According to Dave Reichert's re-election web site, the Seattle Times has endorsed the candidate with this statement, "The former King County sheriff has an impressive record of public service and has shown a conscience-driven independent streak that reflects his moderate district."
Conscience-driven? Conscience-driven? What definition of conscience are they using? And what pray tell is "moderate" about allowing the state, the court, a quasi-husband, and a business to conspire in the killing of an innocent human being. And if that's how the Seattle Times defines "public service" then we need a whole new vocabulary to just read the newspaper in Seattle.
Reichert is now bragging about his lack of conscience in his latest TV ads with this line, "I opposed Bush on Schiavo."
That a former police officer, an officer of the law, would employ braggadocio to discuss a crime he did nothing to prevent and use it as a political strategy for wooing voters does not seem to bode well for our state or nation.
With each and every campaign in Washington it's becoming more and more clear that the ideals of the Constitution and the basic principle that all men are endowed with the unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness have been abandoned by those elected to uphold those values. The reality is I suppose more frightening and jolting to the conscience if we consider that our politicians are being elected for the specific purpose of violating those principles and... the state's largest newspaper cheers them on.
If the statement "I opposed Bush on Schiavo", i.e. "I helped kill and innocent woman" is actually a rallying point for voters and specifically "moderates" then it is apparent that our fellow citizens cannot be counted on to protect us either. For decades now the "protecting" professions -- the police, politicians, doctors, and judges -- have refused to protect citizens or are actively involved in attacks on us. Only those with the money and the votes, which the unborn, the sick, the weak, and disabled don't have, will rule the roost and if you look closely you'll see that those shouting "death!" have the upper-hand when it comes to votes and money.
It has been said that Roe v. Wade created an open season on the unborn. With unfettered euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research a few election cycles away, society is poised to take aim at them as well. On his web site Dave Reichert comes out against "Remote Controlled Hunting" of animals. Too bad he can't take the same position when it comes to people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
To his credit, Dave got an 8/10 rating from the National Right to Life Committee for this last session. (He voted to override President Bush's veto of the "let's destroy tiny humans with taxpayers' money" legislation.)
That makes him better than most of the WA delegation. And a darn sight better than Darcy Burner would do.
I was heartbroken by Reichert's vote on Schiavo, but there is a legitimate 10th amenment argument for him to hide behind I suppose. Not sure where the 10th Amendment figures into his other votes though...
Meanwhile, back to babies... According to the Boston Globe:
"Reichert last year voted against DeGette's bill that would have lifted the federal ban on funding [embryonic stem cell] research but then voted to override the president's veto of that same bill.
Reichert said after the override vote that conversations he had with female staff members helped persuade him to support the research."
Do we know who is staff are? Maybe if the other side can get themselves into positions of influence and change our politicians' minds we could do the same thing rather than slamming them from here?
Post a Comment