Replies

because your candidate is a RINO.

Instead of just calling Earley names, why not outline your grievances with him? Perhaps then you'll have some credibility, but right now to me you're screaming "liberal troll!"

And if you're so deadset against RINO (a.k.a. liberal Pubbies), then you must be furious that a true liberal has a real chance to sit in your governor's mansion.

As I explained in post #57, my biggest gripe is his gun-a-month law. I'm sorry but I'm not 100% convinced by Earley's explanation. I'm also upset about him being a member of the NAACP. His "excuse" for being a member is about as convincing as Byrd's for being in the Klan. Of course I don't like Warner; I sure as hell am not going to vote for him. But if he wins, we have a few bad years and then we elect a decent Republican—like Kilgore or Katzen. If Earley wins, then he sets a new dominant paradigm and winds up shifting the Republican party to the left. I agree that neither solution is satisfactory. I agree that Earley would be considerably better as Governor than Warner. But I can't vote for someone who compromises the freedoms the founding fathers set forth in the Constitution. If you start compromising a little bit of God-given freedom for electoral security, you've lost your right, in my book, to have any freedom.