Voting Records

My first one got taken down to my oversight of a complete and total lack of references, which could get this place sued, and me bood out of existence. So, up front, my info comes from votesmart.org, and from the office of the clerk, and the Library of Congress. ALL info as to how a candidate voted was obtained from votesmart.org, while I used the clerk and library on a few in order to get a better understanding of the bill by viewing it's original language. I'll reference those each, as I go.

This is simple. How did a particular candidate vote? How can you know someone, until you know what they've said and done in the past? Simple...you don't. A person can SAY one thing, but end up DOING the exact opposite, in the form of votes, and if you don't know, that makes you a sucker. And I am tired of being at the whim of suckers with a voice as loud as my own. I will try to keep my opinion out of most things, and likely fail, so feel free to call me out on it, and also to call me out on any explanations of bills or resolutions that you think I have interpreted wrong.

I don't have them all, just Newt, for now, as his was long, and I'm tired.eace

Newt Gingrich - Republican Records obtained from Project Vote Smart - The Voter's Self Defense System

Consistently votes to send financial military aid to Israel - HR4328

Consistently votes to reduce taxes, or at best, to NOT raise taxes, and not just for the wealthy as noted in HR4579.

Voted yes for Enterprise Zone Tax Incentives, HR11 Simply put, the idea is that it would grant power to the government to establish zones, in which certain policies could be relaxed, in order to stimulate business growth...usually in the form of tax cuts. In reality, it turns out that what uncle sam ACTUALLY used it for was to relax environmental measures in certain zones...namely, the oil producing ones, and the coal burning ones. Now, one can say this bill, as it stood, was a good idea for economic stimulation, for which Newt should not be blamed for supporting. But you know what they say about the road to hell...(Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress))

Voted against the Family & Medical Leave Bill, HR 1, which sought to allow an employee who has worked for at least 1 full year, or 1,250 hours, to be able to take 12 work weeks off, unpaid, in the event of medical or some other need, so long as notice is given if able, and so long as the employer has more than 50 employees.

Voted No on HR 20, a bill that sought to prevent federal employees from using their influence to affect elections, or from showing any symbol of their office while campaigning. Bars federal employees from soliciting political contributions from the public, and bars them from participating in political activities during work hours.(Bill Text - 103rd Congress (1993-1994) - THOMAS (Library of Congress))

Seems to be against stem cell research, though at the time, it was called fetal tissue. Voted NO on HR 4.
Voted against HR 1335, an economic stimulus bill, small by today's multi billion dollar standard...

Voted yes to HR 670, a bill that would require any facility that receives federal funding for abortions to provide counseling for alternatives to abortion...but it also includes a pretty nice chuck of change for those abortion clinics to train and employ said counselors.

Voted against sending armed forces to Somalia - SJ Res 45

Voted against the brady handgun bill, which would have required a 5 day wait and a background check pending a firearms sale.

Seems to be anti military/defence budget...I think he only voted YES for ONE them, in his career.

Voted yes for NAFTA.

Voted against S 714, a bill that essentially...well, I'll just copy and paste it, and let you see for yourself on this one.
" - $18.3 billion for the RTC to implement a program to reduce fraud and abuse, respond to problems identified by auditors, and increase contracting opportunities for women and minorities
- $8 billion for SAIF with the option of an additional $8 billion that must be certified by Congress
- Instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to submit to Congressional committees reports of spending by the RTC and SAIF
- Extends the statue of limitations for civil liability lawsuits against officers and directors of failed savings and loan companies from three to five years
- Expands employee whistleblower protections to cover violations of regulations or law and gross mismanagement (waste of funds, abuse of power, or health or safety violations)
- Changes the date the RTC is required to complete its program from December 31, 1996 to December 31, 1995"
I think we can see where THAT got us, today, lol.(S 714 - Resolution Trust Corporation Completion Act - Key Vote - Project Vote Smart)

Voted no on S 636, a bill that would have penalized the obstruction or blocking of facilities that provide abortions.

Is anti entitlement programs, and also the access of illegal imigrants to entitlement programs...numerous bills, voted no.

He is pro term limits - H J Res 73

Voted Yes for the Legal Reform Bill, HR 1058, which sought to limit liability to the producer. Limited damage amounts in a suit, and limited time frames for them, etc. Also voted yes later for HR 956, which sought to further limit a consumer's ability to pursue a producer in court for punitive damages.(Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress))

Voted yes for telecommunication derugulation...S652. Key in this vote was that it would allow one entity to gain more control over a greater percentage of customers, meaning, allowed people like Rupert Murdoch to purchase and own larger and larger amounts of total US media, only in this case, in television and radio, not print.
Voted yes for HR 2703, the anti terrorism bill, a precursor to the patriot act.(S 652 - Telecommunications Bill - Key Vote - Project Vote Smart)

Voted YES for the campagn reform act, HR 3820, which simply wanted to ensure that at least 50% of a candidates funding came from individuals within the state that said candidate sought office, among other things. Of course this bill failed, lol.

Voted yes to require a 2/3rds support (supermajority) for any bill that would raise taxes. And of course that bill failed too.

Voted against Shay's Amendment, which was anti "soft" money...that is, it sought to put restrictions on the amount of money one could donate to a party, rather than an individual candidate. So called "soft" money is, in essence, a way around any existing campaign finance law.(Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.AMDT.690 - THOMAS (Library of Congress))

Time for my opnion...in essence, I find the man to be nothing more than a typical republican. He is more of the same of what we have gotten over the years. He's anti abortion, though not to the point of trying to make it illegal. He's anti stem cell research, if he was anti fetal tissue research, as they are one and the same, unless you want to get semantic on me. He seems to be more pro corporation than your typical conservative, though...so he's like to insight a lot of ire from the OWS crowd. Could work against him. He has a not too shabby voting record, to be honest, it's just that, it seems like in the areas where it REALLY counts, he's not a real change. As stated, just more of the same sauce, just in a different bottle.

Thanks for the analysis of his voting record. Unfortunately not very many voters expend nearly as much effort as you have, just in this thread, in understanding their candidates. Gingrich definitely doesn't seem to be a great choice...

At least he has a record. Obama when elected spent more time doing nothing or abstaining than voting. But everyone loves a guy who can speak, no matter what dribble comes out of his mouth.

We are doomed it appears to become the United Socialist States of America...all except Virginia, we still have our guns!

coolwalker said:

At least he has a record. Obama when elected spent more time doing nothing or abstaining than voting. But everyone loves a guy who can speak, no matter what dribble comes out of his mouth.

We are doomed it appears to become the United Socialist States of America...all except Virginia, we still have our guns!

Click to expand...

Yeah, last election was hard, because Obama was not the only person running with NO voting record, so there was just nothing to go on but rhetoric....seems to me, that's more important than substance, anyway.

Herman Cain - Republican

I figure I'll do an easy one this time around, right? NO voting record.

He does, however, have a pretty prolific background in business, mostly executive, since receiving his master's from Purdue. A school I call the other other Ivy League. His signature political achievement could be said of his opposition to Clinton's '93 health care plan. He represented the business owner's view, obviously. His only other significant role in government was when he served on the Kansas City Federal reserve bank, though no sources I could find seem to know if he was just a chairman, or a head, or what else, due to the secrecy involved with the FED. One source, though, describes him as being efficient, keeping the length of times of the meetings to a minimum, always prepared, and ready to intercede should things get off topic, or bog down. (Herman Cain’s Fed years: What did he actually do? - Slate Magazine) You can look at various sources for his private career as CEO or some other senior officer in the various companies he has worked at over the years. It's a mixed bag. He's had success, and he's had failures, none of which make him either a negative or a positive for president, in my opinion. In short, I find him to be this generations Ros Perot. You can look at SOME of the things he's done as a business leader and conclude that he is ruthless, aggressive, and risky. But you have to view the context of those actions...when in Rome, you MUST do as Romans do, and that is what Roman's were doing in the mid 90s. I feel neither one way or the other about him, honestly. He's a blank wild card, no significant history, only a can do attitude.

KevinKohler said:

Newt Gingrich - Republican Records obtained from Project Vote Smart - The Voter's Self Defense System


Time for my opnion...in essence, I find the man to be nothing more than a typical republican. He is more of the same of what we have gotten over the years. He's anti abortion, though not to the point of trying to make it illegal. He's anti stem cell research, if he was anti fetal tissue research, as they are one and the same, unless you want to get semantic on me. He seems to be more pro corporation than your typical conservative, though...so he's like to insight a lot of ire from the OWS crowd. Could work against him. He has a not too shabby voting record, to be honest, it's just that, it seems like in the areas where it REALLY counts, he's not a real change. As stated, just more of the same sauce, just in a different bottle.

Click to expand...

Thanks for hte links - I do like to read up on everyone's voting history - even back in the past. . . as of late I've spent a lot of time researching very early congressional records and have dedicated little time to more recent events.

Yes - Gingrich is a republican. You're right on that . . . I see the Republican and Democratic parties to both be the reason our country has continued to have the same problems - and thus I don't vote for either.

Overall: at least he's not a bad guy and sticks by his views and if he's wrong - or changes his mind - he'll tell everyone why.

Mitt Romney - Republican

Another with no voting record, however, you can take his actions as governor, and see how those would translate into yeah or nay votes for bills of similar color. For instance, he refused to sign an anti tax pledge, when that ball was being passed around, but also promised a plan to balance the budget from a 3 billion deficit without increasing taxes. Instead, he dramatically increased the fees applied to certain (57 in all) services and procedures, and introduced some 30 odd new fees for others, some of them involuntary...that is to say, a tax that the state government calls a fee. He also increased the tax on gasoline. Another large portion (1/3) of that deficit got paid off by increased capital gains taxes that were implemented before he came into office...so no way to tell if he would have considered doing that...though he certainly didn't turn down the windfall from it when it came, and certainly likes to take credit for single handedly balancing the state's budget. He also shored up some tax loopholes, mostly through sales taxes over internet purchases. Property taxes rose by 5% during his reign, a result of reduced state aid to cities and towns. In short, he will claim that he did all he did without raising taxes...but money does not appear from nowhere, and all he did was redefine the term "tax".

One must also conclude that he is pro universal healthcare...for obvious reasons. It's controversial, so I'll try to just list the facts. His plan essnetialy introduced fees for businesses of 11 people or more, and that fee applied per person, per business. In addition, he set of a subsidy for low income earners. If you know Obama's health insurance plan, you more or less know Romney's. It incurred a fee for folks not purchasing health insurance. (Massachusetts Law About Health Insurance)
Everything else is pretty much a given, though again, it's all words. He's pro life, anti gay marriage, and his stance on the mutilple wars are...wishy washy, it seems. At least, as far as I could tell from debates.

My opinion? You can listen to the words, hear his arguments during debates, but in the end, it is his actions that once again defines. He is not anti tax, he is pro HIDING those taxes, and to me, that's worse than taxing. This person scares me a little. His reason for establishing the health insurance law, even though he did not run on that at all? The founder of staples suggested it. Nefarious? Probably not...but we are dealing with a systemic problem in our politics right now, where well heeled corporate lobbyists have FAR more say in legislation than pretty much everyone else combined. To me, he seems like a guy who is easily influenced, all he's waiting for is the right sales pitch.

KevinKohler said:

Instead, he dramatically increased the fees applied to certain (57 in all) services and procedures, and introduced some 30 odd new fees for others, some of them involuntary...that is to say, a tax that the state government calls a fee. He also increased the tax on gasoline.

Click to expand...

Just a quick note. Governor Romney's distinguishing between "user fees" and "taxes" is not uncommon among public officials. Both generate revenue. However, a user fee is something that only a person using a specific service pays for. It is not imposed on the public at large regardless of the utilization of given services. Tolls, licensing fees, etc., are generally described as user fees. Levies on gasoline, alcohol, etc., are generally described as taxes.

At least he voted.

Obama spent his state senate years running for the Senate, and his Senate years running for president.

The actual responsibilities of his jobs then were unimportant to him, much like working more than three half days a week now seem equally bothersome.

Michele Bachmann - Republican

Voted against HR 5, a bill to reduce interest rates on federal student loans, and also plays around with the structure of the loans, and the amount insured against default.

Voted against HR 6, a pretty standard shot at enforcing increases in fuel economy for american autos, but also to increase production of renewable fuels.

Voted against the Iraq War Policy Resolution, a bill to cancel Bush's decision for a 20,000 troop surge in '07.

Voted against HR 800, a bill to eliminate the vote prior to forming a new union, as well as other streamlining measures to the formation or expansion of new and existing unions.

Voted Nay to HR 985, a bill that protects federal employees or applicants from discrimination or demotion if they disclose credible evidence of waste, abuse, gross mismanagement, or substantial and specific danger to public health.

Voted against HR 1592, a bill that would further expand hate crime to gender identity and sexual orientation.

Voted against the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007.

Voted against HR 2956, which would have required a reduction of US armed Forces in Iraq by April, 2008.

Voted yes to S 1927, which would allow the US to monitor foreign electronic communications routed through the country.

Voted Yes to HR 1400, a bill to increase economic sanctions on Iran and to allow the President to determine if the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps should be considered a foreign terrorist organization.

Voted No to HR 3648, a bill that eliminates the income tax on mortgage debt forgiveness on primary residences for people in "financial hardships" and lowers the amount of a gain made through selling such properties.

Voted against HR 2895, a bill that creates a trust fund to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families. I think we all remember this one, and know were it, and it's ilk, got us.

Voted against HR 5522, a bill that requires the Secretary of Labor to set safety standards for combustible dusts.

Voted against HR 6495, which would expand and add to existing mine safety laws in various ways, as well as make it easier to report violators to OSHA.

Voted against HR 3221, a bill that increases mortgage grants, mortgage limitations, various property assistances to the homeless and veterans, and the line of credit for mortgages under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Sadly, this bill passed.

Voted against HR 6049, a bill to grant alternative energy tax incentives.

Voted against HR 6346, a bill that prohibits price-gouging of gasoline and other petroleum based fuels during times of an energy emergency.

Voted against H Amdt 661, an ammenddment to a bill to either ensure effiency of, or remove funding for new engines for the F-35.(Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.AMDT.661 - THOMAS (Library of Congress))

Voted against numerous unemployment extension bills.

Voted Yes to HR 5827, a bill that let's bankruptcy filers keep their guns from being possessed, unless their individual value exceeds 3,000. I guess she is pro 2nd amendment?

Voted against the Dream act...a big one here, and I can't really abridge it, so it's gonna be a long copy paste, sorry. I would not bother, but this one is important, in my opinion, and speaks volumes to her character.

{-Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of an undocumented immigrant and grant him or her conditional nonimmigrant status for a period of 5 years if the following provisions are met (Secs. 6 & 7):
• -The undocumented immigrant in question has been residing in the United States for 5 or more years and was younger than 16 years old when he or she initially entered the United States;
• -The undocumented immigrant has been "a person of good moral character" since he or she initially entered the United States which includes, but is not limited to, having not been convicted of an offense punishable by more than 1 year of prison;
• -The undocumented immigrant has either been admitted to an institute of higher learning or has earned a high school diploma or GED (General Education Development) certificate;
• -The undocumented immigrant has "never been under a final administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal", unless:
• -The undocumented immigrant has been able to lawfully remain in the United States after such an order was issued; or
• -The undocumented immigrant received the order before he or she became 16 years old; and
• -The undocumented immigrant is under the age of 30, as of the date of the bill's enactment.
-Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to charge a $525 surcharge per application for relief and requires the application for relief to be made within 1 year of the undocumented immigrant's date of graduation from high school (Sec. 6).
-Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to use biometric, biographic, and other data to conduct background checks on each applicant, and to determine whether any criminal or national security factor exists that would make the undocumented immigrant ineligible for relief (Sec. 6).
-Requires each applicant for relief to undergo a medical examination, arranged by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Sec. 6).
-Defines "conditional nonimmigrant" as an undocumented immigrant who may have an intention of permanently residing in the United States and is not required to have a foreign residence (Sec. 5).
-Authorizes a conditional nonimmigrant to (Sec. 7):
• -Be employed in the United States; and
• -Travel outside the United States for a period no longer than 180 days and be readmitted without having to obtain a visa.
-Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to extend conditional nonimmigrant status for 5 additional years if provisions, not limited to those listed below, are met (Sec. 7):
-The undocumented immigrant has demonstrated "good moral character" during the time he or she held conditional nonimmigrant status;
-The undocumented immigrant has either acquired a degree from an institution of higher learning in the United States or has completed at least 2 years in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States; and
-The undocumented immigrant has served in the Armed Forces for at least 2 years, or has been honorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
-Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to terminate conditional nonimmigrant status if the Secretary determines that the undocumented immigrant has ceased to meet the requirements of the status, has become a public charge, or has received a dishonorable or other than honorable discharge from the Armed Forces (Sec. 7).
-Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to collect a surcharge of $2,000 per application for an extension of conditional nonimmigrant status (Sec. 7).
-Authorizes any conditional nonimmigrant to apply to have his or her immigration status changed to that of "lawfully admitted for permanent residence", and to be naturalized upon compliance with immigration laws (Sec. 8).
-Specifies that false statements provided in an application for relief under this bill are punishable by no more than 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine (Sec. 11).
-Prohibits the publication of information disclosed by individuals in application for relief under this bill, and fines any individual who uses, publishes, or permits such information to be examined no more than $10,000 (Sec. 12).}(Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)) Long, boring, and dry, but worth a look.

Several No votes on Don't ask don't tell repeals.

Several no votes on estate tax increases.

Voted to repeal the health care bill in 2011.

Voted against withdrawel of troops from Afghanistan, in 2011.

Voted yes to extend the patriot act.

Opinion time. She's probably the most "hawkish" of the bunch, to be sure. She is pro military spending, and anti just about every other sort of spending. At first, her voting records is all "Nays"...if Ron Paul is known as Dr. No, then she must be his mistress...at first. Then more and more military spending budget increases come into the picture, and the "yeas" start spilling out. Also, I find her position on immigration to be distressing. I'm not sure what she found so detestable about the DREAM act...seems to me if an immigrant under the age of 30, who has been here at least since they were 16, who has either received a degree of higher learning, or at the very least, completed highschool (in this country), and has no criminal record...is someone we want to KEEP, not spend money on booting. Anyway, it reeks of xenophobia, to me. And the real nail was her voted to continue production of a jet, even if it's usefulness is in question. Military industrial complex. When she loses this race, she should come to CT, I imagine the folks here would LOVE her!

donsutherland1 said:

Just a quick note. Governor Romney's distinguishing between "user fees" and "taxes" is not uncommon among public officials. Both generate revenue. However, a user fee is something that only a person using a specific service pays for. It is not imposed on the public at large regardless of the utilization of given services. Tolls, licensing fees, etc., are generally described as user fees. Levies on gasoline, alcohol, etc., are generally described as taxes.

Click to expand...

Yes, but when those fees concern things you have no choice but to use, like water and sewer, fee or tax becomes irrelevant.

Erod said:

At least he voted.

Obama spent his state senate years running for the Senate, and his Senate years running for president.

The actual responsibilities of his jobs then were unimportant to him, much like working more than three half days a week now seem equally bothersome.

Click to expand...

They all do that. Look up anyone who was in the house or senate while preparing for a campaign, and you'll see about 1 1/5 to 2 years worth of "no votes" due to them being out and about campaigning. Michele Bachmann has a slew of them, right now.

nice thread.

its cool you tried to list every ones voting record and seeing as how you give your own description as to what the vote was for instead of just providing the link of the bill, you probably should have also listed the reason they voted against a bill! some times a bill that sounds like a good idea has some bad parts to it that leads to a negative vote!

other than that i thank you for the hard work and all the info!

Lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) Ratings
100.0 Michelle Bachmann, 4+ yrs (2007-present)
90.0 Newt Gringrich, 20 yrs (House 1979-1999)
88.1 Rick Santorum, 16 yrs (House 1991-1995, Senate 1995-2007)

MrMindSpeaker said:

nice thread.

its cool you tried to list every ones voting record and seeing as how you give your own description as to what the vote was for instead of just providing the link of the bill, you probably should have also listed the reason they voted against a bill! some times a bill that sounds like a good idea has some bad parts to it that leads to a negative vote!

other than that i thank you for the hard work and all the info!

Click to expand...

In some cases, I have tried to do just that, but I felt that if I made my posts to long and detailed, no one would read them...otherwise, they would have the energy and drive to go and check crap out for themselves, rather than me making this thread. Also, please note, these are just a few of what I felt were the "important" votes, as in, votes that define a persons over all beliefs. I would say I have listed about...10% of the voting record of Bachmann and Gingrich.

Gary Johnson - Libertarian
No voting record, but he was the governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. He is no less viable, then, than Mitt Romney, who shares the same claim to fame, and did the same job, for the same number of years, under similar conditions, all be it, considerably hotter, lol. He won re-election, so I would wager he was well liked. He was known as Governor Veto, due to him setting historical records for using veto powers, more so than the other 49 governors combined. He is a small government fanatic, "Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with." (Mickey D. Barnett )
He is staunchly anti tax, supports a school voucher (which teacher's unions hate...so it must not be TOO bad, eh, lol), and is for the decriminalization of pot. He out to run his campaign on just that...how many pot heads are out there? Lots, I know...but do they vote? I bet they would if they are promised legalization of their life style...and for a lot of people, pot IS a lifestyle, lol. He turned his small scale, start up construction business into a million dollar corporation, from doing handyman work as a kid, to over 1,000 employees.
Whilst being anti tax, and reduced state spending, during his first term, he increased funding for public schools, by nearly a 1/3. This had little to no difference, so he switched gears to the school voucher system, which is still up for debate if it has been successful or not. I point this out, though, to show that he is a problem solver...he IS willing to spend money on important issues, but he's NOT going to toss it in blindly every year...he's going to change it up until he finds something that works.

My opinion? He's a younger, more mellow Ron Paul. He is willing spend money where it counts, but he's still got a bone to pick with the over all size of government. And he has proven himself in two terms as being able to reduce the size of government (state, at least), reduce taxes (actual reductions, not hiding them in the form of fees, penalties, or other means), and still leave a budget surplus. I always try to temper my praise by finding dirt, and the only real dirt I can find is that his states' education is still in the crapper. Past that, it seems everyone loved him in his state. He was the most popular governor in over 10 years, and I could find only good things said about him, other than from the teachers union, and personally, I'm gonna like ANYONE who pisses those people off, lol.

And before I get asked, I'm not posting anything on Ron Paul's voting record, for a couple of reasons.

A.) It's LONG, and would take me forever and a day.
B.) No one in this thread, or this forum, is going to be swayed one way or another about the guy, voting records or no. The folks that like him, likely already have checked the man's record, which is probably why they like him. And the folks that DON'T like him, are going to continue to no like him even if I could prove he was the second coming of Jesus. People said that Hitlery was a polarizing figure, but she PAILS to Paul, and his ability to make people either go ape**** over him, or hate his freaking guts.

Rick Perry - Republican

No voting record, but there is plenty of history as governor of the great state of Texas to look at, as he is the longest serving governor is US history, I believe...which means the Texans must like him, or just think he's better than the folks he runs against. As it stands, it should be noted that as of 2012, it is projected that Texas will be in the hole for some 38 billion. There is no state income tax in Texas, and I believe Perry would keep it that way. He claims to be a small government, typical republican, but his uses government expansion to pad his states employment numbers. (Rick Perry's four economic vulnerabilities - TODAY News - TODAY.com) There are numerous other articles that pick apart Texas's recovery from the economic disaster, as well as his governorship...just a quick google search away. In 2003, he created the Texas Enterprise Fund, which awards grants to businesses, but it was later found out by the NY Times (please don't criticize the source without first digesting the info) that most of the grants were given to campaign contributors to Perry. One could defend that by saying that they genuinely deserved the grants, and that they genuinely like Perry. Likely, that's all it is. But still, it's dirt under his nails, like it or not. Solyndra, is may not be, but whatever.
He is staunchly pro life, more aggressive about it than probably all the other candidates combined. I get the feeling that if it were up to him, he would make abortion illegal...but that's my opinion, based just on a feeling. On the note of women's vaginas, though...in 2007, he issued and executive order that mandated that all girls receive the HPV vaccine, in order to help ward off cervical cancer. And then, later, it was found out that there were financial connections between the makers of the vaccine, and Perry, so a law suit was brought, and the order was over turned, and Perry didn't veto, claiming that the future death of girls to cervical cancer would be on their souls, or some such thing. Classy.

One of his successes, in my opinion, was his refusal to use tax money to fund the creation of highways and rails from Oklahoma to Mexico, instead having it funded, built, operated, by private industry, to whom the proceeds would go. If we could get this guy onto the high speed rail project, I think it'd be a win. Sadly for Texas, though, no one else BUT Perry supported the plan, so it was a no go.

There's more on this guy, but I am having trouble finding good news...so I'm going to stop. I like to try to keep it 50/50. I'll just say that there is just no way, in my opinion, that many people will vote for this guy, if any of his skeletons come to light. Just an opinion.

KevinKohler said:

Yeah, last election was hard, because Obama was not the only person running with NO voting record, so there was just nothing to go on but rhetoric....seems to me, that's more important than substance, anyway.

Click to expand...

From the very beginning, it was all about Hillary, who of course had a voting record, and then he went up against McCain, who, as another Senator, had a voting record... Of course there was plenty to go on besides rhetoric, simply that rhetoric is what influenced people the most. Not to mention that voting records were specifically part of the national debate on the candidates. For example, Obama's voting record on Iraq vs. Hillary's.