INGO IN Senate Straw Poll

[dburkhead]

So, let me see if I understand this:

I am to unite around "your guy" because he's the only who can beat the "evil one" and vanquish darkness - based on phone calls to less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the likely primary voters in this state.

Or, I can exercise my natural rights, and the rights imparted by our Constitution, and cast my vote for whomever I feel will best serve my State and my Republic.

Can you honestly say that Behney agrees with you on every. single. possible. point. of law that might possibly cross his desk were he to win the senate seat?

If not, then you are compromising and calls to "not compromise" are hypocritical.

If so, then can you honestly say that you expect the same to be true of enough voters to beat not only those who have the same degree of agreement with other candidates but those who are willing to compromise?

If not, then how can you possibly expect to win except by hypocritically getting other people to compromise for your candidate.

If your answer is "yes" to both then I can only say that you must be incredibly naive.

Now, here's the thing. I do intend to vote for the candidate I believe will best serve the Republic. But the republic is not served by a candidate who cannot win. You can complain about the number of people polled, but Rassmussen has been quite accurate with that small number polled repeatedly. Trying to pretend otherwise is simply wishful thinking.

 

[photoshooter]

You make a good point. And Compromise isn't a bad thing. But I've shown where Hostettler is willing to compromise his own morals and go with whatever they tell/pay him to do. He said no to Iraq, then said OK to staying there until the end of time. He helped write the Patriot Act and he HAD to know that most all of it was unConstitutional. I cannot vote for someone like that.

I've heard John explain the Patriot Act a few times. According to his story, the committee went out of their way to make sure it adhered to the Constitution.

That's Bill and Hillary speak for finding case-law loopholes that make it OK to put folks like Janet Reno in charge of the justice department and let them do whatever they want to.

Try reading some of the Constitution books written from a Natural Rights or Libertarian point of view. We've moved so far a way from Natural Rights (go look up the Maimi Jury techniques of Janet Reno) that it's scary what our Federal Government can do to us - legally. And the Patriot Act made it worse.

But, I'm sure we can find enough weasel words to prove it "Constitutional" if you ignore the foundations on Individual Liberty and Natural Rights that our founders understood and incorporated into our Republic.

The man who says this is appropriate use of our Constitutional Government must have forgotten that people like Janet Reno and Barack Obama could be in charge of our Executive branch someday:

Now, under Section 215, the FBI may obtain sensitive personal records by simply certifying that they are sought for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The FBI need not suspect the person whose records are being sought of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, the class of persons whose records are obtainable under Section 215 is no longer limited to foreign powers and their agents, but may include United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, or "United States persons" in the parlance of the FISA. [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1][27][/SIZE][/FONT] While Section 215 bars investigations of United States persons "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution," it does nothing to bar investigations based on other activities that tie them, no matter how loosely, to an international terrorism investigation. [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1][28][/SIZE][/FONT]

and:

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1][10][/SIZE][/FONT] Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that "appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

Could Prez O apply that to any Former Military, gun owning, Tea Partiers?

 

[photoshooter]

Now, here's the thing. I do intend to vote for the candidate I believe will best serve the Republic. But the republic is not served by a candidate who cannot win. You can complain about the number of people polled, but Rassmussen has been quite accurate with that small number polled repeatedly. Trying to pretend otherwise is simply wishful thinking.

I seem to recall a large number of pollsters being wrong in the 1994 midterms.

It seems to me, one of the current candidates was first elected back then as well.

Nawwwww... the Tea Parties don't mean a darn thing. They'll never go vote. They just want to gripe.

 

[Lars]

My candidate will be on the ballot regardless of who wins the May 4th primary.

 

[dburkhead]

You make a good point. And Compromise isn't a bad thing. But I've shown where Hostettler is willing to compromise his own morals and go with whatever they tell/pay him to do. He said no to Iraq, then said OK to staying there until the end of time.

It's one thing to say we should not go into a particular war. It's another to say--once we're in the war--that we do whatever it takes to win it. The two positions are not inconsistent.

I don't recall there being any particular timeline on December 8 1941 for bringing our troops home from the Pacific or ever from June 6, 1944 for bringing them home from Europe.

He helped write the Patriot Act and he HAD to know that most all of it was unConstitutional. I cannot vote for someone like that.

Have you read the actual act or are you basing this on what the media has claimed for it. The two are not the same. While there are things that I do find troubling about the Patriot Act, what the Media and the Left have claimed about it has been, in many instances, flat out lies. (That, in fact, is the biggest trouble I have with it, that the Left, once they regained power--as they have--would act as if it actually did grant all the powers they claimed it did.)

Case in point: warrants have never been required to listen to foreigners in foreign countries (even if the listener is located in the US). Sometimes, in the course of those things, a "US Person" (a term of art that includes US citizens and some other categories to whom US law applies) would become involved. There were very specific rules for handling those cases to protect the rights of US Persons while still obtaining the necessary intelligence from the foreign sources. I know for a fact that these procedures go back to at least the Reagan administration and probably quite a bit farther. What the Patriot Act did was extend these same procedures and policies to phone conversations where at least one of the parties was a non-US person in a foreign country. Questionable, certainly. Pushing beyond "reasonable" (as in "unreasonable search and seizure"), quote possibly. But it could be argued either way. After all, what is the "remedy" for an illegal search (such as a wiretap) at law but the exclusion of the evidence from being used in court? But that's already written into the Patriot Act. Information thus gathered cannot be used in court against US persons.

What it was not was the blanket authority to wiretap anyone, for any reason, without bothering with warrants.

The reality was not the same as the portrayal.

Knowing that Behney will follow the Constitution, that's what I care about. I'm not exactly picky, but when someone is willing to bend or break the Constitution, I cannot in good faith support them.

And how many politicians, before going to Washington, claimed they would follow the Constitution?

But that's as an aside. My prediction is that Behney is not going to Washington. What he would or would not do is utterly irrelevant.

I refuse to pick and choose which Amendments of the Bill of Rights I'm going to save and which ones to compromise on. Period.

Instead you'll give them all up to someone like Ellsworth?

My additional prediction: factionalism among the more conservative voters will give Coats the Republican nomination. Coats will be unable to beat Ellsworth (and it wouldn't much matter if he did). Thus we'll have a RINO to the left of Lugar or a left-wing liberal democrat as Senator.

But at least a lot of folk wouldn't have voted for someone they considered less than perfect.

If Behney and I don't see eye to eye on an issue, I've not yet seen it.

I doubt you've probed him on every possible issue so, at best, you're willing to gamble (and risk the resultant "compromise") on the rest.

And do you honestly think there are enough people for whom there are no points of difference to beat any of the other major candidates? So how do you expect to win without getting other people to compromise?

 

[dburkhead]

I seem to recall a large number of pollsters being wrong in the 1994 midterms.

Which pollsters?

It seems to me, one of the current candidates was first elected back then as well.

And what did Rassmussen have to say about him then?

Nawwwww... the Tea Parties don't mean a darn thing. They'll never go vote. They just want to gripe.

How many people are actually in the Tea parties? Do you honestly expect all, or even most, of them to vote for Behney? Something like the Tea Parties can swing a close election, pulling a dark horse from a very distant "also ran" to winning is another thing entirely.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Excuse me? You might want to get your information straight. That douchebag voted to make the Patriot Act PERMANENT!

Here's a couple more tidbits for ya...

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

Votes no to war with Iraq first,
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Then back pedals and says indefinite war is just fine.
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)


Sure he has a good platform, but he's not the kind of Politician I want in office. AND he's a CAREER politician. Time for him to find a real job for a while.

(info source for voting record... John Hostettler on the Issues )

I already posted that link.
And yes, he originally did NOT want to go to war with Iraq, but then decided on funding. He's NOT a cut-and-runner. Despite him not agreeing with it, he wasn't about to leave our troops without funding.

And you left out the fact that he is NOT a fan of civil oversight, but that all spying should be on-warrant.

 

[photoshooter]

I won't break my principles and vote for someone that embraced and help draft a bill that seriously endangers at least two parts of the Bill of Rights (1st and 4th) compared to Coats' one amendment (2nd).

Neither of the top two candidates (according to the blessed polls) is a good choice. And I don't see much difference in them. Two established politicians. Both with their own ideas of how to screw our rights. Both with the track records to prove it.

Putting one over the other is just as bad as the reverse.

 

[dburkhead]

I won't break my principles and vote for someone that embraced and help draft a bill that seriously endangers at least two parts of the Bill of Rights (1st and 4th) compared to Coats' one amendment (2nd).

Neither of the top two candidates (according to the blessed polls) is a good choice. And I don't see much difference in them. Two established politicians. Both with their own ideas of how to screw our rights. Both with the track records to prove it.

Putting one over the other is just as bad as the reverse.

And you can be very proud of your stance when losing it all.

THE DOG, THE MEAT AND THE REFLECTION

 

[photoshooter]

And you can be very proud of your stance when losing it all.

THE DOG, THE MEAT AND THE REFLECTION

I won't be proud of going against my principles and sending a former congressman - who flat out stole our liberty - back into office back into office just to prove that Dan Coats is evil.

If you really want to send someone outside the system, you should support Stutzman (who is at striking distance of Coats in your precious polls). He has only only raised our taxes - not destroyed more of our liberties and driven up the size of Janet Reno/Eric Holder's BIG BROTHER.

 

[irishfan]

Lets just get Evan to come back and take the worry away from the GOP group.

 

[photoshooter]

Lets just get Evan to come back and take the worry away from the GOP group.

Technically, he could.

He could just be laying in the weeds waiting to see who he's running against!

 

[dburkhead]

I won't be proud of going against my principles and sending a former congressman - who flat out stole our liberty - back into office back into office just to prove that Dan Coats is evil.

If you really want to send someone outside the system, you should support Stutzman (who is at striking distance of Coats in your precious polls). He has only only raised our taxes - not destroyed more of our liberties and driven up the size of Janet Reno/Eric Holder's BIG BROTHER.

Actually, by your logic, I should write in the one person, the only person I have ever met, who exactly agrees with me on every single point of policy that might ever come up. (Three guesses who that is and the first two don't count.) That this person has exactly zero chance of winning is, again by your logic, utterly beside the point.

The fact that insisting on "all or nothing" is almost always a good way to end up with the "nothing" end of the deal is also, apparently, beside the point.

We can end up with the worst of all possible worlds, but at least you won't have "compromised." That will be a nice comfort on the way to the gallows, I'm sure.

 

[xd9]

Stutzman gets my vote. He has a A+ rating by the NRA-PVF. He also co-wrote Indiana's Life-Time Gun Permit. This guy is for real and has a solid Constitutional voting record.

 

[photoshooter]

Stutzman gets my vote. He has a A+ rating by the NRA-PVF. He also co-wrote Indiana's Life-Time Gun Permit. This guy is for real and has a solid Constitutional voting record.

XD: Thanks for speaking up. You're one of the few folks on here that are sticking up for exercising our right to vote for who we believe is best suited to fill the spot.

To be honest, Marlin is my 2nd choice in this race. If he wins the nod, I'll probably end up supporting him -although Rebecca Sink-Burris from the Libertarians shows promise - I need to do some issue by issue comparisons between her and whomever wins the GOP primary.

 

[dburkhead]

XD: Thanks for speaking up. You're one of the few folks on here that are sticking up for exercising our right to vote for who we believe is best suited to fill the spot.

Okay, you have been corrected on this point repeatedly. At this point I have to presume that the "error" is deliberate.

Nobody has said you don't have the right to vote for anyone you wish. The issue at hand is whether such a vote is wise, helpful, or counterproductive.

To be honest, Marlin is my 2nd choice in this race. If he wins the nod, I'll probably end up supporting him -although Rebecca Sink-Burris from the Libertarians shows promise - I need to do some issue by issue comparisons between her and whomever wins the GOP primary.

Oh, good. Ellsworthless appreciates your diligence.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Stutzman gets my vote. He has a A+ rating by the NRA-PVF. He also co-wrote Indiana's Life-Time Gun Permit. This guy is for real and has a solid Constitutional voting record.

wooooooo. a lifetime permit. how about not trampling our constitutional rights in the first place and requiring NO permit. Thats the way it needs to be. ANYONE over 18 (except fellons) should be allowed to carry a gun CC or OC, without any permit, period.

so the fact of him co-authoring the lifetime permit means didly squat to me. he wont win, hes waisting good votes, and now maybe i will never vote for him EVER in the future either, cause hes gonna screw it up and get dan hitler coats elected

 

[DaveD]

A vote for Stutzman is like pissing into the wind, nothing good will come out of it because he wont even get 10% of the vote. Im not saying he isnt a GREAT potential candidate for senate, but he isnt in the final heat. I just hate to see good votes thrown away, when John has a shot to beat coats.

What he said!

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

I'm voting for Behney. A non-politician and small business owner. Those two things alone make him more qualified than our current POTUS, of which the POTUS is too much of the former, and completely oblivious to the latter.

As for the polls (of which I've never been contacted), and the notion of taking votes away from Candidates A or B, that's not my concern. I feel as though I've done the research, compared each of them against the others, and I'm choosing to cast my vote for the one in which I feel best Represents myself and my community.

If Richard Behney (Indiana's "Dick the Plumber") doesn't win the nomination of the Grand Ole Party, then I'll look for information on the Libertarian candidate come November; or any other third party candidates that may come forward.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils any more. If I cannot support any of the candidates listed for a specific election/office, and a write-in is not an option, then I'll simply abstain from casting a vote. And if the past political climate appears unchanged post-November, then I'll probably refrain from any future elections and spend all of my politically active time in the Survival and Prep section!

 

[photoshooter]

Okay, you have been corrected on this point repeatedly. At this point I have to presume that the "error" is deliberate.

Nobody has said you don't have the right to vote for anyone you wish. The issue at hand is whether such a vote is wise, helpful, or counterproductive.

Oh, good. Ellsworthless appreciates your diligence.

Oh... and the guy who stole even more of our liberties than Coats - The Patriot act has affected both the 1st and 4th amendments - is not worthy of my vote just to keep Coats out of office.

You've been corrected on that issue repeatedly. Defeating Darth Dan with a candidate just as bad is not a win for Liberty or for our Country.