TexasCHLforum.com

steveincowtown wrote:I support Joe Straus for Governor. This would get him out as Speaker of the House, and finally allow bills to come before him that he would either have to Sign or Veto showing his true colors and allowing his NRA rating to finally reflect who he really is.

....I kid, I kid.


Abbott would be my first choice.

You didn't help my blood pressure any. It spiked while reading your post. You shouldn't play like that.

nightmare69 wrote:SInce Perry will be leaving you think he will push the rest of the gun and CHL bills to the floor for a vote? What does he have to lose?

I think that is the whole reason he didn't push for any CHL bills.

I prefer Abbott, but I have come way around on Dewhurst in the last year. I think he heard us during the Senatorial race and has increased his combativeness, candor, and has a lot more fight than he used to show. He found his voice.

I don't think he's a RINO. I think he was viewed as too accommodating or soft and has responded to correct this image.

Let's watch how this next special session proceeds.

I think he can still do us a lot of good from the right positions.

fickman wrote:I prefer Abbott, but I have come way around on Dewhurst in the last year. I think he heard us during the Senatorial race and has increased his combativeness, candor, and has a lot more fight than he used to show. He found his voice.

I don't think he's a RINO. I think he was viewed as too accommodating or soft and has responded to correct this image.

Let's watch how this next special session proceeds.

I think he can still do us a lot of good from the right positions.

While I agree with most of that ^^^, I can't help but ask ...
"Why go with a guy that needs "reeducating" if I can vote for Abbott instead?"

And the follow up.....
"If Dewhurst needs guidance to find "his voice", how is he any better than any of the other panderers that aspire to higher office?"
I personally find people with whom I honestly disagree more palatable than people whose positions are conveniently, self-servingly malleable.

Yes... I see you prefer Abbott... me too

I agree on Abbott for governor at this time. I'm just saying let's not throw Dewhurst out of the picture for any role.

When I looked at Dewhurst vs. Cruz in the Senatorial primary, I really found them to be ideologically similar. I went with Cruz because his bombastic speech ruffled feathers and sent a bolder message.

I don't think Dewhurst became more conservative after the primary, I think he became more outspoken and adopted a little bit of an edge that he needed.

Greg Abbott. It's time for some new blood in the Governor's Mansion.

fickman wrote:I prefer Abbott, but I have come way around on Dewhurst in the last year. I think he heard us during the Senatorial race and has increased his combativeness, candor, and has a lot more fight than he used to show. He found his voice.

I don't think he's a RINO. I think he was viewed as too accommodating or soft and has responded to correct this image.

Let's watch how this next special session proceeds.

I think he can still do us a lot of good from the right positions.

my view on Dewhurst.......how to put this? he's in it for the politics, whereas I feel Abbott is in it for Texas and her people

fickman wrote:I prefer Abbott, but I have come way around on Dewhurst in the last year. I think he heard us during the Senatorial race and has increased his combativeness, candor, and has a lot more fight than he used to show. He found his voice.

I don't think he's a RINO. I think he was viewed as too accommodating or soft and has responded to correct this image.

Let's watch how this next special session proceeds.

I think he can still do us a lot of good from the right positions.

Dewhurst blew it when the world was watching the state Senate a couple of weeks ago. The GOP leadership had no post-filibuster plan, so they were too disorganized when the 3rd point of order was upheld. As he presides over the senate, the blame lands squarely on him. The demonstrated lack of ability has me looking for another successor.

Rrash wrote: I think that is the whole reason he didn't push for any CHL bills.

He can't push for anything too far right if he's going to run for president again. Predication: If he''s running for president, expect everything far right to be back burner-ed enough to keep that support, but no real movement on it.

No way he can come back for president after his showing last time... It's just too late.

Abbott, Pauken, Medina.....all good choices....

.....just as long as Perry & Dewhurst are gone, I'm happy.

Now to see just how hard Wendy Davis gets spanked....

cb1000rider wrote:He can't push for anything too far right if he's going to run for president again. Predication: If he''s running for president, expect everything far right to be back burner-ed enough to keep that support, but no real movement on it...

Really? And exactly what is more "far right" to the garden-variety libtard than the protection of unborn children? It seems to me that Perry has gone way out on a limb to call not one, but two Special Sessions (oh, and, right in character, here's how Libtard Nation reacted to the first session: http://godfatherpolitics.com/11592/hail ... arenthood/---hail Satan, indeed) with the very specific intent to get passed incredibly controversial legislation, which he obviously believes will add to his already strong legacy as a defender of the unborn.

If that's the good governor's "back burner," I simply can't wait to see what's cookin' on the front.

cb1000rider wrote:

Rrash wrote: I think that is the whole reason he didn't push for any CHL bills.

He can't push for anything too far right if he's going to run for president again. Predication: If he''s running for president, expect everything far right to be back burner-ed enough to keep that support, but no real movement on it.

No way he can come back for president after his showing last time... It's just too late.

"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference". Richard Nixon 1962

Pacifist wrote: Really? And exactly what is more "far right" to the garden-variety libtard than the protection of unborn children?

According to the Republicans in Texas, they're not challenging Row vs Wade, they're putting in place steps to better supplement the safety of mothers.
Wait, you don't believe the party line?

That particular issue is polarizing. It's black or white. And it's in line with everyone to the right of middle.

cb1000rider wrote:

Pacifist wrote: Really? And exactly what is more "far right" to the garden-variety libtard than the protection of unborn children?

According to the Republicans in Texas, they're not challenging Row vs Wade, they're putting in place steps to better supplement the safety of mothers.
Wait, you don't believe the party line?

That particular issue is polarizing. It's black or white. And it's in line with everyone to the right of middle.

I'm not sure what the opinions of "Republicans in Texas" have to do with the two special sessions Rick Perry called specifically with the protection of the unborn in mind, and, thus, securing his legacy as a champion of the unborn, but directly from the statement issued by the Governor's office at the start of the second session (http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/18710/):

Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement regarding the start of the second special session:

"The Texas Legislature is poised to finish its history-making work this year by passing legislation to protect the unborn... [emphasis added]

So whatever other reasons he may have had for calling the sessions, and the opinions of "Republicans in Texas" notwithstanding, the protection of the unborn was the first item listed and indicates pretty clearly to me where it ranks on his agenda.

And, yes, it is a shame that 2A issues didn't rank just below that, but I'm very much looking forward to the Greg Abbott governorship, as I am sure you are.

I've been busy listening to the hearings... All I've heard is claims that this is protecting women health, not outright admissions to protecting the unborn.

I do stand corrected, the official press releases indicate that it's about both - protection of the unborn and womens health... I was wrong on this... Didn't do enough digging on my own.