Excellent and important basic point being made here. A body of voters judge candidates on a LOT of things besides their positions on gun issues.paperchunker wrote:TAM, you are the most eloquent writer on this board and I always respect your opinion, however this is the 3rd or 4th time that a poster in these threads has made a derogatory comment about the voters who elected Jonathon Stickland.The Annoyed Man wrote:I'll try to answer these one at a time......
The people who elected him are naive. Did they elect him to be their hero, or did they elect him to effectively represent their interests?
I was a resident in the 92nd District during the 2014 campaign when Stickland was seeking re-election. Our choice in the Rep. primary was a rock solid conservative firebrand (Stickland) or a Democratic party plant named Andy Cargile. Cargile was a retired school administrator and trustee who had the full backing of the teachers union. The teachers union encouraged their members to cross over and vote in the Rep primary to try to defeat Stickland. Stickland won over 60% of the vote.
From Wikipedia, In 2013, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, managed in Texas by Cathie Adams, a former state chairman of the Texas Republican Party, rated Stickland 100 percent favorable; the Young Conservatives of Texas, 97 percent. The Texas League of Conservation Voters rated him 38 percent; a similar group Environment Texas rated him 12 percent. The interest group, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, founded by Michael Quinn Sullivan, rated him 100 percent. The National Rifle Association scored Stickland 92 percent
Before we disparage the voters who elected someone we should verify that he was not the better choice.
Search found 1 match
Return to “Some questions prompted by the 84th session”
- Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:49 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Some questions prompted by the 84th session
- Replies: 14
- Views: 8194