I'd rather look at the depth and bredth of someone's experience and qualifications then silly innuendos.
I always find that there is a tendency among certain conservatives to push good folks to run for office, and then, once they actually get elected and become politicans, and :gasp: actually do political things, they turn on you. You'd think 'OK, well, they want people who have been successful in private business'. But then, no, not so much that either, at least if you consider how Pete Coors was treated by some among the base. Darryl Issa is another one that demonstrates this same problem.
Anyhow, it leads them to support the underdog candidate for flimsy and/or non-existent reasons, because there is some sense that somehow they'll take the politics out of politics.
Well, they won't, and they don't, and usually, they just screw up if they try, and screw up not only for themselves, but for their party. It seems to me you are making the 'underdog' mistake.
I'd give Beers a chance if he A. Had a chance in hell of winning, and/or B. Had better experience and/or qualifications.
He has neither. I'll pass.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions, so we'll have to agree to disagree. That's politics.
What a tired bunch of bravo sierra. I didn't know there was a Governor experience meter out there. But you of all people obviously know the best. We'll leave it to your discerning taste in Gubenatorial selections to pick our next Governor.
I don't see any reason to elect a man that was passed up by his fellow party members in Congress. That, and I mean that, is the only reason he's running for Governor. If he doesn't get passed by in Congress, then he stays in D.C.
Nope. It's Beers for Nevada.