See map of the district:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa....78125&spn=1.006395,1.757813&z=9&source=embed
I tried to keep an open mind in this debate even though a previous debate's transcripts told me a lot about the candidate's stances and I already had a good idea who I would vote for. However, I wanted to give the other candidates a chance to show themselves worthy before planting any yard signs. They never did; in fact they made me wonder why I bothered to give them a chance in the first place. Chard Reid outshined the others by speaking directly to the people at the debate and explaining his solutions rather than spewing out platitudes. He has earned my vote.
What made this interesting is that all 3 candidates earned A ratings from both the NRA and the GOA (that's damn rare especially from the GOA). Here is a synopsis of the debate:
Susan Brooks (R) - former US Attorney. I expected her to talk about her principles and how they would be applied to solving our nation's problems. Instead I got canned answers that seemed scripted - very scripted. She talked around the questions rather than answering them and thus never seemed to have a real solution - just talking points. Perhaps she feels there are enough R's in the district that they will vote for her whether she is really a conservative or not. During a 'lightning round' where only Yes/No answers could be given, she showed that her 2nd Amendment ideals were far less principled than her campaign has previously stated. The question was, "Do you support an Assault Weapons Ban" ....chirp..chirp..chirp...you could see the wheels turning in her head as if she didn't want to be on the record answering NO. It literally took her 3-4 seconds to answer NO. The other two candidates had no problem stating NO, right away. That told me everything I needed to know about her - a calculated person who will tell you what you want to hear rather than what she really thinks. She has a bright future as a politician.
Scott Reske (D) - state legislator with many years of military service both active duty and reserves. This guy was way out of his league. Reske couldn’t comprehend a few of the questions and managed to say he was for one thing and then explain why he wasn’t for it. Frankly, it scares me that he ever commanded men based upon his ability to handle even low pressure situations/questions. I know of this type of 'leader' and you damn well knew to stay the hell away from him because he would be more about covering his ass than doing the job at hand. The guy managed to deny support for Obamacare while saying it should be left in place unless a better plan is legislated. What??? It would have been comedic if it were not so sad. He touted a very moderated Democrat line and explained he was not a fan of Pelosi etc., yet had no problem supporting more spending even if it was less spending than Obama would have.
Chard Reid (L) - high school finance & marketing teacher. The only guy who explained why he was the best able to lead on fiscal issues. He was engaging and demonstrative which you don't often see in a debate. As you would expect he strongly believes that the Constitution should be followed rather than given lip service. Unlike some Libertarians, he actually gave details for his ideas rather than just repeating the 10th Amendment spiel. Not going to go into all of it here but you can see where he stands by going to his website: Chard Reid for U.S. Congress | Indiana's 5th Congressional District | . I hope there are some video clips on specific issues at tonight's debate put on YouTube because you'll see what I mean. He won this debate in a landslide and the other two candidates knew it. While endorsements from the Indianapolis Star mean very little to me, it is telling that they have grudgingly endorsed Reid as the other two candidates just have no clue how to plug this sinking ship - just platitudes and party money.
Going to plant the yard sign now.
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa....78125&spn=1.006395,1.757813&z=9&source=embed
I tried to keep an open mind in this debate even though a previous debate's transcripts told me a lot about the candidate's stances and I already had a good idea who I would vote for. However, I wanted to give the other candidates a chance to show themselves worthy before planting any yard signs. They never did; in fact they made me wonder why I bothered to give them a chance in the first place. Chard Reid outshined the others by speaking directly to the people at the debate and explaining his solutions rather than spewing out platitudes. He has earned my vote.
What made this interesting is that all 3 candidates earned A ratings from both the NRA and the GOA (that's damn rare especially from the GOA). Here is a synopsis of the debate:
Susan Brooks (R) - former US Attorney. I expected her to talk about her principles and how they would be applied to solving our nation's problems. Instead I got canned answers that seemed scripted - very scripted. She talked around the questions rather than answering them and thus never seemed to have a real solution - just talking points. Perhaps she feels there are enough R's in the district that they will vote for her whether she is really a conservative or not. During a 'lightning round' where only Yes/No answers could be given, she showed that her 2nd Amendment ideals were far less principled than her campaign has previously stated. The question was, "Do you support an Assault Weapons Ban" ....chirp..chirp..chirp...you could see the wheels turning in her head as if she didn't want to be on the record answering NO. It literally took her 3-4 seconds to answer NO. The other two candidates had no problem stating NO, right away. That told me everything I needed to know about her - a calculated person who will tell you what you want to hear rather than what she really thinks. She has a bright future as a politician.
Scott Reske (D) - state legislator with many years of military service both active duty and reserves. This guy was way out of his league. Reske couldn’t comprehend a few of the questions and managed to say he was for one thing and then explain why he wasn’t for it. Frankly, it scares me that he ever commanded men based upon his ability to handle even low pressure situations/questions. I know of this type of 'leader' and you damn well knew to stay the hell away from him because he would be more about covering his ass than doing the job at hand. The guy managed to deny support for Obamacare while saying it should be left in place unless a better plan is legislated. What??? It would have been comedic if it were not so sad. He touted a very moderated Democrat line and explained he was not a fan of Pelosi etc., yet had no problem supporting more spending even if it was less spending than Obama would have.
Chard Reid (L) - high school finance & marketing teacher. The only guy who explained why he was the best able to lead on fiscal issues. He was engaging and demonstrative which you don't often see in a debate. As you would expect he strongly believes that the Constitution should be followed rather than given lip service. Unlike some Libertarians, he actually gave details for his ideas rather than just repeating the 10th Amendment spiel. Not going to go into all of it here but you can see where he stands by going to his website: Chard Reid for U.S. Congress | Indiana's 5th Congressional District | . I hope there are some video clips on specific issues at tonight's debate put on YouTube because you'll see what I mean. He won this debate in a landslide and the other two candidates knew it. While endorsements from the Indianapolis Star mean very little to me, it is telling that they have grudgingly endorsed Reid as the other two candidates just have no clue how to plug this sinking ship - just platitudes and party money.
Going to plant the yard sign now.
