Redstate

All those Ds he's endorsed and campaigned for ruffles my feathers... wait, he hasn't. He's gone around the country campaigning for Rs from Arnold to Santorum. And he's done more for the Rs than you or anyone here has.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I wouldn't mention Arnold if you are trying to win over conservatives.

he's campaigned for Rs from all stripes of the party. Party loyalty is absolutely important to him.

"Fred's my conservative guru, but McCain's my President."

McCain has been more loyal to the Party than many conservatives who disown half the Party. McCain has helped all stripes of GOPers. He is loyal.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Being a Conservative doesn't necessarily mean being a Republican (and vice versa). If your primary loyalty is to the Conservative movement then it may be very hard to vote for McCain. It's obviously going to come down to a very long term view of what's best in your view.

If you support McCain and he wins then you get a president who will vigorously fight against Islamofascism, work on reducing the deficit, appoint more conservative judges, and periodically aggravate you with some of his wiftier ideas. He won't be able to cling to his maverick status if he's the guy in the White House and leading the GOP. If he wins with the base's support then there is some potential to influence him on the conservative ideals. In the meantime, the Conservatives can continue working to line up good primary candidates for 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. Strong Conservatives in the Congress can help a lot. Plus if McCain really doesn't perform - there's always a chance to run a serious challenger to him in 2012.

If the base doesn't support McCain and he wins anyway because of independents and disaffected Democrats then you get a McCain who feels empowered to lead as an Independent Republican (see Sen. Lieberman for an example of an Independent Democrat). He'll stay pro-life, pro-military, anti-deficit, and anti-Islamofascist but some of his plans on immigration and global warming will surface again. He'll be dancing with the voters that brought him to that office.

If you don't support McCain and the Democratic nominee wins then you get a president who will oppose every conservative ideal. Depending on who gets the nomination, we'll either have a dangerously inexperienced socialist or a lethally flawed leftist with no ethics whatsoever. Conservatives will be working to line up good candidates and can instill a certain level of purity in their beliefs. However, the GOP will be fractured with the other portions of the coalition pulling in different directions and not convinced the big tent will hold.

If the base supports McCain pretty well and he doesn't win then you get mostly the same bad Democratic leadership results except there's a lot less GOP infighting. Then we just try to survive the next 4 years while trying to rebuild the team. Conservatives will have an opportunity to settle on a smaller set of good candidates for the next primary season.

Full disclosure: I'm from the moderate wing of the GOP with a mix of socially moderate, fiscally conservative, and hawkishly national defense views. I'll happily support McCain despite some disagreements with him because he's far better on national defense, fiscal responsiblity, and judges than either Democratic candidate. Plus, it gives me chills to think of the damage either Clinton or Obama could inflict on the USA in four years.

Erik

Alexham is taking the right tack.

If you care about the country

Its a no brainer.

Calling the McCain opponents brainless country haters isn't the right approach.

Thanks for hardening my resolve.

then your mind wasn't very open. In fact, you are clearly trolling.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

It's just too hard for some people to buckle down and pick a side. Don't put so much pressure on him that he cries or anything.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I won't be voting for McCain... but since I was also a consistent donor of time and money, it's not just my vote that has been lost.

But you can hardly call me a dem. My house district could be a pickup for our side, and I'll be working hard to make it happen.

to moderates and independents (that is, people who don't much care about politics).

Politics is all about getting the people who don't agree with you to vote with you anyway. Blogs, unfortunately, are not like that.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'd call them democrats but some people don't see the connection.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If anti-McCain people expect McCain to suddenly shy away from his independent leanings they will be very disappointed. All that will do is lose him, and us, the white house.

If McCain wins it will be because of his independence from the Republican brand. He needs to maintain that image so this does not become a generic Republican v. Democrat election. As Alexham said, McCain is a great politician and campaigner. Let him do what he needs to do to win.

-Ben

If McCain runs strongly on his independent leanings then he better be prepared to be disappointed.

I am not asking him to run on the Republican brand. I would be happy if he ticked off every big spending Republican RINO. I am worried about him running against conservative principles.

I am willing to go to war with McCain over certain issues (e.g., judges).

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

and then pull the lever with your hook.

The damage that will be done to this country economically and in our foreign policy if conservatives stay at home this fall is something you haven't considered. Are we conservatives because we care about the culture and the country, or are we conservatives just because we want to belong to something and to be patted on the head for our loyalty?

I am in the former camp. Our civilization and our culture come first. That's why I'm a conservative, an anti-collectivist, and when I have to be, a pragmatist. The conservative movement has since the 70's been a loose configuration of libertarians, traditionalists, and defense hawks. Sometimes fidelity to one group violates fidelity to the other. The "purists" don't get that, and they will destroy the movement because of this misunderstanding.

Please, use that hook and pull the lever this fall.

GB

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

been consistently conservative on many issues.
Look up his voting record on judges.
Look up his position on the surge when everyone else was running for cover.
He even conceded that his immigration position was out of the main stream Republican thought and he has siad many times on national TV-I got your message.
Get over yourself. You can decide if you want a president that you agree with some of the time or a president you agree with none of the time. The decision is yours.
In the words of Lee Iacocca-
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
We have work to do.

I should think that comment would be better directed at Senator McCain.

One mistake in my post, CFR should have been "Gang of 14"

I'll respond to a few of your points even though you have been rather rude.

McCain's conservative voting record has been headed in the tank over the last few years. His lifetime rating is good, recent rating is not very good.

Record on Judges? (Timeout while I laugh.) How many good judges for the Federal bench did McCain throw under the bus with the gang of 14?

Did you read my post? He says he "gets it" on immigration, but hasn't done anything to prove it. He has and has had plenty of time. One more point for you. Pay attention now, this requires thought. McCain claims to be strong on national security, but is open borders. The two positions are mutually exclusive. McCain has not and I will bet will not address this problem.

Skipping insult.

Again, if you read my post, my intentions are clear. I'm getting out of McCain's way.

Sorry if this was too pointed, but it seems that is what you were looking for.

Enjoy your trip. Watch out of icebergs.

whining about McCain.
If you think that you just can not stomach a vote for him, then by all means, stay home, vote dem, third party or whatever.
As for the Gang of 14, I would ask you to peruse Adam C's diaries on McCain. He has done a ton of research and he has some very good points regarding the success of the Gang of 14.
At the time I HATED it, but in hindsight, it was not a bad deal for us.
To allow any other candidate to win the White House means we lose the SCOTUS for a generation. I, for one, am not willing to let that happen.
And you pay attention, now. While McCain is not perfect on borders, he is a damn sight better than any of the alternatives. Given that I sleep next to someone that fights for your freedom everyday, I'd rather have McCain than anyone else.
If purity is what you want, fine, sit out. But you will be waiting a very long time.

This article asked me to put aside my problems with McCain and vote for him. I said no. My issues with McCain go way back and are founded in principle. If that constitutes whining in your world, don' read my responses.

As for you husband, please thank him for his service for me. However, I don't see what he has to do with our spat. I don't sleep with a soldier, but know plenty and pray for them every chance I get. Did you bring this up, as McCain does, to beat me over the head? To feel superior? To make me sound un-American if I respond? To shame me into silence? That's a cheap shot and it doesn't work.

As for the Gang of 14, I don't buy the whole "ends justify the means" argument. Filibusters for judicial nominations are wrong. It doesn't matter which side is doing it. It was wrong when the Dems did it. It will be wrong if/when the Republicans do it. Again, that' my view on the issue. McCain abandoned his party leadership on the issue. Clearly he wasn't alone, but he was leading the charge. I see this as a crippling fault.

I am an emancipated Conservative who does not believe that voting for McCain is significantly better than not voting for him. If that offends you I'm sorry. If that is whining, I'm sorry. However, it is my view and I just as entitled to express it as you are your view.

So, I'll let you have the last word as you are no longer worthy of a response. By arguing with you, I suspect others won't be able to tell which of us is which.

...while we get on with the election.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You're going to have to deal with me in public, just like everybody else. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I actually had an off topic question but it's not important.

BTW, you are the second person to tell me on this site to get out of the GOP because I didn't back a particular candidate.

I left the GOP back in January (maybe first week of Feb). I can mail you a copy of my new voter reg if you want. Now if I can just stop all the junk mail from the D.C. and CA GOP... :P

It's been a long time coming. Now I'm candidate focussed, not party focussed. To continue using the over used line, "I didn't leave the party. The party left me." All I did was make it official, not that it matters much here on the left coast.

...particularly the bit about what this site's about. We don't mind liberals, Democrats, and quote-unquote "independents" posting here, as long as they're civil: so please be more careful about that in the future.

Thanks!

Moe Lane

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He voted to confirm both of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees.

www.republicansenate.org

votes for the two Clinton appointees. McCain has stated that he believes that the President makes the appointments not the senate and as such the Senate shouldn't be voting down well qualified norminees on partisan grounds as the Dems like to do.

Neither vote was crossing-the-aisle, he was with the body of the GOP in the Senate doing their job in the confirmation process.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Voting for bad liberal judges who would rewrite the Constitution is one of those things that hurt the Republican brand. Was is OK for McCain to jump off the bridge just because all his friends did?

Some have tried to make the argument that the judges that he has voted to confirm somehow reflect the types of judges that he would nominate. That's not a partisan claim, as several Democrats voted to confirm Roberts and a few even voted to confirm Alito. Now I ask, do you really think that Sen. Ben Nelson, whom I like and respect, would have nominated judges like Alito and Roberts?

I would also note that in cases like these, he sould have crossed the aisle. I am much more concerned with him having the right opinion than him walking the Party line. He should have stood with Senators Helms, Nickles, and Smith and voted against the confirmation of people who have run roughshod over the Constitution.

www.republicansenate.org

I shouldn't have said crossed the aisle, as the Democrats agreed with the Republicans. As you know, that's usually when we're in the most trouble.

www.republicansenate.org

This all seems a bit over-dramatic to me.

It seems to happen a lot in discussions about McCain. People throw around words like "back stabber", "betrayer" and "abandonment", but none of them really apply.

McCain's positions on immigration and campaign finance reform were not secrets. He did not just arrive at them. There was no abandonment. He just disagrees with you on those issues.

Whatever offense he has caused the conservative movement, let us also not pretend that prominent conservatives have been generous and cordial to McCain. I would submit to you that Rush and Levin have been a lot more nasty and petty towards McCain than he has been to them.

Even if we are only looking at government spending, entitlement reform and the two wars in which we are engaged, I am just not sure how any rational conservative makes the argument that McCain is no better than the dems.

-Ben

I understand about McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold, but your invocation of CFR places you squarely in the middle of the Black Helicopter Brigade. If that's where you want to be, fine, but I recommend that you get over it.

The Council of Foreign Relations is a dinner club people join in order to rub elbows with players that matter in foreign policy. That is ALL that it is. There is no central "CFR" position. There is no covert CFR agenda. There are dinner meetings where wonks present papers; they're wonks who count, so a lot of their papers become policy in some form or other.

Whoever told you there's a CFR cabal trying to steer America into a global government, misled you. There are plenty of individuals who do want that for America; two of them are running for President in the Democratic party's primaries. You identify them by their votes, their public policies, and their connection with internationalist agendas; you cannot identify them by membership in a foreign relations dinner club.

For your own sake, drop the CFR issue. It's not real, and it destroys your credibility.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

but here goes.

By CFR I meant "Campaign Finance Reform" ie McCain-Feingold. I meant to say Gang of 14 as I had already included McCain-Feingold in my list if issues with the Senator.

I don't even know what "CFR" you are talking about. That is to say, I don't know what the "Council of Foreign Relations" is all about. I don't have any idea if Senator McCain is connected to it or what it would mean if he was.

Hope I'm not disappointing you.

Most rants against the foreign policy version come from conspiracy theorists.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'm still not convinced he will do less damage than his opponents. His election will put the conservatives in Congress in an untenable position

If Obama manages to get a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate on his coattails, the conservatives in Congress will be in an untenable position anyway.

Even if Obama gets a couple fewer Senators than that, he will form a working coalition with liberal Republicans and again the conservatives in Congress will be in an untenable position.

Evidently you are counting on conservatives in the Senate being able to filibuster President Obama's programs. Maybe you should look at the number of GOP retirements this year--and think again.

Well, four years of fighting against McCain's policies won't strengthen the Republican Party, or the Conservative Movement.
As for judges, yes, McCain has a leg up on the Democrats, but ultimately, I don't really trust McCain to appoint a winner in the vein of Roberts and definitely not Alito. To be honest, I think McCain would pander to Conservatives the first chance he got with regard to judges. He would nominate a constructionist, and when that person got railroaded by the Senate (with no support from the White House), McCain would withdraw that name and put up a moderate, "consensus" pick.

McCain's only true strength is the War on Terrorism, including Iraq. I won't add national security, as McCain undermines this argument with his border security stance and his interrogation/torture views - he tossed the intelligence community under the bus by taking the discussion public.

Four years fighting the leader of the Republican Party (btw, I think McCain servers one term due to his age). Or four years of fighting the Democrats.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ideological radicals with personal ties back to activist camps. They're not going to pick "moderate, consensus picks" for the Supreme Court. They're going to pick radicals. Imagine jurists to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Imagine them all over the judiciary, on appeals courts and district courts, as well as the Supreme Court.

Beyond that, consider how many ways one of those closet radicals can turn US sovereignty over to the UN. Carbon credits, world court, and law of the sea are just the beginning. We're talking about the end of the American Republic, not just a couple of judges.

I'll take a moderate, consensus pick, thanks, if for no other reason than that it extends the amount of time we have to rescue the Republic from World Socialism.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

When Obama gets to pick the next supreme court pick, it's the fault of the primary voting idiots that selected the dud of a candidate we have.

Perhaps. But I'm still going to cast my vote for McCain in the fall.

And I'm going to lend my voice to quell whatever flaming lies the MSM launches at McCain during the election season, and to highlight Obama's radicalism, demagoguery, and inexperience.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

No one told conservatives to waste their time by drafting Fred Thompson off his TV show to run for President, instead of going with a more proven candidate.

It was their idea. They glommed onto Fred without vetting his abilities as a candidate first. They could have had Duncan Hunter, or even Rudy Giuliani, but they went with Fred. They picked the wrong horse, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

You are not helping your candidate, your party, nor the nation. Fred Thompson is no longer running. You don't have to beat him or his supporters over the head anymore, and yet you just can't resist. Your man won. Show a little class.

I care about my country, that's why I can't vote for McCain.

I'm shocked at the notion that CNN gets to pick the Republican nominee, before the delegates even get to meet in St. Paul. That's not how the Republican party should be run.

We had an excellent turn-out this year at the BPOU convention, but I suspect that the majority of the young people in that crowd will never come again. I live in a deeply conservative Republican county, and I can tell you that the party here is seriously divided -- and not between candidates. It's divided between people of conservative conscience who represent the Republican vox populi, and people who want to enforce the dictates of the national party, damn the consequences. The party seems to fear and hate the Republican voters. The systematic and calculated elimination of the floor nominees (*all* of which were for Huckabee or Paul) in favor of those of the nominating committee (*all* of which literally *apologized* to the delegates saying that they had wanted to vote for another candidate, but he dropped out, so they were supporting McCain) through the cynical manipulation of the rules was a lession in Russian politics that I hope I never see again.

It was interesting to see that there were Huckabee and Paul signs all over, but not one single McCain sign in the whole hall. How is this man ever going to turn out the Republican base on election day? Partisan loyalists, yes, but the values voters? No way. The party hacks have blinders on.

I certainly hate Hillobama's politics more than I like McCain's politics. This is not difficult to imagine.

But I hate their ideas and politics enough to work hard for McCain, harder than in the past couple elections.

You cannot trust the democrats on this issue either.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

McCain has promised to build the fence and I believe him.

Both Obama and Hillary have told their supporters that they will NOT build the fence--and I believe them as well.

What you will NOT get from McCain is the wholesale deportation of the illegals back over the border, as Tancredo was demanding.

That's what this is really all about. The fence is a red herring. The nativists who hate McCain hate him because he won't bash Latinos and threaten to deport them like Tancredo.

They aren't just opposed to illegals sneaking into America. They're opposed to Latinos ever getting the vote in America because they're afraid they will be outvoted.

That's the real issue, and all the rest is a smokescreen.

And McCain CANNOT deliver on that. The GOP is doomed if it brands itself as a White Protestant party. The latest Pew Survey showed that the percentage of Protestants in America is now down to only 51%. Soon Protestants will be a minority inside America.

The GOP has to become more diverse--or consign itself to permanent minority status.

I think McCain, rather than pander to the Tancredo groupies and the Michelle Malkin groupies, ought to take them on. In a civil, positive way, he should explain that his vision of the GOP is a diverse party of blacks, Latinos, everybody. It's not a party of defending White Protestant privilege.

"In a civil, positive way, he should explain that his vision of the GOP is a diverse party of blacks, Latinos, everybody."

Like you did? By condescendingly calling them nativists, Latino-bashers, and Tancredo/Malkin groupies? Yeah, that'll work. You go ahead and "take them on". It's ridiculous comments like yours that have taken my blinders off about segments of the GOP. Apparently, this is no longer the USA, it's the USA, Inc. For some segments of the GOP, the only principles that matter are maintaining power for the party and keeping business fed with a burgeoning cheap labor supply.

You, like McCain, don't get it. It's about the economic impact of putting a population of people that is the equivalent of a third world country on a "pathway to citizenship". Low-skilled immigrants cost MUCH more than they contribute in taxes. If you think otherwise, then you're fooling yourself.

It's also very much about the rule of law. We have a legal system that allows in a manageable amount of high-skilled and low-skilled immigration. It's a messy, bureaucratic system, but it's there for a reason. Folks who don't follow that system (including the illegal immigrants and their employers) shouldn't be rewarded with a magical waving of the "you're forgiven" wand. We tried that in 1986 and it got us to the mess we're in today. Goodness knows where we'll be in twenty years if we do it again.

I'm a fiscon, socon, and defcon, but I don't agree with Bush's former economic advisor that the offshoring of jobs is good for America -- and illegal immigration is just the flipside of that argument. You export whatever jobs you can and then you import cut-rate labor to take the jobs you can't export. How again is that good for America and Americans? I've not seen an argument for that rationale that is remotely convincing.

You talk about anti-Latino sentiment, but you're the only person I've seen here talking about Latinos. Is there some anti-Latino sentiment? Sure. Does that mean that all arguments against CIR are invalid and/or stem from anti-Latino feelings. Absolutely not.

So you go right ahead with your "civil" version of taking them on. As a member of "them", though, I can tell you that it only furthers alienates folks who have been the most ardent supporters of the GOP in the past. Maybe that's your goal. If it is, then you're doing a bang-up job.

We need to get control of our border because it's our border. I don't care how many people we let in, as long as they're coming to stay. I don't want guest workers, which would be second-class citizens with no voting rights. Everyone who is here should be a citizen or on the way to becoming one.

I also don't want to reward cheating.

For whom the new immigrants will vote is a matter I refuse on principle even to consider.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Really, the insulting BS lies in your reply are so thick they stink through the internet. It's liars like you that make me want to not vote for McCain.

Good luck with a guy who couldn't even get get a majority of Texas conservatives running against loser Huckabee. Both Clinton and Obama are each getting more votes in most states than McCain. Not to mention they are getting 5x the donations he is getting.

Face it, real Republicans don't like him. He won with 40% of the primary votes, and half of his support was from independents and Democrats. The conservative vote split among 3-4 other candidates. The vast majority of actual Republicans voted against him.

If someone has to lose, it might as well be McCain the pain who sells conservatives out for his personal gain. He might eventually get my vote, but not the 10x $ and votes I could bring along if I actually supported him.

Buen suerte pendejo

...self-appointed "True Conservatives" who have decided that they are both: under no obligation to abide by the results of the primary process that they participated in; and owed deference and every consideration from the rest of us because their wishes are not being accommodated in every possible way, shape, or form. The first is technically correct, albeit a bit rude for those of us playing by the rules; the second is, of course, absurd.

I really do look forward to the day when these fellows have to decide whether they're going to be RiNOs or not.

Moe Lane

PS: Please note that no names were named in the making of this post.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

in that case, it would seem. I think Alexham probably meant what you described but it comes across as bizarre and telling in the sense that it implies a "pure" Republican would have problem with McCain out of party affiliation rather than ideology. I can understand the latter interpretation but certainly not the former one. As for "True Conservatives," trademark pending, I don't think there will be much heard from them after tonight.

...to take the six weeks' off (at least) that the Democrats are offering us to make things right with the people who have issues with him (which includes me, by the way). For a start, he can actively support and stump for conservative Congressmen in iffy districts, as well as conservative challengers to Democratic seats (especially the ones that we lost in '06). That would be genuinely useful.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

nt

While acknowledging that the single issue could be a lot of things.

Judges? Those of you who have issues with the gang of 14 should fall in line.

Libertarians? Those of you who have issues with McCain-Feingold should fall in line.

Immigration? Those of you who have issues with McCain-Kennedy should fall in line.

And so on and so forth. A "GOP Purist" is someone who says "I've been following the issue of X for the last Y years and McCain has only been good Z% of the time... and if you think that I, as a Republican, shouldn't care about X, You've Got Another Thing Coming!"

And, of course, the response is: "If you want to fall in love, the line for Obama is over there. We're Republicans. We don't fall in love. We fall in line."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The attacks on him as “not a real conservative” are missing the forest for the trees. Sen. McCain has demonstrated strong conservative leadership, especially at crucial times when the Republican Party has not.

Sen. McCain has a 100 percent anti-abortion record and has campaigned in support of traditional marriage.

He has defended gun rights by opposing restrictions on guns, ammunition and magazines.

He has warned many times that our entitlement spending is unsustainable, voting for Social Security reform and against the massive Medicare expansion (while most Republicans voted for the expansion).

Furthermore, Sen. McCain has fought pork like no one else (he voted against the pork-laden highway bill, for instance) and has pledged to make earmark sponsors “famous.”

Finally, his stance on the Iraq war has been prescient and brave.

When he saw - in November 2003! - that we were not succeeding, he called again and again for a focused counter-insurgency strategy, clear-and-hold operations and an expansion of the military.

Sen. McCain has been nearly tarred and feathered for “bucking the party.” But on the issues of overspending, corruption and the Iraq war - the issues that lost the GOP the 2006 elections - Sen. McCain bucked the party to stand up for conservative principles.

His record gives conservative voters many reasons to cheer.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354628574&path=!news

He loves the idea of required background checks at gunshows and just doesn't want to give that up.

He still beats Hillary and Obama on that issue like a dead horse and still has my vote even with his problems.