Should one decent term make up for his 16 year anti-2a record in the state senate? I don't think so. While Schwarz has a top level press secretary, a record speaks for itself.
Joe Schwarz campaign on gun grabs when he ran for governor in 2002 against Dick Posthumus. He was the most anti-2a candidate running that incluces David Bonior and Jennifer Granholm circa 2002(and Granholm has improved greatly on this issue - enough to no longer earn an unacceptable rating from SAFR). In 2004, he still supported the ugly gun ban and was booed out of a townhall meeting in Jackson because of this issue.
As I said on November 20
I'm not a fan of Mr. Schwarz. This goes back to his days in the state senate where he was a frequent critic of gun owners, pro-lifers, and tax hawks. I can respect honest disagreement, but when I'm told that I'm a "bubba who straps on and packs a 9mm" because I support the right of law abiding citizens to carry concealed pistols or that I am a "zealot" because I am pro-life, well I'll be supporting his primary challenger. I will give Schwarz credit for some honesty where he said that he "didn't give a shit" (exact quote) if he got the votes of pro-lifers and 2nd amendment supporters. That much is obvious by his mouth. In the 2002 primary debate in his gubenatorial campaign, he stated that he was not opposed to tax increases. He also brought up his anti-gun views there.
I will concede that Schwarz hasn't been terrible as a congressman, even surprisingly supporting the gun lawsuit ban, but I have to look at a 16+ year record over two years. He is unrepentantly anti-gun. He was one of the anti-conceal carry leaders. He is also pro-abortion and ran on that in the 2002 gubenatoral primary. Add the tax support, and it's three strikes and yer out.
NRA's wrong. SAFR and GOA are right. If you want someone you can count on when it comes to the Second Amendment, vote for Tim Walberg.
5 comments:
Looks to me like the NRA may be worried about the ability of Walberg to win in the general election, figuring it is better to support a candidate that may support them every now and than to end up with totally anti-2a congressman.
I don't personally agree with this logic but it is the only explanation I can come up with for the NRA endorsement.
Ever think you Right Wingers may be over the top and to the Right of the NRA?
Many of you seem mighty extreme to me.
Trust me, this doesn't bother me at all, in fact I love that the Livingston GOP is moving to the extreme Right.
The NRA is inconsistent. That's my problem with them. You're pro-2a or not. Schwarz isn't.
Moving to the extreme right? That's a joke. The GOP in general has moved LEFTWARD since 1994. Bigger government is a left wing stance.
Bluzie - You're party's gun grabbing is probably the number one reason why you haven't gotten past the 40% mark in this county at the top of the ticket since 1986. (And don't lie to me and say that nobody wants to take away my guns) Stabenow voted to ban almost all center-fire ammunition.
Endorsements, whether they come from PETA or Mother Teresa are worthless if political strategy enters the endorsing process.
Pure merit should be the only criteria.
It's true Keith, Right to Life of Michigan made it clear a year ago that I would not even get a questionnaire. This is a violation of the public trust. They know that so many pro-life people have depended on RTL as a voter guide.
But, remain alert - things are beginning to change. For example, the Press & Argus reveals that RTL is no longer the only endorsing game in town:
http://www.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060719/NEWS01/60719010/1002/NEWS17
Also the new Michigan Chooses Life PAC endorsements are due out next week.
As for the NRA, they are huge and political. The need to be careful. Many organizations lose their grass roots quality when they grow to these levels. Many of the smaller pro-2 amendment groups seem to be more sincere and committed to their purpose.
Now I see why the Rolling Stones have been so successful. You go, Keith!
Post a Comment