Posts tagged ‘Sam Reed’

June 16, 2010

Herrera Gains More Establishment Endorsements

by lewwaters

For all of the cries of not being the “establishment candidate,” Jaime Herrera, candidate for the 3rd Congressional District, seems to keep rolling up the premature establishment party machine endorsements and boasting of the endorsement by our RINO Secretary of State, Sam Reed, at a recent forum.

With the primaries not held until August 17, the so far three county Republican Party endorsing her and doing their members and voters in their counties a huge disservice, as I previously wrote about when Cowlitz and Pacific Counties decided to make decisions for their voters and issue endorsements long before the primaries are held.

A breakdown of the counties can be seen at Jaime Herrera Watch

From Herrera’s website,

Wahkiakum County GOP Votes to Endorse Jaime Herrera
Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Jaime Herrera announced today that she received the endorsement of the Wahkiakum County Republican party in her campaign to replace retiring Brian Baird for Congress in Southwest Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.

Last night, grassroots individuals from the Wahkiakum County GOP voted to support Herrera’s candidacy during their central committee meeting. Wahkiakum became the third county Republican organization to endorse Herrera, adding to a list that includes the Pacific and Cowlitz County parties. She remains the only Republican candidate to have earned endorsements from county grassroots GOP organizations.

“This citizens’ movement to bring fresh leadership to Congress and restore jobs to Southwest Washington continues to grow,” said Herrera. ‘The only way to win this election is by having grassroots individuals throughout this region get on board. I’m honored by this endorsement’.”

I hate to burst Jaime’s bubble, but organized parties are not exactly “grassroots individuals,” they are organized parties. Same Reed is hardly a conservative. I would describe as a bit left of center, hardly what one would classify as “grassroots” either.

There remain two other candidates, David Castillo and David Hedrick. To date, Castillo is the only one is consistently articulating clearly on his stand on issues or background.

Jaime remains vague on issues and didn’t even make a statement on immigration until AFTER goaded into it and then, it too was vague. Does Anyone Know Jaime Herrera’s Stand On Illegal Immigration?

She has yet to fulfill the promise she made to me on February 9, 2010, when she called me at home, to provide her reasoning for co-sponsorship and voting for HB 1329, a bill that would have forced childcare centers into public unions, after those child care centers had declined the offer to join voluntarily. A Phone Chat With Jaime Herrera.

Instead, weeks later, her campaign manager sent out a memo accusing those of us who dare ask about her questionable judgment of spreading falsehoods about her. Herrera Campaigns Attempt At Damage Control.
Left unexplained is just Who Is Jaime Herrera? What is it that brings her followers, after barely over two years in the legislature, never serving a day in the Military, never holding any private job, sketchy voting record and eagerness to leave the job just over two years ago she claimed there was nothing else she would rather have, that merits such Ron Paulian backing?

And now, she comes forth with the thought that a third establishment party endorsement is “grassroots?”

I guess she was correct when she chimed in that she is “not your typical Republican conservative.”

Imagine the rude awakening she and the establishment parties promoting her will receive should they succeed in getting her the nomination and she folds like a house cards against Democrat Denny Heck.

At the convention this past weekend, you said you and your husband were saving to buy a house. Is it safe to assume that house you are saving for is not located here in Washington State?

Sorry hon, but you’ll get no favors from him like you did others to get where you are today.

January 25, 2010

Columbian Urges Supreme Court to Listen to AG McKenna on R-71 Signers

by lewwaters

It’s not very often that we see our local paper, the Columbian promoting or in agreement with a Republican. Usually, if they are, the Republican is either a left-leaning Republican, a RINO or is mistakenly supporting a position that will further the countries rush to socialism.

Such is the case I see in the January 25, 2010 editorial, In Our View, Jan. 25: Identify the Signers, supporting the release of the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the petition that placed R-71, a citizen referendum to bring the Domestic Partnership law before voters, on last Novembers ballot.

Even before the election was held, gay activists were calling for releasing the names, addresses and signatures of the petition signers to them so they could place the information on searchable web pages, ostensibly to “contact and educate” people who disagree with the gay agenda.

Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters

A clear example of the intent is displayed by disturbed gay activist, John Bisceglia at Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

Ignoring, or perhaps looking forward to, the intimidation tactics gay activists claim they will be making once they have the signers personal information, the Columbian Editorial says,

“Washingtonians have two Republicans working feverishly to protect the public’s right to know how its government works. Secretary of State Sam Reed has repeated his vow to “defend Washington citizens’ strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public’s belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.”

“And the man who will lead that defense, literally, is Attorney General Rob McKenna, who will argue the case before the high court. We hope McKenna is as successful in this effort as he was a couple of years ago when he convinced the Supreme Court to approve (by a 7-2 vote) Washington state’s top two primary.”

It is no stretch for me to claim that these are two “Republicans” with a very shaky position in future support with many Republicans in Washington State.

Gay activists twist the intent of anonymity of the signers of petitions to facilitate their intent of intimidation and apparently Columbian editors support that tactic.

Missed by all is the recent partially dissenting opinion issued by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the Court ruling overturning portions of the campaign finance laws. Although Justice Thomas’ opinion isn’t directly addressing the pending R-71 case, his words have relevancy to it. In that 6-page opinion he wrote,

“Congress may not abridge the “right to anonymous speech” based on the “ ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information,’ ” id., at 276 (quoting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 348(1995)).”
“Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result.”
“The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”
“These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California.”
“Irony aside, the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—‘the advent of the Internet’ enables ‘prompt disclosure of expenditures,’ which ‘provide[s]’ political opponents ‘with the information needed’ to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.”

You needn’t be an attorney or constitutional scholar to see the farsightedness and wisdom in Justice Thomas’ words. Allowing gay activists access to such information to be made available as they wish opens the door to preventing citizen involvement in government.

Democrat, Republican or Independent, once such tactics become acceptable, as they will, what citizen will be able to feel safe exercising their “right to anonymous speech” as what group would refrain from using underhanded tactics used against them?

Whether intentionally or not, the Columbian is actually encouraging LESS citizen involvement in government at a time we see our freedoms and liberties slowly being chipped away.

Strangely silent is the Columbian on identifying legislators that pack bills with earmarks, as they were last year on investigating and revealing any documents on the Brian Baird alleged death threat story, but they wish ordinary citizens who may support an issue they oppose to be given to gay activists for purpose of intimidation.

Should they succeed in threatening citizens from participating in government by such acts of public intimidation, will it be too far away that we will see similar tactics imposed on how we vote?

The Columbian continues to face financial difficulties and such positions designed to take more rights from citizens from will not bring their finances back into the black.

Speculation around the state is that Attorney General Rob McKenna has designs on running for governor in the future.

If he does it may have to be as a Democrat as Republican support for McKenna has been drying up with such positions as this in direct opposition to Republican Party values.

Wake up, citizens. We are being sold a bill of goods in a gilded package that just moves us towards more a socialistic dictatorship.

January 15, 2010

Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

by lewwaters

Just announced today, the United States Supreme Court will take the case filed over gay activists wanting the names, addresses and signatures of the 138,000 people in Washington State who signed the R-71 petition last year released to them so they may place the names on a searchable web site for the public.

At stake in this case is whether or not opposing sides may seek to intimidate or seek retribution against their fellow citizens for the support of any citizen initiatives in the future.

Most disturbing in this case is the desire of Washington’s Secretary of State, Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna to release those names, addresses and signatures to Gay activists.

R-71 was a citizen initiative to block enhancements to Washington States Domestic Partnership law in 2009 that failed statewide in the election. Almost as soon as the measure qualified for the ballot, Gay activist began their push to have the information on those who signed released so they could make it known publicly who opposed their agenda. This was covered at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters.

Gay activists initially challenged R-71 in court over a claim of signatures being improperly accepted. When that failed to keep the initiative off of the ballot, the quest for the release of the signers’ information began.

Gay activist such as John Bisceglia were openly advocating “violence against property” of those who supported the R-71 initiative, but has since removed the calls for violence from his website.

In September, U.S. district judge Benjamin Settle ruled the information should not be released to the Gay Activists, followed by an appeal from AG McKenna.

Another federal court ordered the names and information released, but an appeal to the US Supreme Court resulted in an injunction being placed on releasing the information by Justice Anthony Kennedy while the Supreme Court considered whether or not to take the case.

While so-called scholars say the case could have broad implications for public disclosure laws, should the names and information be released, it could have broad implications on citizen involvement in government and petitions drives, regardless of what they may represent.

If this type of intimidation is allowed to stand and is approved by the courts, it is my opinion that citizens will shy away from involvement in almost any issue whether citizen input is needed out of fear of retribution by opposers.

Should the Supreme Court rule against those wishing to protect citizens who sign petitions, can the secret ballot being nullified be far behind, given the Unions and Democrats push for ‘Card Check?’

December 21, 2008

Secretary Reed, Mediocrity Is Not The Answer

by lewwaters

washington-seal1The December 12, 2008 edition of the Columbian features in their Letters To The Editor section a letter penned by Washington State’s Secretary of State, Sam Reed. Winning his third run for Secretary, Reed gave us his “words of wisdom” that we Republicans should follow in a letter he wrote, Put party division aside.

One wonders where that advice has been for Democrats since 1994, especially the last 8 years.

Reed, rightfully proud of his accomplishments boasts of being “one of two statewide Republican elected officials left standing,” Attorney General Rob McKenna the other and feels compelled to admonish Republicans on winning elections.

Reed says,

I hope party leaders will resist the self-defeating instinct to move toward ideological dogma, negativism and government-is-bad rhetoric.”

He continues with,

We have thrived for 148 years by championing individual freedom and responsibility, equal rights, fiscal conservatism, strong local and state governments, free enterprise, conservation of natural resources, and a strong national defense.”

Does it escape Secretary Reed that Democrats, to varying degrees, oppose some of those points?

Did Reed miss that we state that “Big” government is what is bad, not government itself?

Have we really “thrived” for so long spending much of that time in the minority? Yes, Republicans have successfully pushed some ideals through, but usually watered down.

How do we maintain a “Strong National Defense” when traditionally, Democrats gut the Military budget?

Most troubling to me is when Reed states,

To move away from the practical, common-sense middle is the wrong impulse.”

No, Secretary Reed, trying to run the middle of the road is what got Republicans into such a mess. What winning Democrat moved middle of the road and gained power? What Democrat recommends they run “middle of the road?”

Reed did win a decisive victory this past November with slightly more than 58% of the votes, but don’t forget he was the incumbent. Incumbents are generally difficult to unseat, unless they have been really poor in office.

It might be safe for a Secretary of State to run middle of the road, since their responsibilities are different than a governor or legislator. But, voters look to the other offices for leadership and ideas, usually.

Middle of the road is not where they need to be and after 8 years of leftist attacks against our president and Republicans in general, this so-called “practical, common-sense middle” is not what we need to regain power.

Reed also recommends, “we must put division aside and get on with collaborative governing.” Does he honestly believe conservatives should compromise our values and principles in favor of the Socialist Left?

Republicans did not gain power in 1994 by making promises of “middle of the road,” although too many moved in that direction once in office. History shows that moving towards the middle, abandoning conservatism and coming under relentless attacks from the Socialist Left, who never moved towards anything remotely resembling a “practical, common-sense middle,” cost the GOP the power they won in 1994.

It must also escape Secretary Reed that the parameters of right and left have shifted farther to the left over the years, placing that “practical, common-sense middle” he recommends, fully on the side of the left.

Conservatives do not need to move left. We need to re-embrace conservatism and expose the Socialist Democrats everywhere we can.

America is in danger of going fully Socialist, if Sam Reed hasn’t noticed. Socialism is not what made America great and is responsible for lowering lifestyles everywhere it has been tried, the most famous being the failed Soviet Union. Nazi Germany was also heavily Socialist under Adolph Hitler’s reign.

One only need look south to Venezuela to see another attempt at socialism failing to better a country and her people.

Secretary Reed, if I wanted to be a Liberal/Socialist Democrat, I’d rejoin that party. I became a Republican due the their conservative stance and taking strong stands on crucial issues, not by embracing what we know will fail.

Middle of the road, mediocrity, is not what Republicans must do. That has not served us well to date and I see no reason it will in the future.

If the GOP thinks conservatives need to sit down and shut up, then they don’t need me. I fully intend to continue exposing socialist moves and their robbing us of basic liberties.

Middle of the road is not what is needed for success, only for mediocrity.

November 4, 2008

You First, King County

by lewwaters

We are down to the wire now. Most have turned in their ballots, or will visit the polls later today in the few places in Washington that haven’t adopted the Mail-In Ballots. Campaigns have done what they can and most have selected whom they will vote for.

I doubt there will be many races closely watched and scrutinized as will be the Presidential Race and of course, our Governor’s race. We all recall the fiasco of 2004 and the ill feelings most from both parties had over how Christine Gregoire became the Governor over Dino Rossi, after three recounts.

Supposedly, corrections were made to our election system to prevent a recurrence. Thousands of unlawful voters were removed from the polls, we were told. Secretary of State, Sam Reed tells us he has improved the system greatly, but as we can see, there are still serious shortcomings.

On a recent Victoria Taft program, Sam Reed washer guest. I emailed her to ask Sam if all Counties could withhold reporting their ballot counts until after King County reported theirs, due to the appearance in 2004 of mass voter fraud coming out of the County, which “found” many “lost or misplaced” ballots that gave the extremely narrow win margin to Gregoire.

Caught off guard, Reed hemmed and hawed a bit before saying he could understand why voters in the rest of the state may feel leery, but that King County was reliable and if other Counties chose to wait, that was their prerogative.

Thinking maybe we could have a trustworthy election this time, imagine my surprise when I saw him quoted in the Columbian saying, “voters shouldn’t expect to know definitive results on Election Night because much of the state’s vote is still outstanding, and because King County’s results will come in slower than the rest of the state,” adding, “Unless the outcome of the race is very lopsided, it could change as more ballots come in.”

That sounds too much to me like a forewarning of a likely repeat of the 2004 fiasco, unless, like he said, the vote is extremely lopsided.

I fully realize King County is a large heavily populated county, but counting upwards of 3,000 more ballots than you have registered voters carries a distinct appearance of fraud.

It should be remembered that in the recounts, it was king County that “discovered” so many missing ballots and gave Gregoire the win in the third recount, after Rossi won the first two and the general election.

It should also be remembered that King County is predominantly Liberal Democrats who have no compunction winning anyway they can, while crying we are the fraudulent ones.

Frankly, and I know I am not alone, I do not trust King County to deliver honest vote counts, especially if another squeaker of an election happens. Not after 2004 and not after hearing Sam Reed’s comments.

The only way I can think of the keep this election honest, whoever may win, is for other counties to withhold reporting their counts and give King County the honor of reporting first, this time. No chance to see how many votes are needed to be found to ensure a Democrat wins.

After you King County, you first! We’re watching this time.