Sanchez on Guns
Jim Nicholson
last paragraph or two.
This is an excerpt from this week's "Texas Weekly"
Debates, Money in the Mailbox, and Guns
He had to look like a flip-flopping 'fraidy-cat to do it, but
Tony Sanchez got his way on the gubernatorial debates. He said
from the beginning that he would do one in English and one in
Spanish, and that's what he ended up agreeing to do. Just a few
days after throwing up his hands and saying he would never get
caught alive in a debate with Dan Morales, Sanchez changed
directions and agreed to show up for a forum in Dallas.
They'll be held back-to-back on March 1, unless something weird
happens.
It could:
John WorldPeace, the Houston lawyer running a ruthlessly pesky
telephone and email campaign for the Democratic nomination, is
suing to stop the Spanish-language debate on the grounds that it
disenfranchises him and voters who don't speak the language.
Meanwhile, all of the candidates except for Sanchez agreed to
appear at two other televised debates, one in Laredo and another
in Beaumont. And there might be one more place where everyone,
including Sanchez and Morales and WorldPeace, all show up. Valley
Interfaith delegates are holding their "accountability session"
for candidates on March 3 in Pharr. Those are tough sessions for
politicos; the group asks point-by-point, in
front of a crowd, where each candidate stands on issues of
interest to the members.
Sanchez isn't spending all of his money on television. Among
other things, he's sending out a full-color, stapled, eight-page
mailer called "A Texas Story" that's basically a written version
of his biographical television commercials. Part is in English,
part is in Spanish.
Another is a piece that his supporters (including one of his
sons) passed out at the Texas State Rifle Association meeting
this month. It's not the standard Democratic take on guns. He
says he's for the "individual right to bear arms of the Second
Amendment," that there are "enough gun laws on the books in Texas
and in Washington," and that he doesn't support "any additional
restrictions on concealed handgun law applicants or license
holders."
The flyer has a photo of him hunting with his sons, and ends with
this (the capitalization is his): "Since September 11, the LAST
thing we need is more restrictions on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' RIGHT
to defend their
lives, loved ones and property."
John A. Stovall
wrote:
Yes, but He's still a Democrat.
******************************************************************
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
_not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
L. Neil Smith
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html
Jim Nicholson
>
> >The flyer has a photo of him hunting with his sons, and ends with
> >this (the capitalization is his): "Since September 11, the LAST
> >thing we need is more restrictions on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' RIGHT
> >to defend their
> >lives, loved ones and property."
>
> Yes, but He's still a Democrat.
Yes, but TSRA and NRA are single issue organizations.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>"John A. Stovall" wrote:
I know, Jim and I'll reframe from a snippy remark about how the NRA
seems to have forgotten that in 1934, 1968, 1984 and 1994.
Also there's the little issue of electoral coat tails. Kind like the
Pig farmer who's a nice guy but you don't know what's going to be
tracked to the house on his boots. Or maybe we do.
But I have no more use for the Republican's who give us such champions
of Freedom as the Seven Brady traitors and John "I left my values at
the Hanoi Hilton" McCain, "No AK-47's" Libby Dole and the many
others.
I'm an equal party hater.
*******************************************************
Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission.
,
The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/
BadHueyTX
before I would consider voting for him (I am against both).
I am originally from Michigan and voting down here requires a bit more
research. Southern Democrats are much different from Northern Democrats.
There are a few in the southern states I would even consider voting for.
Jason Van Dyke
Team Bad Hueys
"For Texas and Miss Lillie"
Maurice
Jim Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
news:3C77023E...@akamail.com...
==============================
Agreed! And WE better be strong for the one that FITS that "single-issue"
best. Remember, in the long ago structure of the nation's political
make-up, the Democrats (mostly Southern men) were the conservatives, on a
national level. It was the "eastern" Republicans that were the moderates
and liberal politicians. (Yes, I know, but most of the conservative
Republicans were, once, Democrats (the southern branch of the "family").
Some of the most radical anti-gun members are from the eastern states and,
of course, that strangely political bastion of California. Interesting,
that is, because so many of the California counties seem to be very
conservative and pro-gun... just that the population centers where the
infiltrators from the east live have so much voting strength. It would be
tough having a conservative, pro-gun philosophy in California.
Now maybe John can tell us just how staunchly pro-gun Gov. Perry is. I
don't recall him making any such pro-gun statements as were made by Sanchez.
Admittedly, I was concerned about Sanchez because he had appeared to "waltz"
around the issue of RKBA and CHL earlier and it was reported that "his
people" said that Sanchez was considering the situation (the old "wet
finger" in the wind ploy...??) But, now we see a very strong, supportive
statement that, unless the man is a pathological liar (see "President of the
USA" circa 1990-2000....) his statement is very welcome to this writer.
I have never voted for a Democrat for US Senator or President (beginning
with IKE) and it is a bit tough trying to swallow a Democrat Gov. after that
dismal hack, Ma Richards!... BUT, as the legend goes: "IF it had not
rained on that day on Clayton Williams ranch.............." He'd have been
Gov. and Ma would not have pissed off the State with her tacky socialist
actions on CHL (which led to Geo. W. being elected in a landslide) reckon
who would have just come back from China, Korea, et seq?
So, as far as RKBA, CHL and other such critical matters, if Gov. "good hair"
(mullah molly's name for him) does not extract his digit and get a strong
endorsement of our cause, a lot of us "single issue" guys will be signed up
for Spanish 101. (not me, though, for I am, happily very bilingual and even
had tacos for supper tonight... good for the attitude!).
As for Dan Morales... my recollection of him as AG is that he was most
uncooperative on CHL matters... correct me if I misspeak and recollect
incorrectly.
Thanks, Maurice
Jim Nicholson
>
> As for Dan Morales... my recollection of him as AG is that he was most
> uncooperative on CHL matters... correct me if I misspeak and recollect
> incorrectly.
>
> Thanks, Maurice
You are right on, as usual, Maurice. At his point in the Primary,
we would all do well to pull for Sanchez over Morales. Morales as
guv would be a disaster for RKBA. Not quite as bad as your circa
190-2000, but bad enough. After the Primary dust settles, we can
sort out the rest of the stuff, but I never have forgotten how
Perry had the range protection bill set up for a veto until the
troops rallied behind Rep. Mary Denny and persuaded him
otherwise.
LobbyistTX
>>sons) passed out at the Texas State Rifle Association meeting
>>this month. It's not the standard Democratic take on guns. He
>>says he's for the "individual right to bear arms of the Second
>>Amendment," that there are "enough gun laws on the books in Texas
>>and in Washington," and that he doesn't support "any additional
>>restrictions on concealed handgun law applicants or license
>>holders."
>>
>>The flyer has a photo of him hunting with his sons, and ends with
>>this (the capitalization is his): "Since September 11, the LAST
>>thing we need is more restrictions on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' RIGHT
>>to defend their
>>lives, loved ones and property."
>
>Yes, but He's still a Democrat.
John, you're right. But this is the DEMOCRAT primary. There will be only
Democrats on the ballot. There will be no opportunity to vote for a
Libertarian or Republican. For those on this list who will choose to vote in
the Democrat primary, (and I will not be one of them), Sanchez is by far the
preferred candidate.
We will have time between March 12 and November to decide who is the BEST
candidate. This is just to decide the Democrat nominee.
Please, folks, if you are going to vote in the Democrat primary, vote for Tony
Sanchez.
Thanks for reading.
LobbyistTX
Capital of Texas
"Government if necessary, but not necessarily government."
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>
>
>Jim Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
>news:3C77023E...@akamail.com...
>> "John A. Stovall" wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > >The flyer has a photo of him hunting with his sons, and ends with
>> > >this (the capitalization is his): "Since September 11, the LAST
>> > >thing we need is more restrictions on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' RIGHT
>> > >to defend their
>> > >lives, loved ones and property."
>> >
>> > Yes, but He's still a Democrat.
>>
>> Yes, but TSRA and NRA are single issue organizations.
>
>==============================
>
>Agreed! And WE better be strong for the one that FITS that "single-issue"
>best. Remember, in the long ago structure of the nation's political
>make-up, the Democrats (mostly Southern men) were the conservatives, on a
>national level. It was the "eastern" Republicans that were the moderates
>and liberal politicians. (Yes, I know, but most of the conservative
>Republicans were, once, Democrats (the southern branch of the "family").
>Some of the most radical anti-gun members are from the eastern states and,
>of course, that strangely political bastion of California. Interesting,
>that is, because so many of the California counties seem to be very
>conservative and pro-gun... just that the population centers where the
>infiltrators from the east live have so much voting strength. It would be
>tough having a conservative, pro-gun philosophy in California.
>
>Now maybe John can tell us just how staunchly pro-gun Gov. Perry is. I
Never said I love Republican's either. See my follow up rant.
I personally think Perry is pro-what will get him elected with out any
core values.
>don't recall him making any such pro-gun statements as were made by Sanchez.
>Admittedly, I was concerned about Sanchez because he had appeared to "waltz"
>around the issue of RKBA and CHL earlier and it was reported that "his
>people" said that Sanchez was considering the situation (the old "wet
>finger" in the wind ploy...??) But, now we see a very strong, supportive
>statement that, unless the man is a pathological liar (see "President of the
>USA" circa 1990-2000....) his statement is very welcome to this writer.
What he says and what he does are two different things. I call your
attention to the statement made by then Vice President Bush at the NRA
convention in (I think '87) about being so pro-Second Amendment and
then three month's in to his presidency banning the import of
Semi-automatic sporting rifle. That's why you can't buy an AUG,
FAMAS, H&K, Galili, etc today for under 2000 dollars when they were
400-500.
I'm sure you also welcome Bush statement but did you welcome his
action?
>
>I have never voted for a Democrat for US Senator or President (beginning
>with IKE) and it is a bit tough trying to swallow a Democrat Gov. after that
>dismal hack, Ma Richards!... BUT, as the legend goes: "IF it had not
>rained on that day on Clayton Williams ranch.............." He'd have been
>Gov. and Ma would not have pissed off the State with her tacky socialist
>actions on CHL (which led to Geo. W. being elected in a landslide) reckon
>who would have just come back from China, Korea, et seq?
>
>So, as far as RKBA, CHL and other such critical matters, if Gov. "good hair"
>(mullah molly's name for him) does not extract his digit and get a strong
>endorsement of our cause, a lot of us "single issue" guys will be signed up
>for Spanish 101. (not me, though, for I am, happily very bilingual and even
>had tacos for supper tonight... good for the attitude!).
>
>As for Dan Morales... my recollection of him as AG is that he was most
>uncooperative on CHL matters... correct me if I misspeak and recollect
>incorrectly.
You are correct.
Brooks N Texas
2nd & has no plans to bring in new restrictions.
BT
--
And you know it's time to go
Through the sleet and driving snow
Across the fields of mourning
Light in the distance
And you hunger for the time
Time to heal, desire, time
And your earth moves beneath
Your own dream landscape
"A Sort of Homecoming"- U2
Sam A. Kersh
wrote:
>Maurice wrote:
Also don't forget Perry was for restrictions on CHL holders after 911
until it blew up in his face. Morales es un pendejo grande! He tried to
give 550 million dollars of the tobacco lawsuit to a lawyer buddy who
had done NO work on the suit. The buddy returned the monies he received
rather than face a public investigation. Another lawyer who had
honestly (for a lawyer) earned his fees charged Morales had solicited
him for a million dollar "donation."
My problem is I trust no Democrat and damn few Republicans, including
President Bush I and II. Look at the Patriot Act and "Homeland Security
Minister" Ridge---those two really instill faith. Not.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Patron
TSRA Life
LEAA Life
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh
==============================================================
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
John A. Stovall
>>>Another is a piece that his supporters (including one of his
>>>sons) passed out at the Texas State Rifle Association meeting
>>>this month. It's not the standard Democratic take on guns. He
>>>says he's for the "individual right to bear arms of the Second
>>>Amendment," that there are "enough gun laws on the books in Texas
>>>and in Washington," and that he doesn't support "any additional
>>>restrictions on concealed handgun law applicants or license
>>>holders."
>>>
>>>The flyer has a photo of him hunting with his sons, and ends with
>>>this (the capitalization is his): "Since September 11, the LAST
>>>thing we need is more restrictions on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' RIGHT
>>>to defend their
>>>lives, loved ones and property."
>>
>>Yes, but He's still a Democrat.
>
>John, you're right. But this is the DEMOCRAT primary. There will be only
>Democrats on the ballot. There will be no opportunity to vote for a
>Libertarian or Republican. For those on this list who will choose to vote in
>the Democrat primary, (and I will not be one of them), Sanchez is by far the
>preferred candidate.
Why not vote in the Democratic primary? There's nothing to prevent
your from it. I would really like to see them run John Worldpeace.
Maybe if you really want to keep anti-gun candidates out, put him on
the ballot the Democratic candidate.
>
>We will have time between March 12 and November to decide who is the BEST
>candidate. This is just to decide the Democrat nominee.
>
Sure and he'll bring in all the anti-gun democrats on his coat tails
and then who's to say he'll veto, their bills.
>Please, folks, if you are going to vote in the Democrat primary, vote for Tony
>Sanchez.
>Thanks for reading.
I would rather see them have a candidate who will turn the
conservative democratic vote away in November by the millions.
Jim Nicholson
Unfortunately, most politicians are not 100% responsive to our
cause or reliable. That's why a large membership in pro-gun
organizations is the best tactic to keep them under control. Doc
Brown is a firm believer that the votes of TSRA members are more
important to a politician than the financial support they receive
from the TSRA/PAC. Not that they don't hound him for support
when they have a campaign to run as much as some have told him
that they value the votes more. OTOH, that could be a
politician's way of saying they considered the TSRA/PAC to be
meager.
Rick Bowen
Amen.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Rick Bowen
No they are not. If it starts with a "D" they are against guns. Even
if they are not, guilt by association.
Spot
>Date: 2/23/02 4:00 PM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <e3ff7uoqaef8b6va0...@4ax.com>
Phil Gramm was "against guns"
before he switched parties? And as for the other side, as I recall it was
REPUBLICAN Bush who banned imported weapons and REPUBLICAN Reagan who endorsed
the Brady Bill.
Point in fact, Sanchez plans to make no changes in gun laws. His priority
is education, not guns.
Robb Nunya
So is he For or against School choice?
Maurice
John A. Stovall <sto...@our-town.com> wrote in message
news:21A9FB8CD13A207A.88038517...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:08:07 -0600, "Maurice" <Mau...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >==============================
> >
> >Now maybe John can tell us just how staunchly pro-gun Gov. Perry is. I
>
> Never said I love Republican's either. See my follow up rant.
> I personally think Perry is pro-what will get him elected with out any
> core values.
======================
I concur with your remark about Republicans, per se.... but here in SOTX,
the dems are generally Latinos who follow the "patron" system in power
brokering (and please don't think that the age-old term "patron" is always
in reference to Anglo land owners or George Parr types. The "new" patron
system is usually made up of powerful Latino lawyers and, from time to time,
activist physicians (but they are not nearly as aggressive as the lawyers.)
Fortunately, the day of paying people to drive around in pickup trucks with
a 4X8 sign in the bed designating the ("king-makers") approved canidate to
the electorage in the barrios who are presumed semi-literate and disposed to
vote for that "party" (after a BBQ or tamale feast, a free ride to the poll
and, in the past a few greenbacks in hand.) AND, oh yes, it helped if there
was a generous supply of cold cervesa at these functions. Those halycon
days are, happily, coming to a close. It is so pleasing that younger
Latinos are educated and thinking for themselves. One can just see the
frustration in the "old time" patron king-makers when they stray off the
reservation and vote with considerations other than "La Palanca".
And, certainly, Perry has exhibited clear "wet finger" voting proclivities.
=====================
> What he says and what he does are two different things. I call your
> attention to the statement made by then Vice President Bush at the NRA
> convention in (I think '87) about being so pro-Second Amendment and
> then three month's in to his presidency banning the import of
> Semi-automatic sporting rifle. That's why you can't buy an AUG,
> FAMAS, H&K, Galili, etc today for under 2000 dollars when they were
> 400-500.
>
> I'm sure you also welcome Bush statement but did you welcome his
> action?
====================
Personally, I was never very happy with Bush 41. To some of us he was just
another "blue-blood" from the "moderate (read liberal) north-eastern
Ivy-League" Republican party. (Lodge, Rockefeller branch, more or less).
We regarded him as just a necessary political placement by the Reagan camp
to pull those very votes from the "silk-stocking" Rs in the northeast.
(Much the same way the nation was screwed when the Kennedys believed they
had to stick LBJ on the ticket to get as many southern votes as possible...
plus old Joe's minions with cash moving around the eastern seaboard states
buying votes.) I still believe the asassination of JFK was close to, if not
THE, biggest disaster for the USA just BECAUSE it gave LBJ a chance to screw
up the whole nation with his welfare programs and the absolute disaster in
Vietnam... ALL his doing or, at least, willing participation.
As to Bush 41 and the NRA. He was, for years, an active hunter of quail
here in SOTX, arriving near Beeville for a much publicized hunt each winter.
(slick went duck hunting... remember?) Being a member of NRA was probably
just a political expedient that he stupidly cancelled much too quickly and
readily when he thought it was a political handicap. Remember Reagan stayed
with NRA even after he was shot! Now, that is a MAN! God bless him. Bush
41 further demonstrated his lack of real resolve when he "let" the Gulf War
coalition limit his pursuit of Saddam when the Iraqi army was there to be
destroyed completely. I think it was just a convenient excuse to "go home a
hero". (a rather puzzling advertising slogan of a Texas based grocery
chain...) Certainly we all pray that Geo. W. has learned completely from
his dad's tragic mistakes. (BUT, I won't let this diminish my belief that
George 41 was a good and decent man with patriotic beliefs... just way too
insulated from reality on some issues. Remember Herbert Hoover?)
=====================
> You are correct.
=====================
Thanks, so are you!
Paul Barnett
town.com says...
> I would rather see them have a candidate who will turn the
> conservative democratic vote away in November by the millions.
This happened on a regular basis when I lived in Minnesota. The
Republicans would rarely have a contested primary. So, they would
instead vote for the least electable Democrat in THEIR primary.
Jim Nicholson
>
> Remember Herbert Hoover?)
I remember life as a Hoover child, all too well.
Please explain "Bush 41" to some of us who are less bright,
Maurice.
Jim Nicholson
I'm still contemplating this ploy. I'm wondering how sick I would
feel if I didn't and Morales won by one vote.
Maurice
Jim Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
news:3C77E672...@akamail.com...
======================
Did I get his number wrong?
If not, explain what? AND, who said or implied that any of "us" are less
bright... than what, who... why?
M.
Sam A. Kersh
wrote:
>Paul Barnett wrote:
I'm still trying to decide which would be the easiest to defeat in
November; Sanchez or Morales. If San Antonio mattered, Morales by a
landslide --- Hell, the West side still thinks Henry Cisneros walks on
water. And having a couple of mistresses makes him a "macho man."
Sam A. Kersh
wrote:
>Maurice wrote:
Bush the Elder was the 41st President.
Maurice
Sam A. Kersh <sam.a...@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:f0rf7u02kk79kjc82...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:59:59 GMT, Jim Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Maurice wrote:
> >>
> >> Remember Herbert Hoover?)
> >
> >I remember life as a Hoover child, all too well.
> >
> >Please explain "Bush 41" to some of us who are less bright,
>
> Bush the Elder was the 41st President.
======================
That's certainly the one I was writing about... But I still do not
understand the "less bright" question... must be ME!
Thanks, Sam
M
=====================
Maurice
Sam A. Kersh <sam.a...@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:22rf7u01aefa7bkc1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:01:30 GMT, Jim Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Paul Barnett wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <j5bf7uo5i4jc2m2lr...@4ax.com>, stovall@our-
> >> town.com says...
> >>
> >> > I would rather see them have a candidate who will turn the
> >> > conservative democratic vote away in November by the millions.
> >>
> >> This happened on a regular basis when I lived in Minnesota. The
> >> Republicans would rarely have a contested primary. So, they would
> >> instead vote for the least electable Democrat in THEIR primary.
> >
> >I'm still contemplating this ploy. I'm wondering how sick I would
> >feel if I didn't and Morales won by one vote.
>
> I'm still trying to decide which would be the easiest to defeat in
> November; Sanchez or Morales. If San Antonio mattered, Morales by a
> landslide --- Hell, the West side still thinks Henry Cisneros walks on
> water.
==================
(Damn shame Teddy K. couldn't <g>)
=================
And having a couple of mistresses makes him a "macho man."
=================
(That's Hispanic SOP... not new and universal in practice. Who knows if it
is good or bad, can't say......... no experience - or no guts....)
M.
=================
Jim Nicholson
>
> Jim Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
> news:3C77E672...@akamail.com...
> > Maurice wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember Herbert Hoover?)
> >
> > I remember life as a Hoover child, all too well.
> >
> > Please explain "Bush 41" to some of us who are less bright,
> > Maurice.
>
> ======================
>
> Did I get his number wrong?
Oh, 41st President. See, hope that answers your next question.
JerryMouse
"Jim Nicholson" <jam...@akamail.com>
> > This happened on a regular basis when I lived in Minnesota. The
> > Republicans would rarely have a contested primary. So, they would
> > instead vote for the least electable Democrat in THEIR primary.
>
> I'm still contemplating this ploy. I'm wondering how sick I would
> feel if I didn't and Morales won by one vote.
Suppose I'm for Perry, and, being sneaky, I want the weakest
Democratic candidate in opposition.
Suppose 2 million others feel the way I do but are conflicted between
Morales and Sanchez.
Final primary vote:
Perry (unopposed): 200,000
Morales: 1,200,000
Sanchez: 1,300,000
Now we head toward the general election and Perry's looking for
(large) contributions. He probably won't glean as much as he would had
his final primary vote been 2.2 million. Imagine how much money Perry
could raise if he got 2.2 million votes unopposed while the Dems split
500,000 votes!
Personally, I intend to vote for my candidate every chance I get (even
if he's unopposed) and let the other party fail on its own merits.
Here's another way to look at it: If you're a Republican, would you
give MONEY to the weakest Democrat (or vice-versa)? In my view, it's
almost the same with votes.
Maurice
JerryMouse <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:mqUd8.173600$d34.13...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
>
> Suppose I'm for Perry, and, being sneaky, I want the weakest
> Democratic candidate in opposition.
>
> Suppose 2 million others feel the way I do but are conflicted between
> Morales and Sanchez.
>
> Final primary vote:
>
> Perry (unopposed): 200,000
>
> Morales: 1,200,000
> Sanchez: 1,300,000
>
> Now we head toward the general election and Perry's looking for
> (large) contributions. He probably won't glean as much as he would had
> his final primary vote been 2.2 million. Imagine how much money Perry
> could raise if he got 2.2 million votes unopposed while the Dems split
> 500,000 votes!
>
> Personally, I intend to vote for my candidate every chance I get (even
> if he's unopposed) and let the other party fail on its own merits.
=============================
Well, Jerry, down here (and in other places, we are told) we DO vote for the
weakest candidate in the primary (that's why so many get counted as
registered Democrats) when the Republican side is not contested... and,
furthermore, there are seldom "down ballot" candidates in the R party,
anyway. It is not unusual to have the Dem get many more votes than the R
but come the general election the vote totals are often reversed.
I have a cousin that always voted for the (Not So) Rev. Jackson every time
he got his august name on the ballot. Now THAT would be a shudder.
When the town we live in was much smaller there was a very gentle and kind
black man that made his way (no welfare for him) by plying the trade of
working with a mule and fresno. (I'll be pleased to explain what it is, but
don't want to be accused of speaking to the "less bright") He did not like
wagons (too tall) so he rode around town on a wooden sled (seats and all)
with his fresno on the back if he was on the way to a job. Everyone liked
and admired the man and he worked for all of us from time to time.
However, some of the "old guard" were rather puffed up about their rightful
standing in the community and sort of traded off running for mayor. Well,
there developed a practice among the "lesser lights" of putting Mr. Bailey's
name in the write-in column for mayor. (first name Faust). He dang near
won a time or two and the message got to the self-styled blue noses.
Frankly I think Mr. Bailey would have been a wonderful mayor. (And his mule
was probably a few notches on the evolutional ladder above the wise guys!)
Sorry, off topic but as good as some.
M.
But the argument for and against voting for the weakest enemy will continue
with varied results, one supposes.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
snipped
>Morales: 1,200,000
>Sanchez: 1,300,000
>
Why not 1.5 million for John Worldpeace?
He's the really weak Democrat.
http://www.johnworldpeace.org/ndxptr.html
But he slings some good mud.
******************************************
That public men publish falsehoods
Is nothing new. That America must accept
Like the historical republics corruption and empire
Has been known for years.
Be Angry at the Sun
Robinson Jeffers
John A. Stovall
snipped
> Does that mean Democrat George Wallace was "against guns"? That Democrat
>Phil Gramm was "against guns"
Do either of them call for the repeal of NFA-34 if not there were
"against guns". It as simple as that.
>before he switched parties? And as for the other side, as I recall it was
>REPUBLICAN Bush who banned imported weapons and REPUBLICAN Reagan who endorsed
>the Brady Bill.
Never said they were pro-gun and they weren't. I ask why didn't
Reagan veto the "FOPA" because of the May-86 freeze provision. If he
were Pro-gun he would have.
>
> Point in fact, Sanchez plans to make no changes in gun laws. His priority
>is education, not guns.
>
All of your examples show one point very clearly, politician lie and
will lie for power at the expense of Liberty and Freedom.
Therefore Sanchez will lie.
*****************************************************
Let boys want pleasure, and men
Struggle for power, and women perhaps for fame,
And the servile to serve a Leader and the dupes
to be duped.
Yours is not theirs.
Hdlinnebur
>>
>
>> >The flyer has a photo of him hunting with his sons, and ends with
>> >this (the capitalization is his): "Since September 11, the LAST
>> >thing we need is more restrictions on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' RIGHT
>> >to defend their
>> >lives, loved ones and property."
>>
>> Yes, but He's still a Democrat.
>
Sadly enough that is true.
How that can be given the Framers rational behind the right to own and bare
arms is a mystery though - to some. :)
Sam A. Kersh
<sto...@our-town.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:09:22 GMT, "JerryMouse" <inv...@invalid.net>
>wrote:
>
>snipped
>>Morales: 1,200,000
>>Sanchez: 1,300,000
>>
>
>Why not 1.5 million for John Worldpeace?
>
>He's the really weak Democrat.
>
>http://www.johnworldpeace.org/ndxptr.html
>
>But he slings some good mud.
Yes, he makes much of Morales' wife being an ex-stripper. IMNHO, her
worse sin was marrying Dan and what she did to support her children is
immaterial.
Max Tindell
> Paul Barnett wrote:
> > This happened on a regular basis when I lived in Minnesota. The
> > Republicans would rarely have a contested primary. So, they would
> > instead vote for the least electable Democrat in THEIR primary.
> I'm still contemplating this ploy. I'm wondering how sick I would
> feel if I didn't and Morales won by one vote.
This is all well and good, but in Paul's example, the Republican's
primaries were seldom contested. This year we have a three man contest
for State Rep in 127, as well as in State Senate district 4 and both
have a TSRA endorsed candidate running.
Max
John A. Stovall
Well and good, but for those in districts without contested races. I
say, vote Worldpeace.
******************************************************************
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
_not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
L. Neil Smith
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html
Jim Nicholson
Yeah, I know, Max. I was studying early voting strategy just this
morning and decided that I simply cannot ignore some of the
Republican options. One good example is I would like to see Self
eliminate Armey's son for his father's spot in the Senate. With
Patterson Vs George, though, it's only a matter of loyalty
because there is absolutely nothing wrong with George that I see.
Matter of fact, he is a shrewder business man than Jerry (I know
that's blasphemy), but I have swapped stories with both.
Anyhoo, I'm staying in the Republican primary. Meanwhile, I'll
keep my fingers crossed for Sanchez. I like his strong stance on
RKBA. Haven't met the man, but did sit with one of his sons
(Tony) at the TSRA banquet last week in Corpus.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
snipped
>Yeah, I know, Max. I was studying early voting strategy just this
>morning and decided that I simply cannot ignore some of the
>Republican options. One good example is I would like to see Self
>eliminate Armey's son for his father's spot in the Senate. With
Armey is in the Senate!! The Republic is in greater danger than I
thought.
Do wish I was back in Denton so I could vote against the baby weasel
Scott. As a County Commissioner, he defined what a negative zero is.
****************************************************
"The World's in a bad way, my man,
And bound to be worse before it mends;
Better to lie up in the mountain here
Four or five centuries, ............."
Said the old father of wild pigs,
Plowing the fallow on Mal Paso Mountain.
The Stars Go Over the Lonely Ocean
Robinson Jeffers
Jim Nicholson
>
>
> Armey is in the Senate!! The Republic is in greater danger than I
> thought.
That was a case of ambrosia or sumthin'.
John Garand
WROTE:
>Certainly we all pray that Geo. W. has learned completely from
>his dad's tragic mistakes. (BUT, I won't let this diminish my belief that
>George 41 was a good and decent man with patriotic beliefs... just way too
>insulated from reality on some issues. Remember Herbert Hoover?)
Unfortunately, I don't think he has learned from all of the mistakes.
His immediate implementation of the Clinton (and before??) Homeland
Defense agency shows either a lack of understanding of freedom, or an
inclination to impose a police state apparatus. His failure to
eliminate most of the Clinton "midnight" EOs is yet another strike
against him.
While I can't say I would have preferred the alternative outcome to
the election of 2000, I also can't say I'm happy with the outcome. W
simply is further proof to Margaret Thatcher's "ratchet" theory of
government.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----