Bob Corker on the 2nd Amendment

[tnhawk]

I didn't trust him when he was running for office the first time, and trust him less now. If his lips are moving, he's lying.

[Guest sharpshooter01]

I got the same letter too, peejman. That lip service and Corker's record made me go to the Blount County courthouse today and pull the lever for Zach Poskevitch.

My wife and I did the same. We didn't vote for any incumbent.

[hornett22]

Well I heard a commercial on the radio where Dave Ramsey is backing Corker. Guess I can't listen to that radio show anymore. I sent an email to DR letting him know I will no longer listen to him.

[seez52]

I could not believe he did that. Corker voted for all the bailouts and to keep borrowing!! Dang, I thought that DR was all about getting out of debt? Corker must be greasing his palm in some way or another. I certainly have much less respect for DR, he is a complete sell out.

[monkeylizard]

anybody got a feeling for which one might have the best chance of beating him?

C. None Of The Above

Corker won't be getting my vote, but Zach Poskevich and Brenda Lenard are the only 2 running against him that aren't basically Basil Marceux redux. Neither have the war chest to take on a sitting US Senator. It's an extremely difficult task to beat an incumbent senator, esp. in a primary. In the past 30 years, only 6 have lost their primary. That's why no true competition is running. Almost nobody who is connected enough to win a Senate seat will challenge within their own party. They'll challenge a weak incumbent from the other side, or wait for the seat to become open.

Edited July 27, 2012 by monkeylizard

[seez52]

C. None Of The Above

Corker won't be getting my vote, but Zach Poskevich and Brenda Lenard are the only 2 running against him that aren't basically Basil Marceux redux. Neither have the war chest to take on a sitting US Senator. It's an extremely difficult task to beat an incumbent senator, esp. in a primary. In the past 30 years, only 6 have lost their primary. That's why no true competition is running. Almost nobody who is connected enough to win a Senate seat will challenge within their own party. They'll challenge a weak incumbent from the other side, or wait for the seat to become open.

unfortunately it's likely true. And the main reason we need either term limits, or preferably repeal of the 17th amendment. Local control of Senators was the way it was designed. Their job was to represent the interests of the individual sovereign states. Seems we have forgotten that little part of the check and balance system our founders included in our representative government model. Details matter.

I'm still voting for Zach Poskevitch win or loose.

Edited July 27, 2012 by seez52

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The longer someone is in office the harder it is to get them out and the chance only comes by every 6 years for Senators. Replace him and, if the next one isn't good, replace them in 6 years.

No doubt about that. We should have rid ourselves

of Alexander last time. Corker is primary'd now, so

let's get him first. Agreed!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I like Zach. He needs to make buttons

like that, Ike

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

unfortunately it's likely true. And the main reason we need either term limits, or preferably repeal of the 17th amendment.

True, but go ask random people on the street what the 17th ammendment is and not one of them will be able to tell you.

Tell them it means they get to vote for their senators instead of them being appointed by the state legislature. They'll look at you like you're a total screwball if you tell them it needs to be repealed.

It's just something that doesn't play well with the public at large. Only politically interested people will have a clue what it means, and that small portion of the population would be divided over it being a good thing or a bad thing.