11 Comments
User's avatar
Rosemary Siipola's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Erin's avatar

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!

Expand full comment
Jim Hill's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Claire's avatar

Please do your homework regarding everything on the November 5th ballot and most importantly, vote!

Expand full comment
Edward L. Phillips's avatar

We are all "constitutionalists". This monicker means nothing until it is defined by the author.

Expand full comment
Edward L. Phillips's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Edward L. Phillips's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Edward L. Phillips's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Edward L. Phillips's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Edward L. Phillips's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Donna's avatar

Damn can you say anything else?

Expand full comment