Election Dilemma

[Bubbles]

I've voting for Bush in the Presidential election. That's not an issue.

The problem is the Congressional race. The incumbent RINO has a GOA D rating, and was one of only 22 House Republicans to vote against the repeal of the DC gun ban last month. The Democrat challenger is unrated, but known as a hard-left liberal, and he has stated that he supports the AWB. This race was supposed to be a shoo-in for the incumbent, but has now become too close to call.

Here's the dilemma - neither candidate is good on guns. HOWEVER, there is a very good, GOA A+ rated Republican legislator in the General Assembly who won't challenge the incumbent in a primary, but who will run for the nomination in 2006 if the Democrat wins this year.

So, do I hold my nose and vote for the incumbent, or do I withhold my support from both candidates and leave that section of the ballot blank? There is no third-party candidate in this race, and there's no way I will vote for the Democrat.

 

[Zrex]

Ah! Short term sacrifice for the potential of a long term gain.....

Its a tough call. How does the Republican stand on other pro-freedom issues compared to the Democrat?

 

[Mikul]

Vote for the Democrat. When I have to choose between two terrible candidates, I vote for the challenger. I'm certainly not going to reward someone for years of poor service. In your case, it has the added benefit of giving you the potential for a big win when this Democrat's re-election comes up.

 

[RealGun]

Vote Republican. The D-rated GOP legislator is still subject to peer pressure, when there is the usual effort to vote along party lines. Voting otherwise just makes it easier for Democrats to accumulate votes for or against a bill, and one does not really have to speculate how they will vote.

 

[benEzra]

Or leave that section of the ballot blank, write the Democratic party and tell them why you couldn't vote for their candidate, and write the Republican party and tell them why you couldn't vote for their candidate.

(Just an option.)

 

[pax]

Write in "None of the Above" and tell the Republicans why.

pax

 

[Diggler]

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!

For no other reason that we NEED a solid majority in Congress whether Kerry gets elected or not. Liberal Repub's are a pain in the butt but they are pretty irrelevant within their party and still help to keep the power out of the hands of such critters as Feinstein, Kerry and Kennedy.

 

[Poodleshooter]

+1 to pax's response. Write to the candidate AND the local party.
I've written in my own name in many VA elections where a "Republican" was running.
Local elections here are the hardest to deal with because there's seldom a libertarian or other viable third party alternative (hello third parties, get working at the local level in VA!)
Then again, there aren't enough of them in this region to shake a stick at. Perhaps that's why there is no local activity.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Vote for the Libertarian.

 

[Bubbles]

How does the Republican stand on other pro-freedom issues compared to the Democrat?

If you go by their statements, they're about the same. The problem is the Democrat has no voting record.

Write in "None of the Above" and tell the Republicans why.

I was thinking about writing in "No Gun Control" since the write-in votes are tabulated.

Vote for the Libertarian.

There is none in this race; otherwise there would be no question about my vote.

 

[ssr]

I'm in the same boat. I'm sick of these RINO Republicans who actively vote against our gun rights. But then all I'm left with is voting for a true Democrat.

But then, what if we vote against these RINOS, and then Democrats win and win a majority or close to it, and then Kerry wins. Not good at all! Thnik about the future pushes for Semi-Auto Bans and then the upcoming UN conference on world wide small arms treaty. Do we want Democrats in control of everything? Not at all.

 

[RealGun]

Withholding a vote and making it easier for the Dem is not productive. It's idealistic, perhaps righteous, but it's not productive. It's counterproductive.

The seemingly automatic Libertarian suggestion wouldn't apply. Take note that there was no LP alternative mentioned.

 

[Turkey Creek]

I follow a standard proceedure in these situations- I vote against the incumbent- it's my way of being an equal oportunity employer- give everyone a chance to be a moron- plus the challenger, if elected, will start at the bottom of the heap and not have as much influence in committees, thus being less of a danger-

 

[RealGun]

I'm sick of these RINO Republicans who actively vote against our gun rights.

There aren't very many of them running according to the GOA ratings of candidates for contested seats. A number of the 12 incumbent Republicans in the Senate do not look very good, but the House is generally impressive. There are not nearly as many, but it is surprising how many Dems are highly rated. None are incumbent Senators, but 12 Democratic House incumbents are rated B or better.

The ratings indicate 34 states with Senate races, a few uncontested. All House seats are up for election.

GOA Congressional candidate ratings

 

[ssr]

Well, my Republican Senator has a D rating, but he's running against a Democrat with a F.

 

[RealGun]

Well, my Republican Senator has a D rating, but he's running against a Democrat with a F.

I'll guess that you are in a State with a megalopolis and dominated by big city government. They're all pretty much the same, it would seem.

 

[mrapathy2000]

is their a libertarian candidate? that or leave blank. wouldnt vote for the republican with that record then again he could prove very usefull when it comes to a Dem vs Rep issue in congress and we need reps. part could pressure him.

do not vote dem we got to many as is.

 

[Gifted]

Is there no Libertarian on the ballot, or no Libertarian at all? I'll assume you've looked them up to see that there's not one to write in.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If the Republican in question is Frank Wolf, I would definitely follow Pax's suggestion as he is no friend to us. If not, then I would probably still follow it.

With the Texas redistricting giving the Republicans about six seats, we can afford to lose a few RINOs in other states and still keep comfortable control of the House.

 

[RealGun]

The Democrat challenger is unrated, but known as a hard-left liberal, and he has stated that he supports the AWB.

When you don't help to defeat the Democrat, aren't you doing the cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face thing? Why give the Dems more votes, when some of the Republicans are already unreliable in a weak majority? Electing another weak Republican at least gives the party leadership a shot at leveraging more conservative voting.

 

[ShadowOne]

Remember, majority leaders determine the agenda in congress. Vote Republican even if it means giving the nod to a RINO.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Remember, majority leaders determine the agenda in congress. Vote Republican even if it means giving the nod to a RINO.

That really doesn't make much sense. Voting for an Rep anti instead of a Dem who is pro, simply puts another anti in office. How is this a good thing?

 

[pinblaster]

Since there is little or no difference between the two candidates I would vote for the challenging Democrat and show the incumbent RINO the door . Doing this might encourage the Democrat to maybe update thier posisitons . Reelecting the RINO will only give you more of the same ol same ol .

 

[Bubbles]

Good Guess Bart!

If the Republican in question is Frank Wolf, I would definitely follow Pax's suggestion as he is no friend to us.

I did finally find out why he decided to vote to keep the DC gun ban in place. During a debate with Socas (the Democrat) this issue came up, and Wolf stated that:

- he supports DC "home rule". In other words, he's willing not only to ignore the Second Amendment, but the Constitution as well, where DC is defined as a Federal territory, and

- he believes that, given DC's high crime rate, the ban is a good idea. :banghead:

 

[RealGun]

That really doesn't make much sense. Voting for an Rep anti instead of a Dem who is pro, simply puts another anti in office. How is this a good thing?

It depends upon whether you are referring to the House or the Senate. Too often, the Senate votes strictly along party lines, especially the Democrats. Personal judgment about doing the right thing is not very much in evidence. Check sometime. You'll see what I mean.

The House is all over the place. There are even 12 Democratic incumbents with B or better GOA ratings, a number of them A. The Senate is downright evil by comparison. All Democratic Senate incumbents running except for Grassley's C (D-IA) are rated F or are anti-gun leaders at F-. That's across 34 states, so it's pretty safe to say that Dem Senators vote anti-gun across the board.

In the House I think it's true that a RINO can be more of a rogue, but I believe he or she will be badgered for conformity by his own party members. I would rather see that rogue badgered by Republicans. The GOA ratings tell us that would be a good idea when playing the odds.