TexasCHLforum.com

barnett wrote:i think Kinky had an outside shot at it till he made statements the other day that caused an uproar from the NAACP.

I got a campaign email from Kinky today, which he started by saying, "While Rick Perry was cheerleading in college, and Chris Bell was being potty-trained, I was marching to desegregate lunch counters!"

Then he went on to say new ads are being floated that take a snippet of words from his stage act, where he was playing an ignorant racist to make fun of racists.

Kevin

40FIVER, we still have all those issues with Perry as governor. It's not like they're going away just because he's re-elected, nor made instantly worse because Bell is elected.

Let me reiterate here that I'm not a Democrat supporter. I haven't voted for one in years. I'm only bringing these things up to point out that voting for an independent or third party candidate doesn't mean Texas is going to turn into Chicago on inauguration day.

I like Kinky stirring up the pot, even though I don't agree with him on most issues. I'm much more in line with James Werner:

http://www.werner4texas.com/

Kevin

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I think everyone agrees that 1) only Perry or Bell will win; and 2) Friedman votes most likely would be going to Perry if he (Friedman) were not in the race.

While 1 is probably true, 2 is far from certain.

Here are some things that Kinky wants, which are certainly not attractive to someone who would otherwise vote Republican:

- Drastically boost teacher pay. I've heard him say "double", and I've heard him say "at least $100,000".
- Same-day voter registration. Good in principle, so long as there are checks in place to prevent fraud and multiple voting. In practice, it can't be worse than our current "no questions asked" registration.
- Publicly financed campaigns. Yep, tax dollars going to all candidates.
- Supports gay marriage.
- Supports legalization of marijuana.
- Supports non-Indian, non-riverboat casino gambling.
- Wants to drastically increase medical welfare for poor children.
- Wants to use tax funds as incentive payments for alternative energy.

Now, some of those are good, some not-so-good, and some downright at odds with his stated goal to reduce taxes and spending. But when you look at Kinky's platform, he's not attractive to GOP voters. He's a populist, a chicken-in-every-pot sort of guy who also supports individual liberties.

Kevin

40FIVER wrote:A lot of the younger guys and girls on this forum don't remember that Clinton was elected the first time because there was a real Texan ( I can't remember his name, but it starts with a "P"), running as an independent that pulled enough votes away from G Bush, Sr. to swing the election in Clinton's favor. And look at what that did to the country. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm weak in political history.)

While Perot did get almost 19% of the vote, it's likely that he drew as many Clinton voters as Bush voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presi ... on%2C_1992

Perot's almost 19% of the popular vote made him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Some conservative analysts believe that Perot acted as a spoiler in the election, primarily drawing votes away from Bush and allowing Clinton to win many states with less than a majority of votes. However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory.[1] Survey research data, while not as reliable as exit poll data, also support the notion that Clinton would have won with or without Perot in the race. The data can even be interpreted to suggest that Perot hurt Clinton more than he hurt Bush. In fact, Bush's percentage of the popular vote was very close to his approval rating at the time of his defeat (the high 30 percent range). Part of the confusion regarding the 1992 election stems from a sleight of hand in comparison to the 1988 election. In 1988, many of the people who voted for Perot in 1992 may well have voted for Bush; this does not mean, however, that these same voters would have voted for Bush in 1992 had Perot not been in the race. In short, a careful analysis of the 1992 vote suggests that Perot's effect was neutral regarding the ultimate outcome--that Clinton would have won anyway, and perhaps would have done better, as Bush was highly unpopular at the time.

Kevin

Chris wrote:http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist54/hupp.htm

i vote her supreme ruler of the United States.

I don't want to be subject to any "supreme ruler", and I'm pretty certain that SGH doesn't want to be a supreme ruler. If she was willing to accept such a post, I wouldn't like her nearly as much as I do.

But, I second your sentiment. It's a shame she doesn't want to stay in office, but it speaks well of her character. Anyone who wants to be a politician is poorly suited to make decisions on our behalf. She was reluctantly thrust into the role, and has served well. God bless her in her private life.

Kevin

Venus Pax wrote:I'm curious about "Grandma's" views on 2A.

I strongly suspect that her positions on anything are determined by a wetted finger held aloft in the breeze.

Rather like her surname du jour.

Kevin

cyphur wrote:However, we should limit you to your home while under the influence. Or at the very least, there must be a restriction against driving or operating machinery/weapons under the influence.

That is already the law. It's equally illegal to drive while under the influence of an illegal drug, a legal prescription drug, a non-prescription drug, or alcohol. The DWI statute says "or any other substance".

Kevin

John wrote:When it was not illegal, cocaine could be picked up at the store and was used in coca cola.

So could heroin, morphine, and opium. And the "drug problem" was almost non-existent.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:I do not want pot easier to get for my 10 year old daughter, nor do I want it legitimized.

How easy is it for your 10 year old daughter to get tobacco and alcohol?

Why would decriminalized pot be any easier for her to get than those other drugs?

Kevin

stevie_d_64 wrote:Well, what it sounds like is that he (Kinky) wants to legalize pot...

So do I.

I don't want to smoke pot, but I do want to stop paying for law enforcement, courts, and prisons for people smoking a weed that grew naturally throughout North America until the marijuana eradication program of the 1930s.

The War on (some) Drugs has been a greater threat to civil liberties than anything ever proposed by the leftists.

Kevin

stevie_d_64 wrote:I just heard a rumor...To be confirmed...

Kinky just quit the race for Govenor...

I got a whif of this over at "Free Republic"...

It just broke...

Doesn't pass the sniff test, since he just launched a statewide TV ad campaign on Tuesday.

Kevin