Tuesday night’s debate between Roger Flygare and Linda Kochmar demonstrated clear differences between the two. Ms. Kochmar, despite claiming that she would make tough choices, repeatedly said she would abide by the will of the voters on a wide range of issues.

Apparently, Ms. Kochmar is unwilling to take principled positions on thorny issues, so one must ask why she wishes to represent us. Mr. Flygare did not equivocate. His positions were clearly laid out.

Ms. Kochmar’s willingness to defer issues of rights to a popular vote is particularly troubling. Had the electorate been asked, we might not have ended slavery, extended women the vote, nor recognized the right to vote for people who owned no property. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes rights as being “inalienable,” meaning that they cannot be taken away. Ms. Kochmar believes that we should compromise that central tenet of modern democracy that preserves the rights of the minority.

We are confronted with two assaults on civil rights: a nationwide Republican led attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy that mandates women’s choice, and an assault on marriage equality. In both cases, Ms. Kochmar said she would kick the can down the road (i.e., bow to the will of the people). In sharp contrast, Mr. Flygare voiced unequivocal support for those rights.

Ms. Kochmar’s weasley response to issues of civil rights surely ought to disqualify her for the state Legislature.

Paul Levy, Federal Way

 

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.