It would really help if you provided a location.
The premise upon which Three Felonies a Day is founded [that the law is now a game of ‘gotcha’ than a quest for Justice] is national in nature and therefore a valid talking-point anywhere in the US.
As a local example my State’s Constitution says [in Art 2, Sec. 6]:
[Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet there IS a state statute [NMSA 30-7-2.4] which prohibits firearms on University premises:
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) “university premises” means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
As you can see, the statute is in DIRECT contradiction to the State Constitution; if one were to violate this unconstitutional statute the Jury would be instructed that the defendant “broke the law” by violating it.
“true conservative running as an independent because a study we conducted said that a Republican was unlikely to take this gerrymandered district. “
Quick search shows that your statement is incorrect and self serving.
Republicans have a very good chance against the Dems, EXCEPT if an independent syphons votes away from the Republicans.
Boyd’s seat is ranked No. 2 on the list of most vulnerable ones, i.e. most likely to tip to Republicans — see link.
I question your motives — signed up 5/14/2010 — trying to pull a Perot in this race.
I hope those living in the district have more sense than fall for your tactics.
The Buzz introduces its House race rankings
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/05/the-buzz-introduces-its-house-race-rankings.html
“The Republican Party needs 40 seats to take control in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the road runs through Florida.
It is in this context that the Buzz unveils its inaugural ranking of the six House seats in Florida most vulnerable to a party switch this fall. Our rankings, which appear in descending order of vulnerability, are based on interviews with a range of political practitioners and independent observers.”
SmartInsight,
Actually it is 4/23/09, not 5/14/09 per the FL Division of Elections. You should look at the chronology of events, and then ask yourself why all of these fairly cookie-cutter (R) candidates have piled on, especially when there was an existing conservative candidate in Paul McKain? Each has paid over $10,000 as a filing fee to the state to do so. After reading their positions and hearing them speak, they agree with each other about 98% of the time. Even in the recent debate in Panama City on May 18, Scholl, Hendry, Southerland, Olschner, and McNeil did not bring out any notable differences, even from an (R) observer:
An Evening With the Candidates
"The night did not serve as a debate. Moderator Doc Washburn did an excellent job and had estanblished (sic) 30 second response rules. They weren’t needed last night. There were no rebuttals or disagreements among candidates." (emphasis added)
According to FL Division of Election records for qualified candidates for filing dates (others that did not qualify are excluded here):
3/4/09: Boyd (D- incumbent) & Lawson (D) file for the office.
4/23/09 McKain files as his own party. He subsequently changes to FL Whig, and shortly thereafter changes to NPA after the Whig party was micro-managing his campaign to the detriment of the campaign and ultimately the people of District 2.
11/2/09: Hendry (R) files. Was also a candidate (lost R primary) in 2008.
12/09/09: Southerland (R) files.
12/28/09: Netherwood (NPA) files, later changes to write-in status.
2/4/10: Berryhill (R) files.
2/11/10: Olschner (R) files.
3/2/10: Scholl (R) files.
4/16/10: McNeil (R) files 14 days before the deadline. No website or any real campaign that I can see nearly two months later. Why not make a $10K donation to another candidate instead of giving it to the state?
4/30/10: Berryhill (along with Charlie Crist) changes to No Party Affiliation on the last day possible to do so (April 30). She had made a statement via email some months ago that an independent couldn't win in District 2.
I differ with the other statements as follows:
Paul McKain will siphon votes not only from the (R) but mostly from the (D) voters, who outnumber the (R) contingent in the district by nearly 2:1. Even if the (R) candidate got every (R) and NPA/3rd voter in the district, they'd lose. For a trend, if you look at voter registrations for Leon County from 11/08 to 11/09, you'll see that both (D) and (R) lost voters, while NPA & 3rd party gained. Leon is the most liberal of the counties in District 2.
The (R) candidates that lost in 2008, (they didn't even show up in 2006) 2004, 2002, 2000, etc. did not need an NPA to lose. They did so w/o any help at all. The last (R) to hold this office was Rep. Grant, who was elected as a (D) in 1988, and switched to (R) while in office in 1989. He was soundly defeated the following election. Before him, the last (R) in the office was Rep. Bisbee in 1885, and that was after contesting the election.
Florida's 2nd Congressional District
For every person I see saying "but the (R) party has changed, we've taken it back and it's not like John McCain, Jim Greer, etc. anymore", I hear two saying they want to vote for the best candidate regardless of the letter after their name. These voters are placing principle above party, which just happens to be the slogan employed by Paul McKain for some time.
Ross Perot ran in a national election. The dynamics and geography alone make this impractical for a third party candidate (this may change in the future if we continue to get status quo from (D) and (R) though). You just can't compare the results of a national election to one in a localized area like District 2. If you would take the time to get to know Paul McKain, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentson, you'd realize he's no Ross Perot in the respect you ascribe to him.
Speaking of those that live in the district, the very first question most people ask Paul McKain at events is "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?" What is interesting is the reaction they give when told he's a conservative independent. Most everyone lights up at this, but there are a few "split the vote" (R) people and I've counted three (3) Boyd supporters, actually make that 4 since I spoke to his brother Hines last month.
BOTH parties have shafted the average voter. The (R) party did it in 2005 with the REAL ID Act (tried to renew your license lately?), and again with TARP 1 in '08, and the (D) party did so with health care, cash for clunkers, etc. Here in FL, the (R) Legislature put salt in the wound in '08 by enacting REAL ID and again last year with the SunRail program.
As to the original topic:
Paul McKain is the only Congressional candidate to stand up for fired prosecutor KrisAnne Hall in Live Oak. Where were all of these other people on this important Constitutional issue? Paul McKain is a fighter and won't back down on Constitutional issues.
Asssistant DA Fired for Originalist Views of the Constitution
Paul McKain was the first candidate to develop a plan of representation that allows for regular input from the voters and holds him accountable to these voters. It's said imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and seeing as how other candidates have copied this concept, this shows it must be worthwhile.
Paul McKain is not taking any special interest money, regardless of the source. When one looks at the incumbent's million dollar campaign account, one sees like 80%+ of it comes from outside of the district & the state. Paul's position is he will not owe any allegiance to anyone other than the people of District 2. Something of a Catch-22, since conventional wisdom says it takes money to win elections (like a million for a $174K/year job, ever wonder why?), yet it seems like almost everyone dislikes special interests and politics since they trump the voices of the voters between elections.
The value of a NPA/independent elected official is they do not have a loyalty oath (as do the (D) and (R) ones) that limits them when it comes time to best represent the people of the district. In a discussion yesterday, someone said a friend had asked about Jim Greer, and they wanted to know how to reply since they had signed a loyalty oath. In legislation like the REAL ID or health care act, an independent does not have to concern themselves with the pressure applied to party members on key votes. This is true representation. You have no guarantee of this with a (D) or (R) candidate.
Paul McKain will answer questions, and take stands on issues. The posting here talking about his views of the 2nd and 17th are evidence of that (more on this below). In a discussion I had with another candidate's supporter, he said the candidate will not answer vetting questionnaires since his answers could be used against him later with "cleverly crafted legislation". My perception of this type of candidate is he is a moderate.
Like with KrisAnne Hall, Paul McKain is a fighter. He's the only candidate that has taken on a huge special interest in the form of the pool & spa industry and worked to get legislation passed. He has what many call "the fire in the belly" to take on Goliath. This is what we need in D.C. We do not need someone who is called a liberal by conservatives, and a conservative by liberals as Allen Boyd is, or someone afraid to answer candidate questionnaires or otherwise take a position.
Paul McKain is the only candidate writing a how-to journal about running. His goal is to serve two terms, and have another citizen-legislator step up and take his place by learning from what he did, right and wrong. Unlike Lawson (politician since 1981) and Boyd (same since 1989), McCollum (since 1980), and even Rubio (since 2000) he has zero desire to make a career out of this job.
As to the disagreement over his position on the 2nd Amendment:
Paul McKain says this about the 2nd Amendment:
Second Amendment: It specifically states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and thus permits the individual ownership of firearms; however, the states may implement reasonable regulation to ensure public safety. (For example, banning purchase to convicted felons.)
I do not have an issue with barring firearms AT THE STATE LEVEL from convicted felons or the mentally unfit as another example. Paul McKain is a supported of the 10th Amendment, which is all about State's rights. If you don't like the laws for firearms in your state, work to overturn them. I'm currently doing so for REAL ID.
As to the 17th:
There are good arguments for both sides of this issue. Look at what happened in Massachusetts under Romney in '04 and then just last year. Hypocrisy defined. This is something that will need to be decided by the people. Paul McKain's consistent position has been he will take a position on an issue and explain why, but will also listen to the people of District 2. So long as the issue is Constitutional, he will vote the way the majority desires even if it is contrary to his position.
Paul McKain's Constitution Page
The "conventional wisdom" tells us Paul McKain can't win as an independent. Yet look at what conventional wisdom has given us:
John McCain (no relation), for whom Sarah Palin sold out her principles for the party and continues to support despite the far more conservative JD Hayworth, who is also an (R).
Charlie Crist, who like Dianne Berryhill looked at the way the wind was blowing and changed parties not for principle, but for political advancement.
The people of District 2 are ready for someone that will put them before any arm-twisting of one or the other parties. When it happens here with Paul McKain, others will see it can actually be done, and will follow suit as needed. At some point, the (R) will put (R)eagan back in (R) and this will draw many that have left the party.
-Paul Henry
Retired Public Safety.com