Spokane Congressman George Nethercutt, the presumptive GOP nominee to challenge Sen. Patty Murray next year, is afraid to take a firm stance against racial discrimination. When Nethercutt was asked this weekend whether he voted for I-200 [the successful 1998 ballot measure that banned racial discrimination by Washington government agencies], he replied:
"In my congressional career I have always been inclusive."Nethercutt would probably be a better senator than Patty Murray, but it's hard to believe that in 2003, a representative of the party of Lincoln could be that reluctant to denounce racial discrimination. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 13, 2003 03:20 PMAsked again, he said: "I don't know if that is important. That was four years ago. I'm not a quota person."
Asked a final time, he said: "I don't think it's anybody's business how I voted."
I am not sure from the article if I-200 was a legislative bill or a public referendum. If George Nethercutt cast a vote in a legislature then his vote is a matter of public record. If this was a referendum vote then he is under no obligation what-so-ever to reveal his vote. We all have the right to vote privately and if we choose, to keep it private.
fatman
Posted by: Jim Brown on August 13, 2003 04:29 PMI-200 was a referendum. Of course Nethercutt has every right to keep his vote private. At the same time, those of us who are contemplating whether or not to elect Nethercutt to public office have every right to question why he is unwilling to declare his position on one of the most important issues of our time.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 13, 2003 04:34 PMIt's very obvious why he does not want to reveal his vote. Either way he voted his political opponents will use that info against him. If he voted for it liberals and their willing accomplices in the media will paint him as a "racist". If he voted against it other enemies will paint him as not conservative enough.
Either way I think the guy is a political coward for not answering the question. He should be willing to defend whatever his vote was in the arena of public debate.
I think voting for anyone but... a brick-stupid terrorist sympathizing leftist whore might be a good idea in any State.
Posted by: DANEgerus on August 13, 2003 08:38 PMYeah, that's really sad that Nethercutt is such a gutless weasel, but like DANEgerus says, voting for Patty Murray ain't an option for anyone that actually cares about this state or this country.
Posted by: Brent M Krupp on August 13, 2003 10:24 PMDoes Reed Davis have a chance against Nethercutt? Yes.
Does he have a chance against Murray? probably not.
So we're stuck with the "I will only serve two terms" 4 term congressman as our best chance against "Osama's Day Care Centers" Murray.
irony
Go Cougs!
/irony
42 percent for Nethercutt in the General. Mark it down.
This is a more and more liberal state and George, while he may be a nice man, doesn't have what it takes to win. Period.
This article - and Ramsey's editorial on it Wednesday - is exactly why I'll hold my nose and vote for him, but I won't send him one, red cent.
go dawgs
Posted by: jimg on August 14, 2003 03:38 PMand doing it in a more or less deliberately goofy, kelly clarkson off-the-cuff, laid-back kind of way, I was able to justin timberlake online come at it without my defenses up, without being buy missy elliott online as critical or judgemental. It didnt have to be sublime order johnny depp - it was fun. It didn't have to be profound - it buy britney spears was social. I bring this up because over the last _ several months, I've written something like seven avril lavigne songs straight now where the music is complete and jennifer aniston finished as like I want it, and I don't have the jessica simpson words. And, I've written a few where the words are buy jessica simpson online to that same point, but although I can hear music orlando bloom to set them to, it's nothing solid, or it isn't fully cameroon diaz Right. That's weird for me
Posted by: Jennifer lopez on July 10, 2005 10:15 PM