TexasCHLforum.com

Someone convince me those two are worth voting for. I am somewhat new to the area and i am furious about their votes on the bailout.

Until politicians are held accountable with respect to their lies to get voted in, we can never be sure who to vote for.

It's a sad situation, but it is after all "Politics".

You cannot believe any of them, no matter who they are or what they say.

AEA wrote:You cannot believe any of them, no matter who they are or what they say.

Probably not.

On the other hand, you can examine their past records for how they voted on most of the issues that are important to you - and the bailout is only one of them.

How did the candidate perform in the past on:

1. Gun control?
2. Abortion?
3. Taxes?
4. Immigration?
5. Defense spending (Iraq/Afganistan)?
6. Education?
7. Management/Labor issues?
8. Public land use?
9. Energy?

Etc., etc., etc.

There has never yet been a politician who was perfect. Even my idol, Ronald Reagan, was not a perfect politician, and he made some bad decisions.

My advice is to not put your faith in men. Put it somewhere higher, more righteous, and never changing. If you place your faith in men, you will most often be disappointed at some time or other by the object of your faith.

Taking those things into mind, ignore what they say during the campaign (the seduction phase), and do your due diligence as a citizen to examine the overall past records of the politicians under consideration before you (how they treated past seductions after the fact), and you go with the one whose record is closest to what you expect and hope for. In that light, John Cornyn is a decent pick. Not "great," but "decent." There may be other people out there who are better, but they haven't presented themselves yet. I do not support his record on immigration reform, but he's OK on a range of other issues. Here's a link to his campaign platform: http://www.johncornyn.com/issues" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Here is a link to his challenger's platform (democrat Rick Noriega): http://www.ricknoriega.com/issues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On the face of it, his platform doesn't seem any more or less liberal or conservative than does Cornyn's, so you'll have to check up on his record (http://www.ricknoriega.com/about/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). His military accomplishments seem fairly impressive, but his record as a state representative puts him on the fairly liberal side of immigration policy and range of other issues.

My personal pick would be Cornyn.

You can do worse than John Cornyn. He's a good guy, even though some of his recent actions have made me decide to vote against him.

As far as I'm concerned, he's a decent senator who just made some decisions I can't support anymore.

As far as the other guy, I have no idea.

The Annoyed Man wrote:My advice is to not put your faith in men.

Exactly. That's why everyone should look at Yvonne Adams Schick...she isn't a man.
Her web-page is here: http://yvonneforsenate.com/

Missed the last Texas U.S Senate debate?
The entire debate is here:
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_con ... atePt1.wmv
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_con ... atePt2.wmv
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_con ... atePt3.wmv
http://streaming.houstonpbs.org/the_con ... atePt4.wmv

They addressed a 2nd Amendment question on the 3rd link (Pt3) at 08:33.

The next debate is this Thursday at 8:00 pm on PBS; but as of now Yvonne is not invited.

Cornyn was one of the Senators who stood like a rock in supporting Petraeus and the Surge in Iraq and opposing the Democrats attempt to give the Iraq war away. For that reason alone, I am voting and supporting him.

Check out TSRA's voting guide at
http://www.tsrapac.com/guideUSTexas.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
SEN Cornyn is endorsed by TSRA. Noriega has a "?" rating which means "Candidate (no recent voting record) failed to return the TSRA-NRA questionnaire. Could be hostile to 2nd Amendment issues."
I've long been a supporter of SEN Cornyn--TSRA's endorsement of SEN Cornyn is just icing on the cake.

Nicolai wrote:SEN Cornyn is endorsed by TSRA. Noriega has a "?" rating which means "Candidate (no recent voting record) failed to return the TSRA-NRA questionnaire. Could be hostile to 2nd Amendment issues."

I notice they ignore the other possibility; "Candidate threw out what looked like just another beg letter."

KD5NRH wrote:

Nicolai wrote:SEN Cornyn is endorsed by TSRA. Noriega has a "?" rating which means "Candidate (no recent voting record) failed to return the TSRA-NRA questionnaire. Could be hostile to 2nd Amendment issues."

I notice they ignore the other possibility; "Candidate threw out what looked like just another beg letter."

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. He was called and given more time to respond. He didn't because some of his answers would hurt him with gun owners. Another poster watched the debate and said Noriega didn't answer a direct question about whether he would support restrictive handgun or assault weapons laws. That refusal combined with his refusal to answer the NRA Questionnaire is worrisome.

Chas.

Thanks for the additional information, Charles. My feeling is each new Member of Congress/Senator will have to strictly follow their party's platform. The following is from http://www.shootingusa.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. There are links there that will take you to the full platform for each party.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM ON GUN CONTROL . . . The Democratic National Committee has released its official party platform including its position on gun control: "We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements -- like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban ..."

I tried to copy the link here to the official platform, but it didn't work. You can go to http://www.shootingusa.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and access both party platforms there.

We sure don't want the possibility of the Dems having a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate. This should be reason enough to keep Republicans in office, even if you disagree with John Cornyn's vote on the bail-out. There are some polling numbers that suggest the dems could win enough Senate seats this election to get that magic number.

NRA endorsements are here http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.a ... 8&State=TX" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

XDJoe wrote:We sure don't want the possibility of the Dems having a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate.

You are absolutely right. If the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate, we are in very big trouble. That means every judicial appointment by Obama, if he wins, would be confirmed and that's a disaster that would haunt this county for decades. I'm not talking solely about the U.S. Supreme Court, but all of the federal benches.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

XDJoe wrote:We sure don't want the possibility of the Dems having a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate.

You are absolutely right. If the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate, we are in very big trouble. That means every judicial appointment by Obama, if he wins, would be confirmed and that's a disaster that would haunt this county for decades. I'm not talking solely about the U.S. Supreme Court, but all of the federal benches.

Chas.

The federal judges that Klin-ton appointed and the GOP let slide are an obvious glaring example of this fact.

Anygunanywhere

XDJoe wrote:We sure don't want the possibility of the Dems having a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate.

They don't need 60 Ds to do that when they've got so many fake Rs already.