Candidates on Gun Control...

[snatchel]

So I am gearing up to start heavily researching our Republican Candidates for my vote. Although not entirely based on 2nd Amendment issues, this of course heavily influences my vote. I started out my research on issues.org... This is what they have to say on each candidate. If anyone has any input on this, PLEASE let me know. If you have opinions or evidence that this information doesn't jive with what you have learned... PLEASE let me know. I take voting very seriously, and would like the opinion of this forum on who they suggest will be good for our 2nd Amendment.

Mitt Romney:
2008: "Lifelong" devotion to hunting meant "small varmints". (Jan 2010)
GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”. (Feb 2008)
Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban. (Jan 2008)
I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes. (Dec 2007)
Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007)
Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner. (Aug 2007)
Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007)
Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)

Newt Gingrich
Don’t redefine Constitution with no individual right to arms. (Oct 2005)

Rick Santorum
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)


These are the 3 candidates that I am taking seriously. Of the three, Rick Santorum appears to have a fairly good grasp on gun rights. Am I wrong in this? Again.. I am not basing my entire vote on gun rights, immigration and education rank very high on my standards as well.. Especially education. However, their stance on this is very important to me.

Opinions?

[The Annoyed Man]

Of the three, Rick Santorum appears to have a fairly good grasp on gun rights. Am I wrong in this? Again.. I am not basing my entire vote on gun rights, immigration and education rank very high on my standards as well.. Especially education. However, their stance on this is very important to me.

Opinions?

Ron Paul isn't even getting airtime anymore. Santorum's primary value at this point is to state the conservative case. However, he doesn't have a prayer of getting the nomination. That little tidbit is going to boil down to Romney or Gingrich.

[snatchel]

Agreed... So of the two?

[The Annoyed Man]

Agreed... So of the two?

Well, the problem with Gingrich is that I don't believe about half of what he says and he has a past to explain. The problem with Romney is that he seems to lack passion.....and he has a past to explain.

Romney's 2nd Amendment stands troubles me, but I will grant him this much: he was a republican governor in a state made up of about 80% democrats. His record as a governor is overshadowed by having to work with an overwhelmingly democrat legislature. I think that much of what he accomplished was damage control. In other words, he had two choices on any bill in Massachusetts: A) he could veto the bill and then have the legislature override his veto and ram the bill through; or B) he could try to guide the process and tone down the more radically liberal aspects of a given bill. The latter is the better and more responsible alternative for him as a conservative, but it does put his signature on bills that he later has to explain to out of state conservatives. This is a reality of his career that I don't think most republicans who don't like him are willing to grant him his due on.

I was pretty big on Gingrich a couple of months ago, but I am less sanguine about him today. He has been very good in the debates, but that has mostly been a display of being a good BSer. I really don't know at this point who I am going to vote for.

[74novaman]

TAM, you must have missed tonights debate. Gingrich got flustered, wasn't articulate with his ideas and got dragged down to a petty level of arguing with Romney every 2 minutes (and came out of those squabbles looking like the loser, more often than not).

Santorums voting record on guns is good. Gingrich says the right things. Romneys gun record and his statements concerning guns leads me to think he holds a dim view of both CHL and modern rifles. Since I'm a fan of both, that's not great.

The one thing I'm really worried about is the Heller decision though. It was 5-4. We simply CANNOT afford another "wise Latina" type appointment from Obama.

We must not only get him out, but hope we get scarring conservative senate to help us approve good conservative justices. Just another thing to keep in mind.

I'm pretty darn underwhelmed with all my choices this go round.

[C-dub]

I wonder what changed Santorum's mind between 2004 and 2005.

I like Newt better than Romney, but he seems to be getting flustered a bit lately since Romney hired Bachman's debate coach. I'll support whichever one gets the nomination and if Gingrich and Romney continue to tear each other apart Santorum might gain more ground. I don't know if it will be enough, but we'll see.

[chasfm11]

At the end of the day, I'm not sure the Presidential position on the 2nd amendment means that much. I haven't done the research but I'm betting the Ronald Regan's history on gun rights shows a checked record. As much as I wish it weren't so, my personal decision about the GOP candidates is going to be based on factors others than gun rights. And that is primarily based on the research shown on this thread which demonstrates that there really isn't a clear gun rights winner among the choices.

For me, the single most important gun rights issue in the next 4 years is the nomination of Supreme Court justices. I believe that a single change on the court could do more to harm gun rights in the US than all of the politicians combined. I do understand that nominations to other courts are important, too.

So what we really need, from a gun rights perspective, is a President who will not have the wool pulled over his eyes about the conservative or liberal bent to candidates for judges. Getting rid of plethora of judicial activists (by good nominations) is the best thing that a President can do to keep the 2nd Amendment whole.

[RPB]

Related:
do you guys hate the new electronic voting machines as much as I do?
Every Election day I have to be sure to take a permanent magic marker do to the write-in votes

[RoyGBiv]

For me this election comes down to fiscal responsibility and liberty. Smaller government. Eliminate deficit spending, reduce the deficit, reduce the number of government employees, agencies and regulations. Unshackle job creators from the burdens of nanny-state regulations and political uncertainty. Repeal mandatory healthcare. Scrap the tax code and replace it completely.

Anything else is little more than a distraction.

The only candidate that comes close on any of that is Ron Paul.
I am not a Ron Paul fan at all.... I think he's nuts.

Now what?

[The Annoyed Man]

The only candidate that comes close on any of that is Ron Paul.
I am not a Ron Paul fan at all.... I think he's nuts.

Now what?

Heck of a position to be in, isn't it? I'm going to do my duty and vote in the general election for whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be. Beyond that, the party will no longer be able to count on my unwavering support............and no, I am NOT about to join the Libertarian party.

There are a small handfull of really good, intelligent, dynamic conservative Republicans whose careers are untainted by scandal, and who could easily win an election:

• Marco Rubio would have to be at the forefront of them—and he has the added benefit of being attractive to the hispanic vote. Unlike Obama's "immigrant story," which is a sham as he grew up the son of privilege, Rubio's family are not only genuine immigrants, but immigrants who fled actual repression under Castro's brand of communism (the same Castro whom Ron Paul wants to treat as a legitimate equal of an American president). Being hispanic, a Rubio candidacy would take away the race card as a political tactic used by Democrats.
• Paul Ryan, as a budget hawk and a former speech writer to Jack Kemp, could be a candidate who could truly articulate the conservative fiscal argument perhaps better than anybody else. He is also one of the three founders of the GOP's "Young Guns" program to recruit and train promising young conservatives for the electoral process—recognizing that one of the great sins of the party has been that of stagnation. The party desperately needs new blood to reinvigorate it. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are all examples of that necessity. Paul Ryan, in addition to his "Path to Prosperity" plan which is as clear a statement of why we have to reverse course on Obamanomics as could be stated, recognizes this need for new blood and has devoted part of his efforts to it. The survival of the Republican party means out with the old, in with the new. If the party cannot make this transition by 2016, it will be dead as a viable force in American politics.........and it will have itself to blame. Too many old dogs holding onto their power, having lost sight of the good of the nation.
• Rand Paul makes a clear-headed argument for the more libertarian side of the party, without sounding like a cranky old whackadoodle like his dad, and without descending into full-on anarchist Libertarianism. Like his dad, he has had extensive experience running a medical practice before entering politics as a candidate. The senate term he is currently fulfilling is his first ever elected office. Paul is one of the favorites of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement (in which I have participated to a limited degree) is a rebellion against the old guard of the Republican party which has lost its way—which makes it objectionable to both the old guard, who recognize their demise in it, and to the Democrats, who understand that it is a conservative movement, not a Republican movement, which even appeals to some Democrats.

That's just three possibilities, and there are certainly others whom I've either failed to mention or who haven't yet appeared on the radar. It is my fervent prayer that folks like this can maintain their integrity and refuse to yield to the swan song of media adoration until their turn for a run at the presidency can come to fruition. The media, at this particular point along the arc of our history, is the single most corrupting influence there is in Washington. Money and power have always been a potential temptation going back to the founders, although in times when men were possessed of greater character, money and power were less of an attraction to them. What has changed is the media. Not until the 20th century has the media had the power to offer an elected official the addictive drug of national adoration, and I don't think there is any stronger drug in all of creation. Power and money can corrupt man, but adoration is what convinces him that he is god and no longer accountable to the people who elect him. He will do whatever he must to get reelected so that he may have continued access to the power and money, and getting reelected on that basis means that he must by necessity have some degree of accountability to those who elect him. But national adoration convinces its object that he no longer needs to be accountable. When a politician, no matter how hackneyed, starts believing his own press and claiming that adoration as his right, then we are in deep doodoo.

This is nowhere more apparent than in the election of presidents. If you don't believe that national adoration is a stronger drug than money and power, look no further than Barak Hussein Obama and his love affair with the media. The media have never treated him like a politician. They have always treated him like he is their savior, their comforter, their king, their lover. Thus, they pour more obsequious fawning, more worship and praise on him as he absconds with greater and greater power for himself, as if the limitations imposed on him by the Constitution were somehow immoral and in violation of his divine right. Mention the Constitution, and now you are a racist. Mention that it does not permit to him the liberties he has taken, and now you are just trying to damage his presidency. Mention that his foreign policy and his economic policies are unpatriotic because they are hostile to the nation's interest, and now you are unpatriotic for being genuinely concerned that this president might be an existential threat to the future existence of the nation. What happens where the nation's media are convinced that their president can do no wrong? We get more of him.

And that is what I believe is going to happen this time around. I have come to the conclusion that none of the current candidates can probably beat Obama. But beyond that, I don't think that any of them are worthy of the office. I truly don't give a rip about the primary. I will likely play eeny-meeny-miny-mo between Gingrich and Romeny in the ballot box. In the general election, I will vote for whomever the party's nominee turns out to be. After that, I will reregister as an Independent, and the Republican party will no longer be able to count on my support. The ONE THING that will bring me back into the fold is if the old guard finally steps down and surrenders the party and its leadership to the young lions. If the party runs a Rubio/(Rand)Paul/Ryan type of candidate in 2016, I'll start paying attention again. But until they do, they're all just a bunch of politicians.......and I mean that in its worst sense.

If it doesn't happen, then I'm going to be devoting all of my efforts to prepping for what's coming. I am sorry if I come off as depressed about this stuff, but somebody please show me how the current crop of candidates A) has even a chance of winning the general; and B) will actually (not just in pretty words) change Washington DC from the cesspool that it is. I don't believe it can be done.

Why? Because the media won't let it happen. And by the way, I am NOT calling for a repression of the media. What I want is for the media to fairly reflect within its own ranks the actual percentages of democrats/republicans, liberals/conservatives as exists in the population. But, that will never happen again. Why is that, you ask? Because "journalist" is no longer considered to be an honorable profession by the roughly half (possibly more) of the nation which self-identifies as being right of center. Conservatives will shy away from journalism as a profession because they either A) don't think it is a reputable choice (conservatives preferring reputation over notoriety); B) they (understandably) don't want to take on a job where they will be the minority voice (by a huge margin) in the newsroom; or both A & B. In the old days, journalists excoriated politicians and kept them honest, but they did so equally. In other words, nobody was spared their tender mercies because the opinions of the editorial boards of publications were equally divided among the parties and their constituencies. That is no longer the case, and it hasn't been the case for the past 70 or 80 years. Furthermore, as the media continue to become more and more centralized under the banner of large corporations—which was not the case 80-100 years ago—liberal managers of newsrooms who are responsible for hiring reporting and editorial staff tend to make sure that they hire like-minded employees. Thus, the newsroom looks just like academia.....which is another lost cause for conservatives.

I much prefer the sunny optimism of a Ronald Reagan, but I no longer have any myself, and I certainly don't think there is any reason for it in this election cycle.

[snatchel]

The only candidate that comes close on any of that is Ron Paul.
I am not a Ron Paul fan at all.... I think he's nuts.

Now what?

Heck of a position to be in, isn't it? I'm going to do my duty and vote in the general election for whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be. Beyond that, the party will no longer be able to count on my unwavering support............and no, I am NOT about to join the Libertarian party.

There are a small handfull of really good, intelligent, dynamic conservative Republicans whose careers are untainted by scandal, and who could easily win an election:

• Marco Rubio would have to be at the forefront of them—and he has the added benefit of being attractive to the hispanic vote. Unlike Obama's "immigrant story," which is a sham as he grew up the son of privilege, Rubio's family are not only genuine immigrants, but immigrants who fled actual repression under Castro's brand of communism (the same Castro whom Ron Paul wants to treat as a legitimate equal of an American president). Being hispanic, a Rubio candidacy would take away the race card as a political tactic used by Democrats.
• Paul Ryan, as a budget hawk and a former speech writer to Jack Kemp, could be a candidate who could truly articulate the conservative fiscal argument perhaps better than anybody else. He is also one of the three founders of the GOP's "Young Guns" program to recruit and train promising young conservatives for the electoral process—recognizing that one of the great sins of the party has been that of stagnation. The party desperately needs new blood to reinvigorate it. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are all examples of that necessity. Paul Ryan, in addition to his "Path to Prosperity" plan which is as clear a statement of why we have to reverse course on Obamanomics as could be stated, recognizes this need for new blood and has devoted part of his efforts to it. The survival of the Republican party means out with the old, in with the new. If the party cannot make this transition by 2016, it will be dead as a viable force in American politics.........and it will have itself to blame. Too many old dogs holding onto their power, having lost sight of the good of the nation.
• Rand Paul makes a clear-headed argument for the more libertarian side of the party, without sounding like a cranky old whackadoodle like his dad, and without descending into full-on anarchist Libertarianism. Like his dad, he has had extensive experience running a medical practice before entering politics as a candidate. The senate term he is currently fulfilling is his first ever elected office. Paul is one of the favorites of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement (in which I have participated to a limited degree) is a rebellion against the old guard of the Republican party which has lost its way—which makes it objectionable to both the old guard, who recognize their demise in it, and to the Democrats, who understand that it is a conservative movement, not a Republican movement, which even appeals to some Democrats.

That's just three possibilities, and there are certainly others whom I've either failed to mention or who haven't yet appeared on the radar. It is my fervent prayer that folks like this can maintain their integrity and refuse to yield to the swan song of media adoration until their turn for a run at the presidency can come to fruition. The media, at this particular point along the arc of our history, is the single most corrupting influence there is in Washington. Money and power have always been a potential temptation going back to the founders, although in times when men were possessed of greater character, money and power were less of an attraction to them. What has changed is the media. Not until the 20th century has the media had the power to offer an elected official the addictive drug of national adoration, and I don't think there is any stronger drug in all of creation. Power and money can corrupt man, but adoration is what convinces him that he is god and no longer accountable to the people who elect him. He will do whatever he must to get reelected so that he may have continued access to the power and money, and getting reelected on that basis means that he must by necessity have some degree of accountability to those who elect him. But national adoration convinces its object that he no longer needs to be accountable. When a politician, no matter how hackneyed, starts believing his own press and claiming that adoration as his right, then we are in deep doodoo.

This is nowhere more apparent than in the election of presidents. If you don't believe that national adoration is a stronger drug than money and power, look no further than Barak Hussein Obama and his love affair with the media. The media have never treated him like a politician. They have always treated him like he is their savior, their comforter, their king, their lover. Thus, they pour more obsequious fawning, more worship and praise on him as he absconds with greater and greater power for himself, as if the limitations imposed on him by the Constitution were somehow immoral and in violation of his divine right. Mention the Constitution, and now you are a racist. Mention that it does not permit to him the liberties he has taken, and now you are just trying to damage his presidency. Mention that his foreign policy and his economic policies are unpatriotic because they are hostile to the nation's interest, and now you are unpatriotic for being genuinely concerned that this president might be an existential threat to the future existence of the nation. What happens where the nation's media are convinced that their president can do no wrong? We get more of him.

And that is what I believe is going to happen this time around. I have come to the conclusion that none of the current candidates can probably beat Obama. But beyond that, I don't think that any of them are worthy of the office. I truly don't give a rip about the primary. I will likely play eeny-meeny-miny-mo between Gingrich and Romeny in the ballot box. In the general election, I will vote for whomever the party's nominee turns out to be. After that, I will reregister as an Independent, and the Republican party will no longer be able to count on my support. The ONE THING that will bring me back into the fold is if the old guard finally steps down and surrenders the party and its leadership to the young lions. If the party runs a Rubio/(Rand)Paul/Ryan type of candidate in 2016, I'll start paying attention again. But until they do, they're all just a bunch of politicians.......and I mean that in its worst sense.

If it doesn't happen, then I'm going to be devoting all of my efforts to prepping for what's coming. I am sorry if I come off as depressed about this stuff, but somebody please show me how the current crop of candidates A) has even a chance of winning the general; and B) will actually (not just in pretty words) change Washington DC from the cesspool that it is. I don't believe it can be done.

Why? Because the media won't let it happen. And by the way, I am NOT calling for a repression of the media. What I want is for the media to fairly reflect within its own ranks the actual percentages of democrats/republicans, liberals/conservatives as exists in the population. But, that will never happen again. Why is that, you ask? Because "journalist" is no longer considered to be an honorable profession by the roughly half (possibly more) of the nation which self-identifies as being right of center. Conservatives will shy away from journalism as a profession because they either A) don't think it is a reputable choice (conservatives preferring reputation over notoriety); B) they (understandably) don't want to take on a job where they will be the minority voice (by a huge margin) in the newsroom; or both A & B. In the old days, journalists excoriated politicians and kept them honest, but they did so equally. In other words, nobody was spared their tender mercies because the opinions of the editorial boards of publications were equally divided among the parties and their constituencies. That is no longer the case, and it hasn't been the case for the past 70 or 80 years. Furthermore, as the media continue to become more and more centralized under the banner of large corporations—which was not the case 80-100 years ago—liberal managers of newsrooms who are responsible for hiring reporting and editorial staff tend to make sure that they hire like-minded employees. Thus, the newsroom looks just like academia.....which is another lost cause for conservatives.

I much prefer the sunny optimism of a Ronald Reagan, but I no longer have any myself, and I certainly don't think there is any reason for it in this election cycle.

Wow TAM, again I am humbled by wisdom. I will first admit that I haven't really matured enough to think of this election at this depth..... and I apreciate some insight. I think that my biggest problem currently is that I am young, ex-military.. and thus very, very cynical of men in general.. .and politicians in particular. This is a problem because it sometimes comletely blinds my judgement of people in their character.. and I need an occasional voice to kind of secure me in what I have thought.

[J.R.@A&M]

At the end of the day, I'm not sure the Presidential position on the 2nd amendment means that much... For me, the single most important gun rights issue in the next 4 years is the nomination of Supreme Court justices. I believe that a single change on the court could do more to harm gun rights in the US than all of the politicians combined. I do understand that nominations to other courts are important, too. So what we really need, from a gun rights perspective, is a President who will not have the wool pulled over his eyes about the conservative or liberal bent to candidates for judges. Getting rid of plethora of judicial activists (by good nominations) is the best thing that a President can do to keep the 2nd Amendment whole.

I tend to agree with this. So how then do Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum rank on propensity to support conservative supreme court justices? Santorum has an actual voting record (for Alito and for Roberts). Gingrich sings a good tune against activist judges -- otherwise I don't know. Would a President Romney appoint Souter-type justices or more conservative ones?

[RPB]

At the end of the day, I'm not sure the Presidential position on the 2nd amendment means that much... For me, the single most important gun rights issue in the next 4 years is the nomination of Supreme Court justices. I believe that a single change on the court could do more to harm gun rights in the US than all of the politicians combined. I do understand that nominations to other courts are important, too. So what we really need, from a gun rights perspective, is a President who will not have the wool pulled over his eyes about the conservative or liberal bent to candidates for judges. Getting rid of plethora of judicial activists (by good nominations) is the best thing that a President can do to keep the 2nd Amendment whole.

I tend to agree with this. So how then do Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum rank on propensity to support conservative supreme court justices? Santorum has an actual voting record (for Alito and for Roberts). Gingrich sings a good tune against activist judges -- otherwise I don't know. Would a President Romney appoint Souter-type justices or more conservative ones?

Romney's RECORD of appointing liberal judges is pretty well documented

Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/romney?before=1308500363" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Romney believes liberal judges should be appointed to the courts. Mitt passed over GOP lawyers for 75% of 36 judicial vacancies naming instead Democrats and Independents appointments.

http://ncrenegade.com/elections/why-mit ... -cant-win/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

TAM... Exactly, EXACTLY.

Now.... GET OUT OF MY HEAD.!!!!!

I am sorry if I come off as depressed about this stuff, but somebody please show me how the current crop of candidates A) has even a chance of winning the general; and B) will actually (not just in pretty words) change Washington DC from the cesspool that it is.

And I'd add Mike Lee (Utah) to your list and make it 4...

[chasfm11]

I truly don't give a rip about the primary. I will likely play eeny-meeny-miny-mo between Gingrich and Romeny in the ballot box. In the general election, I will vote for whomever the party's nominee turns out to be. After that, I will reregister as an Independent, and the Republican party will no longer be able to count on my support. The ONE THING that will bring me back into the fold is if the old guard finally steps down and surrenders the party and its leadership to the young lions. If the party runs a Rubio/(Rand)Paul/Ryan type of candidate in 2016, I'll start paying attention again. But until they do, they're all just a bunch of politicians.......and I mean that in its worst sense.

Déjà vu. I had a call from the Republican National Committee today. I allowed her to get into her canned special spiel enough to say something that I totally disagreed with then I launched a counter-argument that contained most of the thoughts that you put into your paragraph quoted. I told her that I will never again support the party as a whole unless and until they get rid of the establishment Rhinos. In the mean time, I'll support individual candidates. She let my tirade go on for about a minute and a half, said "I understand" and promptly hung up. I hope that she did understand and can relay it to her leadership.

The good news is that the young guns have already taken us from "astro-turf" to "obstructionists" in less than 4 years. The next step is "leadership."