[Tall_Texan]

Banker? Lawyer? Lawyer? Banker? Hmmm tough choice.

One has real world experience about setting a budget and living by it. The other doesn't.

One has shown they can start a business from scratch and build into a successful multi-million dollar company. The other hasn't.

One has the independant wealth to be his own man in Washington, not beholden to the Bush/Rove/Perry machine. The other isn't.

It's nice to say McCaul disagrees with Bush on immigration but what happens when the bill goes through the House and the GOP machinery browbeats him to go along with it? What happens when they say "Look, Mike, who got you elected to this job? Who fronted you the money and lined up the endorsements for you? If you want our help next time, you'll vote as we say you will." And, like any lawyer, he'll take the position of his client, namely the Bush team.

Streusand may not be perfect but at least I know the votes he'll cast will be most likely what he believes in, not what he's told to vote. Subtle difference there, but one I think is very important for advancing conservatism.

[GOPcapitalist]

It's nice to say McCaul disagrees with Bush on immigration but what happens when the bill goes through the House and the GOP machinery browbeats him to go along with it?

If his campaign is any indicator, he'll give a speech in which he refers to it as the "undocumented worker" problem, sniffle a little, whine about how tough the pressure of congress is on him, vote for a watered down but nevertheless unacceptable version of it, and walk off claiming he scored a "victory" for conservatives.