Yeah, no link. I thought I'd make a weak statement on where things stand in my mind on the NH races.
The Governors race between Coburn and Lynch is pretty predictable. Lynch has done a pretty good job in his first term and I don't see Coburn offering anything better. I did have issue with the education fuster cluck, but Coburn doesn't have anything like a reasonable solution. I disliked Lynch's veto of the no-retreat legislation, but the state already has decent laws on the topic to start with, so I don't find that especially irritating.
The Bass/Hodes battle is interesting. I've gone into where they both stand on the issues, and frankly I don't see that they are that different. The major difference is on Iraq and national security, and that is where Hodes falls on his face. I completely disagree with his support of a near cut-and-run stand and frankly that ends any potential for my voting for him.
The Bradley/Shea-Porter race is outside of my voting district, but I doubt that there will be a change there. Shea-Porter is another Dem against the Iraq methodology and frankly strikes me as incredibly stupid.
I've seen several libertarian blogs, or those who tend to have that feel, discussing voting democrat to "punish" the republicans. I've been pretty amused by the arguments. It strikes me that punishing republicans by voting for democrats is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. I just don't see that things will get better by putting democrats in the majority. If you wanted to punish the republicans, the best method would have been to remove the incumbents during the primaries. Go read McQ's thoughts at QandO, I think he's quite convincing from the libertarian point of view.
The Governors race between Coburn and Lynch is pretty predictable. Lynch has done a pretty good job in his first term and I don't see Coburn offering anything better. I did have issue with the education fuster cluck, but Coburn doesn't have anything like a reasonable solution. I disliked Lynch's veto of the no-retreat legislation, but the state already has decent laws on the topic to start with, so I don't find that especially irritating.
The Bass/Hodes battle is interesting. I've gone into where they both stand on the issues, and frankly I don't see that they are that different. The major difference is on Iraq and national security, and that is where Hodes falls on his face. I completely disagree with his support of a near cut-and-run stand and frankly that ends any potential for my voting for him.
The Bradley/Shea-Porter race is outside of my voting district, but I doubt that there will be a change there. Shea-Porter is another Dem against the Iraq methodology and frankly strikes me as incredibly stupid.
Terrorists will only be defeated if there is goodwill and cooperation among various governments, so that all nations will aid in hunting them down. There are certainly a few rogue nations, but by invading Iraq, we have lost credibility with many other nations who could be helpful. Conservative ex-military leaders such as Congressman John Murtha and General William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, believe this.This Hug-the-Killer attitude is so blind to reality that I just couldn't take her seriously. The rest of her statement pretty much shows a very shallow understanding of the issues in the Middle-East and how the world needs to react to terrorism. Fortunately, polls show that Shea-Porter is still far behind.
I've seen several libertarian blogs, or those who tend to have that feel, discussing voting democrat to "punish" the republicans. I've been pretty amused by the arguments. It strikes me that punishing republicans by voting for democrats is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. I just don't see that things will get better by putting democrats in the majority. If you wanted to punish the republicans, the best method would have been to remove the incumbents during the primaries. Go read McQ's thoughts at QandO, I think he's quite convincing from the libertarian point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment