The Second Amendment clearly spells out the right to bear arms.
Jerome Corsi also studied at Harvard and is openly anti-Obama despite how critics of his most recent book have attempted to silence him. Additionally, while the Constitution wasn't intended to be a living document, it does have its flaws (see, for example, the 16th amendment).
Obama's anti-constitutionalist stances are clear from his votes in both the Illinois and the U.S. Senate. To point out just a few examples, he has voted to support Cheney's energy bill, the FISA amendments, and the Wall Street bailout. The NRA also has a website devoted specifically to pointing out his consistent anti-gun record.
Congressman Yarmuth voted for the final version of the Wall Street bailout bill, and Northup seems to be the only way to put someone in office who has any possibility of acting differently toward such massive spending. She could also help her campaign by learning why Hillary Clinton is as well-liked as she is throughout the state, leading her to win its primary easily.
Congressman Moore has voted for the original and revised versions of the Wall Street bailout bill, an incentive to replace him with someone else. Voters who are unsatisfied with both Moore and Jordan can throw their support behind one of three other candidates for this seat. What's unfortunate is that most voters might not see or hear from these candidates enough to realize they can forsake both major parties.
With Elrod having dropped out of the race, Campo seems like an alternative that's just as good, if not better, for the hot-button issues in this district. Her stances seem mostly conservative and, by unseating Congressman Carson, she could even be thought of as capable of pulling off upset victories. This race could be an echo of the results of the state's Democratic primary in May.
Carson only voted against the original version of the bailout, but supported the final version. The federal government is too big and incompetent to deliver on any promise that taxpayers will be fully compensated for spending like this which will put the country further into debt. It doesn't really make a difference who's in power unless their main principle is to uphold the Constitution instead of pandering for votes.
Congressman Donnelly has joined the majority of his Democratic colleagues by supporting the first and second versions of the Wall Street bailout bill. This ballot entry, like many others, limits voters to just two candidates, so Puckett will probably have to give some strong proof using his past record that he would fight this and any other wasteful spending.
Congressman LaHood has supported the first and final versions of the Wall Street bailout bill, but this won't be a liability for Schock if voters end up blaming Democrats more for its passage. With his youth, he could probably convince many disenchanted voters in this district that he will give them a fresh start in standing up for their rights as taxpayers.
Most Americans disapprove of Congress' overall performance as well as its passage of the Wall Street bailout, which Congressman Foster has voted for twice (see here and here). The only thing Oberweis can do right now is promise to dramatically reduce overall spending pushed by the Bush administration while voters will have to wait and see if he lives up to it.
Incumbent congressman Jerry Weller has voted for the final version of the Wall Street bailout bill. But Halvorson is in a bad position to claim that she would stop spending like this, and since Weller is outgoing, Ozinga can now distance himself from this and other votes that were cast in support of the Bush administration, most notably on the Patriot Act and war in Iraq.
Congresswoman Bean voted for the first and final versions of the Wall Street bailout bill. This race still favors her to win, which allows Greenberg to claim an underdog status given that this is Obama's home state. Greenberg is not necessarily a much better alternative for issues that this district cares about, but seems to be the only one running against Bean.
Congressman Sali voted against the first and final versions of the Wall Street bailout bill, and despite his past blunders on other issues in support of the Bush administration, Minnick seems to be the only one running against him. Democrats may have spoiled their chances to stay in control of Congress by supporting the bailout more than the Republicans on the whole.
Congressman Marshall, like most Democrats, has voted for the original and final versions of the Wall Street bailout bill. This kind of massive spending, especially with its close proximity to election day, is only part of the list of votes that Marshall has cast in support of the Bush administration, and it should not be forgotten that he has supported the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act with almost perfect consistency.
Congressman Diaz-Balart has voted against the original and final versions of the Wall Street bailout bill. That's not a reason to be entirely satisfied with him in office, but as in many races, the only alternative, voting for the Democrat, will almost certainly be worse. Republicans have hopefully learned their lesson as a party from this massive spending.
Congressman Mahoney supported the original and final versions of the Wall Street bailout bill. Rooney may not be much better of a choice, but appears to be the only way to unseat Mahoney for failing this major test. Rooney will probably give this district a slightly better chance at fighting wasteful spending despite the tyranny of congressional leaders.
Congressman Bilirakis has voted against the Wall Street bailout both times as seen here and here, but probably only as a result of having his constituents pressure him to do this which they should continue to do on all issues. Based on the voting behavior of each party, replacing him with a liberal Democrat is more likely to worsen this district's problems rather than solve them.
Congressman Keller voted against both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill (see here and here) like many congressional Republicans, which will probably help them retain more seats. That doesn't necessarily make Keller or most others trustworthy, and the Democrats supported the bill in higher numbers, so they will all need to be kept in check if they don't operate on the principle of following the Constitution.
Congressman Murphy has joined the majority of his fellow Democrats in supporting both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill (see here and here). Cappiello seems to be only a slightly less risky choice by not being the incumbent, but voters may also want to consider one of the independent candidates for this seat.
Congressman Shays has supported both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill (see here and here). Liberal Democrats are in an awkward position to promise that they will put a stop to spending like this when they are the ones that gave it most of its support and are notorious for their love of taxing and spending.
Congressman Shays' following of the Christian Science faith, albeit less devout, will probably cost him some votes among evangelicals who believe it is a cult that more or less influences his decisions in Congress. Himes, being a Presbyterian, has less to worry about in this regard as this is considered a mainstream Christian denomination.
Congressman Calvert has voted for both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill (see here and here). This is not a reason to be enthusiastic about Hedrick but is just an incentive to remove everyone from Congress who supported the measure, even if there is only one alternative on the ballot. This district's voters should warn Hedrick now to reject any more spending like this.
The information provided in this recent article should remove any doubts from the minds of Virginia voters that their state's prominent Democrats, including Warner, are up to no good. If this fraudulent activity is for the benefit of the Obama campaign, it could end up backfiring on election day with polls still showing that McCain can compete here.
Congressman McNerney has supported both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill (see here and here). It's probably too late at this point for him and most of his fellow Democrats to convince voters that they are still trustworthy with their tax dollars when it's been feared all along that this measure would bring on another Great Depression as well as some finishing touches to Bush's overall agenda.
Congressman Doolittle won't have to take the blame for the Wall Street bailout's passage since he voted against it and probably helped redeem this seat for his party. In fact, Democrats will have more explaining to do, and they could never be expected to oppose this or most other bills that have called for massive spending of taxpayer dollars throughout Bush's term.
Giffords has voted for the most recent version of the Wall Street bailout bill. Both party platforms called for supporting it, but Democrats have ended up supporting it in higher numbers than Republicans. It's not necessarily certain that Bee would have opposed this spending, so voters are fortunate to have more than just these two candidates on the ballot. What's clearer than ever with the outcome is that Giffords must be removed from office.
Congressman Young has joined many of his fellow Republicans in voting against both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill (see here and here). It will be difficult for Berkowitz and most other Democrats to convince voters that they as a party will act quickly to reverse this spending when left-wing liberals are notorious for taxing and spending.
Congressman Cramer, the current incumbent of this seat and a Democrat, has voted for the revised Wall Street bailout. That doesn't make Parker a great choice, but he seems to be the only alternative to Griffith who will now have to make excuses on Cramer's behalf if he wants his party to hold the seat.
Congressman Rogers has voted for the revised Wall Street bailout, which was a bipartisan effort and therefore not necessarily a reason to support Segall wholeheartedly. It should also be noted that there is an independent candidate running for this seat who may end up being the best choice, if for no other reason, to challenge corporate control by the two-party system.
Congressman Thompson has joined the majority of the House by breaching the Constitution with his vote on the revised Wall Street bailout bill. Starkewolf would certainly never approve of such spending after stating his awareness that the value of the dollar has already gone down with the war in Iraq even though he has supported this part of Bush's agenda.
Senator Reed has voted for the revised Wall Street bailout bill, which most senators from both major parties are also guilty of. However, most of the votes against it also came from Republicans and they have helped stall it in the House. Tingle also seems to be voters' only alternative, so if this measure passes, they should warn him to support overturning it immediately.
It comes as no surprise that Senator Kerry, being the elite that he is, just supported the revised Wall Street bailout bill and will continue to bankrupt the people of Massachusetts. Conservative voters might give Beatty higher ratings than he deserves, but he seems to be the best choice on the ballot for them to support. They will find out soon enough if Beatty is much different once he is in office.
Voters understandably may be unhappy with Senator Coleman's support of the Bush administration, especially by his vote for the revised Wall Street bailout, but should also take note of the fact that Al Gore endorses Franken. It's been stated many times (which you can search on any popular search engine) that whoever is endorsed by Gore always ends up losing.
Senator Rockefeller has voted for the revised Wall Street bailout bill and thereby given in to the Bush administration's whims. This is not surprising when one looks at higher taxes and more spending as being among the core principles that liberal Democrats embrace. Wolfe's stances sound good for voters who want to get this under control, but it's their responsibility to see that he follows through on these.
Voters now have another reason to elect Conley with Senator Graham's vote for the revised Wall Street bailout bill. The bill doesn't seem all that popular after having its original version rejected by the House, and it still amounts to the same wasteful spending no matter what. By being a Ron Paul supporter that's willing to cross party lines, Conley sets a great example for other Democrats.
Senator Inhofe voted against the revised Wall Street bailout bill as a step toward restoring the conservative principles of his party. But voters need to keep up the pressure on him to cut this and other wasteful spending, and Rice is probably even less trustworthy for that purpose. Oklahoma's ballot access laws have made it difficult for any candidates not Democrat or Republican to have a voice.
Senator Lautenberg should be held accountable for supporting the revised Wall Street bailout bill that took the votes of House Republicans to be delayed and will hopefully die in Congress. Bush's spending decisions have mostly been helped by Democrats, who had plenty of incentive throughout his tenure to prove that they can reverse his policies.
Senator Baucus has voted for the revised Wall Street bailout and it's not a guarantee that Kelleher would have done differently. However, this is a unique opportunity for voters to hold Baucus and many other Democrats accountable for not leading the way in opposing this and other massive spending that's promoted by the Bush administration.
Senator McConnell will need to be ready to explain his vote for the revised Wall Street bailout bill even if this doesn't put him in danger of losing his seat. There's also no telling what Lunsford would have done if he were in office right now; we can only speculate and any claims he makes are basically empty. The bill has yet to pass and McConnell is the one with the most responsibility toward his constituents for what happens.
Senator Roberts is one out of only a handful to vote against the revised Wall Street bailout bill, probably a result of his constituents warning him about what would happen otherwise. But voters should keep up pressure on incumbents to oppose it until it dies in Congress and the Bush administration is denied any more opportunities like this for wasteful spending.
Senator Harkin has just voted for the revised Wall Street bailout bill. If Iowans want to remove him from office just for this one issue, Reed may be their only opportunity to do it despite his flaws. Voters can warn him now to take heed of what will result if he wins this seat only to continue this wasteful spending while in office.
Senator Collins just voted for the revised Wall Street bailout bill. The party platforms call for virtually every member of Congress to support it, so Allen shouldn't be too confident that this will work in the Democrats' favor. Not being the incumbent only serves to put him in a more comfortable spot than Collins.
Senator Durbin has voted for the revised Wall Street bailout bill, and all of its supporters should be held accountable. Sauerberg predictably claims he would have voted against it and there is no way of knowing yet whether he is telling the truth. The only thing that's clear is that someone needs to replace Durbin for this vote regardless of the bill's final outcome.
Senator Pryor has caved in to pressure to support the revised Wall Street bailout bill and, if it passes, should take the blame with everyone else who has voted for it so far. Voters may not agree with Kennedy on every issue, but are sure to see her as an improvement if she ends up being the only other choice on this ballot entry. It would be hard to prove that she is given to corporate interests like Wall Street.
Thankfully, this race won't be limited to the two major parties. But excluding everyone else, voting against Stevens is not necessarily a good move regardless of how unpopular he may be for issues that get a lot of attention like his indictment or his support of the revised Wall Street bailout. Begich is endorsed by Wesley Clark who has no congressional experience.
Senator Wicker is one of a handful of Republicans to oppose the revised Wall Street bailout. His constituents most likely had to put great pressure on him to make this move, and they should not assume the best about him or any other elected official. This is just one step toward returning the Republicans to fiscal discipline.
Senator Dole has voted against the revised Wall Street bailout bill like a handful of her fellow Republicans in the Senate. This move was probably a result of voters warning her about what would result from supporting the bill and therefore part of the Bush agenda. It may also help the Republican party as a whole to be reminded that it would never support such wasteful spending if it lived up to its principles.
Senator Smith just voted for the revised Wall Street bailout, a fact that Merkley can now use to label him a neocon. But this new bill includes tax incentives, and increased spending is usually associated with Democrats. That means Merkley might have to make a tough choice about whether he wants to remain a Democrat and still retain his credibility as to why he would oppose any bailout that comes to the floor.
Senator Barrasso has just voted against the revised Wall Street bailout bill. During this pivotal time, Republicans can highlight to voters the fact that most of the "No" votes on this issue came from them and that real conservatism means to reject wasteful spending, of which this is an ideal example, that comes at the expense of average Americans.
A closer look at Beatty's views on the war in Iraq show that he would have voted against it, but today thinks we still need to finish the job of cleaning up the mess we made there. His military expertise probably would have led him to be more competent than Bush and the majority of Congress in conducting war operations.
Al Gore aired this recent ad endorsing Senator Kerry and promoting the environmental message for which he has been known and loved. So it makes sense to assume that Gore is still well-liked because many Americans trust his solutions to high gas prices, but forget about his failed efforts like pushing fuel taxes back in '93.
Democrats tend to put too much weight on the endorsements of former vice president Al Gore. He has endorsed Tuke's run, which may be a little helpful after the congressional terms he won in his own right but that will probably be the best he can offer to his party. Promoting messages that resonate with voters doesn't work if you can't translate it into victory.
Rice is endorsed by General Wesley Clark, who has been very involved in recent presidential politics by either endorsing one of his fellow Democrats or raising speculation of his own candidacy. But Clark's lack of public office experience in contrast to his military service could be embarrassing. Republicans may also tie Rice to Clark's criticism of McCain back in June.
Kleeb is endorsed by a Nebraska pro-Obama group. To have a real chance at winning this seat from Republicans, Kleeb will have to buck strong trends and should probably try to convince voters to split the ticket. This could work with someone like McCain, but Nebraska already has an incumbent Democratic senator and might not want another one. Nebraska's electoral votes haven't gone to a Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ in 1964.
Democrats would be wise to look for warnings that they are perpetuating a cycle of election losses from past losses. Lunsford was just recently endorsed by 2003 gubernatorial candidate Ben Chandler, who lost to Ernie Fletcher and has endorsed Obama's presidential campaign. Even within the Democratic party, Senator Clinton easily won Kentucky's primary.
Congressman Udall has had John Kerry's endorsement since January. This should be unwanted by more Democrats in light of several of Kerry's past election performances, his Skull and Bones membership, and some level of confidence that Jeff Beatty can unseat him this year. Udall voted against beginning to withdraw our troops from Iraq in 90 days.
Congressman Udall's credibility could be in trouble if voters know about the Fraternal Order of Police's stances and the fact that he picked up an endorsement from its New Mexico affiliate in June. FOP supports the Real ID Act, which Udall voted against while Pearce voted for it. This results in voters having to choose the lesser of two evils.
Warner's good standing with voters as a former governor could be seriously hurt by his endorsements. He has just picked up the support of Virginia's affiliate of the Fraternal Order of Police. This organization is known for its controversial stances that are on par with the Bush administration in some cases. Read Mayor Bloomberg's criticism of the group here.
Endorsements from both John Kerry and Wesley Clark are sure to prove a liability for Noriega in more ways than one. Other than Kerry failing to deliver a victory for his party in the last presidential election, Clark had endorsed Bilderberg attendees Senator Clinton and Governor Sebelius for president and vice president, respectively.
It's possible that Skelly, having come to the United States from Ireland, could be accused of running for this office illegally. If nothing else, Culberson could use this to show himself more in touch with people in this district as a Houston native. There are already high expectations that Culberson will hold on to his seat.
Voters in this district may have second thoughts about supporting Governor Gibbons over Dina Titus. Likewise, some Catholic voters could feel betrayed by Congressman Porter upon finding out about his support for stem cell research and end up voting third-party or independent (see other candidates here). The predictions for this election reflect from 2006 and are close enough to give Titus some confidence.
Congressman Heller will probably lose the support base Republicans often enjoy from social conservatives, including his fellow Mormons, due to his support for stem cell research just days after coming to office. This rematch is still in his favor, but Derby can dramatically change the outlook if she manages to associate him with Nevada's unpopular governor.
Congressman Sali is favored to win this race, but may need some extra strategy if his 2006 performance looks set to repeat itself. Minnick's service in the Nixon administration could be a liability for the Democrats unless he refers to it only as an example to learn from mistakes and promote bipartisanship. Some voters may not like his involvement in increasing the executive branch's size back then.
The importance of the Iowa caucus is overrated when you look at its recent history. Harkin also won this contest during his own presidential run back in '92, but not the nomination or general election. So that's not the kind of endorsement Obama would want. It's pretty unfortunate that there don't seem to be any choices on this ballot other than Harkin and Reed.
Every American deserves to have a better quality of life, but individual citizens are better equipped to take care of that. I don't trust most politicians from either of the major parties. More government regulation (like requirements for a minimum amount of income) may be exactly what makes it more difficult for average people. Remember Thomas Jefferson's famous saying.
Risch is already showing more wisdom than typical Republicans on what to do about U.S. occupation in Iraq. So while he may be expected to win this race easily, he could end up either stealing some of the Democrats' spotlight or appealing to voters who want to see more bipartisan solutions. He should have no problem distancing himself from incumbent Larry Craig.
Being limited to these two candidates would almost certainly alienate some Republican voters who would have preferred incumbent Wayne Gilchrest for supporting troop withdrawal from Iraq while Harris doesn't. Though the race is still cast in their party's favor, electing Kratovil would seem like the more fiscally responsible thing to do. Fortunately, a Libertarian candidate will also appear on the ballot.
Congressman Kanjorski previously endorsed Senator Clinton but is now reported to have no comment on the presidential race. He might be able to appeal to voters of varying ideologies with his voting record; he has often been pro-life and done a decent job in helping to end the war in Iraq and phase out the Patriot Act.
CQ Politics would tell us that Congressman Marshall shouldn't have too many problems holding on to this seat. He could appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle with his conservative leanings on many social issues, his support for Bush impeachment, and his neutrality toward the presidential race. To make a better case to people with libertarian views, he will need to withdraw his support both from unnecessary spending and from legislation restricting personal behavior.
Congressman Garrett has remained neutral toward the presidential race and stands out among New Jersey Republicans with some of his voting record. He is rated libertarian-leaning and voted against warrantless electronic surveillance. Shulman has some prominent Democratic endorsements from which he may want to distance himself, not the least of which is Senator Lautenberg for his comments on Dubai.
Like most of her fellow Obama supporters, Congresswoman Boyda has lacked assertiveness in overturning FISA and ending the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Jenkins seems to be only a slightly better choice in that she shows an awareness of our national debt brought on by wasteful spending. She could convince more voters that she is not a neocon if she would favor getting rid of the DHS as a response to her own admission that it is bureaucracy rather than just saying it needs to be more efficient.
Congressman Mahoney is listed here as one of the few in the House who are Obama supporters but stop short of a full endorsement. His FISA immunity and Iraq withdrawal votes provide evidence that most public officials like him would not work to end Bush's policies. Rooney is not much better for our national defense except in having a wealth of military experience like many Republican candidates.
Cazayoux voted for the FISA amendments and seems to have fallen in line with the majority of his colleagues by endorsing Obama for president. Cassidy at least seems to have qualifying credentials as a doctor who comes out in direct opposition to Obama's plans for American workplaces. He has not been clear where he stands on the war in Iraq and may not be much better for office unless he is made aware that his party used to favor nonintervention.
One House term is enough to show that Congressman Lampson has lacked the courage to vote against the Bush administration's agenda except by supporting impeachment. It also would have served him well to remain neutral toward the presidential race as only a handful of his colleagues have done. Olson's current stances are no better when weighed against the Constitution but seem to reflect a better knowledge of how to use military force properly.
Johanns may have an advantage from Republican incumbency and the fact that retiring incumbent Chuck Hagel has chosen not to endorse any presidential candidates. Johanns might also want to consider taking after him on the war in Iraq, which was actually Joe Lieberman's idea at its very roots and therefore not something a true conservative Republican would favor. There are at least two third-party choices in this race.
If thehill.com is a trustworthy and up-to-date source, all but two Republican senators are endorsing McCain. The 9/11 attacks are very personal to someone like Rice and although he may have a better understanding than most people of how to deal with our situation in foreign policy, he will need to explain how his current stances on all issues uphold the Constitution better than Inhofe's. Voters may also want to consider the independent candidate to appear on this ballot.
The Republicans may have it to their advantage that the current incumbent for this seat, John Doolittle, hasn't endorsed anyone for president and that this race leans in their direction. Brown's last run for this seat was unsuccessful and for this election cycle, to improve his credibility, he might want to distance himself further from his history with the Republicans.
Congressman Wolf, for at least some time, chose to remain neutral toward the presidential race and may manage to link Feder to the Obama campaign via former governor Mark Warner. If he wants to court traditionally Democratic voters with whom he would have to distance himself from the war in Iraq, Wolf can also highlight his support for investigating Bush impeachment. Wolf already defeated Feder once by a comfortable margin.
Kilroy may have difficulty turning this seat to the Democrats with its current incumbent being a McCain supporter and with Stivers having a record of service in the Middle East. Some of the best moves Kilroy can make may include explaining to veterans why the Iraq war is unconstitutional and reminding voters of Congresswoman Pryce's involvement in the Abramoff and Foley scandals.
Congressman Graves' campaign has launched two attack ads against Barnes (see here and here) linking her to Speaker Pelosi. This is certainly not a reputation Graves would want with Congress' overall approval ratings and with an anti-war independent candidate challenging Pelosi. The race is cast as being in Graves' favor, perhaps due to his incumbency and slight advantage in fundraising.
This seat is being vacated by incumbent congressman Kenny Hulshof due to his running for governor of this state. The race is currently cast as leaning in Luetkemeyer's favor, and the fact that Baker won her party's primary only by a plurality could end up working against her. Luetkemeyer also seems to have the advantage of more experience and leadership in office.
The Illinois Republican party may soon come out swinging against Morgenthaler's campaign by using evidence like this to associate her with Governor Blagojevich, who has low approval ratings and endorses Senator Obama. Morgenthaler may also have trouble taking Roskam to task for the war in Iraq when he himself is one of its injured veterans. Voters may do themselves a great service by finding at least one candidate for this district who has no record of participation in the war but wants it ended.
Schock may be a great voice for the young people of Illinois by being single and only in his late twenties. He is sure to face an uphill challenge in helping his party keep this seat unless he can somehow paint Callahan as a hypocrite for claiming to be against the war in Iraq and yet accepting an invitation there just months after it started.
Congressman Kirk should have no difficulty turning Seals' support from Senator Obama against him. All he would have to do is call out Obama on his voting record for either not showing up for votes or voting "Present" when those issues most important to Democrats have come to the floor. One other challenger for this seat is from the Green Party and could siphon votes from Seals or even win by garnering enough support.
Congressman Roskam is a McCain supporter who can easily use Morgenthaler's 2004 service in Iraq against her if she is not careful to explain what led her to volunteer in an unconstitutional war. Morgenthaler should also keep emphasizing the importance of bipartisanship on this and other issues, thereby giving herself a chance to prove that she will make possible more laws like McCain-Feingold in ways that Roskam would not.
Unlike his brother, Mario wasn't born in Cuba and opposes illegal immigration (see here and here) which is more in keeping with the Republican platform. One factor that could endanger his seat is if Garcia emphasizes family ties to Fidel Castro. But it may be easier for the brothers to distance themselves from these if they emphasize just as strongly their support for the Cuban embargo.
The Diaz-Balart brothers' seats could both be in trouble once voters become uncomfortable enough with their ties to Fidel Castro's family and show that they want illegal immigration dealt with swiftly. Neither Lincoln nor Raul was born in the United States, so I would recommend finding independent candidates for this district who were. Martinez at least says he favors ending the war in Iraq.
Taddeo and Ros-Lehtinen both seem to have a bias in favor of the cultures they came from, so I would not support either of them enthusiastically. But Taddeo seems to want to act more in this district's best interests by favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Ros-Lehtinen is a native Cuban and therefore may have a higher likelihood of being voted out if voters decide that illegal immigration is an issue of top priority.
Although Bilirakis' stances on Iraq and the Patriot Act don't go along with Americans' wishes and he endorses McCain, voting for John Dicks probably wouldn't be any better for our national security. On his website page that addresses this issue, rather than just saying he would work to abolish FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security (the ideal thing to do since they amount to wasteful spending), Dicks hints that they are capable of "operat[ing] efficiently and effectively".
There are several lesser-known candidates for this race that I would prefer to either Shays or Himes. Shays endorses McCain while Himes shows on his blog that the Obama campaign strongly supports him. But Shays is not entirely supportive of the Bush administration's policies, as he voted to investigate Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.
There doesn't seem to be much difference between these two major-party candidates, and the evidence is there to prove that they reflect somewhat on the presidential race. Shadegg is a McCain supporter while Lord is just parroting Obama's campaign theme of change. Shadegg, a Phoenix native, might be able to portray Lord as out of touch with Arizonians by simply pointing out the fact that he was actually born in D.C.
Giffords is an Obama supporter who voted for the FISA amendments and against an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Since Bee has the endorsement of Senator McCain and Arizona is home to both of them, Bee will likely only have to distance himself from McCain in the event of his favorable ratings dropping. Bee also seems willing to support a responsible withdrawal from Iraq by pointing out that we shouldn't depend on Middle Eastern oil.
Voters should be especially careful in races like this to make their decision based on issues rather than who is the biggest celebrity. They also might want to consider supporting one of the independent candidates that will appear on the ballot. Franken could get in trouble if the Republicans soon make another mention of the fact that he used to write for Playboy and call his judgment into question.
Just before the end of the presidential primary season, Johnson switched his support to Senator Clinton for winning his state's primary. But if he wants to be reelected based upon issues, he will need to be ready to defend his record of support for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq and promise to do better during his next term.
