NRA Contributes $2,500 to Culver Re-election Campaign

imported post

Culver received NRA dollars shortly after signing gun law


NRA Contributes to Culver Re-election


"The National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund made a $2,500 contribution to Gov. Chet Culver’s re-election campaign about two weeks after the governor signed NRA-backed legislation."

___________________________________________________________________


Thanks to the NRA for aiding the re-election of one of the best governors in Iowa's history!
SS

imported post

Nothing wrong with saying thank you.

I would do as much if I could afford it.

Yata hey

imported post

Thanks to the NRA for aiding the re-election of one of the worst governors in Iowa's history!

Click to expand...

Pretend that I have been living under a rock for the last four years and explain to me what makes the current governor worse than all that preceded him.

The guy just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad. After all he's the first governor to do so.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Thanks to the NRA for aiding the re-election of one of the worst governors in Iowa's history!

Click to expand...

Pretend that I have been living under a rock for the last four years and explain to me what makes the current governor worse than all that preceded him.

The guy just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad. After all he's the first governor to do so.

Click to expand...

How about we just suppose for a minute that he HADN'T "just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad" . . . would that have changed anything for you?


SS

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Nothing wrong with saying thank you.

I would do as much if I could afford it.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Ahhh . . . but you CAN afford it . . . in fact, you can do even more than the NRA . . . you can campaign for him, tell all your friends what a swell governor he is for Iowa, and pursuade Iowan's to VOTE for him!

What could possibly be holding you back?

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Nothing wrong with saying thank you.

I would do as much if I could afford it.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Ahhh . . . but you CAN afford it . . . in fact, you can do even more than the NRA . . . you can campaign for him, tell all your friends what a swell governor he is for Iowa, and pursuade Iowan's to VOTE for him!

What could possibly be holding you back?

SS

Click to expand...

Doing my best to support the local industry in LeClaire, Iowa and there is no question in my mind which way their political leanings are. [font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]

Yata hey
[/font][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

Thanks to the NRA for aiding the re-election of one of the worst governors in Iowa's history!

Click to expand...

Pretend that I have been living under a rock for the last four years and explain to me what makes the current governor worse than all that preceded him.

The guy just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad. After all he's the first governor to do so.

Click to expand...

How about we just suppose for a minute that he HADN'T "just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad" . . . would that have changed anything for you?


SS

Click to expand...

That depends on why the governor did not sign. If the governor felt that shall issue was a bad idea and allowed the bill to expire then I would not like the guy. If the governor felt the bill did not go far enough then an explanation to that effect may satisfy me, or not. If the governor didn't sign because the bill never got to his desk then I would have nothing against him, and no reason to really like him either.

However, the bill did get to his desk and he did sign it. For that reason I have nothing against the guy. I took a look at some of his policies and didn't really find anything objectionable. I don't like it that he thinks Iowa should turn its corn into fuel instead of food but that is a relatively minor issue in the big scheme since I feel that pure unadulterated economics will prove that policy a very bad idea in time.

You obviously have something against Governor Culver and I just want to know what that is. I'm not saying this governor is the best thing since sliced bread, and I'm quite certain there are better people for the job, but I feel no substantial animosity toward him either.

Please explain to the rest of the class why he needs to be removed from office.

imported post

From what I have heard and read, Culver massively increased (or allowed the increase of) the state budget and outspent our means. I have watched the state auditor do a couple presentations on the history of Iowa's budget and spending over the past decades, and in my non-professional opinion the numbers don't look good.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

Thanks to the NRA for aiding the re-election of one of the worst governors in Iowa's history!

Click to expand...

Pretend that I have been living under a rock for the last four years and explain to me what makes the current governor worse than all that preceded him.

The guy just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad. After all he's the first governor to do so.

Click to expand...

How about we just suppose for a minute that he HADN'T "just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad" . . . would that have changed anything for you?


SS

Click to expand...

That depends on why the governor did not sign. If the governor felt that shall issue was a bad idea and allowed the bill to expire then I would not like the guy. If the governor felt the bill did not go far enough then an explanation to that effect may satisfy me, or not. If the governor didn't sign because the bill never got to his desk then I would have nothing against him, and no reason to really like him either.

However, the bill did get to his desk and he did sign it. For that reason I have nothing against the guy. I took a look at some of his policies and didn't really find anything objectionable. I don't like it that he thinks Iowa should turn its corn into fuel instead of food but that is a relatively minor issue in the big scheme since I feel that pure unadulterated economics will prove that policy a very bad idea in time.

You obviously have something against Governor Culver and I just want to know what that is. I'm not saying this governor is the best thing since sliced bread, and I'm quite certain there are better people for the job, but I feel no substantial animosity toward him either.

Please explain to the rest of the class why he needs to be removed from office.

Click to expand...

Nothing to explain! You are right . . . a billion dollar budget deficit is nothing to be concerned about . . You've convinced me! If Branstad wins the "Republican" primary, who really has a worse fiscal record as govenor than Culver AND no pro-gun record to speak of, I will be voting right by your side to keep "good governance" with Chet Culver!! Thanks for straightening me out!!

SS

imported post

amaixner wrote:

From what I have heard and read, Culver massively increased (or allowed the increase of) the state budget and outspent our means. I have watched the state auditor do a couple presentations on the history of Iowa's budget and spending over the past decades, and in my non-professional opinion the numbers don't look good.

Click to expand...

Not a big deal; Branstad was actually worse thanCulver on spending and he raised taxes where Culver hasn't.

After signing the CCW reform bill, Culver has a much more pro-gun record than Branstad, who allowed us to languish for 16 years without changing the CCW laws.

I think IFB is right! . . . Go Chet!!!

SS

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Please explain to the rest of the class why he needs to be removed from office.

Click to expand...

I went back and modified the original post . . . it now says:

"Thanks to the NRA for aiding the re-election of one of the best governors in Iowa's history!"

Glad to oblige . . .

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

Thanks to the NRA for aiding the re-election of one of the worst governors in Iowa's history!

Click to expand...

Pretend that I have been living under a rock for the last four years and explain to me what makes the current governor worse than all that preceded him.

The guy just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad. After all he's the first governor to do so.

Click to expand...

How about we just suppose for a minute that he HADN'T "just signed "shall issue" into law so he can't be all bad" . . . would that have changed anything for you?


SS

Click to expand...

That depends on why the governor did not sign. If the governor felt that shall issue was a bad idea and allowed the bill to expire then I would not like the guy. If the governor felt the bill did not go far enough then an explanation to that effect may satisfy me, or not. If the governor didn't sign because the bill never got to his desk then I would have nothing against him, and no reason to really like him either.

However, the bill did get to his desk and he did sign it. For that reason I have nothing against the guy. I took a look at some of his policies and didn't really find anything objectionable. I don't like it that he thinks Iowa should turn its corn into fuel instead of food but that is a relatively minor issue in the big scheme since I feel that pure unadulterated economics will prove that policy a very bad idea in time.

You obviously have something against Governor Culver and I just want to know what that is. I'm not saying this governor is the best thing since sliced bread, and I'm quite certain there are better people for the job, but I feel no substantial animosity toward him either.

Please explain to the rest of the class why he needs to be removed from office.

Click to expand...

Nothing to explain! You are right . . . a billion dollar budget deficit is nothing to be concerned about . .  You've convinced me! If Branstad wins the "Republican" primary, who really has a worse fiscal record as govenor than Culver AND no pro-gun record to speak of, I will be voting right by your side to keep "good governance" with Chet Culver!! Thanks for straightening me out!!

SS

Click to expand...

Hey! I'm right! Oh, wait, right about what? I asked an honest question and expected an honest answer but instead I got you reading into my words something that was not there.

Listen, I have only so much bandwidth to expend and I have spent very little on what the governor has said and done so I am quite ignorant on how well the governor has performed in office. Like I said before, I don't like the guy and I don't hate the guy simply because I don't know the guy. Please, drop the attitude and explain your obvious deep hatred for Governor Culver.

The lights are still on, the water runs clean from the tap, and no bridges have fallen in any rivers (to my knowledge anyway) so the guy obviously didn't let the state go to a complete pile of dung. Ok, so he ran up some debt. Without some context I don't know how serious a billion dollar budget deficit is to the state, if that is in fact what he has done. Besides, I suspect the state assembly had something to do with any budget issues.

You act as if I should know this stuff, and perhaps I should, but the truth is I do not. Perhaps you don't like him because he is a Democrat but I like to look beyond party affiliation and look at what a candidate has said and done and ignore if the person likes to put an "R" or "D" next to their name.

How about instead of sarcasm and a mocking tone you try to inform me on how well this governor has done in his term? I am quite curious on what you know and how you came to the conclusion that this governor is worthy of such contempt.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

How about instead of sarcasm and a mocking tone you try to inform me on how well this governor has done in his term? I am quite curious on what you know and how you came to the conclusion that this governor is worthy of such contempt.

Click to expand...

IFB -

You have it all wrong! . . . I am not being sarcastic (well . . a little maybe; I am no fan of Culver; but read on). I have posted elsewhere about my feelings as to who I think the governor should be, specifically because I wanted to see the Iowa "supreme" court placed back under limited constitutional authority that they have exceeded (which I believe is eventually going to catch up to us all on the gun issue), instead of making law from the bench. That position got your thread shut down by the moderator before I was even able to make my case based on the Iowa Constitution! This is clearly not an issue of interest to people on this website (or, in some cases, vehemently denied), so I am dropping that issue from my discussion. I also posted about the only candidate (the same candidate as above) who has expressly stated that he will support constitutional carry (i.e. the “Sorensen bill”) . . . I was told by the folks here that it doesn’t count because that candidate has no record of office of having supported the 2A in the past (leaving me to wonder, of course, how ANY candidate who has never held office can demonstrate such - ??), and that “Culver was better because he now has a record of signing the CCW reform bill into law.”

So, given that no one wants to look at the candidate that I will back in the primary,you can say that “I have seen the light,” at least as far as this websitegoes. . . most “R’s” here will no doubt support “Bumstead,” in the primary on June 8[suP]th[/suP] for the above reasons (i.e. they don't believe in constitutional restraint anymore), and they are mislead about his record, or they simply think "he is the one that can win," and the “D’s” here will support Culver in November. When I look at thatpotential matchup (recognizing that my preferred candidate might win the primary, in which case, I would support him because I believe he is best on ALL the issues I care about), and, based on my being a "conservative,"I come to the following conclusions:

1) Culver has a better record of not raising taxes (it is well documented that Bumstead raised taxes over 30 times, including two sales tax increases, and two gas tax increases: http://www.terrylovestaxes.org . . . and "yes, I know that this is a Democratic supported website," but their documentation is pretty darn good).

2) Culver signed into law a CCW reform; “Braindead” kept us slaves to the sheriffs for 16 years (and BTW, there is a "persistent rumor" in the 2A community, heard a lot at gun shows, etc.,that Braindead actually VETOED a CCW reform bill, based only on anectdotal material, but, being that this was quite a bit before the internet was mature, there appears to be no record of such on the internet. I have to say that I havea very vague memory of it, but I cannot raise my right hand and swear that it happened. If it is true, there probably is a newspaper record somewhere on it, but no one that I know has been able to locate one. .. so take this as "unsubstantiated rumor."). Also, when you go to TB's website issues page (http://www.governorbranstad2010.com/why-branstad/on-the-issues), there is no mention of the 2A . . . that's a sign to me that he could care less about gun owners in Iowa.

3) Culver resisted the unions by vetoing the union takeover bill, “Braindead” sold out to the teacher’s union and got them pay increases with no improvement in education standards (disclaimer: I am NOT anti-union . . . but I do believe there should be some limits on their scope of power, such as I dont' think they should be running our schools, local governments, etc.)

4) Like Culver, Bumstead refuses to do anything to get the ISC back under the Iowa Constitution instead of letting them be dictators, so they are even there (disclaimer: this is something I care about, not others here, so don’t come all unglued on me)

5) Culver has a budget deficit of $1 Billion, but Bumstead had a $900 million surplus, which I find just as abhorrent as the deficit because that means he was stealing money from the taxpayers he didn't need to. Bumstead was able to do this only because the general economy was better than during Culver's tenure. IMHO, Bumstead should have cut taxes to reduce this surplus, and let Iowa taxpayers keep more of their money.

6) I am not at all impressed by the "shadowy" nature of the events surrounding Eric Branstad's vehicular homocide incident; there is part of me that believes if he had been anyone but the Governor's son, he would have been in prison. This smells just a little too much like "the privilages of office."

7) I am no fan of Doug Gross, primarily because I view him an enemy of property rights because of his involvement in the Clarke county land grab, and Bumstead and Gross are joined at the hip: http://iowadefensealliance.com/2010/05/24/branstad-bunch-same-names-same-games/

In about all other things, Bumstead and Culver are pretty much equal. So, in the balance, Culver is the more “conservative” candidate! (but then drowning in your bathtub makes you just as dead as drowning in the Pacific Ocean . . . doesn’t it?)

So . . . come the first Tuesday in November, assuming the gubernatorial match up is Culver vs. Braindead, I will proudly cast my vote for Culver as the preferred “conservative” and "pro-second amendment" candidate!

SS

imported post

Well, that certainly clears up a few things. After doing some research I find that I am no fan of either Culver or Branstad. Both of them appear to be professional politicians and I have a serious distrust of the motivations of a professional politician.

Branstad served in public office for, if my math is right, a quarter century. After that he got himself a couple cushy jobs doing... whatever it is he does. Now, at the age of 63 years, he's running for office when most people his age are looking for a quiet little house in the 'burbs with a big yard so the grandkids can run around.

(Just so people don't go biting my head off on his age I will say that I do realize that people much older than him do continue to work. I don't know what a governor gets paid but I have heard many times that people don't go into public office for the money. They get OUT of public office for the money.)

Chet Culver is still something of a mystery to me. I did see that he, like Branstad, did little outside of politics. I don't like some of his views. I don't like how he's been handling the budget. I believe he signed the shall issue bill into law only because he saw that constitutional carry has been gaining some steam and realized that his chances of keeping office if he vetoed the bill would be slim to none.

Culver does not seem to have much of a record on, well, much of anything when it comes to the issues that people seem to care about. That is a sign of a politician, someone that follows rather than leads. Someone that is motivated to be in office for a reason other than a paycheck would have much more on paper on what he believes.

The primaries are coming up in a week or two and I don't know who is worthy of a vote. When it comes to governor it's not Branstad. (It's not Culver either but he's not running in the primary.)