Wow.
State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, a Democratic candidate for governor, says she doesn’t believe people will find anything objectionable in a character reference letter she wrote for a legislative attorney found guilty of possession of child pornography.
The Alma Democrat was one of about a dozen people who wrote character reference letters for David L. Lovell, a former Legislative Council attorney who was found guilty in June of five Class D felony counts of child pornography possession. Vinehout was the only sitting legislator to write in Lovell’s support.
“My mother taught me to hate the sin but not shun the sinner,” Vinehout said in an emailed statement. Her campaign spokesman said she was not available to discuss the letter by phone.
Vinehout either has devastatingly bad judgement or she has a tolerance for child porn. Neither option speaks well for her. Frankly, I thought she was the most viable Democratic candidate so far. Of course, her pro-life position means that she probably wouldn’t have made it through the Democratic primary anyway, but she was the most palpable for the general election… until now.
Vinehout’s letter, printed on her official state letterhead and dated Nov. 11, 2015, describes Lovell as a “hardworking, intelligent, persistent, dedicated public servant” with “extraordinary diplomatic skills.” Lovell was the Legislative Council staff member assigned to a committee she chaired for four years. Vinehout worked with him on that committee and in several other instances, during which he “went above and beyond the call of duty in his work.”
Not surprising.
k:
Just curious, how does policy: “hate the sin but not shun the sinner” work in your world view of absolute truth?
Crybaby.
Reminds me of the time Walker applauded a sex offender.
http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/sex-offender-likely-to-keep-welding-job-at-ariens-b99191366z1-242159951.html/
Off topic and irrelevant
Nord,
I’ll bite. How does saying “not suprising” shun the sinner?
I am not surprised by bad judgment of Democrats. Policy positions usually show a lack of good judgment on many things.
k:
You dodged the question. Do you agree with the quote, or not? If you do, then you must agree with Vinehout and the referral letter. Or is another one of those situations where you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Off-topic personal attacks.
Nord,
That entirely depends if the sinner is repentant. If he is not, then it is appropriate to “shun the sinner”, it would be wrong to facilitate or enable ongoing evil. I don’t know enough about this child porn consuming lawyer to know if he is repentant.
k:
But you knew enough about the situation to make a snarky comment, then defend your self with the old, “it depends” response. Not surprising.
More off-topic personal attacks.
little paulette:
Explain how it was off topic, and demonstrate how your comments aren’t personal attacks yet mine are. be specific. And please use facts.
Thanks.
Go cry to the proprietor again, crybaby.
There you go lying again, little paul. I have never complained to Owen. Never. And he could clear up that misconception if he so chose. But he would rather let you continue to be the fool, twisting and and spinning your petty lies.
And you dodged the question by telling yet another lie. No surprise.
You hijacked this thread from the start with an off-topic attack on Kevin.
But that’s fine. Everyone here recognizes you are a troll with zero credibility.
Go cry to the proprietor if you don’t like it. Or you can leave. Most of us would prefer the latter.
As I asked before, how was my question off topic? Are you afraid to answer? Or not smart enough to have an independent thought? And it sounds like you are the one complaining to Owen.
Please leave. A number of commenters here would agree.