Letter: Heitkamp, Gulleson would bring more radicalism
Liberal extremist Democrats Heidi Heitkamp and Pam Gulleson are promising to avoid partisanship. This sounds nice except for the fact that Democrats and their biased liberal media define bi-partisanship as furthering the Democratic Party’s radical socialist agenda by giving the Democratic Party everything it wants.
Their idea of working with the other side is getting liberal Republicans like John McCain to cross the isle to help further liberal Democrat agendas.
Liberal Democrats Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy almost always voted against the American people to avoid partisan politics. They voted for amnesty for illegal aliens and against drilling for oil. They avoided partisanship as Democrats spent the Social Security and Medicare trust funds on entitlement programs intended to get Democrats elected in the next election.
There was no partisanship from Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy when they voted to gut Medicare by $700 billion and replace the greatest health care system in the world with a government run system of waiting lines and death panels.
They chose their definition of bi-partisanship over their promise to protect Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps a system where our Social Security and Medicare taxes go into a private account that we own and politicians cannot touch isn’t such a bad idea.
With Heitkamp and Gulleson, we would get more of the same radicalism. They will always vote to advance the Democrat’s radical socialist agenda even if it means gutting Social Security and Medicare and subjecting seniors to death panels.
In a world where government imposed poverty, mass murder and prisons have always been the norm, the United States of America has a unique place in history because we are free. If being bi-partisan means going along with replacing our freedoms with the tyranny and socialism that other countries have, then I want partisanship.
Brent McCarthy, Bismarck