Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Where do candidates stand on the real issues?

Letter by Dianne Weaver, Olympia on July 17, 2012 at 11:12 am with 8 Comments »
July 17, 2012 12:00 pm

I’ve read every word of every one of The News Tribune’s editorial endorsements of the candidates for every state and federal position, whether or not it pertains to my specific district. And I am disappointed.

Why? Because I’ve been looking, in vain I might add, for the candidates’ views on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (corporations as “persons,” unfettered donations by political action committees, women’s reproductive rights, equal pay, etc.) as well as immigration issues, Voter ID, repeal of all or part of the Affordable Care Act, etc. The list goes on.

In our area, it is evident that each candidate for federal office is supportive of military issues; it is also evident that every candidate is for a “balanced budget” and for cutting waste in lieu of increasing taxes (at least on the middle class).

Why not inform voters about the real distinctions between them? Let your readers in on what the candidates’ differing positions are on other important issues – not these easy, canned responses to predictable questioning.

Leave a comment Comments → 8
  1. BlaineCGarver says:

    Amen… The difference between communists and capitalists, for example. The American Communist Party ALWAYS pulls for the ‘Crat….

  2. Two of the many problems with Republicans:

    They do not comprehend the true meanings of names and words; and

    They always side with big business and the rich against America and Americans.

    (PS: I could have be snarky and say that the KKK and ANP always side with Republicans but in spite of the truth of the statement, it would merely be seen as more mud slinging.)

  3. philichi says:

    probably time to stop voting for the one that the promises to give you stuff. OUr country is now broke. Better vote for the guy that will open up drilling and pipelines. The extra cash could keep out country in business a few more years.

  4. Two of the many problems with xring:

    He confuses fiction for fact.

    He sees a non partisan letter as an opportunity for a radical liberal flim flam rant.

    Thank God, he is never snarky. It only seems that way.

  5. Pchi,
    If we did not vote for Politicians that promised to give us things, we would not be able to vote at all.

    Revising our tax code so the rich paid their taxes at the same actual rates as the rest of us would provide even more dollars for a longer period.

    Requiring domestic crude not be exported until our domestic needs are covered would also help.

    Domestic Crude Production is up under Obama, and there is still plenty of oil on private lands.

    My problem with oldoc is he suffers from right wing transference, myopia and astigmatism.

    In short, old man you could not tell fact from right wing fiction if said facts came up and head slapped you with a two-by-four.

    Now go back and have you caregiver read BGC’s non-partisan post of July 17,2012, at 12:25 pm

  6. Xring, whether looking at the top 1,5 or 10%, they pay a higher effective tax rate then any other bracket (heck, you do not have to go much farther to hit the ZERO half of filers pay).

    Kind of takes the wind out of your OWS/Buffett sails.

  7. Another lie from CT7.

    The one tax form released by the Mitt-flopper shows he paid at an effective rate of 14%.

    That same year I paid at 28%.

    And I doubt you got much below 25%.

    When Mark Twin said ‘man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to’ he had yet to meet consevacons such as yourself.

  8. One example. IRS.gov, look it up.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0