I'll bet that if we start digging into what she means by "Seattle's extremist policies", we'd find she pushes the usual reactionary themes about "illegals", drug addicts and criminals. Socially moderate, my arse.

Dave Reichert plays this game. When the house whip says a Republican bill either has more than enough votes to pass, or will never pass, Dave is given permission to vote his conscience, which means pandering to his non-rightwing nutcase constituents in his purple district. But any time the need his vote to pass anything, no matter how much it violates Reichert's purportedly moderate principles, Sheriff Dave is there and votes as he's told.

This phony will do the same. She might actually vote pro-choice a few times, when it won't matter. But guaranteed, any time it counts, she will toe the anti-choice party line.

@1: You're right, of course. But, so long as we enable lunatics like Sawant to keep spewing stupid shit about collectivizing Amazon, putting SPD in between immigrants and ICE agents, etc., the "Seattle extremist" label will continue to get traction.

Literally, all successful politicians lie to their constituents to concentrate power. The best ones always get away with it, like Obama's original stance on gay marriage in 2008.

@3 happy to keep voting Sawant just to piss you off.

@5 - Your equivocation is pathetic bullshit, but I'd expect that from a conservative.

And, given your comment history, not surprising at all.

Go, Manka Dhingra, GO!!

It's a bit unfair to question Englund's positions based on the people that she worked with as she was working her way through the cursus honorum on the Republican side of things. An argument like that basically says that pretty much any Republican must be rejected out of hand, no matter what positions they actually take.

If we're at the point where we are rejecting candidates based on their associations rather than their positions, then we've pretty much decided that politics here on out really is just going to be tribal and everything will be run on a "my party, right or wrong" basis.

NARAL's and Planned Parenthood's positions on her are not terribly illuminating. They're activist groups. Of course they are going to endorse a maximalist position. That's their job. They're basically like the NRA or Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. Their endorsements are entirely predictable and hence not at all interesting; that's also why it's not terribly interesting that a Republican declines to participate in their surveys.

The argument here kind of smells a bit of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

There isn't much factual meat on this article, but on the other hand Englund hasn't laid much on the line for how she'd vote. It's easy to say you support the right to choose, while you vote for the Republican playbook of chiseling away at abortion clinics in the name of safety and choice.

Let's hear which of these Republican tactics she's willing to go on the record against and call out as disingenuous bullshit.

The nominal independence of a back-bencher is of no consequence what so ever.

If people want a legislator who will reliably vote against crazy GOP stuff, they should just vote for the Democrat.

@7:

Don't get too sore. After all it's just your typical conservative projection: "Well, if I were a politician, I'd lie every time I opened my mouth. Ergo, if it's what I would do, it's what all of them MUST do."

@9 & @10 - It's not about who Englund used to work for or what others say about her.

Engund herself was absolutely clear on her true position regarding abortion access when SHE tweeted "When abortion docs R elevated 2 gods, not questioned or held accountable, society has officially gone off the rails.”

Of course, that was in 2015 - before Englund decided to run for office in a pro-choice district that voted 70 percent for Clinton.

You gotta wring a baby's neck with your bare hands if you want in this club, girl.

"Abortion is one of the defining issues of contemporary american politics"

Says someone with a comfy job, college education and tons of privilege.

Given the average Puget Lowland Republican can't even come out the closet and say they voted for Trump, I don't think there is any reason to believe most of what comes out of their mouth.

@15 you'd rather kill women via back alley abortion so spare us your propaganda

@16, like there's no connection between prosperity/security and being able to control one's own reproductive destiny? Why don't you go back a few generations and ask some of our mothers about getting a college education and a comfy job without reproductive choice.

Why does @3 profile page sends a 404?

@18. Nope. I’m pro choice in the 1st trimester and just like the Roe decision, believe the state has the right to regulate abortion in 2nd and 3rd trimesters. I just know that ...

"Abortion is one of the defining issues of contemporary american politics"

... is horsesh*t to most Americans.

@16 someone with "a comfy job, college education and tons of privilege" will always be able to get an abortion (or arrange one for his mistress) no matter what the laws say. The rest need abortion access that is protected by law. And seeing how we're still fighting off attempts by conservatives to scuttle this access 44 years after Roe v. Wade yes, it is a defining issue of contemporary American politics.

@22 Nope, Until proof to the contrary, you are just a silly avatar on the internet who'll say anything when needed.

@23 Abortion is rarely a healthcare choice. It’s a lifestyle choice, so maybe you shouldn’t expect others to pay for it?

@22: You realize that is literally everyone you are talking to, yes?

Welcome to the internet! The first rule is you can't take anything seriously.

@24 we established from day one that you were a "i have got mine, fuck you" troll. Stop reminding us how sick you are. Fuck off.

@9 "NARAL's and Planned Parenthood ... maximalist position" unless, of course, they're the democratic VP nominee

@26 - like you for instance!

@24 - You remind me of that old troll from back in the day who lied about owning an italian villa.

Everyone hated him too.

"Everyone hated him too."

Nothing more pathetic than those who'll do anything to be loved. Or worse, call themselves "feminists".

Roger clearly doesn't understand that not being an immoral lying asshole is different than "doing anything to be loved."

Kinda says it all, no?

Oh, and "feminists" apparently. I can only assume they scare him into writing screeds on the internet; you know how these snowflakes are.

@29: Yes, and you too! Now you are getting it! Finally.