Archive for Tuesday, March 3, 1992

WINTER SUPPORT

March 3, 1992

Advertisement

To the editor:

In your Saturday paper, you published a letter to the editor that launched an insensitive series of attacks against Sen. Wint Winter. I am certainly not always in agreement with Sen. Winter I am not even Republican. But that letter so besmirches the reputation and intelligence of one or our fine state senators that it must be answered.

First, the letter attacks Sen. Winter for his ``inconsistency'' in opposing the proposed casino while he himself ``gambles'' at charitable events and on occasional visits to Las Vegas. Regardless of how I feel about the issue of legalizing gambling, I certainly see nothing wrong with participating in a charity bingo night or putting some quarters into a slot machine in Las Vegas while still believing that the establishment of a gambling city would not be in the best interest of the citizens of Kansas.

Secondly, Sen. Winter is taken to task because in the case of the death of a 23-month-old child, he apparently opposed ``sure and swift punishment'' for the killers but advocated welfare regulations that would ``monitor'' certain families that seem vulnerable to crime. Irrespective of how one feels about the death penalty, how can one even suggest that revenge after the deed has been committedd is preferable to taking steps that would prevent the murder in the first place?

Thirdly, Sen. Winter is charged again with inconsistency for saying that he would never want an abortion in his family but that he is pro choice. Once again, without taking a stand myself on the issue, what on earth is wrong with saying ``I wouldn't do it, but I do not feel I have the right to tell you what to do''?

Finally, the letter takes Sen. Winter to task for taking stands that contradict the teaching and positions of his own church. But isn't this precisely what we would want and expect from our elected representatives? Or does the letter writer seriously propose that the people we elect should not be guided by what they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents, their state, their country, or by the wishes of the voters who elected them; but should instead do only what their particular branch of religion advocates?

Harry G. Shaffer,

2510 Jasu Dr.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...