This little piece of work was handed out illiberally to students up at Western Washington University last week. It's a pledge card that suggests that four local candidates are in the can on a major issue that hasn't been through the complete review process. And ho-yeah, it says vote for this foursome if you WANT TO SAVE THE PLANET.
These people (at least two of the four, who are already serving/incumbents) have a legal and moral duty to be fair-handed when the time comes to decide the GPT (Gateway Pacific Terminal) thing. This advertising promises they'll do something else.
WE won't tell you who to vote for, but if other candidates are saying they'll vote "for" GPT, that would be just as bad. Our position is that voting for pre-judged outcomes on anything is bad news.
WE'd just as soon see people skip voting altogether if they want our local self-government to be reduced to "winners take the spoils". If that's the world you want, a government where candidates pre-judge issues, we'd rather see you have a nice meal, take a bike ride, get stoned, and save the stamp.
Whatcom WINS telling people to follow blindly is despicable. This promotion pushes every pretense of ethics over the cliff. Is that what "being a Democrat" has become? (Whatcom WINS is the Whatcom Democrats marketing strategy, or battle cry, this year).
What's heroic about elected officials making up their minds in advance?
That's downright indefensible, not only technically but morally unethical. Voting for pre-judgement if it suits your taste splits the community and pushes it down a dangerous and slippery slope.
This promotion also lays out a guilt trip. What's it saying - if you don't vote for these four, you're voting to trash the planet? Apparently.
Does anybody actually believe that the "future of the global climate" is resting on the shoulders of this county, on this election (and its voters)? That's a wild claim. People are cashing in on drama here - emotional theater. Use your head and keep this in proportion.
These people (at least two of the four, who are already serving/incumbents) have a legal and moral duty to be fair-handed when the time comes to decide the GPT (Gateway Pacific Terminal) thing. This advertising promises they'll do something else.
WE won't tell you who to vote for, but if other candidates are saying they'll vote "for" GPT, that would be just as bad. Our position is that voting for pre-judged outcomes on anything is bad news.
WE'd just as soon see people skip voting altogether if they want our local self-government to be reduced to "winners take the spoils". If that's the world you want, a government where candidates pre-judge issues, we'd rather see you have a nice meal, take a bike ride, get stoned, and save the stamp.
Whatcom WINS telling people to follow blindly is despicable. This promotion pushes every pretense of ethics over the cliff. Is that what "being a Democrat" has become? (Whatcom WINS is the Whatcom Democrats marketing strategy, or battle cry, this year).
What's heroic about elected officials making up their minds in advance?
That's downright indefensible, not only technically but morally unethical. Voting for pre-judgement if it suits your taste splits the community and pushes it down a dangerous and slippery slope.
This promotion also lays out a guilt trip. What's it saying - if you don't vote for these four, you're voting to trash the planet? Apparently.
Does anybody actually believe that the "future of the global climate" is resting on the shoulders of this county, on this election (and its voters)? That's a wild claim. People are cashing in on drama here - emotional theater. Use your head and keep this in proportion.
Clockwise from left: SuperMann (Ken Mann), Blazing Barry (Buchanan), Rud-Urban (Browne), Captain Save-The-Planet (Carl Weimer)
...for these guys, "in the tank" ? This pledge card - let there be no doubt that it says (wink-wink) that electing these candidates will trashcan the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal. The fudgy-wudgy phrasing about "how America uses its coal" doesn't fool anybody. This relays "vote this way, get your way" as a guarantee. That's a stone's throw from "winners take the spoils." Is that your idea of good (self) government?
That's pretty insulting when you stop and think about it. The people we elect aren't supposed to pre-judge things. If they got elected, they should recuse themselves (as if they would). Campaign promises are rarely worth the paper they're printed on.
Now, some people are so fanatical they think that "the ends justify the means" and pre-judging is okay in this case. Whaa??? Are these candidates saying "Who needs the Corps of Engineers and the EPA?" Would they ignore any law or regulation that suits them?
It comes down to trust and integrity. Do you want honesty and fairness, or just one result? Can you trust anybody who would act like that? These people take an oath to be objective; to uphold and defend the rule of law, instead of popular fads.
WE could go on, but why not let George Carlin close for us, in his own inimitable way? (Caution, strong language!)
That's pretty insulting when you stop and think about it. The people we elect aren't supposed to pre-judge things. If they got elected, they should recuse themselves (as if they would). Campaign promises are rarely worth the paper they're printed on.
Now, some people are so fanatical they think that "the ends justify the means" and pre-judging is okay in this case. Whaa??? Are these candidates saying "Who needs the Corps of Engineers and the EPA?" Would they ignore any law or regulation that suits them?
It comes down to trust and integrity. Do you want honesty and fairness, or just one result? Can you trust anybody who would act like that? These people take an oath to be objective; to uphold and defend the rule of law, instead of popular fads.
WE could go on, but why not let George Carlin close for us, in his own inimitable way? (Caution, strong language!)
RSS Feed
