Republican or Democrat

Easy answer: both!

Regards,
BiR

 

I'm in a political quandry this year. I have voted Republican for the most of my voting life. This coming election I have some issues to consider. Our present Republican Governor (who is probably going to run for president) (and for whom I voted) has given me cause to consider. Massachusetts implimented a very successful prescription program for us seniors called "Prescription Advantage". It is not a welfare based program- it operates efficiently and smoothly- and provides an insurance program that has been a model for other states to consider. I was one of the first to enroll. The first thing our new governor attempted to do was to eliminate this program entirely. BTW- since he is a millionaire he takes no salary,and he doesn't need Prescription Advantage, apparently. The legislature overruled him on this matter. During his tenure, he and the Lt. Governor attempted to put the clamp on senior housing- characterizing seniors as "over-housed". Our schools are approching a state of "shambles" as teachers are now sending letters home with the kids telling the parents that they have to buy paper, pencils,books etc. etc. because the schools don't have enough money to buy them. Kids are being asked to pay a fee to participate in sports. It is estimated that the average extra repair cost on each vehicle is now 6-7 hundred dollars per year as a result of driving on our secondary state roads. This past year, while attempting to enroll my wife in her social security, the social security worker apparently lost her documents, and 3 months went by with no response. After 2 more months of unanswered phone calls, e-mails, calls to Washington, visits to the office- and no reponse, the only one that would help us and finally got results was- guess who? Our Congressman- a Democrat!( We finally conclude that the worker lost the documents and was attempting a cover up). Massachusetts population is decreasing to the point that our representation in Washington may be affected, I am told. People can no longer afford to live here! (A small 4-room older house the size of a summer camp is advertized locally at $400,000.00). Now I have to decide whether the Republicans are correct when they say that the Democrats are "tax and spend"- or that the Democrats are correct when they tell me that the tax cuts for the wealthy are not going to produce more employment, but will benfit only the recipients.
Too much-- I'm tired!

 

Whats the difference in Republican and Democrat other then Rhetoric

 

Since I turned 18, I have voted Republican for every office (the odd ones being 2 judicial seats I voted Democrat out of spite).

I am a member of the Republican National Committee.

I will continue to vote for my conservative Republican Congressman, Rep. Michael McCaul.

I will vote for conservative Republican candidate for State Senate, Dan Patrick.

I will vote for moderately conservative Republican candidate, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

I am not sure what I will do about the Governorship. I really don't care for any of the candidates.

I would say that a good 80% or better of the people I know in Primitive Baptist churches in this area vote Republican most of the time.

I am socially very conservative and fiscally moderate-conservative.

I am anti-abortion, anti-gun control(with exceptions), pro-death penalty, anti-illegal immigration, pro-senior healthcare assistance, anti-gay marriage, pro-lower property taxes, pro-environment(with exceptions), pro-small business, and pro-animal rights(with exceptions).

These stances put me on the outs with many people from both sides of the aisle, but I'm just going with my beliefs here, based on the law, precedence, and my religious/moral convictions.

FYI, I have not made a monetary contribution at all to the RNC this year. I wrote a letter stating that I would not until Republicans Congress would stop pandering to the left, and to the President, and vote for the issues for which they were elected.

I don't think I'm making too many friends.:smilewinkgrin:

 

You better be careful putting that much information up here, James. Someone will snap at you for supporting Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison because she's pro-choice and they think that's the only criterion for casting a ballot.

 

The same Dan Patrick who used to paint himself Columbia Blue for the Oilers when he was a sportscaster on KHOU-TV? The same one who owned the sports bar? The one who bought KSEV Radio? I kinda figured he had political aspirations. I have been out of Texas too long. Politics there is a laugh a minute!

 

There's a reason they say not to talk about religion and politics...

 

The Lord loves a cheerful giver. "Giver" being the operative word here.

Forcefully taking from one to give to another is not a 'true Christian" value either.

 

Giving is where it's at.
After all it's not really ours, but on loan from a gracious God

 

I've been snapped at before, and I'm still here.:thumbs:

As far as Senator Hutchison being pro-choice, I know she is to an extent, but she is also a supporter of abortion restrictions, which is what the forefront of the debate is right now, and is the most feasible way to curtail abortions for the time being.

 

One and the same.

He has been a political commentator for quite some time now, and he has a very large base of supporters.

I predict he will win his district with about 75% of the vote.

 

http://quiz.ontheissues.org/Social/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison_Abortion.htm




Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.

Voted YES on banning human cloning.

Rated 7% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Hutchison scores 7% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement ...

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

 

Ah, yes, but on that all important question, "Should women have the right to an abortion if they so choose?" Her frequent and sometimes defensive answer is always yes.

All of that other stuff is subterfuge to create the image of a pro-life voting record. Congress hasn't had a straight up vote on abortion since Roe v. Wade, and won't. None of those things that Kay may have voted for did anything to stop, or even slow down, the rate of abortion that has pretty much continued unabated during the Bush administration, and we are now three Presidents away from Ronald Reagan's claim that abortion would be ended before he was out of office.

Liar liar pants on fire.

 

If such is the case, she was successful.

NARAL fell for it. Why?

Because it's important to pro abortion advocates.


Abortion Issues
(Back to top)

2005 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 20 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 90 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 7 percent in 2003.
2001-2002 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2001-2002.
2001 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.
2001 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.
2000 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 20 percent in 2000.
1999-2000 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 1999-2000.
1999 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.
1996-2003 Senator Hutchison supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood (Senate) 11 percent in 1996-2003.
1995-2004 On the votes that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assocation considered to be the most important in 1995-2004, Senator Hutchison voted their preferred position 8 percent of the time.

 

Carpro

How are ya' bro'?

She voted pro life, and Jack blamed her with his agenda of pro-death . . .

What is next . . . start calling us pro-death as well?

Well I am pro-God - and when He gives the death penalty, the penalty box is in Hell.

I am not for anyone going to hell, but there are a lot of folks that do not have a saving faith in :jesus:.

 

There has been no straight up vote, yea or nay, on the validity of Roe V. Wade, which Hutchison has repeatedly stated she supports.

I never said I supported the pro-choice position. I don't. That's why I don't support liars like Kay Bailey Hutchison. I thought you were an all or nothing sort of person. Here she is, voting 20 percent of the time on the side issues against the pro-life position, yet you are supporting her. Talk about contradictory! What happened to all that screeching you did about never voting for anyone who had anything to do with the pro-choice position? All talk, I guess. Just like most religious righters who keep giving away their votes to people who deceive them.

All this garbage about supporting this and that is nothing more than lip service. Until the issue comes to the forefront straight up, and she casts a ballot, the rest is meaningless. One of the reasons she backed out of running for governor of Texas against Rick Perry is because he is pro-life and she is not.

 

Your argument is specious.

Just because there has been no direct vote on Roe v Wade doesn't mean you should ignore all the other matters connected with this issue. Roe is the law of the land, like it or not, and a Constitutional Amendment will never get off the ground. This we have to deal with.

Dealing with it does not include ignoring how politicians vote, or say they will vote, on issues where they can make a difference.





http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n13_v45/ai_13192471

"First, the imminent and inevitable bloodbath between economic and social conservatives is neither imminent nor inevitable. Kay Hutchison was not the first choice of most pro-life and pro-family activists in the May 1 Republican primary. They had worked and voted for either Jack Fields or Joe Barton. But once Mrs. Hutchison was the Republican candidate, facing a Democrat who had endorsed the radical Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that would forbid the states to limit abortion in any way, the battle lines were drawn. Mrs. Hutchison's commitment to vote against FOCA made her, by comparison, the pro-life candidate."

When faced with two bad choices, you do the best you can. On this issue, Hutchison was the far better selection.

BTW I don't believe you ever directly answered my question about whether or not you would voluntarily submit yourself to the authority of the Godless by voting for an athiest?

 

Yeah, I figured all your talk about abortion being a priority with you, and not placing yourself under the authority of anyone who wasn't 100% in agreement was just talk, just like it is with everyone else who claims the same thing. You were excoriating me for my choice of the lesser of two evils, but you can do the same and it's O.K. because you've prioritized the right issues. I get it.

Thanks for proving my point.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Abortion will never be outlawed by Congress. It is going to come down to the Supreme Court. This is one area I must absolutely applaud President Bush on. The Justices nominated by him thus far seem to live up to his promise of being very conservative. The make-up of the court is what will tip the balance.

Right now, the court would be 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade, imo. Once Stevens is gone, which shouldn't be too much longer considering his age, and considering who the President is at the time, probably the next one elected, the balance might tip to our side.

At that time, all of the votes on abortion would go to the state levels.

In any event, Senator Hutchison will not be casting a ballot regarding terminating abortion. She has consistently voted on restrictive measures in Congress, and decreasing of funding for abortion, and she has voted in favor of pro-life Supreme Court Justices. All of this is as much as any other pro-life Senator has been able to do.

BTW,

I think most of us down here know why she didn't run for Governor.

She would have gone in the primary against Perry. There would obviously have been some mudslinging, causing people to go to other candidates. There are 4 official candidates in the race.

Were Hutchison to lose the primary, which she probably would have, then Perry's numbers would be even lower than they currenty are. I think he is at about 38% right now. Kinky Friedman has gained many Republican voters who are fed up with Perry over the past year or so.

Chances are, had Hutchison run and told all of the "gossip" about Perry, his numbers would be even lower, and he would stand an even better chance at being defeated this November. Hutchison does not want Texas to lose its Republican governorship.

Frankly, As i said before, I'm just not sure who or if I'm going to vote for Governor. All of the candidates are pretty wacko, imo. I think I'll write-in Sam Houston.

 

Kinky has always had support of the political left . . . BTW - pretty good post.