Search found 9 matches

by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:43 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

KBCraig wrote:
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
But I've heard few people state why they would vote for Kinky, other than as a protest vote against Perry. Not one time have I heard anyone say I'm voting for Kinky because of his platform. I'm not saying such people don't exist, only that the sole reason I've seen is a protest vote to send the Republicans a message.

I think you're absolutely correct on your analysis of Friedman's lack of appeal to traditional GOP voters. My worry is that people don't think he can win so why worry about his platform?


Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:26 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

Mithras61 wrote:
Mithras61, i'm afraid you're probably wasteing your time here. I posted about being a Kinky Friedman Supporter, and I got "A vote for anyone but Perry is a vote for Bell." Sounds like it's directly from Perry's campaign headquarters. I will not limit my vote to only gun issues. People want to limit the scope of Perry's term thus far to gun issues because that is the only thing he's done anything about.
I understand and acknowledge that. I suppose they can make their decision based on whatever works for them. I'm asking for honesty in their position, though, and not for them to hold an opinion based on an opinion from someone else. The NRA isn't the only source of information on gun issues, and may not even be the most reliable (especially since in at least three of the instances cited they have a dog in the fight so to speak, with Wayne LaPierre being at or near the heart of the issue).
Do you consider leaving out Bell's vote for the Sanchez Amendment and his vote to keep the D.C. gun ban being above-board, after first stating that Bell voted for the lawsuit preemption statute and that he supports the right of Texas to own and carry guns?

The last statement in your second previous post, and this post are getting too close to the line with regard to personal attacks. This post of mine does as well, so let's get back to talking about the issue. We can disagree without calling anyone's honesty or integrity into question.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:13 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

EricS76 wrote:Mithras61, i'm afraid you're probably wasteing your time here. I posted about being a Kinky Friedman Supporter, and I got "A vote for anyone but Perry is a vote for Bell." Sounds like it's directly from Perry's campaign headquarters. I will not limit my vote to only gun issues. People want to limit the scope of Perry's term thus far to gun issues because that is the only thing he's done anything about.
Don't feel like you're wasting your time simply because your position is in the minority. My position against open carry is certainly in the minority! The discussion is a healthy one.

Let me point out one something. 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. Don't take offense at me pointing that out.

As for Mithras61's post, he posted the following:
Mithras61 wrote:I've noticed that quite a number of you dismiss Chris Bell as being a rabid anti-gunner. You might want to check out his voting record on that before you decide that he is, because his voting record is pretty good on gun ownership and gun owners' rights.

. . . (he voted for the bill to prevent lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for making "defective" products, among other things).
.
Then he quoted from Bell's Campaign:
Mithras61 wrote:Chris Bell believes firmly in the privileges guaranteed by the Second Amendment and supports the right of every Texan to own and carry guns legally. However, he feels that it is equally important that existing laws are properly enforced.
But as I pointed out above, Bell voted for the killer Sanchez Amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which would have gutted the bill, so his vote for the bill's final passage didn't reflect his true position, merely his recognition of political realities.

And his vote against lifting the D.C. gun ban speaks volumes about his campaign statement that he "supports the right of every Texan to own and carry guns legally." Talk is cheap, but thankfully we have his voting record to weigh against his rhetoric.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

Mithras61 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: Bell didn't bother to cast a vote on these important bills:

HR4635: Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. NRA position YEA

Defazio Amendment to HR4635: NRA position YEA

HR2356: Campaign Finance Reform Act (Hailed by Sen. McCain on the Senate Floor as the "get the NRA bill!" Didn't work John) NRA position NO

Shays-Pickering Amendment to HR2356 that would have exempted political speech dealing with matters pertaining to the Second Amendment. NRA position YEA

HR2500: Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - Would have prohibited the use of federal funds to destroy national instant criminal background check system records within 90 days as required by federal law. [i.e. would have made NICS records permanent!] NRA position NO.
These were all brought to the floor and passed or defeated before Bell took office. Perhaps he didn't cast his vote for or against because he was elected in November of 2002 and took office in 2003. These were all passed in 2001 or 2002.
These show up on a list of bills when I ran a search on Bell's voting record in Congress. I will check the dates and will correct this if it's wrong. Since you have given dates, I presume you are correct and these bills should not have appeared on the list of Bell votes.
Mithras61 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:HR2691 Gallegly amendment to funding of Forest Servie or BLM dealing with bear hunting. Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO
Actually, this amendment was to prevent BLM from using Federal funds for baiting bears onto Federal lands for hunting purposes. Maybe the bears should be hunted on their natural ranges...
This is very misleading. The amendment would "restrict the use of funds by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to administer any action related to the baiting of bears except to prevent or prohibit such activity."

This is an anti-hunting vote and trying to cast it in terms of not liking the baiting part is unconvencing. The Forest Service or the BLM should retain the flexibility to allow or prohibit the baiting of bears depending upon the bear population in a given area, the number of bears that need to be harvested as part of wildlife management. Restricting the use of federal funds in this manner is far too close to the prohibiting the use of federal funds to hold hearings on restoration of firearms rights.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Meehan Amendment to HR1036 - Would allow any suit based in negligence. (All of the suits were brought in negligence.) Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO.
Mithras61 wrote:Actually, it would allow suits brought specifically on the basis of the manufacturers or sellers of firearms negligently allowing the firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. That usually means that a seller or manufacturer must take reasonable measures to ensure that the firearms they sell or make are not sold to or stolen by criminals. The bill as it was written would have prevented lawsuits against sellers or manufacturers even when they were negligent in their storage or selling practices.
Every one of the politically motivated suits against gun manufactures were based on alleged negligence in the distribution system in some form or fashion. The Meehan Amendment would have exempted from the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act any lawsuit that had a negligence claim in the pleadings. It would have absolutely gutted the bill and everyone on Capital Hill knew it. The Meehan Amendment was not adopted, being defeated 144-280, with 140 Democrates voting for it and only 2 Republicans in favor.
Sanchez Amendment to HR1036 to allow certain suits against certain transferors using the vague term "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." [This would be an entirely new statute that could be used against any company or individual, not just gun manufacturers.] Bell vote YEA; NRA position NO
Mithras61 wrote:The Sanchez amendment would have allowed lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to drug addicts or individuals certified as "mentally defective." Perhaps the specific language of the amendment could have been modified to change "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." to language that was more appropriate, but I really don't feel that attempts to keep guns out of the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives is such a bad thing.
First of all, the language was atrociously broad and there was no attempt to narrow it by it's author (Sanchez) or it's 132 Democrat supporters before Bell voted for it.

The Sanchez Amendment applies to any "transferor" not just manufacturers or dealers.

In addition to the overly-broad language I've already pointed out, I have a big problem with the grossly overbroad language such as "unlawful drug user" or "adjudicated mental incompetent." As broadly worded, it could mean anything from a meth addict to a wife using her husband's prescription antibiotic until she can get to the doctor. It doesn't say "convicted drug user."

How is anyone to know if a person has been "adjudicated mental[ly] incompetent? With the "having reasonable cause to believe" language, the sky is the limit for prosecution. BTW, who is the "transferor?" Is it just the person who handed the gun to the possible drug user, or does it include the dealer that sold him the gun and the manufacturer that sold it to the dealer? Before you argue that this is an absurd question, it must be realized that this is precisely the tortured logic used by the plaintiffs in the politically motivated suits.

You may not have a problem with more federal laws dealing with guns, but I do. Blatantly selling or transferring guns to drug users and mentally incompetent persons are already unlawful in most states and this is better left to the states. It is certainly preferable to draft prohibitive statutes that are much clearer.
Mithras61 wrote:I will agree however that he voted to not revoke the gun ban in D.C., so I'll give you one of those votes.
And this is probably the most telling of his votes when it comes to the right of self-defense. The D.C. gun ban doesn't have anything to do with bear hunting, or with keeping guns away from drug dealers and mentally incompetent people. It goes to the heart of the right of self-defense. What good is the right if people are denied the means of self-defense? Chris Bell voted to deny the citizens of D.C. the ability to defend themselves and we are supposed to believe that he supports the rights of Texans to carry guns for self-defense? That stretches credibility a bit thin.
Mithras61 wrote:But my count is quite different than yours, even giving you the votes as cast being "against gun owners." The count as you posted was actually only four (4) times "against," not six, and it doesn't really look to me like four against. More realistically from my viewpoint it was one for gun owners, one against gun owners, one against bear baiting using Federal funds, one against blanket immunity to lawsuits, and one for not allowing lawsuit immunity to people selling guns to those forbidden by Federal law from owning guns.
No offense, but this looks like it was written by a campaign worker for Chris Bell. Even accepting the rationale behind these statements, which I do not, it cannot be seriously argued that the votes we agree he cast were not anti-gun and anti-hunting votes.

Please remember how we got to this discussion. You posted that Bell wasn't anti-gun and pointed out that he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But as we see now, that was hardly "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. Say what you will, but the Sanchez amendment was designed as a killer amendment that would have gutted the bill and Bell voted for it.

The characterization of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as "blanket immunity to lawsuits" is precisely the language that the bill's opponents used and it is flat wrong. The bill still allows suits when federal laws are violated.
Mithras61 wrote:Using your logic, I guess the NRA is in favor of blanket immunity for gun sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits, using Federal funds to enhance personal enjoyment of bear hunting on Federal lands, and in favor of putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives.
I am against frivolous lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers for the sole purpose of putting them out of business, as admitted by the representatives of the cities filing suit and the attorneys representing them.

I am in favor of letting the Forest Service and BLM use their expertise in spending their budgets as they deem necessary to manage wildlife.

Your statement that I and the NRA support ". . . putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives . . ." doesn't deserve a response. It’s the all-to-familiar rhetoric I heard from the CHL opposition for years.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:19 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

Chris Bell's voting record

Here is Chris Bell's voting record on gun-related bills during his one term in Congress:

HR3193 (To overturn D.C.'s gun-ban ordnance) Bell voted NO; NRA position YEA

HR2691 Gallegly amendment to funding of Forest Servie or BLM dealing with bear hunting. Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO

HR1036 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act a/k/a lawsuit preemption) Bell voted YEA; NRA position YEA But note Bell's votes on killer amendments below.

Meehan Amendment to HR1036 - Would allow any suit based in negligence. (All of the suits were brought in negligence.) Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO.


Sanchez Amendment to HR1036 to allow certain suits against certain transferors using the vague term "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." [This would be an entirely new statute that could be used against any company or individual, not just gun manufacturers.] Bell vote YEA; NRA position NO

Bell didn't bother to cast a vote on these important bills:

Edited to delete the bills. My information was incorrect - these bills were voted before Bell was elected.

In summary, Bell cast one pro-gun vote in his two years in Washington. He voted against gun owners six (6) times. His one good vote was on the lawsuit preemption bill, but he voted in favor of killer amendments, all of which failed.

I have more respect for Sen. Feinstein than I do Chris Bell. Both are anti-gun, but at least she's honest about it.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:19 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

Chris Bell's one term in Congress did not earn him a good rating from NRA. The NRA Voter's Guide will be out Oct. 1.

You are correct, gun owners have many friends in the Democratic Party and the TSRA Voters Guide reflects this in the ratings. Chris Bell isn't one of them.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:47 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

Kinky attacks hunters, then flip-flops

Here is a good look at Kinky's true feelings about hunting.

http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_st ... 38,00.html

Texans like politicians who hunt
By Peggy Fikac / San Antonio Express-News
September 13, 2006

AUSTIN - In a state where hunting seems as natural a political campaign activity as baby-kissing, candidates for governor want to make sure they don't misfire when it comes to Texas' multibillion dollar outdoors industry.
Otherwise, they know it could cost them plenty on election day.

Just ask Kinky Friedman, the independent candidate for governor who is backpedaling from a column in which he described hunters as waging ''a one-sided war against creation.''

Since he wrote that 2002 article for Texas Monthly magazine, saying, ''I do not suffer hunters gladly,'' Friedman said he has met with a ''whole lot of hunters'' and can see the need for hunting, particularly to manage the deer population.

Still, he refuses to go easy on big-game hunters.

''Somebody that goes out and kills a polar bear or has to go out and shoot an elephant, I believe God punishes 'em by giving them erectile dysfunction,'' said Friedman, an animal-lover who founded the Utopia Animal Rescue Ranch. ''That's just a theory, though.''

Long-time political watchers know that hunting is no joke in Texas.

''It's part of running for governor in Texas, and it always has been,'' said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson.

''Living on the land, farming, ranching and hunting - that's all sort of a piece of being a true Texan. ... I would suspect by the end of the campaign he (Kinky) is going to be biting the heads off chickens just to show he's up to being governor.''

Friedman's change of heart, at least toward the likes of deer hunters, comes to light as Democrat Chris Bell plans a West Texas dove hunt and Gov. Rick Perry's camp expresses pride in the GOP incumbent's hunting prowess.

''He is an avid hunter, and he has got the heads and the pelts mounted on the wall to prove it,'' said Perry spokesman Robert Black.
He said Friedman's article taking shots at hunting ''is almost taking a shot at the soul of Texas,'' then lambasted him for having ''flip-flopped'' on the issue.

Bell's dove-hunting trip is ''a great opportunity to showcase his support for protecting hunting and fishing habitat,'' said the Democrat's spokesman, Jason Stanford. He said Bell grew up hunting. ''Kinky can argue with himself about whether hunting is a good thing. Chris Bell is just going huntin'.''

Non-hunting candidates Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, an independent, and James Werner, a Libertarian, express support for the activity.

Werner called it ''a great Texas tradition.''

Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders said, ''It is something her husband enjoys. That's why it's important to her.''

Friedman, who last year did a fundraising benefit for an injured hunting guide and plans another in October, said he wouldn't rule out going on a hunting trip.

''I don't rule anything out any more,'' he said. ''I don't have any great, burning desire to do it.''

What does an activity like hunting matter in the race for governor?

Political scientist Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas at Austin disagreed with SMU's Jillson.

In an increasingly urban state, it's not huge deal, said Buchanan.

Still, hunting in Texas creates political headlines.

Democratic Gov. Ann Richards made it a tradition to hunt doves in front of the media when campaigning. George W. Bush's 1994 GOP gubernatorial campaign drew kudos for the adroit handling of his accidental shooting of a protected killdeer. More recently, Vice President Dick Cheney sparked a media frenzy when he accidentally shot a lawyer with whom he was hunting in South Texas.

Friedman took the issue seriously enough to provide hunting references after getting questions about his column.

Wally Danos of Fredericksburg and Julie Mogenis of Hunt, both in the hunting business, said Friedman was receptive to information they gave him about the value of hunting and its impact on the economy. According to a report from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, hunters generated some $1.8 billion just in retail sales in 2001, the latest date figures are available. All together anglers, hunters and other wildlife aficionados spent $5.2 billion and had a total economic impact of $10.9 billion.

''Mr. Friedman understands the importance of the hunting industry in the state of Texas, and he's behind it 110 percent,'' said Danos. Mogenis, the guide for whom Friedman did a benefit, said, ''He's a supporter of ethical harvesting of animals, within a game plan.''

Rocker and avid hunter Ted Nugent, a Perry ally who sees hunting lined up with respect for the earth, said a leader's support for hunting is ''imperative in the great state of Texas.''

Friedman said he regretted having been ''a little hard on'' Nugent, whom he called a ''bow-hunting nerd'' in the column. He said he liked Nugent's approach when he learned about it afterward, saying, ''He's a guy who uses everything (from the animal). He doesn't waste.''

Nugent said, ''God bless him, that didn't hurt my feelings. I do hunt with a bow and arrow. ... People of decency and good will and in the know - they know that that's cool as hell. So it's like Ozzy Osbourne claiming that I can't talk good. I think I can live with it.''
by Charles L. Cotton
Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:58 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

Neither Kinky Friedmand nor Strayhorn has any chance of winning and no one can argue that point. They can pull enough votes from Perry to put Bell in office. He will veto any pro-gun bills we are able to pass and we may or may not be able to override a veto, depending how late in the process the bill passes. So understand that a vote for anyone other than Perry is a vote for Chris Bell.

I'm not going to get into non-gun issues as that is not within even the broad scope of this board. However, the idea of blaming Perry or any Texas Governor for anything is short-sighted. The Gov. of Texas has very little power, other than veto power. (Were it not for Gov. Richards, we would have passed CHL in 1991.) The real power lies with the Lt. Governor. I'm not going to overstate the situation and claim that Gov. Bell would result in passage of anti-gun legislation, but he sure can be a stumbling block for pro-gun legislation.

What has Perry done to help firearm owners? He signed every pro-gun bill put on his desk, including one that could have been used against him by the anti’s. That bill restored the ability to get a CHL to certain people who were convicted years ago of what was then a felony but which is now a misdemeanor. The opposition threatened to make his signature on the bill a media circus, but he signed the bill anyway because it was right. And what about Perry’s refusal to veto HB823 (traveling bill) in spite of heavy pressure by law enforcement and the DA’s association to veto it? That took tremendous courage to defy the wishes of law enforcement and support gun owners.

How many years did we complain about making no progress on reciprocity while it was under DPS authority. Just under two years ago, reciprocity was the hottest issue debated among CHL’s on this and other boards. In fact, an especially nasty debate about reciprocity on tx.guns directly lead to the creation of the TexasCHLforum.com. But since the law was changed and authority for reciprocity agreements was assigned jointly to the Attorney General and the Governor, Greg Abbott and Rick Perry have more than doubled the number of states on our reciprocity list.

How often do we say that we “have to send a message to the anti’s� about some issue? And we’ve done that by electing a majority of pro-gun Senators and House Representatives. But consider this. We also send a message to pro-gun elected officials when we don’t stand by a man who is arguably one of the best friends gun-owners have ever had in the Governor’s Mansion. If we don’t stand by our friends who have stood by us in spite of extreme pressure, then how can we expect to retain any loyalty in Austin? One thing I have learned by being involved in this issue for almost 27 years is that when you give your word, either directly or implicitly, you’d better keep it or forget building any long-lasting support. I care about issues other than guns, but the firearms issue is a litmus test for me. If I have two or more pro-gun candidates, I can make my decision on other issues. But if a candidate is wrong on guns, then I need look no further. Nothing is more important than my right and ability to protect myself and family. The number two item on my priority list is a distant second. It doesn’t matter what Friedman’s or Strayhorn’s position is on the second amendment or CHL, because they will not win.

If Bell wins, forget about fixing the "traveling" situation, streamlining the CHL process, clarifying the definition of "premises" and doing away with unenforceable 30.06 signs, passing a "Castle Doctrine" bill, and a number of other cleanup measures to help CHL's and CHL instructors. If gun owners cost Perry this election, we’ll have only ourselves to blame for a lack of progress - the anti’s will have had no part in our troubles.

Respectfully,
Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:40 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Texas Governor poll
Replies: 128
Views: 24487

If it's not Perry, then Kinky Friedman and Carole Keeton McCleland (sp?) Rylander Strayhorn will have put Chris Bell in the Governor's Mansion. Then we can forget about getting pro-gun legislation past a veto until at least 2011.

Chas.

Return to “Texas Governor poll”