+1 Your logic sounds just like mine.
I believe it has been brought up on here before that if a bill for open carry is sent to Mary Fallin as Governor it would get signed by here per her website. I doubt very seriously if Askins would do the same.My vote goes to Fallin.
As to your first two sentences quoted above, that horse has already left the barn since she's been in politics for nearly 20 years already. I'd say that counts as "established in politics".
As to your third sentence, it is unlikely that Brogdon will be able to conceal his inner nutburger long enough to get re-elected as a state senator. If you will carefully consider Brogdon's positions, it will become obvious to you he is just a "statist" of a conservative stripe. We might think he would have been better due to his stand on firearms but I believe we would have rued the day he was elected as governor.
C'mon, are you kiddin me? Love her or hate her on other issues, but this one is a no-brainer which the NRA has right on the RKBA.
The current governor - ya know, the a-hole who vetoed several pro-gun bills overriding the will of the people - is from the same party as Askins. The governor is in a true position of power when it comes to gun rights, with the veto power, and the D party completely dropped the ball here - they must not be rewarded for jackass's vetoes.
Askins' website says nil, nothing, nada about her stances on gun rights.
Fallin's has an entire page devoted to the "Second Amendment" http://www.maryfallin.org/issues/second-amendment
One of the easiest choices you could ever have from a gun rights stand point. I'm not saying you should be a one-issue voter, but if you are, Askins sucks and Fallin is the clear winner.
Not a big deal though, because it will probably be a stompin regardless.
The current governor - ya know, the a-hole who vetoed several pro-gun bills overriding the will of the people - is from the same party as Askins. The governor is in a true position of power when it comes to gun rights, with the veto power, and the D party completely dropped the ball here - they must not be rewarded for jackass's vetoes.
Askins' website says nil, nothing, nada about her stances on gun rights.
Fallin's has an entire page devoted to the "Second Amendment" http://www.maryfallin.org/issues/second-amendment
One of the easiest choices you could ever have from a gun rights stand point. I'm not saying you should be a one-issue voter, but if you are, Askins sucks and Fallin is the clear winner.
Not a big deal though, because it will probably be a stompin regardless.
Yes, she has been in politics 20 years too long. I was just floating the idea that it might be better for our liberty and our party in the long run to crush the careers of people like her before they go any farther, and rebuild with actual principled candidates.
Which of Brogdon's positions do you find to be statist?
"Conservative" is not necessarily the same as a laissez faire, smaller government approach.
Conservative politics and judicial process have brought us government wiretaps (Olmstead v USA, USA PATRIOT Act), watered down 2nd Amendment court rulings (Heller, McDonald), deficit spending (Reagan budget, Bush budget), military conflicts with seemingly no purpose or end (Iraq, Afghanistan).
This is not to say that Liberal political thought has not committed the same offenses. This post is not to criticize a particular candidate, or even a particular political party or school of thought. I could list multiple injustices and inhumunaities that Liberal politics and thought have brought us (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, FDR and LBJ budgets, opposition to civil rights acts, etc.) but I will omit that commentary them to keep this brief.
This post is meant to criticize partisan politics, and the general notion that most Americans have embraced the notion of selecting a candidate based on one particular issue, or party affiliation.
Labels such as Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, Statist or Anarchist, Socialist or Capitalist; those mean little to me. I cannot be painted with any one of those brushes as my ideology varies from issue to issue. I do my best to think independently on each topic and come to my own conclusions.
Please consider the totality of your candidate and his or her platform, and the implications those may have if he or she is in office. Do not become polarized or blinded by one particular issue. You candidate's stances or convictions on the smallest of issues, however seemingly slight or inconsequential, may well have a lasting impact on all of us.
We may have to compromise when selecting a candidate; ballot access should be the number one issue of any person who believes we are to remain a free and self-governing nation. Why should we possibly limit our own options when it comes to selecting the leadership of our country? Even given the other controls of the US political system (Electoral College, two houses of Congress, Judicial process, Executive Veto power, Constitutional Amendment process, etc.), we felt that limiting the pool of potential elected officials in most states was a good idea? Of course neither of the two dominant will support this, and we continue to let it happen! We should all be ashamed!
This ^ for me!
I wanted Brogdon, but have to pick the lesser of two evils this time around. I'm tired of voting against candidates rather than for a particular person. There is too much at stake nationally and locally to decide any differently at this point.
