Reed supports Wyman as Secretary of State

Dear Editor,

I enthusiastically support Kim Wyman for Secretary of State.
As your Secretary of State for the past twelve years, I fully understand the qualities needed to serve successfully in that position.
It’s not a matter of political party preference.  Instead, it’s the ability to rise above party and oversee elections and the other office functions in a fair, non-partisan way.   Kim Wyman has demonstrated that quality for twelve years as the Thurston County Auditor.  She is endorsed by 66 present and former County Auditors including 24 Democrats.
Kim Wyman would bring remarkable breadth and depth of knowledge and professional experience to the position.   She has been administering elections and historical records for 21 years.
Kim Wyman is the candidate with true vision for the future.  She was selected by the PEW Foundation to be the local government official to serve on a task force on voter registration modernization.
Kim Wyman has received strong endorsements from every endorsing newspaper in the state.
Please join me in voting for Kim Wyman for Secretary of State.

Sam Reed
Secretary of State

Harmsworth has solid plan for Washington

Dear Editor,

In this election there is a real competitive race for state representative in the 44th legislative district. Mark Harmsworth is looking to unseat Hans Dunshee for that position.
In the 16 years that Mr. Dunshee has been in office, he has repeatedly attempted to thwart the will of the voters in this state.
He has voted several times to overturn the two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases and has also attempted to impose a state income tax. On the spending side, he has tried to create a New Deal style jobs program that would have put us in debt for decades.
For every challenge faced by the state, Dunshee’s only answer appears to be “spend more!”
The better choice this election is Mark Harmsworth. Mark is an experienced manager at Microsoft and is also serving in the Mill Creek City Council.
Mark is a conservative, but he does not want to slash government spending. He simply wants to keep spending in line with current revenue. The way he proposes to do so is to prioritize government programs and focus spending on those priorities. He has identified the highest priorities as public safety and schools.
I agree with this approach and support him in this election. I encourage your readers to vote for Mark Harmsworth.

Bruce Morton
Lake Stevens

Dear Editor,
 
The most urgent crisis facing America at this time is, arguably, our $16 trillion-dollar national debt. 
In a recent 36-page report released by the Department of the Treasury of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2012 through Sept. 30, 2012, it shows that for every $7 the government has, it has spent $11 … which is comparable to a family earning $70,000/year, but spending $110,000/year (while already deep in debt). 
For this reason alone, Americans should vote for Mitt Romney for President of the United States. 
Romney has extensive business experience and a record of leadership and fiscal responsibility which makes him uniquely qualified for the Oval Office. 
You should have received your ballot in the mail by now; be sure and mark it for Mitt Romney for President!
 
Natalie Lavering
Lake Stevens
 

 Tolerance is a two-way street

Dear Editor,

The homosexual community often calls those opposed to gay marriage, intolerant bigots or theocrats. They are insulting the same people who passed R-71, the anything but marriage act. Intolerant bigots or theocrats would not have passed R-71.
It seems to me that the activists in the homosexual community are the intolerant ones. Those who would reject R-74 have been very accommodating to the homosexual community as evidenced by granting them the same rights as heterosexual couples.
We generally feel that, despite our disagreement with the gay lifestyle, we would live and let live. There currently is nothing stopping a homosexual couple from marrying in a church that agrees with their views or from partaking in whatever sort of ceremony they would want.
Given that and the granting of equal rights, redefining marriage for everyone is the intolerant point of view. The heterosexual activist community is disrespecting the traditions and religious beliefs of this country. They would and have harmed religious freedom in this country all in an effort to legally define marriage as between any two persons.
If passed, those who disagree with homosexual marriage for religious or other reasons would be forced to not tolerate the gay lifestyle but would be forced to promote the gay lifestyle.
Already in states where gay marriage is law, young children are being taught about gay marriage at a young age with no opt out or notification for parents. People with religious objections have been sued for not accommodating gay marriages.
It seems to me we already have a good compromise between religious liberty and fair and equal treatment for the homosexual community.
A vote against R-74 is not a vote against homosexual rights, it is a vote to protect the current compromise of religious freedom and equal rights for all citizens, gay or straight.

Keith Johnson
Woodinville