Posted on 10/23/2011 1:57:40 PM PDT by HMS Surprise
Indiana’s 8th District didn’t have a representative in the U.S. Congress from January 1st to May 1st in 1985. Why? Because Bunky, The Democrat-controlled House simply refused to seat the Republican winner, and after a few disputed recounts that still pointed to the Democrat losing, finally decided to simply seat him against the will of the people who deigned to presume that voting makes a difference. The blatant abuse of power was so obvious that the Republicans walked out in protest when the Democrat “loser” was arbitrarily declared the winner.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
Like to see this all over the country. I’ve had it with the Demons AND the non-Conservative Republicans! Screw ‘em....the people are taking over and we will be heard!
This was Risk’s homemade TV commercial that ran against Bucshon’s slick Madison Avenue efforts. Her passion is evident here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyPUAhLEb0c
That is the problem! Give in wimps!
This is the same state that just figured out that the petitions placing Obama on the Primary ballot were forged and the County Clerk’s name approving such signature was also forged — she was out of town the day she supposedly approved them. Even Democrat Party functionaries said that their names were forged.
Seems to me that something stinks in Indiana.
Or, they really didn’t care. In the last election Indiana’s Republican establishment invited Dan Coats, who was living in South Carolina at the time, to come back and keep the Tea Party at bay by challenging two very conservative candidates in the primary. Coats has been AWOL every since.
Indiana is actually conservative. Dems typically have to lean way right on social issues to win. Lugar et al however must be defeated if we have any chance of rolling back the monstrosity in D.C.
Well, I don’t think it is a conservative value to turn a blind eye to obviously forged signatures on a petition to place a name on the ballot for the POTUS election. And it sure isn’t conservative to allow the legislature to give the election away to somebody who didn’t win.
And what about Lugar, anyway? Why has the GOP tolerated him for so long? I used to think Lugar was conservative, but he has taken a lot of bizarre turns to the left in recent years.
Zero evidence that Bucshon is a RINO.
He's a doctor who won running against Obamacare. In Congress he's a cosponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment, and voted for Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Trying to demonize a conservative representative to get oneself into power does not reflect well on Ms. Risk.
Part of the problem we have getting rid of Lugar is that so few vote in the primaries. Mostly because the Presidential nominee is usually decided before we have a primary. Nobody wants to run in the primary against him because they figure he will win by default.
This next election, hopefully, people will get out and vote just to rid ourselves of Lugar.
It was the U.S. House that seated the Democrat back in ‘85.
It was the U.S. House that seated the Democrat back in ‘85.
>>> Seems to me that something stinks in Indiana. <<<
The same thing that stinks in any other city: Democrats!
Lugar likewise started out in the Reagan era conservative and determined to roll back gubmint. Politicians go to Washington, and bend. Ideologues go to Washington and make enemies. I watched every debate in which Risk and Bucshon participated. It is not conceivable that she will betray the Constitution, it is inevitable that he will. Why, pray tell me, should he have earned the office into perpetuity? Why, pray tell, shouldn’t we push for the most conservative candidate when one is available? Lugar and the other RINOs similarly situated would take comfort in your position.
True, the U.S. House, controlled by Democrats, took possession of the disputed ballots, threw many out, counted and recounted, until the appropriate conclusion was reached. It was a short-sighted action that will reverberate for years. The only benefit for them? One more putz in their midst... temporarily.
And one more thing... The effect of challenging RINOs (he is one), is to push them to the right. Are you against that too?
No Congressman 'owns' his seat, but in general voters should reward conservatives who do a good job in office by supporting their reelection efforts for a reasonable term of service.
Even if you and Ms. Risk believe Rep. Bucshon is not sufficiently conservative, he was a private citizen who stepped up to put his time and money on the line to fight for conservatism and America's future, and it is petty and dishonest to try to demonize because he's only a 99 or 95 on your standard of purity.
What you call a “standard of purity” is simply a belief in the Constitution. Bucshon’s grasp of federalism is limited, therefore he is RINO. A Republican should understand jurisdiction and rule of law, and how these must be adhered to if human freedom is to be protected. Bucshon is simply a graduate of talk radio, he has never actually done any research into the history of our Country. That’s great if you are a voter/citizen, not so good if you actually make laws. Cap and Tax? Are you serious? You frame this like I am anti-doctor, I’m not. I’m pro-patriot, and we need zealots for liberty in Washington, not people willing to fill an empty slot. Bucshon’s passion for freedom is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Do you even know the difference between "Cap and Trade" and "Cut, Cap, and Balance"?
Is a Balanced Budget Amendment unconstitutional in your mind? What is your opposition to cutting federal spending?
Why hasn't Ms. Risk applauded Rep. Bucshon's support of Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Ryan Medicare reforms, and supposedly supports cutting spending but won't say what she'd cut?
You people may be serious about Constitutional theory but when the rubber hits the road there's no there, there.
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.