Technically Sonny, I also am on the none of the above platform..right now anyway.. This just proves my theory that I'm on everyone's ignore lists...
Wow, after reading about the debate last night, my eyes were really opened in this race. I find it sickening that Tony Sanchez cost the taxpayers $161 million dollars through his gross mismanagement of Tesoro Savings & Loan. To also hear that he is in favor of a study on slave reparations sealed the deal for me. To top it off, this guy admitted to not even voting in the last statewide election. If we elect Sanchez, I'm just afraid he'll grossly mismanage the budget in a similar fashion, and then any money not squandered will go towards slave reparations. This is not my ideal for the state of Texas.
Quick question: There is this one radio ad that gets played every day on the Walton and Johnson show in Houston. Every day, I hear it in the parking lot while waiting for my van pool to pick me up. It talks about how Tony Sanchez is in the insurance industry, sells unregulated homeowner's insurance, uses credit scoring, ect...There's one line that sticks out though, it says: "Why are rates higher? One reason, personal injury trial lawyers. Sanchez takes huge contributions from personal injury trial lawyers..." My question is, How could personal injury trial lawyers raise homeowners insurance rates? The two seem to be totally unrelated...
My guess would be that the same insurance companies that will write you a policy for homeowner's insurance also cover areas like auto insurance, medical malpractice, health insurance, etc, that are exposed to personal injury trial lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits. Because of this exposure, the insurance company is forced to raise rates across the board.
I will admit to not knowing all the pertinent facts and I only watched portions of the debate (guilty of channel surfing) but... Are these two guys the best the great state of Texas can offer? These are very serious times and skilled leadership is at a premium. I just don't get a sense of real leadership qualities from either of these men. I'm inclined to agree with Rockets2K - maybe Ann Richards is a better alternative than either Perry or Sanchez. Can someone with some real political saavy drop a few names of individuals with real vision for Texas' future?
I didn't get to see the debate (sick kids) so I can't say it influnced my decision and my mind is not fully made up but here is where I stand right now. Perry pushed for the speed limit to be raised back to 70. Big plus in my book. I hate the negitive ads from both sides but so far 2 huge 4color ads against Perry have made their way into my mail box, which I hate. Waste your money on TV and radio ads but don't waste paper on mudslinging. My wife (a card carrying bleeding heart liberal) is voting for Perry (I'm shocked) but I can't remember the reason(s) why. I'll try and find our why and post it here if she will tell me.
Perry also had a very interesting proposal for our highway system that would alleviate the traffic by forcing trucks to use a separate highway...or something along those lines. I liked that as well.
RM95 That would indeed be an interesting idea if they could figger out whos gonna pay for the additional roadwork requird to make that happen. Voodoo, I have also seen a number of the same type ads against Sanchez..neither candidate is guilt-free on that score..
I know neither is guilt-free and they are both slinging mud, it's just that so far no "paper" mud has been slung into my mail box by Perry. I'll hold him to the same standard if it comes though.
where is Clayton Williams when u need him???? could be a 3 ring circus then Rocket River NONE OF THE ABOVE
I learned in class, people vote first for the individual and then for the party. If you don't like either candidate then at least vote for the party (or neither party)...just exercise your right to vote.
I'm not voting in this race. I don't have strong feelings for or against either candidate, though I've been put off by both candidates' ads. Normally I'd just vote for the Democrat, but I'm especially opposed to rich folk buying votes and that's what Sanchez is doing. I also find the Dem Rainbow Coalition strategy cynical and off-putting. But I can't vote for Perry either, as I disagree with his stands on virtually everything. All that said, I find it amazing that Perry's hitting Sanchez so hard on S&L's and being a failed businessman. His former boss, Bush, was a failure in every single business venture he entered in to and both parties shared an incredible amount of blame on the S&L debacle. If Republicans are truly scandalized by Sanchez's business dealings, they would do well to look at their own people through the same eyes. The most offensive ads in this election cycle to me are the Dewhurst ads, which seem to do nothing but present an unflattering photo of John Sharp and call him a liberal. Worse still, this sort of thing works on our simpleminded electorate. Someone asked why we don't have better candidates to choose from. This is why. We get what we deserve. Very depressing.
The no votes seem to be winning. Here's why I think you should vote: Let's assume that 45% of eligible voters vote for Governor. Let's assume that Perry wins with 51% of the vote. That means about 23% of eligible voters cast their ballot for him. After the election, the NRA guy (or insert your favorite Republican group) comes to Perry and says something like "According to my polling, 80% of our organization members voted and that equates to about 3% of the total votes you got. You need to help us with the following causes or we may not vote with you in such numbers next time." If Sanchez wins, put in Trial Lawyers or whatever group you want. Now, if instead we have 90% of eligible voters voting, the percentage that interest groups can bring to the table diminishes considerably and it is difficult for them to make the case that their group put the guy in office. It also forces politicians to appeal to a greater and broader public interest than just cobbling together enough groups to give themselves a chance to win a race with small turnout. After election, it also forces the winner to be more cognizant of all aspects of society and lessens the pull (and benefits) of ideology and contributions. Even if you have no idea who the people are, go pull a lever. Voting is better than not voting.
WRONG. While Bush had his fair share of failed business ventures, his most significant business venture was becoming a part-owner of the Texas Rangers. This was an investment that netted him millions (several times his initial investment) upon selling and helped fund his early political career. A truly successful investment.
Most homeowner's policies come with a general liability rider. That means that whenever you are sued for negligence, etc your homeowners carrier must provide you with a lawyer and pay out up to policy limits should you lose.
Maybe you're not talking to me anymore Refman, but I'd meant to reply to this. Assuming the budget can't be balanced without increased taxes, you might find your answer here as to who to vote for. Very simple question: Which is more important? No new taxes or a balanced budget? If it's true the budget can't be balanced without a tax increase, you could say Sanchez is hell-bent on raising taxes (as you did) and that Perry is hell-bent on busting the budget. Just doing my part to even out the spin in a decidedly distasteful contest.
I'm voting for Rick Perry. He may be a dirty politician, but he'll bring the speed limits around Houston back up. That's a big issue for me since I commute between Austin and Houston about once a month. Tony Sanchez seems a bit uneducated, and the Tesoro oil scandal ain't helping him out. I didn't like him on the Board of Regents, and I don't want him running my state.
