Comments on: PODCAST #1 – LaVar Christensen, Congressional Candidate http://underthedome.org/2006/08/31/podcast-1-lavar-christensen-congressional-candidate/ Politics * Economics * Business * History * People Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:38:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Kiran http://underthedome.org/2006/08/31/podcast-1-lavar-christensen-congressional-candidate/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Kiran Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:12:02 +0000 http://underthedome.org/?p=33#comment-52 Agreed- the quality of the podcast was great. Much better then a lot of other ones. Agreed- the quality of the podcast was great. Much better then a lot of other ones.

]]> By: Kiran http://underthedome.org/2006/08/31/podcast-1-lavar-christensen-congressional-candidate/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Kiran Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:08:26 +0000 http://underthedome.org/?p=33#comment-51 Its not my usual thing to argue with fellow Republicans, but as a Matheson supporter, I can’t let this podcast go unchallenged . LaVar says that you need “principled representation” and that being an independent thinker is like “being a weather vane”. I would rather have a Congressman who votes for his constituents, rather then for simply his political party. How do you think President Reagan would feel about the spending of today’s national Republicans? Do you think he would approve? In his speeches, LaVar has pretty much guaranteed that he would be a rubber stamp for the Republican Party- which is what he refers to as “principled government”. I have been a Republican my whole life. I believe in the traditional Republican values, such as limited government and a strong military. However, the out of control spending of national Republicans dissapoints me. Jim Matheson stands up to the spending of both parties. LaVar gets upset at national Democrats in this podcast for two primary purposes: Blocking the traditional marriage amendment and blocking tax cuts. Rep. Matheson has supported both the traditional marriage amendment and keeping President Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Matheson is a thorn in the side of both parties, and isn’t that what principled representation means? Not simply that you are a rubber stamp for your party? Its not my usual thing to argue with fellow Republicans, but as a Matheson supporter, I can’t let this podcast go unchallenged
.
LaVar says that you need “principled representation” and that being an independent thinker is like “being a weather vane”.

I would rather have a Congressman who votes for his constituents, rather then for simply his political party. How do you think President Reagan would feel about the spending of today’s national Republicans? Do you think he would approve? In his speeches, LaVar has pretty much guaranteed that he would be a rubber stamp for the Republican Party- which is what he refers to as “principled government”. I have been a Republican my whole life. I believe in the traditional Republican values, such as limited government and a strong military. However, the out of control spending of national Republicans dissapoints me. Jim Matheson stands up to the spending of both parties.

LaVar gets upset at national Democrats in this podcast for two primary purposes: Blocking the traditional marriage amendment and blocking tax cuts. Rep. Matheson has supported both the traditional marriage amendment and keeping President Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Matheson is a thorn in the side of both parties, and isn’t that what principled representation means? Not simply that you are a rubber stamp for your party?

]]> By: Lt. Col. Moroni http://underthedome.org/2006/08/31/podcast-1-lavar-christensen-congressional-candidate/comment-page-1/#comment-50 Lt. Col. Moroni Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:19:53 +0000 http://underthedome.org/?p=33#comment-50 Good production quality and the music was a nice touch. Good production quality and the music was a nice touch.

]]> By: Lt. Col. Moroni http://underthedome.org/2006/08/31/podcast-1-lavar-christensen-congressional-candidate/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Lt. Col. Moroni Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:04:19 +0000 http://underthedome.org/?p=33#comment-49 Ronald Reagan? I like Ronald Reagan as much as the next guy, but Christensen needs to give up the touchy-feely and start telling us why we should vote for him. Liking Ronald Reagan isn't a good enough reason. Ronald Reagan? I like Ronald Reagan as much as the next guy, but Christensen needs to give up the touchy-feely and start telling us why we should vote for him. Liking Ronald Reagan isn’t a good enough reason.

]]>