Friday, October 22, 2010

40 Days, and a note to Kay

Dear Congresswoman Kay Granger:

I am a voter who lives in your district here in Texas. Most of the time I tend to vote for Republican candidates. However, though you are a Republican, I have never voted for you, and I never will.

You see, Congresswoman Granger, you are pro-abortion. I know, you call it pro-"choice," but by "choice" you mean "a woman's choice to pay someone to kill the developing human being in her womb." It's no wonder that you leave the "...to pay someone to kill her baby..." part off of the phrase "pro-choice;" the choice you're talking about is an ugly, ugly thing.

And while you claim to be a "moderate" on the question of killing unborn human beings, you are actually listed as one of the "stars" of the pro-choice organization The WISH List, an organization which exists to help elect pro-choice-(to-kill-unborn-humans) women to the House and the Senate. You've benefited from this organization's fundraising efforts and serve on the group's honorary advisory board.

Most of the time I think of America's Congress as being comprised of shallow, power-hungry, easily purchased men and women whose self-interest trumps any other consideration, and whose moral principles have the depth of a stick of butter on the sidewalk on a hot Texas August afternoon. That to this charming character sketch some of you have decided to add contempt for human life and the belief that whole classes of human beings are fair game for slaughter by virtue of their ages, condition of dependence, and for the crime of inconvenient existence can only detract from the already low esteem in which I hold politicians generally.

So, Congresswoman, you don't have my support, or my vote. You've never had it--but you've never missed it, either, as the citizens of this area seem content to keep sending you back to the House year after year. Maybe they're just opportunists who realize that keeping you in Washington keeps you away from Texas; it's the most charitable assumption I can make about them, anyway.

One of these years the local Democratic Party will wise up and run a pro-life Democrat against you. I'll look forward to voting for that candidate.

Sincerely,

Erin Manning

5 comments:

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I don't know if I'd vote for this woman. She might favor repealing the federal minimum wage, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the corporate income tax. I'd gladly vote for a pro-life Democrat who would raise the minimum wage to $10/hour, and endorse a program to build high-speed maglev rail routes all over the United States.

Red Cardigan said...

Siarlys, are you a fellow maglev train enthusiast? I love those things, and wish we had passenger rail routes with maglev trains!

:)

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Now if you were in Wisconsin, would you vote for a pro-life candidate for governor who thinks building high-speed rail is a waste of taxpayer money, or a pro-choice Roman Catholic candidate who supports high speed rail?

Admittedly, the line in question is NOT maglev, and I think that is wrong. President Obama seems determined to stick his toe in the water, rather than making an all-out commitment to a maglev network. Yes, I'd like to see those all over the country. When a line is built from Green Bay to San Antonio, perhaps we can take turns meeting each other for lunch at one end or the other.

Red Cardigan said...

Siarlys, I'd vote for the pro-life candidate, and hope to change his/her mind about the trains.

It's a lot easier to do that, than to vote for a pro-train candidate who thinks that babies are disposable medical waste.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Fair enough. It wasn't much of an introduction, but it continued the thread of the previous discussion.

Now, if we could put all the unemployed people and welfare recipients in the country to work in apprenticeship programs building maglev rail, with appropriate limitations on work hours so parents still have time to bond with their children, and pay standard apprenticeship wages after an initial training period, then journeymen wages as appropriate to skill and experience, it would cost a lot of money, but we'd be killing to birds with one stone, AND I bet the number of women having abortions would go down sharply, as well as the number of women casually getting pregnant who really aren't able to do right by their children.

Then we can retrain all the social workers who would become superfluous to lay track.