stand.

You Democrats talk of Bush's lies, but isn't it a lie to suggest that Republicans want to ~eliminate~ the so-called "safety net" ? Ron Paul of Texas would vote to do it, but it's simply FALSE to accuse Bush of being a libertarian. Welfare and Social Security spending have increased every year of his term of office.

Frankly, it's wrong for you people to force me to pay over 15 % of my salary down the Social Security rathole. I say phase out this program as soon as possible---that's a real privitization I'll go for.

And kindly indulge me while I rant on John Kerry. Kerry supports the immoral and ineffective "war on drugs." Kerry wants to continue to persecute people whose "crime" is to use chemicals not approved by the state. Bush stinks but so does Kerry. To hell with them both!

And spare me the standard anti-libertarian responses. I know them by heart. Just stop accusing the GOP of being libertarian in any meaningful sense, OK?

Privatizing social security? That's what you choose to point out from that article?

DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE! Privatizing social security is just about the LEAST frightening thing there.

Read it! It's madness. Look how they talk about themselves. Look how they understand themselves.

And you're talking about them wanting to privatize social security?

That's not what this election is about. This election is far more fundamental than that. It's about what kind of country this is going to be. The Republicans know that. I often think the Democrats don't. And, frankly, if they lose on election day it's because of that misunderstanding.

There's a lot to be worried about coming out of that article. Deadly serious stuff. In comparison privatizing social security is a minor distraction.

This country is in serious danger.

Then again, what do I know, I live in a reality based community.

I've been following the Texas Five very closely - check out my blog: Burnt Orange Report for the latest.

Right now, this is how things are looking:

Lean Dem: TX-17 - Arlene Wohlgemuth has run a completely inept campaign and Chet Edwards has massive GOP support. Edwards has a poll out that shows him with a ten point lead.  It's probably a little bit closer, but Edwards is in the drivers seat.

Toss-up: TX-1 - Max Sandlin has run a very strong race (after starting out slow), and he's probably just about even against Louis Gohmert.  Sandlin's been endorsed by the NRA and that means a lot in this east Texas district.

Toss-up/Lean GOP - TX-2, TX-32 - I'd say that both Nick Lampson and Martin Frost are trailing by about 2-3 points.  Each has a chance of winning, but both need great minority turnouts (Lampson - Blacks in Beaumont, Frost - Hispanics in west Dallas, Oak Cliff), along with winning a few more undecideds.  Both are tough, but very winnable.

Likely Republican - TX-19 - Charlie Stenholm is trailing Randy Neugebaur by double digits in two recent polls.  Stenholm has held on in overwhelmingly Republican districts for well over two decades, but it finally looks as if he'll be defeated.