# mitt romney



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

the only one of the 4 top leaders that is pro 2nd amendment
he is an nra member also


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I'm not sure I'd classify as "pro 2nd Amendment" anyone who is willing to sign a ban on "assault weapons." Mr. Romney was anti-gun as governor of MA, but is now, rather conveniently, "pro-gun" as a presidential candidate. But he is still very willing to ban your AR15.


----------



## Alaskan_Viking (Jun 13, 2006)

Ummm...Isn't Ron Paul still in 4th place?


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

hideit said:


> the only one of the 4 top leaders that is pro 2nd amendment
> he is an nra member also


He just recently bought a lifetime NRA membership, I believe. However, when he ran for governor of Mass., the NRA refused to endorse anyone in that race, and his Democratic opponent had a better NRA "grade" than Romney did!

As little as two months ago, he was still supporting gun control.

http://race42008.com/2008/02/03/romney-flips-on-guns/


----------



## cimarronvalley (Feb 16, 2007)

*Alternatives?*

Well, what are your alternatives? You got 2 communist (AKA; democrats), one Socialist (McCain), one sellout to the socialist (Huckabee), and one semi conservative in Romney. 
The first four will sell your gunrights out on the first political whim. McCain is a twobit C.S. and cannot be trusted. I respect, admire, and honor his military carreer and all the suffering he went through. However, in the last 30 years, he has sold out to the Beltway Establishment. Can we say Keating 5?
As far as the Anarchist Paul is concerned, he couldn't garnish enough votes for dog catcher in a small Oklahoma town.
I'll take my chances with the Mormon!


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

cimarronvalley said:


> Well, what are your alternatives? You got 2 communist (AKA; democrats), one Socialist (McCain), one sellout to the socialist (Huckabee), and one semi conservative in Romney.
> The first four will sell your gunrights out on the first political whim. McCain is a twobit C.S. and cannot be trusted. I respect, admire, and honor his military carreer and all the suffering he went through. However, in the last 30 years, he has sold out to the Beltway Establishment. Can we say Keating 5?
> As far as the Anarchist Paul is concerned, he couldn't garnish enough votes for dog catcher in a small Oklahoma town.
> I'll take my chances with the Mormon!


I'll have to agree...

I come from a Mormon upbringing, so I at least know where Romney stands when it comes to families and morals... 2 areas where this Country needs a major overhaul. He also has more experience when it comes to the economy. It's just sad that he'll take away my 2nd amendment rights with a stroke of the pen.

Every level of the government, from DC to local, have failed the American people and it's just going to get worse.

I have officially lost all hope for this country. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves... in disgust. On November 4th, 2008 I will walk across the street and lay flowers on the graves of a hand full of Revolutionary War soldiers who are buried there. Of course, the illegal mexicans who take care of the graveyard grounds will more than likely remove them the next day.

and that, is the state of the union...


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

js said:


> I come from a Mormon upbringing, so I at least know where Romney stands when it comes to families and morals... 2 areas where this Country needs a major overhaul.


I admire Mr. Romney's values when it comes to his family as well, but I am not sure what the president can do about a cultural issue. What would you like a president to do about divorce, out of wedlock childbirth, adultery, etc., *js*? Not trying to be flippant at all, it's a serious question.



> He also has more experience when it comes to the economy.


While I am utterly unconvinced the economy is in as a bad a shape as the media establishment would like us to believe, I do think Mr. Romney would do a good job exerting the fairly limited power the president has over the economy.



> Every level of the government, from DC to local, have failed the American people and it's just going to get worse.


I see statements like this all the time on gun boards. But America maintains a standard of living and wealth that is practically unrivaled on the planet. We can say what we want about the government, worship as we choose, move freely about the country, and don't generally live in fear of anything. I'd say the governments are doing a reasonably good job.

Obviously America isn't perfect - it never will be, and no country is - but I'd stop short of calling it a failure. If you want to see the real results of a failed government, come to Afghanistan for a little while.

The world isn't going to end if Senator McCain or even one of the Democrats is elected. As I have said before, the Republic has endured bad presidents before, and it will endure bad ones again. Hell, America hasn't had a good president since Ronald Reagan, and it's still around.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

hideit said:


> the only one of the 4 top leaders that is pro 2nd amendment
> he is an nra member also


Am I missing something?

McCain: "John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. " (from his web site)

Huckabee's views are equally clear, but I suppose he isn't really in the top four (overall)

As for any candidate touting an NRA membership, (especially one that's brand new), any qualification you buy doesn't carry much weight with me. Sarah Brady could have a membership tomorrow if it served her interests.

Please set me straight on McCain if his actions don't match his statements though.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

MLB said:


> Please set me straight on McCain if his actions don't match his statements though.


Senator McCain wants to "close the gunshow loophole," which you can read as "eliminate private gun sales." You can even read about it on the web site of one of our opponents: http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/ags/ad_mccain.html. Heck, you can even watch the TV ad starring The Maverick himself!

Further, from www.ontheissues.org:

* Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
* Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

Of course, his assaults on the Second Amendment absolutely pale in comparison to his successful attack on the First. He attempted to muzzle NRA (and all "special interest" groups) with the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, aka _McCain-Feingold_.

I don't care what Mr. Romney or Senator McCain say this week about supporting the Second Amendment. Talk is cheap, and both have a long history of anti-gun activity.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2008)

Alaskan_Viking said:


> Ummm...Isn't Ron Paul still in 4th place?


Ron Paul is the only 'pro Constitution' candidate. The rest.....nothing more than media darlings. The one's who you HAVE to vote for. The truth be damned.No difference between them. If there was a difference you'd hear more about and from Ron Paul. He has my vote even if he goes independent.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Well, I won't vote for Rep. Paul, but I do agree there is little to choose between the "Fab Four."

Of course, Ron Paul pulled a whopping 3% in Florida, so there seems little reason to take him seriously as a candidate.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I admire Mr. Romney's values when it comes to his family as well, but I am not sure what the president can do about a cultural issue. What would you like a president to do about divorce, out of wedlock childbirth, adultery, etc., *js*? Not trying to be flippant at all, it's a serious question.


It would be just nice to have a good role model for a change. 



Mike Barham said:


> While I am utterly unconvinced the economy is in as a bad a shape as the media establishment would like us to believe, I do think Mr. Romney would do a good job exerting the fairly limited power the president has over the economy.


He is a banker... so he does have somewhat of a clue. The others on the other hand... do not.



Mike Barham said:


> I see statements like this all the time on gun boards. But America maintains a standard of living and wealth that is practically unrivaled on the planet. We can say what we want about the government, worship as we choose, move freely about the country, and don't generally live in fear of anything. I'd say the governments are doing a reasonably good job.


I'm talking more a about individual rights eroding away... more and more as each year goes by. Not just the 2nd amendment, but others as well.



Mike Barham said:


> Obviously America isn't perfect - it never will be, and no country is - but I'd stop short of calling it a failure. If you want to see the real results of a failed government, come to Afghanistan for a little while.


Oh, no doubt about it... there are sh*tholes all over this planet. But, we have a constitution that is supposed to guarantee our rights. That's what our forefathers fought and died for. Those fundamental rights of our freedom are threatened everyday from those in our own government.



Mike Barham said:


> The world isn't going to end if Senator McCain or even one of the Democrats is elected. As I have said before, the Republic has endured bad presidents before, and it will endure bad ones again. Hell, America hasn't had a good president since Ronald Reagan, and it's still around.


You're right... But it's not just this election, it's been one bad president after another since (in my opinion) Reagan. We are slowing bleeding to death... Which president and congress will deal this country it's final death blow, the point of no return. With most jobs going overseas or to Mexico, 30 million illegal Mexicans sucking the US system dry, China now the world's main supplier of.....well....sh*t and not to mention their new military strength , Iran building nuke, our southern border completely open for the most part, our continuous fight to keep our 2nd amendment rights, a failing educational system, etc. It's also extremely rare to see anything that says "Made in the USA" anymore.

A recession is most definitely on the horizon, I've give it 2 more months...tops. Some are even saying (link) we are in one now and with the feds cutting key rates, twice in the past 2 weeks, is a clear sign that we are already there. But this time around this country is different in so many ways, compared to the last time we were in a recession. We don't have the industry and job strength, plus factor in 30 million illegals draining the system. Then factor in the national debt and worthless dollar....


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

While I am certainly no fan of President Bush, I think he is a very good role model for "family values." He is faithful to his wife and loves his daughters. I don't know how Mr. Romney would be better than that. Mr. Giuliani was a bad role model for families, maybe as bad as Bill Clinton, but I think the rest of the GOP pack are decent enough fellows. So, for that matter, seems Senator Obama.

Ronald Reagan was divorced. John Kennedy was in all likelihood banging Marilyn Monroe. Bill Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office. I don't like any of it, but I doubt the acts of president have much influence on the sexual mores of general society. I think the entertainment industry has done far more damage to American society in that regard than every philandering president combined.

Ehhh, people have been crying that the sky is falling since the dawn of the Republic. America has endured recessions and depressions and lousy exchange rates and expensive oil before. We will again.

_All this has happened before. All this will happen again._ - Battlestar Galactica :mrgreen:

But maybe I have to believe that, so I can believe my mission is worthwhile.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

There is a saying in a signature line that I see occasionaly that pretty well sums it up.

"It's to late to fix from within and too early to shoot the bastards." 

Hang on tight to your guns cause they could be needed at some point in the future.
Who knows, Mikes bosses might try to pull a Coup if Hillary gets in. :smt076

:smt1099


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> While I am utterly unconvinced the economy is in as a bad a shape as the media establishment would like us to believe


Well as a manufacturer of holsters, I should imagine you are doing quite well in this time of uncertainty and fear.

Prices have been rising for food and gasoline. Has your income kept up with these increases?



Mike Barham said:


> ..fairly limited power the president has over the economy.


The President's energy strategy for E85 has increased the price of corn, subsequently animal feed and meat prices have also risen. E85 fuel economy is 30% worse than gasoline, but there is no discount E85 at the pump. The biggest argument for E85 is to please corn growing states. Biodiesel (from fryer grease) and methanol (from sewage) would have less economic impact since its literally made from crap.



Mike Barham said:


> But America maintains a standard of living and wealth that is practically unrivaled on the planet.


I have to question the yardstick we use to define our standard of living. We have people who have big screen TVs and SUVs, but live in trailer parks without health insurance. Having lived and been TAD'd in Canada, Europe, Central and South America I've never seen this combination elsewhere.



Mike Barham said:


> We can say what we want about the government, worship as we choose, move freely about the country,


Japanese internment, Patriot Act, Illegal NSA wiretaps, CARNIVORE



Mike Barham said:


> and don't generally live in fear of anything.


why do we all have concealed weapons permits if not fear?



Mike Barham said:


> Obviously America isn't perfect - it never will be, and no country is - but I'd stop short of calling it a failure..


Agreed. What makes us great is our unbridled optimism and the unswerving conviction that we can do better. This great thing called Democracy gives us the right to improve and get beyond any failure.



Mike Barham said:


> The world isn't going to end if Senator McCain or even one of the Democrats is elected. As I have said before, the Republic has endured bad presidents before, and it will endure bad ones again. Hell, America hasn't had a good president since Ronald Reagan, and it's still around.


I miss Reagan too. I only wish the 2 parties would just provide us with candidates worthy of the office.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Probably a stupid question to ask on a gun forum but, is gun control really the BIGGEST issue when it come to deciding the next President?

I'm probably more concerned with Iraq, Heath Care, Stem Cell Research...........OIL/Economy......etc....


----------



## akr (Mar 8, 2007)

> Ban cheap guns


If I've already got'em, they can't ban'em from me, can they? :numbchuck: :smt022


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> Probably a stupid question to ask on a gun forum but, is gun control really the BIGGEST issue when it come to deciding the next President?
> 
> I'm probably more concerned with Iraq, Heath Care, Stem Cell Research...........OIL/Economy......etc....


An important one, but far from being the only, or even the biggest one (for me anyway.) One issue voting is why we often hear of the "[Conservative, Black, Latino, Women, etc] vote". I think deciding the Presidency of the United States based on any single issue is myopic.

As to whether or not they can ban your "cheap" guns; why yes, they can do whatever we allow them to do.

A fine point on the Constitution "guaranteeing our rights"; As I understand it, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are statements enumerating rights we already claimed to have, not granted by the documents.

As always, feel free to differ...


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

submoa said:


> Well as a manufacturer of holsters, I should imagine you are doing quite well in this time of uncertainty and fear.
> 
> Prices have been rising for food and gasoline. Has your income kept up with these increases?


Galco is expanding its manufacturing facility in Phoenix. :mrgreen:



> We have people who have big screen TVs and SUVs, but live in trailer parks without health insurance. Having lived and been TAD'd in Canada, Europe, Central and South America I've never seen this combination elsewhere.


I agree that Americans often spend money frivolously. But the fact that we _have_ money to spend frivolously speaks well of the American economy.



> Japanese internment, Patriot Act, Illegal NSA wiretaps, CARNIVORE


We agree a lot more than we disagree. I despise all those things, and three of those are reasons I oppose Senator McCain.



> why do we all have concealed weapons permits if not fear?


I was talking a little more broadly than fear of the remote chances of a random attack from a street thug. Here in Afghanistan, people live in fear of honor killings, religious punishment, the Taliban, suicide bombers, etc. Our fears in American are pretty paltry in comparison.



> Agreed. What makes us great is our unbridled optimism and the unswerving conviction that we can do better. This great thing called Democracy gives us the right to improve and get beyond any failure.


*Well said!* Where's that little applause smily thing?


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Ronald Reagan was divorced. John Kennedy was in all likelihood banging Marilyn Monroe. Bill Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office. I don't like any of it, but I doubt the acts of president have much influence on the sexual mores of general society. I think the entertainment industry has done far more damage to American society in that regard than every philandering president combined.


As much as the "Bill Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office" part made me laugh, you couldn't say something any truer than this. Just because the president doesn't have the best morals when it comes to his own personal relationships does not mean every American citizen is gonna go out and repeat the actions. Presidents run our country; they don't sit in the Oval Office and pretend to be role models.

Last semester I took FAM253: Introduction to Human Sexuality. We discussed the adult entertainment industry in very close detail, and its effects on cultures worldwide. Also, there was a section about cable TV and all the filth it displays with well over half of TV programs displaying the characters, who are more of a role model than our president, committing acts of adultery, cheating, and other acts that those of us that have morals label as wrong. Sex in the City being on once a week is way worse for the American public's moral and actions than the president cheating on his wife with an overweight intern.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, I won't vote for Rep. Paul, but I do agree there is little to choose between the "Fab Four."
> 
> Of course, Ron Paul pulled a whopping 3% in Florida, so there seems little reason to take him seriously as a candidate.


Vote fraud? Nawwww....


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Gunerd said:


> Vote fraud? Nawwww....


You Ron Paul guys crack me up. Multiple independent polls show him in the single digits before a primary, then the result of the actual primary reflects those numbers. But it's voter fraud? Were the independent polls all fixed, too? Gimme a break.

How about:

"Guy is a lousy public speaker."
"Guy's message, including an anti-war position in a *GOP* primary, doesn't resonate with the base."
"Guy surrounds himself with wacko racists, conspiracy theorists, and various other freakish assclowns."
"Guy's name recognition is practically non-existent."
"Guy's major campaign ad is a blimp instead of a TV commercial."

Yet somehow it's always someone else's fault that Paul's number suck. Not sure if that's conspiracy theory or just an entitlement mentality.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> You Ron Paul guys crack me up. Multiple independent polls show him in the single digits before a primary, then the result of the actual primary reflects those numbers. But it's voter fraud? Were the independent polls all fixed, too? Gimme a break.
> 
> How about:
> 
> ...


Heh...you anti-Paul guys really crack me up!
Your "how abouts" are typical of the breed.
Vote fraud?? Naw.........You just keep believing you make a difference.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Josef Stalin


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Are you suggesting that Ron Paul actually recieved a comparable number of votes as (say) McCain? What makes you think this is so?

I don't discount fraud out of hand, but there does need to be something to suggest it anyway.

I read a good one-liner on someone's sig line a while ago, something to the effect of: "In God we trust, all others bring data."


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Gunerd said:


> Heh...you anti-Paul guys really crack me up!
> Your "how abouts" are typical of the breed.
> Vote fraud?? Naw.........You just keep believing you make a difference.


How about you actually refute some of my "how abouts," then?

The guy IS a lousy public speaker. Witness his stammering "explanation" of his voting record on MSNBC a few weeks ago.

The guy DOES have an anti-war position, but the GOP base is pro-war.

The guy DOES associate with racists - there's a picture of him with the founder of Stormfront, and Lew Rockwell was his ghostwriter.

The guy DOES have a name-recognition problem. Multiple polls have found this. No one will vote for a guy they never heard of.

The guy DOES have a blimp, and is the only candidate to have one. I do not know if blimps are effective campaigning (though the slogan could be "Propaganda from above!").



> "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Josef Stalin


Yes, but fortunately we do not live in Soviet Russia. If Ron Paul fans think we do, that is simply another symptom of their continuing delusion.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

$10 says we get another hanging chads problem. This time it'll be in California because California sucks.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> How about you actually refute some of my "how abouts," then?
> 
> The guy IS a lousy public speaker. Witness his stammering "explanation" of his voting record on MSNBC a few weeks ago.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with you at all. A breed as I stated. You really have too much time on your hands.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Yeah, that's about what I expected. You can't rebut the facts presented, so instead attack the guy who presents them.

You'll just have to excuse me for actually taking the time to research the presidential candidates. I am _very_ glad I did, rather than taking the word of Ron Paul fans about how great their guy is, and how only "Dr. Paul" can save America.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> Yeah, that's about what I expected. You can't rebut the facts presented, so instead attack the guy who presents them.
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me for actually taking the time to research the presidential candidates. I am _very_ glad I did, rather than taking the word of Ron Paul fans about how great their guy is, and how only "Dr. Paul" can save America.


Like I stated, too much time on yer hands. I don't know how much research you are happy to have done regarding the candidates. Not enough it seems. So please do tell, who...do,you endorse? Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution. The rest.......and yours?


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Ron Paul may indeed adhere to the Constitution. The point in question was about voter fraud. The fact that people are not voting per your thinking doesn't suggest that there is something nefarious going on. They may simply disagree.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't "endorse" anyone. I will very likely abstain.

McCain is an authoritarian.

Paul has zero chance, and I distrust him anyway.

Clinton and Obama are socialists.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2008)

Vote fraud is alive and healthy.Always has been. Like I stated in another post,
"Those who vote decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"
Josef Stalin
Being in Communist Russia makes no difference. 
Not trusting Ron Paul? Well, perhaps adhering to the Constitution must be bad. It's been a while since anyone has. Scary thing for those one worlders.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Was it voter fraud when Ronald Reagan was elected too?


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2008)

Ron Paul has 14 delegates to the convention, only 1150 to go. Woo Hoo. I hear he's big in American Samoa.

Romney had sense enough to drop out with only 291 delegates.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TerryP said:


> Ron Paul has 14 delegates to the convention, only 1150 to go. Woo Hoo. I hear he's big in American Samoa.
> 
> Romney had sense enough to drop out with only 291 delegates.


Yeah, Ron Paul has been eliminated on the basis of the delegate count alone. Then again, Ron Paul fans haven't wanted to do the math since the beginning. The guy has seldom even polled in the double digits, and _most_ of the primary/caucus results have reflected that. Saying it's Stalinist voter fraud is just a way of trying to rationalize Paul's poor showing, which can be blamed more on a message that doesn't resonate with GOP primary voters and the fact that he's cozied up to racists, 9/11 Truthers and loony people who chase talk show hosts in the streets(which are the reasons I don't trust him). Generally, things involving government can be blamed on incompetence rather than malice, and I think Paul ran a pretty incompetent campaign.

Well, that and his "I voted against earmarks before I voted for them" thing.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't see how Mike Huckabee can make a comeback with the delegate count the way it is. But I suppose Huckabee and "Dr. Paul" will forge on in an attempt to make the point that Sen. McCain doesn't speak for all Republicans, which is certainly true.

Maybe Paul will run as a third party Libertarian, which is really where most of his beliefs belong, anyway. This way he can get less than 1% of the vote, which seems about right. I wonder if his remaining fans will demand a recount. Of course, in Ron Paul Fantasy Land, I'm sure the election officials in every state are secretly Stalinists conspiring to strip _The Constitutional Messiah_ of his rightful ascension to the presidency. :mrgreen:


----------



## DLSeeAmerica (Feb 8, 2008)

Fred40 said:


> Probably a stupid question to ask on a gun forum but, is gun control really the BIGGEST issue when it come to deciding the next President?
> 
> I'm probably more concerned with Iraq, Heath Care, Stem Cell Research...........OIL/Economy......etc....


I consider support for the Second Amendment a terrific "Litmus Test" after reading this essay by L. Neil Smith:

From: http://www.lneilsmith.org/

Speaking of politicians in general, he says:


> What his attitude-toward your ownership and use of weapons-conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
> 
> If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
> 
> If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend-the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights-do you want to entrust him with anything?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Then I guess Mr. Smith will be abstaining or voting third party this year. I do agree that there is an overaching philosophical difference that generally makes conservatives lean against gun control and liberals lean toward it, though.

Realistically, though, most politicians (like most people) hold contradictory philosophical premises. The candidate you like on gun control may be completely off base (to you) on, say, the environment or the war in Iraq.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> ....
> Realistically, though, most politicians (like most people) hold contradictory philosophical premises. The candidate you like on gun control may be completely off base (to you) on, say, the environment or the war in Iraq.


And ain't that the rub? I mean, Where is theat perfect candidate who agrees with me on everything gall dang it. :smt076 Wait. Thats me. And I am not running. :target:

But seriously don't we all sorta wish there was that "perfect" candidate whom we agreed with 98% of the time? As has been stated here and elsewhere, we gotta go with the one closest. And that really sucks right now in my NSHO.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

niadhf said:


> But seriously don't we all sorta wish there was that "perfect" candidate whom we agreed with 98% of the time? As has been stated here and elsewhere, we gotta go with the one closest. And that really sucks right now in my NSHO.


I think it was Ed Koch who basically said, "_Pick twelve issues. If you agree with me on eight of them, I'm your man._"

I can agree with that to a degree. In a democracy, compromise is often necessary, though to quote Jeff Cooper, "_One should not be happy about shaving one's principles_."

But I do think there are some things that are non-negotiable. I won't vote for a candidate who, like Sen. McCain, goes out of his way to crush the First Amendment, for example. Even if I liked his positions on many other issues, I couldn't give him my vote because of _McCain-Feingold_. It says way too much about his arrogance and his very casual disregard (if not outright disdain) for the Bill of Rights.


----------

