Letter: Endorsement of Newhouse wrong

The editorial of 9/23 had great praise for Christine Brown, “impressive, personable, vocal, forceful and Brown would work hard to represent regional interests.”

For Newhouse, who received their endorsement, they (said), ”quiet, poised, careful and we don’t agree with all of his votes,” and a fuzzy answer to a question as to why he won’t support immigration reform.

Newhouse stated he couldn’t support current proposals because Trump would veto them and by not supporting them he would get a seat at the table for other immigration proposals.

First off, do we want or need someone representing our district who won’t stand by their convictions? Not able to stand up and be counted? Second, Newhouse refuses to hold townhall meetings open to all of the public. Why? How can he represent all of his constituents if he won’t listen to them?

Civics 101, Mr Newhouse, (there are) three branches of government, with checks and balances on each. His job is to have a check on the president, not be a rubber stamp. And finally, if Newhouse doesn’t have the moral strength to stand for his convictions in one instance, why should we believe he would in an other?

This story was originally published October 2, 2018 at 11:51 PM.