How do YOU choose?

[Julie R.]

I am more concerned with issues of morality. I say that I vote my conscience before my wallet. I honestly believe that if we stick closer to traditional Christian values, then everything else will straighten itself out in time.

I'm definitely more Libertarian on social issues, so they factor less in my decision making. Voting on moral issues sounds noble in theory, but in practice, there's simply no way to legislate morality. These days, even the thought makes me uneasy, although government programs have been steadily swelling the ranks of the functionally helpless illiterates with no morals, let alone any moral compass. And if I had my way you'd be forbidden from reproducing if you're on the public dole or here illegally until you're capable of legally supporting yourself AND your spawn...but I digress. I mean, think about this: Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Tim "Tax Cheat" Geitner et all including the POTUS, making personal decisions for you and your family, or would you rather be free to follow the guidance of your religion and those you respect?

[david gibson]

its real easy for me - its either Sheila Jackson Lee or whoever is running against her. if osama bin laden runs against her, i'm voting for him.

[ducknwork]

I'm definitely more Libertarian on social issues, so they factor less in my decision making. Voting on moral issues sounds noble in theory, but in practice, there's simply no way to legislate morality. These days, even the thought makes me uneasy, although government programs have been steadily swelling the ranks of the functionally helpless illiterates with no morals, let alone any moral compass. And if I had my way you'd be forbidden from reproducing if you're on the public dole or here illegally until you're capable of legally supporting yourself AND your spawn...but I digress. I mean, think about this: Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Tim "Tax Cheat" Geitner et all including the POTUS, making personal decisions for you and your family, or would you rather be free to follow the guidance of your religion and those you respect?

I am more conservative on social issues than any other area of politics, period.

Morality is not all about social issues though Julie...

Greed is immoral.
Dishonesty is immoral.
Laziness is immoral.
etc,etc...

Tell me how just those three would change the country. All forms of immorality, ESPECIALLY social immorality, costs Americans A LOT of money and has led to every problem that we have in the world if you get down to the root cause.

Now, as far as social issues go, I understand that you can't 'legislate morality', even though it is done every day. It's a nice sounding phrase to use, but to me it can be translated as 'I don't have the guts to stand up for what's right' in many cases. The names you mentioned are too busy legislating immorality to worry about being moral.

[BrianW]

Constitutional issues don't usually matter much in final elections. I've not seen to many candidates wanting to step outside the bounds of the constitution. Although, some of these Tea Party folks seem pretty far out there in their interpretation of the constitution.

I'm an issue person. And a middle class supporter. I believe a strong middle class equals a strong America. I usually ignore what candidates are saying, esp right before an election. You learn a lot more about a candidate from his or her past deeds than their present marketing scheme

For candidates that have never run for office before, how do you discern their "past deeds"? Granted a person that has served in say State legislature running for Congress may have a record on certain issues or votes but there are many out there this tme that don't, unless you read their literature/web sites/marketing schemes.
The following is a questionnaire on some issues to candidates in my district from a Tea Party group that resulted in a "report card" (results deleted). Choices were Yes, No, Not Sure. Some candidates did not respond or "opted out" but those that did respond showed an interesting profile. Are these questions "pretty far out there" in your interpretation?

Vote to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, effectively
returning the selection of U.S. Senators to the individual state
legislatures

Vote to repeal “Obamacare”, as passed into law in March, 2010

Challenge the mandatory health insurance law, at the federal level
by blocking funding for additional IRS staff needed to enforce the
law

Investigate racial quotas and preferences currently incorporated
into the health care law

Vote to eliminate the federal Department of Education, returning all
control of public schools to the individual states

Vote to revoke funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) if they attempt to enforce “cap & trade” policy that has not
been passed by Congress

Vote to return control of endangered species listing to the individual
states affected

Vote to return all federal land to the states, upon request of the
state government

Vote “NO” on any legislation granting a path to citizenship to illegal
aliens, without first returning them to their native country, and
requiring them to go to the back of the line for legal immigration

Vote “NO” on any agreement or treaty that surrenders any degree
of U.S. sovereignty, including climate change, use of international
precedents in U.S. courts, or U.N. agreements

Vote “NO” on any climate change agreement that requires or
commits the use of taxpayer money to fund non-U.S. efforts or
projects

Vote to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations

[Julie R.]

Now, as far as social issues go, I understand that you can't 'legislate morality', even though it is done every day. It's a nice sounding phrase to use, but to me it can be translated as 'I don't have the guts to stand up for what's right' in many cases. The names you mentioned are too busy legislating immorality to worry about being moral.

Agree totally and I also agree with these character flaws:

Greed is immoral.
Dishonesty is immoral.
Laziness is immoral.
etc,etc...

And I wouldn't vote for a candidate that evidenced being guided by any or all of these character weaknesses, but I'd be willing to forgive certain personal transgressions as long as I thought they were honest mistakes the person learned from, and not defining characteristics. Example from my own state: Former Gov. Allen calling a minority a "Macaca" during his Senate campaign. I really don't think he meant to be racist or insulting yet this mistake jettisoned his campaign. I'm certain he had no idea the term was insulting or he'd never have used it.

Likewise, I fear the sensationalism that past mistakes create prevents an awful lot of decent, moral people on both sides of the aisle from ever running for office. We have a dumbed-down electorate that is more interested in the "dirt" than the issues so they only care about the kind of dirt the ratings-driven media feeds them in the name of "news". There's simply no such thing as an adult of a certain age that never made a mistake--it's how we learn and grow. Things like a candidate's youthful DUI or pot smoking are not important to me as long as that person didn't grow up to be a druggie or a drunk. I'm not a fan of whore-hoppers but if a candidate had a tawdry affair years ago and recovered from its publicity, it's not an issue. But if caught while in office and lies about it, especially under oath, it shows a lack of morals rather than a mistake.

[M&K's Retrievers]

For candidates that have never run for office before, how do you discern their "past deeds"? Granted a person that has served in say State legislature running for Congress may have a record on certain issues or votes but there are many out there this tme that don't, unless you read their literature/web sites/marketing schemes.
The following is a questionnaire on some issues to candidates in my district from a Tea Party group that resulted in a "report card" (results deleted). Choices were Yes, No, Not Sure. Some candidates did not respond or "opted out" but those that did respond showed an interesting profile. Are these questions "pretty far out there" in your interpretation?

Vote to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, effectively
returning the selection of U.S. Senators to the individual state
legislatures

Vote to repeal “Obamacare”, as passed into law in March, 2010

Challenge the mandatory health insurance law, at the federal level
by blocking funding for additional IRS staff needed to enforce the
law

Investigate racial quotas and preferences currently incorporated
into the health care law

Vote to eliminate the federal Department of Education, returning all
control of public schools to the individual states

Vote to revoke funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) if they attempt to enforce “cap & trade” policy that has not
been passed by Congress

Vote to return control of endangered species listing to the individual
states affected

Vote to return all federal land to the states, upon request of the
state government

Vote “NO” on any legislation granting a path to citizenship to illegal
aliens, without first returning them to their native country, and
requiring them to go to the back of the line for legal immigration

Vote “NO” on any agreement or treaty that surrenders any degree
of U.S. sovereignty, including climate change, use of international
precedents in U.S. courts, or U.N. agreements

Vote “NO” on any climate change agreement that requires or
commits the use of taxpayer money to fund non-U.S. efforts or
projects

Vote to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations

On the surface, I'd say yes to these.

[luvmylabs23139]

Constitutional issues don't usually matter much in final elections. I've not seen to many candidates wanting to step outside the bounds of the constitution.

Obumma, HArry, Nancy, just a few that have no regard for the constitution.
Let's not even discuss supreme court justice Sortamyass.

[Ken Bora]

Let's not even discuss supreme court justice Sortamyass.

I bet she ends up a bit more conservative than many of the liberals were thinking.
Odd you posting on a voting thread, didn't know you could....

[road kill]

I bet she ends up a bit more conservative than many of the liberals were thinking.
Odd you posting on a voting thread, didn't know you could....

That didn't stop thousands in the last election........



RK

[subroc]

I bet she ends up a bit more conservative than many of the liberals were thinking...

What makes you bet (think) that?