Preparing to Vote

How do you decide who to vote for?

Do you follow a procedure that includes gathering factual information about the candidates, including their conduct and performance in business, in the community or in public office?  Or, do you simply listen to, and believe the things candidates say about themselves?

It’s been my experience having been involved in a significant number of election cycles, that generally candidates tell you what they believe you want to hear! So how can you determine which of the candidates have a credible plan for keeping their promises to the voters as opposed to those who simply speak words necessary to get elected?

It is often difficult to develop an accurate assessment of a person’s ability to excel in the office for which he is a candidate. Today in Texas, everyone is a Republican (not actually but that’s what they would have you believe).  During every election in which I have been involved, an examination of voting records exposed the true character of many of those running for public office.  This election is no different. EXAMPLE: We have a candidate running as a Republican who has only voted one time in the last four primary elections. You guessed it – he voted Democrat!!!

Can you trust someone who lies about something as fundamental as their personal political philosophy? Learning the truth is often laborious and unpleasant but extremely important, especially when setting the course for the future with our vote.

Endorsements – How important are they?

Do you look at a long list of names of individuals who have ‘endorsed’ a candidate and think, “he must be a good guy if all these people like him”?

OR

Do you look through the list of names for people you know personally, whose endorsement really matters to you because, even though you don’t know the candidate, you know the character and integrity of the person endorsing the candidate?

Personally, I look for the name of someone whom I know would not endorse a candidate that I would not endorse.  An example of such a person is David Barton. Because of David’s character and integrity, I am comfortable supporting and voting for someone David endorses. I know he would not endorse someone he does not know well. David is but one example. There are many men and women with impeccable reputations whose endorsements warrant consideration, but I tend to completely disregard endorsements by people I do not personally know. There are other factors that are important, but if verifiable first-hand information is not available, the endorsement of someone I hold in high esteem is extremely important.

Why is he a candidate?

Is he running for office because he believes he can have a positive impact on the office for which he is competing? Or, is he simply looking for a job with benefits? Does it make sense to wait until a candidate is elected, to discover he has no core conservative principles?

I believe that if his candidacy is built upon a lie (Democrat running as a Republican) he cannot be relied upon to anchor his votes to fundamental conservative principles! Rather, he can be expected to vote according to his own personal interests.

County, State and Federal employees have become a huge voting block with enormous clout. Certainly electing more RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) will do nothing to reverse that trend!

I believe it is worth remembering that, “We deserve the government we elect”.

by Lenny Leatherman


6 responses

  1. Jack C. Pickard

    Good job Lenny, and well said.

  2. Senator-Blutarksy

    David Barton was a big supporter of Sam Brownback. Brownie was a big cheerleader for the “Patriot” Act(s)……………….Brownback did vote for the federal government to bail out troubled government-supported mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    from Wikipedia on brownbacks immigration stance- Brownback has a voting record tending that has supported higher legal immigration levels[63] and strong refugee protection. Brownback was cosponsor of a 2005 bill of Ted Kennedy and John McCain’s which would have created a legal path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already present.[64] On June 26, 2007, Brownback voted in favor of S. 1639, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.[65][66] Brownback supports increasing numbers of legal immigrants, building a fence on Mexican border, and the reform bill “if enforced.” While he initially supporting giving guest workers a path to citizenship, Brownback eventually voted “Nay” on June 28, 2007.[67] Brownback has said that he supports immigration reform because the Bible says to welcome the stranger.[68]

    Jack Abramoff money
    Brownback accepted $42,000 from Jack Abramoff, a disgraced ex-lobbyist involved in a wide-reaching public corruption scandal. This prompted Wyandotte Nation Chief Leaford Bearskin to state in a press release that he was “outraged and so very disappointed to learn that Senator Brownback reportedly received large sums of dirty money from Jack Abramoff, a Washington D.C. lobbyist who abused the political system for financial gain at the expense of the Native American community.”

    so………..if David Barton endorsed Brownback for president , that makes Barton a RINO in my book

  3. Senator-Blutarksy

    And after Brownback folded his campaign in 2008, Barton endorsed Huckabee – Mr Wide Open Border, pro Patriot Act, pro torture ultimate Neocon RINO – I found this to be very telling of the way Barton “endorses” candidates- from 2008-

    Barton, the Christian nationalist history revisionist, former Texas Republican Party co-chair, and GOP operative, initially endorsed Brownback, switching to Huckabee when Brownback dropped out of the race. Now, with his organization’s new “Voter Guide,” he’s promoting John McCain.

    As those who follow the issue of churches promoting candidates in violation of I.R.S. regulations may recall, the first “Voter Guide” put out by Barton’s organization, WallBuilders, and distributed WallBuilders, the American Family Association, and other conservative Christian organizations, was criticized by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) for its clear bias in favor of Mike Huckabee. Barton’s very Christ-like response to AU’s letter calling for an I.R.S. investigation was to say, on the February 26 episode of his WallBuildersLive! radio show, “You know, they’re coming at you waving all these butcher knives and all these bowie knives, and great, I’ll just pull out my machine gun and shoot y’all…”

    In addition to its misleading footnotes, Barton’s first Voter Guide, put out during the primaries and comparing all of the Republican and Democratic candidates, had each issue worded in such a way that Huckabee was the only candidate whose column said “YES” for every issue, drawing the reader to that column and the candidate with all the “right” answers. With an assurance that the guide was “Approved for 501(c)3 distribution by Liberty Counsel and Liberty Legal Institute,” Wallbuilders encouraged churches to distribute it and print it in their church bulletins, potentially putting the tax exempt status of these churches at risk.

    Because his first Voter Guide was designed to promote Huckabee, Barton had to get a few “NO” answers in the columns of the other Republican candidates — including John McCain. The new Obama vs. McCain Voter Guide, put out by Wallbuilders a few weeks ago, dispenses with the all “YES” answers tactic that was only necessary to make the Huckabee column stand out among the columns for the many other republican primary candidates. With only two candidates, the answers just need to oppose each other. McCain’s “wrong” answers from the pro-Huckabee Voter Guide, however, obviously needed to be, and are, “corrected” in the new Voter Guide. How was this done? Well, by lowering the bar on the two issues that earned McCain a “NO” in the first Voter Guide.

    McCain also had a “NO” in the first Voter Guide for “Supports a Federal Marriage Amendment.” Back in 2006, McCain voted against the motion to invoke cloture and vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. So, to give him a “YES” on supporting “traditional marriage” in the new Voter Guide, Barton again lowers the bar, changing the criteria from the original “Supports a Federal Marriage Amendment” to “Supports Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).”

    Some issues by Barton and Wallbuilders, I agree. He has a tactic for “rigging” questions to manipulate answers.

    I will continue to do my own research before I support any candidate for any office, as agenda-driven folk like Barton tend to manipulate questions for their own agenda.

  4. David Barton for President and Senator Blutarsky for his TEOTWAWKNI nay sayer.

  5. I look at what the person was saying before he became a candidate. Too often a political candidate will say things to get elected and then do the opposite once in office.
    I look at who the candidate is associated with and who his supporters are. That tells you about the character of the candidate.
    I look at how honest the candidate is. If he is caught in a lie, he loses my vote.

    These methods can be used from the selection of presidential candidates all the way down to precinct chair elections.

  6. Does anyone know anything about Tawni Maughan? The only thing I could find was on Facebook. No one by that name on property tax rolls, however there was a Tani Lynn Maughan as a previous owner of 116 W Russell.

%d bloggers like this: