Skip to comments.Conservatives Need to Rally Behind Sue Lowden
Posted on 02/05/2010 2:57:58 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican
Conservatives have a number of opportunities for victories in 2010, but none is more important than the chance to defeat Senate majority leader Harry Reid. We must rally behind the right candidate to ensure that we not only defeat Reid but also gain a solid conservative senator. That candidate is Sue Lowden.
I have known Sue and her family for years. I know that she has the fortitude to take on Reid and withstand the onslaught that he and his allies will unleash against her. More importantly, I know that she has strong conservative principles rooted in her personal faith and her belief in free-market ideals. (Sue recently spoke with a group of Nevada tea-party activists.) She is a proven leader with a track record of success, who has earned every opportunity she has had. Many dont realize that Sue is the daughter of a former coal miner. She and her husband both come from humble backgrounds but have succeeded in business through smart decisions and hard work, not through government handouts or their family name.
In 1992, Lowden won election to the Nevada state senate by defeating the incumbent senate majority leader. Her victory ended Democrats control of the chamber, and Sues colleagues immediately elected her senate majority whip.
Because of her strong fiscal-conservative principles, Lowden later served as chair of the taxation committee. When pro-tax legislators tried to push through higher taxes, she blocked their efforts. Her panel became known as the no-taxation committee. Lowden fought against higher taxes in the state senate, and she will fight against higher taxes in the U.S. Senate.
Today, labor bosses continue their efforts to kill a union members right to cast his vote privately without the bosses looking over his shoulder. Will we have a conservative U.S. senator with the fortitude to stand up to them? As a state senator, Lowden cast the deciding vote in the Nevada state senate to protect Nevadas right-to-work status. She has had unions picket her home and businesses, but she has withstood their onslaught. Lowden will stand with conservatives against union bosses in the U.S. Senate.
On issue after issue, we know where Sue Lowden stands because she has been elected to office and championed conservative principles. She earned the endorsement of the NRA in her race for state senate. She is one of the original architects of Nevadas charter-school law. As a pro-life advocate, she fought for parental-notification laws. Through her personal family experiences and decades of work with children with muscular dystrophy and Jerrys Kids, I know Lowden values life. I know she will be a pro-life U.S. senator.
Lowden proudly signed the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge the week she announced her Senate campaign. She has pledged to join Senate conservatives to fight for earmark reform and tax and spending cuts. She is staunchly opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion. Lowden has stated that she would not have voted for President Bushs TARP bill and is a strong opponent of the stimulus bill passed earlier this year. She was the first candidate running against Harry Reid to sign the Club for Growths pledge, and she has also signed the Americans for Prosperity anticlimate tax pledge.
Some conservatives have chosen to support Danny Tarkanian for the Nevada GOP Senate nomination. I say to my friends that they are mistaken in their support for the son of the former UNLV basketball coach. Tarkanian has used his campaign to falsely attack Lowden and try to trick us into believing that she isnt conservative enough. If Sue Lowden isnt conservative enough to be a leader in the conservative movement, than neither was Ronald Reagan.
As Ive listened to Tarkanian ignore the facts and twist Sues words, Ive been reminded of Reagan, who once spoke of what he called the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. Reagans words highlight the contrast between Tarkanians rhetoric and Lowdens conservative principles. Its clear which candidate is best equipped to represent Reagans conservative movement.
I know that Sue Lowden is the proven conservative we can and should rally behind. Others do too. In the last quarter of 2009, Lowden raised more than twice as much money as Tarkanian. In fact, she raised more money in her first quarter in the race than he raised in the past two quarters combined. We all know that it will take significant resources to defeat Harry Reid and defeating him with a legitimate, tested conservative is our ultimate goal.
Reid is hoping that Tarkanian wins the Republican primary. While Lowden knows what it takes to be successful, Tarkanian has been on the ballot in two of the last three election cycles and failed to win both times. In his last campaign, he earned the endorsement of Sarah Brady and the Brady Campaign because of his liberal positions on the Second Amendment. Instead of taking responsibility for his stance on gun rights, Tarkanian claims it wasnt his fault.
This is a critical moment when we must have the good judgment to stand behind the right conservative candidates who can win in November. There is a great uprising coming from the American people. We are ready to work and ready to earn real change, not only in government but also in the direction our economy and our country are headed. There is no better leader to join us in this effort than Sue Lowden the right candidate to defeat Harry Reid.
Saul Anuzis has been a conservative activist for much of his adult life, including serving in leadership positions in the fight against card-check legislation at American Solutions. He is former chairman of the Michigan Republican party.
You are relying on the claims on one writer for the LV SUN, who states he has a written letter from Lowden. I also question you why you suggested she’s catering to Mormons or that she was a Mormon herself, when her campaign page would have clearly told you she is not.
BTW, “for the mother’s health” is the biggest cop out of all, especially in the third trimester. CESARIAN is the answer.
I’m more worried about the Constitution and the survival of this country than I am about abortion at this time. If I can find a strong fiscal conservative and is a strict constructionist I’m happy.
should have been... that is a...
If it means anything, the Ron Paul fans hate her. When Sue Lowden was chair of the NV GOP, she would fight to prevent Paultards from gaining influence in the state party.
Saul Anuzis is a big Romney supporter. Chuck Heath, Sarah Palin’s father, attended a fundraiser for Danny T. Wouldn’t it be a show if Romney came out and campaigned for Lowden and Palin campaigned for Danny T?
I like Sharron Angle; in fact, I contributed to her campaign in 2006 when she almost beat Dean Heller in the primary. But her reaction to her narrow loss was unsportsmanlike and bizarre—she even sued trying to get a new election—and she then proceded to lose another election. I hate to say it, but I don’t think that she could win a statewide election.
As for Lowden, I think she has as good a chance as Tarkanian of winning the primary. If Krolicki runs all bets as off, but I think that at this point the safest move for Krolicki is to run for reelection as Lt. Gov. and then running for the Senate in 2012 (when Ensign will either retire or be very vulnerable due to his adultery and extortion scandal.
This November, among with every other Representative.
While I am pro-life with no exceptions (and believe that rape and incest exceptions are obscene—why should the baby be killed for the sins of the father?), I recognize that many pro-lifers allow for exceptions in cases of rape and incest (in fact, that’s George W. Bush’s position).
Then, by all means, let’s get rid of Pelosi too:
Well, no skin off my nose one way or another... I endorsed Brian Krolicki. He has more reason to take out that scum Reid than any other figure in the state of Nevada.
If he does not run, Sue Lowden has the next best chance. She has raised much more money than Danny the wannabe. He is about out of cash.
[It looks like Sue Lowden may be a little more than a Mitt Romney in a skirt who’s really pro-choice on abortion. ]
The odds that Sue Lowden will be a pro-choice deciding factor on any issue regarding abortion is nil. GWBush was in for six years with the wind at his back and nothing happened. But if you want to debate the number of angels on the head of a pin, go for it.
I like Angle but I don’t think she’s a very strong choice to beat Reid after losing 2 straight GOP primaries (I was rooting for her both times).
Yes that and her own words which you posted on this thread, nowhere does she specify the exceptions to murder the unborn which she apparently supports, why is she trying to hide the fact that she still does support the choice of abortion in certain circumstances. You would think a true conversion from being at one time pro-choice to pro-life would bring her to the awakening that all innocent life is precious.
However political expediency would have her share the abortion views of a large percentage of the population she's trying to win over, Mormons. Her views reflect that of the Mormon Church, NOT the Catholic church which she erroneously claims her abortion view is consistent with, does she not know the Catholic church's position on abortion? And the article claims in the past she donated to Reid's campaign, what's up with that? Do we really need another Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Senate?
Tarkanian on abortion.......
Sounds like you agree more with Tark than Lowden on this issue.
I do. I also agree with his official position on abortion more than I do with George W. Bush’s position on abortion, but that does not mean that (i) George W. Bush is not pro-life enough for me to support, much less that I would have supported Tarkanian over President Bush in 2004.
Why go with pro-life lite when you can go with pro-life concentrate when polls currently show that either one can beat Reid?
First of all, the George W. Bush position is not “pro-life lite”; it’s not my 100% pro-life position, but I’m not going to toss aside a pro-life candidate that is superior on other issues (such as the right to bear arms) than the other candidate, and with far better experience, just because she gets an A- instead of an A+ on abortion.
Second, I’ve seen too many elections that seemed like sure things slip away, especially from candidates without experience winning tough races. And while Reid may be unable to recover and win the election, you never know whether the RATs will pull a Torricelli and bring in a different candidate (they already dumped Dodd in CT), and against a different Democrat (such as Titus or Berkley) it could be a far tougher election for us.