Meet Rich Nugent, the new Dede Scozzafava

AuH2ORepublican wrote:

What are Nugent’s stances on the issues? Scozzafava was famously pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage and pro-Big Government; is Nugent similarly ultraliberal? Brown-Waite is pro-abortion (but not fanatically so) and a bit of a dim bulb, but not a full-bore RINO.

On the issues, Nugent has been married 36 years, has three sons. Two are in the military (one about to graduate from West Point). The third son is in the national guard. I know that doesn't sound like issue positions, but it's all he talks about at his appearances.

Beyond that, he takes contradictory positions on most issues, depending on who he is talking to.

He's against earmarks, but will continue funding local "pet projects" here in the district. Those projects are now funded by earmarks that GBW secured.

He will tell one group that he will sign the "Contract from America," and two days later, say he hasn't signed it and he outlines how it's too "radical" for him to sign.

He is against the Obama drilling ban, but doesn't want drilling to start again until we can "prove it's absolutely safe." I'm still not sure what to make of that. I think he's against the fact that Obama says that, but in favor of the actual position Obama is taking, so long as it's his idea, not Obama's.

He says he wants to secure the borders first, but then he wants a "guest worker" program based on greatly expanded work visa availability. He doesn't say if he wants to give all those new work visas to people who are already here illegally (which would be amnesty), or whether those visas are for people who are obeying the laws, waiting their turn in their own country (which ignores the illegals here now). He does say he is absolutely against sending anyone home. Deporting them would be too expensive. He fails to understand the cost of illegal immigrants staying here, burdening our welfare state systems.

To one audience, he says, "I Promise to go to war against the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed." Two days later, he tries to tell people that repealing unconstitutional laws is radical, and Sager will use his pledge to do so to immediately end Medicare and Social Security. Sager actually supports Title III and Title IV of the Ryan Roadmap Plan, and is very open about that. One of the reasons he supports that plan is to get us moving toward repealing big entitlements which fall outside the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Nugent says he is a "fiscal conservative," and brags about "returning 2 million dollars to the county this year" from his $33 million budget. Even with that "savings," he has never proposed a lower budget for his department than the previous year. And over less than 10 years, his Sheriff's department's budget has risen from $19 million to $33 million while the population has only grown by around twenty five percent. When forced by the commissioners to make cuts, he cuts officers on the street and successful programs (DARE for example) rather than trimming the fat in the administrative areas.

Nugent will be a "Me too" Republican, going along with whatever the Republican leaders tell him. They are paying for his campaign, they will own his vote in the Congress. I found out yesterday that my list above missed a few. Some should have been obvious (Conaway for Congress). Others are leadership PACs with recent name changes which I didn't connect back (DIMEPAC is the new name for GINPAC which is Ginny Brown-Waite's leadership PAC). In total, his July FEC filing showed he had over $32,000 in campaign money from the incumbents in DC now.

Sager will be a principled constitutionalist along the lines of Mike Pence, Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul. Sager's position on the issues never changes because his principles don't change.

A heads up on Mike Pence...

In the beginning, Pence was going along with all the globalist legislation. He has supported many bills, now laws, that are repugnant to the Constitution during the Bush years. He has shown loyal support for the money cartels as well.

His embrace of the “Tea Party movement” may be a move that is motivated by the possibility that he knew his political hinny would be in trouble if he did NOT embrace them. IN other words, he may be pandering to keep his job.

But, I want to put emphasis on “MAY.” Why? Because I have not been able to discern if he has always been a constitutionist and the Tea Party gave him the courage (and backing) to come out of the closet. He may have played along with the Establishment during the Bush years to gather a footing in the power structure of Washington and the Tea Party movement gave him the way to project his constitutionist inclinations.

IN either case, until we know the truth, we should be cautious when labeling Pence as a constitutionist supporter. Being a major coordinator in his first bid for Congress, I believed in him once. I would like to believe in him once again.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.