When it comes to Labno, I do agree with 80% of his positions and that's why he's getting my vote. I don't agree with him on EVERY issue, and there are certainly some notably differences like the one you mentioned. But he is still vastly better than any of the other choices on the ballot, including Kirk.
Finally, Kirk claims to be a "hawk" on the military but his record hardly justifies that claim. Kirk is a finger-to-the-wind guy on the WOT. His campaign team put on a big dog-and-pony show about how "important" it was to re-elect him in 2006 because he "supported President Bush on the WOT", then after getting re-elected he promptly turned around and lead the fight AGAINST the surge, and marched to the White House to lead a group of 11 "moderate" Republicans demanding Bush exit Iraq immediately. He's also flip-flopped on Gitmo at least 4 times.
Labno's position on war may not be my cup of tea but at least I know what I'm getting unlike the backstabber Kirk. Randy Stufflebeam was my preferred candidate but he was kicked off the ballot. We have to deal with the hand we're dealt. The choice is Labno vs. three socialists. I know who I'm supporting with those options.
“Randy Stufflebeam was my preferred candidate but he was kicked off the ballot.”
Stufflebeam is fighting in court and will probably be put back on the ballot within a few days. On Friday a judge put the Constitution Party within 80 votes of being on the ballot, and they can get those 80 votes with affidavits.
I agree entirely and what does one man who disagrees with nation building hurt the Senate? I’ve talked to Mike Labno and he would never do anything to defund or place the troops at risk in the time of war no matter whether he disagreed with the way we got into it. He isn’t a truther he doesn’t blame America for 9-11. He just believes that “nation building” hasn’t worked so well and truthfully it hasn’t. I do believe in finishing the job but I’d like to get people elected like Labno who will vote to let our soldiers fight a war like a war.