Posted on 06/02/2014 1:06:13 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mike McFadden on the issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Mike_McFadden.htm
* Anti-abortion and pro-guns. (Aug 2013)
* We’ve been spending like a drunken sailor. (Jul 2013)
* Effective but limited government, stressing “limited”. (Oct 2013)
* Allow keeping current healthcare policies if people choose to do so. (Nov 2013)
* We need an alternative to ObamaCare, not just repeal. (Jul 2013)
* Secure the borders, then conditional path to citizenship. (Oct 2013)
Nothing about marriage. I guess when that question seems “settled” in a state, you just roll over.
I hope he is conservative enough to be offered as an alternative
RE: Nothing about marriage. I guess when that question seems “settled” in a state, you just roll over.
_______________________________________
On the issue of same-sex marriage, McFadden said he believed the issue should be dealt with on the state level.
SEE HERE:
http://abcnewspapers.com/2013/05/30/first-gop-candidate-comes-forward-to-challenge-franken/
“disputed recall in 2008”
This is the third time I have recently seen an article calling a recount, recall. Do these websites have editors?
RE: I hope he is conservative enough to be offered as an alternative
One thing... he said he is anti-abortion. Well, he better be prepared to answer the question they asked of Todd Akin.
For that matter, every pro-life candidate ought to be prepared to answer the same question because IT WILL BE ASKED.
Yes, we have reached a point at which nobody talks about being in favor of marriage as a man and a woman anymore.
Some conservative politicos say that we should leave it up to the states. Nobody is talking anymore about a federal constitutional amendment on the subject.
But for the most part, whether due to fear of the homosexual mafia, fear of the media, fear of comedians making fun of them, it’s rare to hear politicians explicitly state that they oppose homosexual marriage.
On the other hand, numerous politicians in the past few years, especially since Obama came out on marriage, have been displaying what they say is courage, in stating that they are in favor of homosexual marriage.
I would like to hear even just a few speak of overturning Lawrence v. Texas. I realize that overturning it isn’t likely to happen, but hearing a politician mention the possibility should drive some liberals nuts...and perhaps change where the battle over the homosexual agenda is being fought just a bit.
Ironically, it is just at this point of courts dictating marriage redefinition that our liberaltarian superiors said that we should then begin enacting a federal marriage amendment, but no sooner.
Were they lying to us?
It’s frustrating how so many seem to have given up on marriage.
Since last year’s Supreme Court decisions, there have been a number of federal court ruling compelling states to allow homosexual marriage. In some states, the governors and attorneys general decided not to defend their marriage law in court, which paves the way for the judges to rule that they must allow homosexual marriage by court decree.
It’s almost as if those in favor of traditional marriage have adopted the criteria of the liberals, i.e. that if you oppose homosexual marriage, you hate the homosexual, and are a bigot. Are people really that afraid of being called a bigot by liberals?
No, apparently these sites do not have editors. And the quality of people coming out of journalism school, who write articles such as this, has dropped off. They don’t care about small details such as this. Of course there is a big difference between a recount and a recall in election parlance, but, these kids don’t know that, so never catch the error.
Yes I think they were lying to us about marriage.
I remember those discussions, in which the politicians said that there was no need for a marriage amendment, because no states or few states had homosexual marriage years ago, and that there was no legal threat to the Defense of Marriage Act. Based on that reasoning, there was no need to proceed with a marriage amendment, so they said.
I have heard zero about trying for an amendment since last year’s Supreme Court decisions proved that it’s a strong likelihood that another Supreme Court case will impose 50 state homosexual marriage.
His and the GOP’s “alternative” will look a lot like romney...err, I mean obamacare, except with much, much higher penalties for not buying an insurance policy from their campaign contributors. They will probably add jail time to it, too.
The fact is that Mike McFadden is the only guy with the means to challenge Al Franken. It’s that simple.
The other challengers lacked the resources to take on Franken and that makes McFadden the only realistic option.
(NOT an endorsement of Mr. McFadden.) I don’t know where the guy stands on key issues and he certainly has made no real effort to clarify his world view. Moreover, he has shown no real interest in cultivating support from delegates. “Aloof” would be a charitable description.
Like it or not, financial viability is a necessary, critical component in mounting a credible, realistic challenge to Weird Al.There’s only one person in Minnesota who has demonstrated that viability so far is Mike McFadden. (Al ‘party of the little guy’ Franken has raised over $15 million in 2014.) McFadden has raised nearly $3 million in 2014, the only Republican to bring in over $1 million and the only one to even come close.
If you want to join the world’s most exclusive club, you need the money to get out your message.If you doubt it, check recent history. 2012 and the race was Bills vs. Amy ‘Hotdish’ Klobuchar.An Internet search will show all sorts of articles and quotes about Kurt Bills and the optimism despite the lack of money.He got beaten BADLY.
IMHO, this guy is Norm Coleman with more personal wealth.(and he earned it in the business world)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
