Reuter and challenger Steve Rader running to replace controversial commissioner Arne Mortensen in electoral contest between a moderate Republican and constitutionalist
We have a real opportunity this election. Two candidates, Norquist and Reuter, believe in the future of our beautiful county. Their opponents don’t believe in the future and would apply their personal political agenda on us. The contrast couldn’t be more stark. Are we ready to turn the page. For the sake of generations to come after us, I certainly hope so.
Rader was a big NO for me all the way around, especially when he answered the question on the Constitution. There are a lot of red flags with him (and Ferrell).
Reuter appeals to me much more as a person that is really interested in listening to constituents, doing good for our county, and learning from others. Our county could finally come out from under its dark cloud with wins for Reuter and Norquest. They have my vote!
Once again Andre impresses me with his cleared eyed, real world, and insightful analysis of things politics in Cowlitz County.
He makes the case well for Mike Reuter. And having watched so many positive things that have happened in Kalama, gotten to know Mike, I agree with the points made.
Having listened to Mr. Rader and done as much research as is possible, my view of him as a Candidate and possible Commissioner, is that he is tilted towards a more Libertarian prospective.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal, interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma is a position of faith ,not an assertion of fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. Mr. Radar's view's are an opinion about our Constitution, not fact.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma is a position of faith ,not an assertion of fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. Mr. Radar's view's are an opinion about our Constitution, not fact.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma is a position of faith ,not an assertion of fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. Mr. Radar's view's are an opinion about our Constitution, not fact.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma does is a position of faith not fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. We are dealing with opinions not facts. I disagree with Mr. Radar's interpretation of constitutionalism. It sounds like anarchy to me.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma does is a position of faith not fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. We are dealing with opinions not facts. I disagree with Mr. Radar's interpretation of constitutionalism. It sounds like anarchy to me.
We have a real opportunity this election. Two candidates, Norquist and Reuter, believe in the future of our beautiful county. Their opponents don’t believe in the future and would apply their personal political agenda on us. The contrast couldn’t be more stark. Are we ready to turn the page. For the sake of generations to come after us, I certainly hope so.
Rader was a big NO for me all the way around, especially when he answered the question on the Constitution. There are a lot of red flags with him (and Ferrell).
Reuter appeals to me much more as a person that is really interested in listening to constituents, doing good for our county, and learning from others. Our county could finally come out from under its dark cloud with wins for Reuter and Norquest. They have my vote!
Once again Andre impresses me with his cleared eyed, real world, and insightful analysis of things politics in Cowlitz County.
He makes the case well for Mike Reuter. And having watched so many positive things that have happened in Kalama, gotten to know Mike, I agree with the points made.
Having listened to Mr. Rader and done as much research as is possible, my view of him as a Candidate and possible Commissioner, is that he is tilted towards a more Libertarian prospective.
Please do your homework regarding everything on the November 5th ballot and most importantly, vote!
We are all "constitutionalists". This monicker means nothing until it is defined by the author.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal, interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma is a position of faith ,not an assertion of fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. Mr. Radar's view's are an opinion about our Constitution, not fact.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma is a position of faith ,not an assertion of fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. Mr. Radar's view's are an opinion about our Constitution, not fact.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma is a position of faith ,not an assertion of fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. Mr. Radar's view's are an opinion about our Constitution, not fact.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma does is a position of faith not fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. We are dealing with opinions not facts. I disagree with Mr. Radar's interpretation of constitutionalism. It sounds like anarchy to me.
Being a "constitutionalist" requires a specific interpretation of a constitution, much like being a religious "fundamentalist" implies a particular, usually literal interpretation of the Bible. These are interpretive positions, not the truth. Adherence to dogma does is a position of faith not fact.
There are ranges of opinions about the implications and inferences of our founding document. We are all "constitutionalists" of one sort or another. We are dealing with opinions not facts. I disagree with Mr. Radar's interpretation of constitutionalism. It sounds like anarchy to me.
Damn can you say anything else?