Could GOAL make me vote for a Democrat?

[News Shooter]

I guess most of received the letter from GOAL yesterday soliciting support for Jim Meceli to run in the 5th Congressional race.

Now I'm torn. I have never voted for a D and promised I never would because I just don't believe there are any who are trustworthy critters. But I also trust GOAL.

Therefore I am now pacing back and forth in my cell.

 

[Chris]

I suggest you meet the man. Hes a very unique Democrat to be sure.

 

[pdm]

NS, the real question is, will the GOP even run a candidate in that race? Personally, I figure I'll vote D in the primary to support Miceli, then go back to unenrolled. I'd rather the MA Dems put a 2A-friendly rep in DC than the usual brand of numbnut they seem to like.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There are a NUMBER of Dems who are 100% GOAL and have been for years!

As Chris says, check out the man/woman running for office. Don't vote strictly on a "letter" beside the name!

I haven't been able to see a "definitive line" between R and D for years. There are good people on both sides of the fence and there are also terrible people on both sides of the fence. Thus, I am "U" for Unenrolled and will probably never again be registered as supporting any particular party.

 

[pdm]

There are a NUMBER of Dems who are 100% GOAL and have been for years!

I seem to have the bad luck of always living in a district without them, though.

 

[News Shooter]

I understand all of what you are saying

I've been doing politics for forty years. I understand there are pro-gun D's, but what concerns me is the damage they can and will do in other areas. It is just beyond me how anyone can associated themselves with a party run by George Soros. I'm sure Meceli is a good guy, this is just causing my head to implode

 

[LoginName]

Depends if your main criteria is based on 2nd amendment issues or not. To the best of my knowledge, GOAL (and/or the NRA), takes no other issues into consideration when endorsing or rating a legislator.

If you're leery or uncertain about GOALs endorsement regarding a certain candidate, that uncertainty should apply to all candidates regardless of party affiliation.

There actually are a number of Dem legislators in the MA Statehouse that get a high rating from GOAL... Stephen Brewer comes to mind.

I couldn't find a current legislator rating page on GOALs website, but here's one from April, 2006...

http://web.archive.org/web/20051222211453/www.goal.org/legislation/ratings/winners.html

 

[Patriot]

I guess most of received the letter from GOAL yesterday soliciting support for Jim Meceli to run in the 5th Congressional race.

Now I'm torn. I have never voted for a D and promised I never would because I just don't believe there are any who are trustworthy critters. But I also trust GOAL.

Therefore I am now pacing back and forth in my cell.

I firmly believe that the only way gun owners or conservatives will ever
stand a chance in this state is to get more involved in the democratic party to elect
like-minded candidates. The Mass republican party is a pack of dolts and
unfit to be considered as a viable political alternative. True there are some
individual Repubs that are worthy of our support but as a political entity the
party is a shambles and definitely not something that we should hang our hat
on. I would rather support the libertarian party which has also proved to be
largely ineffective but they at least lean in the correct direction.

 

[Dick]

I firmly believe that the only way gun owners or conservatives will ever
stand a chance in this state is to get more involved in the democratic party to elect
like-minded candidates.

Sadly, I believe you're absolutely correct, Richard. The Republicans are not going to be a viable alternative in Massachusetts in our lifetimes, if ever. Politics is about pragmatism, and there's no point in voting to make a political statement if your candidates always lose. The fact of the matter is that seat is going to be occupied by a Democrat, so we might as well try to elect the "best" of the available Democrats. If that turns out to be Miceli - and he's obviously got a bit of a leg up with the GOAL recommendation - then that's where my vote goes. (And he's just gotta be an improvement over that insufferable ass-wipe Meehan)

 

[Pilgrim]

I have a friend who came here from out of state a few years ago.
He is an avowed R.

He got into local politics in one of the towns around here. He changed his official status to D because he figures that for him to continue in local and someday state politics, he can't get elected as an R. So he's a D (officially) but still holds onto his R values. He says the only way things will change is if more people do this.

 

[Gabe]

The Libertarian party isn't established in MA yet, but if you want a really pro-gun party, this is it. From their website:

From LP.org

Issues & Positions
Why Libertarians Support Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners

Equal Rights for Gun Owners
Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Constitutional Rights
America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.

One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.

Gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns, even though millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.

The Prohibition Lesson
Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results.

Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.

The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.

Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.

The Right of Self Defense
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.

The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.

Personal Responsibility
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.


© Copyright 2006 National Libertarian Party

 

[Garys]

I have a friend who came here from out of state a few years ago.
He is an avowed R.

He got into local politics in one of the towns around here. He changed his official status to D because he figures that for him to continue in local and someday state politics, he can't get elected as an R. So he's a D (officially) but still holds onto his R values. He says the only way things will change is if more people do this.

Sadly, I think he's correct.

Gary

 

[pipmaster1971]

Well the truth is that the Republicans used to stand for personal freedom, small government and fiscal responsibility. Nowadays not so much. With the passing of bills like the Patriot act, with their stupid rulings (espc. in the South) on things like gay marriage/civil unions, and their awful record on fiscal responsibility and small government they look nothing like the old Repub. party and more like the Dems. of old. The difference between the 2 parties is now minimal. So you might aswell just look at the indiviual candidates....unfortunately people still blindly vote on party lines.

 

[M1911]

If you agree with the premise that the Republican party in MA is so broken that it is basically no longer a political force (and I, a registered Republican, find it hard to argue with that premise), then the idea that instead someone should vote Libertarian is a most unusual use of logic.

To put it another way, if you think the Republican party in MA is a joke, then what is the Libertarian party in MA?

I have donated to Democratic candidates in MA who were A-rated by GOAL. In most other states, Finneran would have been a Republican (no, he's not one I donated money to...)

 

[Patriot]

If you agree with the premise that the Republican party in MA is so broken that it is basically no longer a political force (and I, a registered Republican, find it hard to argue with that premise), then the idea that instead someone should vote Libertarian is a most unusual use of logic.

You misread what I wrote. I suggested that the libertarian party is the better
or the two, and it is, for conservative values and 2ndA rights. I would like
you to refute that.

To put it another way, if you think the Republican party in MA is a joke, then what is the Libertarian party in MA?

As the very least, their mindset is on the right track, something that the
R's do not have in their corner.

I have donated to Democratic candidates in MA who were A-rated by GOAL. In most other states, Finneran would have been a Republican (no, he's not one I donated money to...)

Tom Finneran being a repub is not hard to imagine. For that matter I would
not have a hard time imagining most of the repubs being dem. For
the most part party affiliation is pretty hard to discern in this state, hence
the largest party affilitiation is un-affiliated.

 

[RKG]

Vote the man, not the party. Party affiliation may be an initial indicator of what values the man has, but as this case proves, it is hardly definitive. Voting along rigidly partisan lines is mindless.

 

[drgrant]

"D" and "R" in MA politics is subjective and a pretty worthless designator by
itself. You will find R's that are really RINOS and a few D's which are middle
of the road or so. At worse you will find RINOS like a romney signing off
on socailized healthcare. IMO any person running for office in MA is better
evaluated on an individual basis then on party affiliation. There are enough
hacks on both sides of the fence in this state that party lines cannot be
trusted.


-Mike

 

[M1911]

Boston Patriot, I think you are missing the point. Many have argued that the Republican Party is rapidly becoming irrelevant in MA. The Republican Party actually still has some legislators in the state government and active town committees through the state.

In contrast, the Libertarian Party in MA has what? Nothing, nadda, zippo. How many legislators does the Libertarian Party have in MA? How many town committees? Nothing, nadda, zippo.

You can argue all you want about how the Libertarian Party dogma is the best. The problem is that they have zero impact in MA politics and I see no likelihood of that changing.

 

[calsdad]

Maybe he has changed - and maybe he was just going thru a bad period in his life or something, but I used to have to deal with Jim Miceli off and on about 20 years ago and he struck me as one of the biggest dickheads I ever met.

That and the fact that he is a Democrat (whom I will never vote for on principle) - made me really question the GOAL pamphlet when I opened it the other day.

 

[Jose]

I have a friend who came here from out of state a few years ago.
He is an avowed R.

He got into local politics in one of the towns around here. He changed his official status to D because he figures that for him to continue in local and someday state politics, he can't get elected as an R. So he's a D (officially) but still holds onto his R values. He says the only way things will change is if more people do this.

There is nothing ever wrong with infiltrating the enemy and working behind their lines towards their downfall.

 

[b79holmes]

if you can't beat'em...

I sent the guy a small check, with a copy of the GOAL letter.
I have no loality to either party, don't think many of them have real beliefs in anything and am becoming a one issue voter.

If the game is to make your constituents happy they need to know we exist.

A couple of (thousand!!!) small checks (votes) with that letter to candiates will have the most impact. Statements from GOAL or the NRA don't carry any weight in this state IMHO.

Voting for a party means nothing. There can't be a sane fundamentalist christian conservative who doesn't feel screwd over by Bush and Romney's behavior the last year is comical.

Bill