TexasCHLforum.com

I received my American Rifleman a couple of weeks ago and right on the cover it told me who to vote for. That's a little pushy...but okay. But I was very surprised when it told me to vote for Nick Lampson. Are you kidding me?

Why on earth is the NRA backing Lampson and not Sekula Gibbs?

TSRA also rates Lampson A+ - FWIW

I live close enough to Houston that I see a lot of adds about Lampson and Sekula-Gibbs, so I'm very glad I'm not in their district, because I would hate to find the lesser of two evils here.

On security and 2A issues, Lampson seems the clear front-runner, but on several other key issues, in my mind, Sekula-Gibbs leads. I don't want to give up my 2A rights or the security of this state and nation, but at what other costs? Sometimes I wish there was the option used in the movie "Brewster's Millions." Vote "None of the Above."

You can do better than "none of the above."

Libertarians are running for most state and federal positions in Texas. They may not win, but at least you are not casting your vote for someone you consider evil.

- Jim

Would you vote for Bloomberg just because he's a republican?

I don't think anyone voted for Mr. Bloomberg because he is a Republican. He probably couldn't win the Democratic primary.

- Jim

nitrogen wrote:Would you vote for Bloomberg just because he's a republican?

Not at all.

Lampson an extreme liberal and I would think that he would fall in line with other Democrats (Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton, etc.) if they took over the house and senate and would actually support anti-gun legislation.

I'll vote for the best candidate according to my beliefs. Sometimes that's a democrat or libertarian, but it is usually a republican.

seamusTX wrote:You can do better than "none of the above."

Yes, but only until "none" has a majority in the House and Senate.

After that, electing nobody as President could be pretty effective...or ineffective, which might be even better.

Imagine a Congress scared stiff that they might be replaced by nobodies (literally) if they don't get it right.

NRA has endorsed Lampson because he has a voting record in Congress and he always votes with gun owners. Gibbs will likely be pro-gun if she is elected. If elected and if she does support gun owners with her votes, then she will be endorsed by the NRA when she runs for reelection. Any organization that wants to have an effect on an elected official's vote cannot abandon old friends for new ones. If Gibbs is elected, she too will benefit from that philosophy.

Lampson has a track record that most conservatives, whether Republican or Democrat, will not like. However, the NRA cannot rate and/or endorse candidates on anything other than gun issues.

Chas.

Thanks Charles.

That makes sense. Sometimes it's hard to understand why an organization would endorse someone. I understand that the NRA makes that choice on a single issue.

Lumberjack98 wrote: I'll vote for the best candidate according to my beliefs. Sometimes that's a democrat or libertarian, but it is usually a republican.

I know I go out on a limb here sometimes...

But I can tell you that I have know Shelley for years...

Charles is right about the endorsement issue...Untill she gets into that office, she knows she won't rate higher than just an "A"...To get that + rating she's got to be able to vote on those issues...

It will happen...

She's been my at-large counsel person from the get go...And since I hitched my wagon very early in the CD22 process to get someone on the ballot...I had a feel for all of the serious candidates vying for that nomination...

It comes down to where you lean...If you are a conservative or liberal, the choice is clear and simple...

I don't think we have to worry about gun-control issues if they come across either person's desk...

I also know Nick Lampson personally...He's just about like any of us...He knows his and my politics are diametrically opposed, and he knows I'll stick a burr under his saddle when those issues come up and he goes one way, and I believe the other...Thats D.C. for you...

Big picture, and outside the box are what I look for...And if its not going well...In 24 months we can change it...Or not...

After the district realignment, I found myself looking at two unknowns (to me): Lampson and Ralph Hall.

To be frank, Lampson struck me as a loony.

Kevin

barres wrote: Sometimes I wish there was the option used in the movie "Brewster's Millions." Vote "None of the Above."

There is always the Libertarian candidate.

KBCraig wrote:After the district realignment, I found myself looking at two unknowns (to me): Lampson and Ralph Hall.

I'm confused. Mr. Lamspon represented the 9th district before 2003. I was in that district. After redistricting, he was in the 2nd. That's nowhere near Texarkana. It's mostly Chambers and Liberty counties, with a piece of Harris.

Ralph Hall represents the 4th, which includes Texarkana.

- Jim