#NCSEN Mark Harris: The ‘No-Baggage’ conservative choice?
I had the opportunity for an audience with Charlotte pastor — and US Senate candidate — Mark Harris on Saturday. (I do have to commend him for not running away in terror after I introduced myself. For some reason, I scare some political candidates.)
A bridge. Harris describes himself as a ‘bridge candidate’ who can successfully bring together the business community, social conservatives, and the Tea Party to knock off Kay Hagan in November. He compares his experience — i.e., budget compilation and management, HR issues, customer service — managing a large congregation in Charlotte, and the Southern Baptist Conference, to running a small business. Harris says his experience has helped him relate to the situations face by small business owners, and has helped him earn a lot of support from that community. He says his activism on pro-life issues, and his efforts to win passage of the 2012 marriage amendment to the North Carolina constitution, should make his candidacy palatable to social conservatives. Harris says his limited-government views should make him an attractive choice for Tea Partiers.
No ‘baggage’. What makes him stand out in the eight-candidate GOP primary field? Most observers of the race see Harris, Thom Tillis, and Greg Brannon as the three most viable candidates in the GOP field. Harris’ take on the field?:
“I am concerned. I have seen stories in the news and on the Internet about some troubling things going on in Raleigh like the Board of Governors appointments and those emails. I am concerned that there is a lot of baggage surrounding Thom Tillis and his campaign that can be used by Kay Hagan and the Democrats against him and the Republican Party in the general election.
I am also concerned about something that first came to my attention at a Forsyth County GOP event. Someone asked what we had all done to help Mitt Romney in 2012. Dr. Brannon said he did not vote for Governor Romney. How can you go out and ask Republicans to support you as the party’s nominee, when you could not bring yourself to support the Republican nominee in 2012?”
Brannon has explained that he wrote in the name of another Republican when he voted for president in 2012. He defended his action by saying that he had trouble with Romney’s views on abortion and some of his actions while governor of Massachusetts. Romney ran for US Senate in 1994 and for MA governor in 2002 as a pro-choicer. He ran on the pro-life position for president in 2008 and 2012. Harris said he could understand people having reservations about the past two GOP presidential nominees:
”I didn’t find McCain or Romney to be sufficiently conservative. They weren’t even close to being my top choices for president. But in 2012, the choice was either Romney or Obama. If I have to choose between the most radical pro-abortion candidate since Roe v. Wade, or someone who came to the pro-life position in 2007, voting for the guy who came to the pro-life side in 2007 is an easy choice for me.”
Common Core. New educational standards being pushed on the states by the federal government are causing quite a bit of unrest among the grass roots. Harris has been endorsed by former Arkansas governor — and current Fox News personality –Mike Huckabee, who has spoken favorably about Common Core. Harris said people should not assume that Huckabee’s endorsement of his campaign means that he agrees with that position held by the former Arkansas governor:
“I believe that, the closer an education and its ensuing decisions are made to home, the more effective that education will be.”
ObamaCare. Harris said he approved of Texas senator Ted Cruz’s efforts to defund ObamaCare. He said he believes ObamaCare needs to be ‘repealed and replaced.’ Harris said he has seen some details about senator Richard Burr’s alternative, but is not completely sold on it — seeing some plusses and some minuses:
‘I’d like to see some more universal tax credits that don’t look so much like the health exchanges. I’d like to see an expansion on the use of health savings accounts. I would also like for people to be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. ”
Immigration Reform and Amnesty. This issue is politically killing congresswoman Renee Ellmers. We posted earlier about a 2011 news story on the Southern Baptist Convention’s take on immigration reform. In that article, Harris appeared to be giving his blessing to a “pathway to legal status.”
I asked Harris about that interview. He said Fox News approached him after church one Sunday, and asked him what happened at the SBC meeting. Harris said he was merely passing along the details of the meeting. He stopped short of saying he disagreed with the SBC. Harris says he is not for “amnesty, and stresses the importance of “bringing people out of the shadows” and addressing “the labor problem” in this country:
“I believe Washington too often tries to deal with things in big bites. I believe we need to deal with this issue in small bites — in pieces — just like health care.”
The pastor says he is wholeheartedly against the so-called “Gang of Eight” proposal that made it through the Senate.
Robin Hayes. There has been a lot of suspicion in Tea Party circles about Harris based on his decision to include former congressman and NCGOP chairman Robin Hayes in his campaign’s inner circle. As NCGOP chairman, Hayes regularly knocked heads with grass roots activists. As congressman, he served on the national board for The Ripon Society — a group aimed at taking the GOP back from social conservatives and Tea Partiers. It was founded in the late 50s and early 60s by Nelson Rockefeller supporters to counter the rise of the New Right and its leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Harris said he was not aware of The Ripon Society. He says he was mostly impressed with Hayes’ work on social issues — like abstinence based sex education in schools — while he served in the North Carolina House.
Polling. Harris was quite dismissive of polling from Public Policy Polling that has regularly showed him in the rear of the primary pack. (His campaign is expecting results of some internal polling this coming week.) The pastor singled out one questionable finding that really sticks in his craw — the February 2014 poll on the Senate race that showed him getting ZERO support in area code 704, which is his home region.
The mainstream media and the political establishment have worked hard to try and sell Thom Tillis as the inevitable GOP nominee. Harris says he believes the GOP race is far from decided — noting how the Tillis camp has not released ANY internal polling making its case as the frontrunner.
So, Harris is still evasive on amnesty for illegal aliens, refusing to say he disagreed with the SBC position, and even using some of the favorite weasel words of the left ”bringing people out of the shadows”. Maybe he should be asked what his position was on that other leftie catchphrase ”pathway to citizenship”.
Actually, it sounds like he’s using the same language Renee Ellmers is using to make herself think she’s not supporting amnesty!
Translation: he supports legalization/amnesty.
He seems pretty clear on it to me. He uses the word “amnesty” in a very technical sense, knowing that most people arent. He doesnt support giving them residency without making them do something, and he doesnt seem to support going so far as to giving them citizenship.
Instead, he sidesteps the idea of “amnesty” by supporting making them pay something like back taxes or something, and “then” giving them residency.
He should come right out and say that, instead of speaking around it – I thought that was called a lie by omission? It seems really misleading and deceptive to me – if he feels he can’t speak any more straightforward than that, and actually tell people what he actually thinks, then that’s a pretty big red flag.
I’m sorry but I’m very suspect of the Harris/Hayes connection. Robin Hayes sold his soul on the DR-CAFTA vote in which he promised his constituents he would never vote for it and that very night he did. He first voted no and then withdrew his vote and revoted yes. Hayes Ripon Society connection and his vow to destroy the tea party and independents breaks the deal. The people working for or backing a candidate do so because they believe his future actions will align with either their agenda or philosophy. I think this is the case with Mr. Harris and his Huckabee and Hayes support. Mr. Harris may claim that he has no baggage but there are certainly some cracks in his planks. Cracks that do not bode well for his future actions. Brannon on the other hand has a solid philosophical base that works from the principle that governments are instituted to protect the rights of the individual thus serving the greatest number while adhering to the enumerated powers limiting tyranny. I personally don’t want candidates who enter a race because they care about families or people. I want candidates who enter a race because they believe that protection of the rights of “the” individual not “an” individual is the first and foremost mandate of government. Mr. Harris may sway the congregation and some with his self proclaimed “bridging” ability but that feel-good talk just doesn’t fly with the limited government crowd.
The Huckabee connection is a concern far beyond the one issue mentioned – Common Core. Over the last couple of election cycles, Huckabee has been running around the country endorsing establishment candidates in primaries against conservatives. Huckabee is an establishment mouthpiece. In South Carolina, for example, Huckabee has this year endorsed the most liberal candidate in the primary, Lindsay ”Light in the Loafers” Graham, even though all of the other primary candidates are to Graham’s right, and one of them is even running primarily as a social conservative. In 2012, an example of a Huckabee endorsement was his support of liberal David Dewhurst over conservative Ted Cruz. There were many more like those. A Huckabee endorsement is something that makes me instantly suspicious of a candidate.
I remember the Club for Growth, of which I am a member, calling Huckabee a ”Christian socialist” and RedState.com calling Huckabee a ”pro-life statist”, Outside of social issues, Huckabee’s record as governor was not very conservative.
At every turn, there is yet another skeleton uncovered with these candidates. I want a robust debate but I do not want a GOP massacre. I want to defeat Kay Hagan.
With Kay Hagan, there are NO skeletons, only facts about her atrocious voting record and her sleazy supporters. Kay is Obama/Obama is Kay.
We must all remember to keep our eye on the end game — DEFEAT HAGAN.
Kim, you are the voice of reason. Of course what matters most is electing another Republican Senator from North Carolina to join our esteemed serving Senator from North Carolina, the Honorable Richard Burr. Thom Tillis will be a great addition to the United States Senate and North Carolina will be noted for having two such fine gentlemen representing the Great State of North Carolina. We will be the envy of the South!
In the end I think all Republicans will unite behind the primary winner. I expect it to be Thom Tillis but if it is another of our fine candidates then we will all join together and support him or her. We must trust the primary voters and support their decision.
Yes, Kim, the goal is to bring Kay Hagan back home and send another fine Republican Senator to the United States Senate.
We will come together and we will elect a Republican Senator from North Carolina who will stand tall with Senator Richard Burr.
Tillis? That is the dude with the most baggage of all. Harris has Huckabee and Hayes as ally baggage, but Tilli$ has Karl Rove and Lindsay Graham and RIchard Morgan, who are far, far worse. As to issue baggage, Hayes and Tilli$ share the amnesty baggage, but Tilli$ has dug his hole much much deeper on that issue, and Tilli$ has lots of issue baggage on a whole host of other issues that Harris does not have. As to character baggage, Harris has none, and Tilli$ is toting a major load. As to attacks on conservatives, Harris is innocent, but Tilli$ is a repeat offender.
It would be a lot easier for a conservative voter to hold their nose to vote for Harris than it would be to do so for Tilli$.
Calling Tricky Dick Burr a ”fine Republican Senator” is also quite a stretch. Many Republican activists would disagree with that contention, as the 6th Congressional District GOP convention passed a resolution of rebuke against Burr last year for selling us out on gun control issues, the 1st Congressional District executive committee unanimously adopted a resolution of rebuke against Burr last year for selling us out on budget / Obamacare issues, and the 3rd district GOP executive committee unanimously adopted a letter of rebuke against Burr for selling us out on budget / Obamacare issues.
We do not need another sellout like Tricky Dick Burr, which is why we do not need Thom Tilli$ as a nominee.
Tilli$ has received the support of Lindsay Graham, and would be another Lindsay Graham, or worse, in the Senate.
Electing another neo-con Senator is not the answer. Are we better off with a flaming liberal walking lock step with their leadership or a neo-con Republican deceiving the electorate with talk of standing for principles and then voting the exact opposite. No, I’m done with the “better to elect an R” rhetoric. Thus far that has not served us very well. It’s time to let the Roves and McConnels and Grahams, and McCains and Ellmers that we won’t support them just because they are Rs. They must represent the people and support the Constitutional limitations on government. Both Burr and Tillis could fill a freight car with the baggage they carry.
And we must all remember that the first purposeful objective is to change Washington. With one of the Republican in the primary we will get the same inside the beltline the same as Hagan so the mission is really two fold. First retire Tillis soundly and definitively, then beat Hagan.
You can google my name and see that I an a for real conservative. And Lady Liberty just quoted a lot of stuff in her latest. I am a friend.
Having said that — “amnesty” is a done deal. I don’t like it either, but just do the math on finding, arresting, and transporting 13 million people. Or on processing 13 million applications in any meaningful way. It’s like suggesting that the tide will come in, and the sun will rise.
So any candidate that promises “no amnesty” is either delusional or lying. Sorry, but that is the realty. And quite frankly, that choice — “are they delusional or lying” — is one that we need to avoid. Be honest, even if it hurts, and deal with reality.
I am looking for a candidate that says that we won’t do the inevitable until we stop the leaks. And is an advocate of the H1 visa program, which consigns talented humans to slavery to the profit of huge corporations. And then, once the problem is fixed, the cleanup can begin.
Mass deportation is not the single, only alternative to rewarding their rule breaking with residency.
Make it more difficult to live and work here under the radar – more harshly and more often punish the crooks that hire them, use and better enforce already existing tools and rules that make it more difficult to get jobs and to live and work here illegally, and yes, deport those people that law enforcement does come across, and dont make it a revolving door – breaking these rules should come with clear consequences that are actually carried out.
The rule of law and principle are actual things, and they dont change based on the number of people that approve of them – and you dont reward people who break the law by handing them the thing they broke the law trying to obtain.
Surrender monkeys on amnesty are as bad as outright sellouts.
There are lots of ways to attack the problem. Arizona’s laws, until struck down by our idiot courts, were causing droves of illegals to leave. If we tighten down hard on the illegals, then they will have no choice but to leave. That means a serious crackdown on those who employ them or rent them places to live, If they can’t work or find a place to live, they will have no choice but to go home.
States should also be given full authority to crack down on illegals as they see fit.
We could even do a carrot and stick type of thing, with offering them to pay for their way home if they turn themselves in before the crackdown starts.
We have to remember that there were massive resettlements involving millions of people at the end of World War II. If it could be done then, it could be done today.
The ”we can’t do it” line is a lie and a cop out.
You are correct in the assertion that deporting 13 to 25 million is not an option but your assertion that amnesty is the only option is not correct either. Those are the two options we’ve been given by the media, the left, the corporate statist, and the neo-con politicians. The sweeping reform option that we’re always handed is always the wrong option. How about let’s try enforcing the existing laws and tweaking those to correct the deficiencies. It’s not a problem that grew overnight nor is it one that must be solved overnight. It is always urgency that coerces people to give up their money and liberty. It’s no different with welfare reform of disability reform. You can’t just flip a switch and fix a problem that’s grown over a long time. Amnesty is nothing less than a vote buying scheme with the party that pushes it through thinking they will gain a large portion of those newly legal votes. Any huge sweeping bill will steal more from legal citizens while rewarding leftist, illegals, and the corporate statists. The vote gaining plan is a foolish thesis since the welfare state not the party granting amnesty will continue to buy the votes of the low information voters regardless of who ushers in the Amnesty/welfare process.
Harris is backed by establishment – past NCGOP Chairman and ex-Congressman Robin Hayes recruited him and is running his campaign. Hayes spent his time in DC doing exactly what the party bosses wanted and that’s what Harris will do.
Harris is using the weak establishment attack on Brannon “he didn’t vote for Romney so he helped Obama get elected”. This assumes that you don’t remember that Obama won NC handily and don’t understand how Presidential elections work. Moderate Progressive Republicans gave us McCain, Romney, and Obama and now they want to blame it on Conservatives. Shame on them.
This race will be a runoff between Brannon and Tillis. …. and Harris will endorse Tillis.
Bink, you’re right. Hayes connection to the Ripon Society demonstrates that he dislikes anyone who doesn’t walk lockstep with the neo-con leadership. For anyone who doesn’t know what the Ripon Society work for – it’s the destruction of any independent organizations that don’t take their marching orders from the GOP. Hayes already demonstrated his willingness to betray his constituents when he broke his promise less than 12 hours after making it and voting for the job killing CAFTA agreement. Harris is not so pristine in the refrain from attacking the character of other candidates. His spokesman at the Nash County GOP certainly did but of course, it was in very subtle ways. I’m sure Harris will endorse Tillis as well. The thing that scares me about Harris besides his insider establishment connections is the fact the he stated early on that he entered the race because he cares about people and their families. That make for a dangerous politician who wants to use government to further their personal agenda in helping people since all government help comes by someone first being harmed. I prefer a candidate with a firm belief in individual liberty and limited government. Many give lip service to those philosophies but betray their true philosophy very quickly in their campaign rhetoric. Brannon is the only one I’ve seen who is consistent across the board.
Again, the goal is to DEFEAT HAGAN.
I cannot stand Tillis — he is pro-Common Core and in the pockets of the Chamber of Commerce who is shilling for Common Core.
However, I will hold my nose and vote for whoever is running against Hagan. I know for sure that Hagan will vote WITH OBAMA ON EVERYTHING. The GOP candidate not so much. And, I am willing to risk it because, again, the goal is to DEFEAT HAGAN.
We are in the cesspool we are in today because of the 3 million conservatives who sat on their bottoms at home and did not vote for Romney because he was not “pure” enough.
We cannot repeat that foolish mistake.
DEFEAT HAGAN.
Kim, your thoughts are noble but the main objective is not to beat Hagan but to change Washington. Regretfully, just beating Hagan is not enough. The “just beat Hagan” scenario has played out many times over only to have zero net gain for conservatives. Don’t be misled by the “just beat Hagan” mantra or you’ll find yourself very disappointed when you have to deal with another “Tricky Dick” Richard Burr scenario. How much of Repbublican’s time and resources will it take to get him out of office now?
“My” goal is better government – smaller, limited, less intrusive, more conducive to free markets… “more freedom”.
Tillis, imho, does not advance or truly share those goals. As much as I do dislike Hagan and Obama, none of those people seem to me to be capable of advancing those principles I care about. So, none of those three are ever getting my vote.
Continually choosing the lesser of two evils is kinda how the GOP got an entrenched, out-of-touch establishment ruling class with lots of money in the first place.
If the choice is Hagan with the skirt or Hagan without the skirt (Tilli$) that is no choice at all. That is when you need a ”none of the above” line on the ballot. There is no real Republican with such a ”choice”, only a Democrat and an undocumented Democrat. A Richard Morgan ”Republican” is no Republican at all.
I held my nose and voted for Romney, as did most of the conservative activists I know. I think most of those who stayed home were people who usually turn up to vote but never actually get involved themselves in political campaigns otherwise. I blame Romney’s campaign, and indeed the fact that the establishment stuck us with such a dud as Romney for those 3 million staying home. A genuine political activist would never have just stayed home, because even if they were to skip over a particular race, they would show up to vote in other races on the ballot. That is why it is clear that the three million were not political activists turned off by Romney but just average Republican voters who Romney himself turned off.
As to Romney, there were at least some key issues that conservatives could trust him on to some degree. I do not know of a single issue that TIlli$ could be trusted on. He is Richard Morgan all over again. And there are too many issues that Tilli$ is clearly evil on.
Harris is someone who many conservative voters could probably hold their nose for, but not Tilli$. Indeed, I have had quite a few GOP activists who are not firebreathing conservatives express that opinion of Tilli$.
Tilli$ has been on a crusade to eliminate conservative members of the NC House. He and his allies ginned up progressive opponents to Larry Pittman and Robert Brawley in this years primaries and made calls to try to generate challenges to other conservatives. It is very appropriate for conservatives to want to get him back by eliminating him in the Senate race. I just hope that can be done in the primary, because Hagan does need to go, too. If the TIlli$ crowd really believed in party unity, they would have restrained their boy from trying to set up primary challenges to other conservatives. But Tilli$ himself started off as the progressive primary challenger to a good conservative incumbent.
Harris wants amnesty for criminal invaders. I’m not buying. Will still support Brannon. Romney was and still is mush.
The election of Mark Harris might be an example of “bridging” but, it would be another bridge to nowhere, We have a “winner” in Brannon if we don’t become so minute-minded that we blow it. (Mr Harris, nice enough, has a long way to go in his actions and education concerning the proper role of government)” His catchy phrase about “limited government” was nice but he offers no specifics. Any vote for him will only seal the victory for Thom.
I’m concerned first that Harris thinks along the same “party loyalty” lines as Rove and Pope and Tillis. I object to it for the same reasons I object when they mention it. No party “deserves” or should expect a member’s support when the candidates dont align with their own principles.
I actually liked Romney, and voted for him…and I can understand someone disliking Obama enough to choose to actively vote against him, but I’ve no problem with someone voting their conscience and offering their vote and support only to candidates they actually do support for that office. Harris’s criticism seems unfounded and troubling to me – smells like a political shot without much foundation.
And on immigration, he supports a “pathway”. He tries to cover that up by saying he opposes “citizenship” and “amnesty”, all while knowing full well that many people consider any pathway as “amnesty”, and that the costs the government would charge illegals would be minuscule and probably easily waived. His talking points mirror Ellmers”s, and if elected he would only be adding to that problem. I’m not interested in getting people “out of the shadows” who actively decided to insert themselves there, and who are entirely capable of removing themselves from those shadows if they wanted.
His main strengths seem to be on the “social conservative” side of the party, which is a side I do not usually find myself in agreement with.
So, all in all, nothing here changes my own opinion and makes him an interesting or viable candidate. He would have a lot of work to do to garner my support, and it would probably be futile, since he seems very entrenched on rewarding illegal immigrants.
Any time an illegal alien who has sneaked into our country is given any preference of any sort over those who apply lawfully in their home country but stay there where then are turned down, that is amnesty. No pushy lawbreaking Mexican line jumper should get preference over those who apply legally and obey our immigration laws. If we do not maintain the rule of law, then the foundation of our country is at serious risk.
Conservatives also need to bombard Numbers USA to change their candidate scorecard to correct the position they have on Tilli$. I noticed last night that they show Tilli$ as being against amnesty when he has clearly stated to the Farm Bureau that he is for it.
I agree 🙂
Pogo was right. Our biggest problem isn’t Hagan.
It appears many people here are afflicted with the narrow thinking of “any Republican at any cost”, the very idea that has brought us to the tipping point of our Nation.
It would serve you people to consider the words of Carroll Quigley in his book “Tragedy and Hope”: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
The GOP has a fair share of statists and they are no less evil than those in the Democrat party. Is it any better to be a slave of a Republican than a Democrat?
I don’t know if I am a doctrinaire or academic thinker, but I see the words of Quigley playing out every day.
Hopefully the citizens will vote Republican rather than Democratic in the general election.
Two Republican Senators from North Carolina would be ideal.
I trust the voters of North Carolina.
Two conservative Senators from North Carolina would be ideal. We have a good shot this year with one – Brannon (although from what I have read Alexander or Snider would do, too), and in 2016 we will need to replace RINO Tricky Dick Burr with a conservative, perhaps Mark Meadows or Larry Pittman.
Electing phonies who wear a party label but do not represent the party’s principles just does not get the job done. Tilli$ would be as awful as his supporter Lindsay Graham.
Yes, the voters will get their chance to vote for Brannon and the others. We must trust in the wisdom of the voters.
And many of our limited government voters are going to reject Big Government politicians whether they have an R or a D by their names, so to get those limited government voters it is essential to nominate a limited government candidate, and that excludes progressive Thom Tilli$.
Party unity is something a candidate achieves by his own actions, such as his stand on issues, and his not trying to undermine other GOP candidates. Tilli$ is failing in both of those areas and he only has himself to blame when many Republicans skip over his race if we have the misfortune to have him as nominee. Personally, I think he will be defeated in the runoff, as his fellow GOP progressive David Dewhurst was in the Texas GOP runoff two years ago, so hopefully we will never have to worry about that eventuality.
Agreed, but we also need to scrutinize US House candidates thoroughly as well. In one Congressional district, we had two candidates with ministerial backgrounds much like Mark Harris whom I suspect are soft on illegals as well. One of them has since left the race but the other one didn’t even mention immigration on their web site the last time I brought up this topic and has since hastily put this up:
” The topic of illegal immigration has become complex. Immigration laws have been on the books for decades. The failure to enforce these laws has created a real problem in our country. Our representatives have failed to offer real solutions and much like the fiscal woes of today, Congress shows irresponsibility by handing off the illegal immigration issue to the next generation.
There’s no question that immigration helped build this country through the industrial revolution. Legal immigrants have brought beautiful culture and continue to contribute deeply to many areas including arts and sciences. However, many countries and terrorist groups exist today who seek entry into the United States with the sole purpose of destroying our great republic. It is imperative that we secure our borders and ports of entry by adding the necessary manpower and technology to accomplish this urgent task. Whatever political debates arise, we must all agree that keeping our country secure from potential threat should be our number one priority.”
Sounds like a lot of talk without revealing what the candidate will do or vote when an amnesty vote comes up.
Bingo. It sounds like a cop our to cover support of amnesty.
Just a couple of thoughts…
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I’m done with that.
The interview is great and very telling. Mark Harris, maybe a nice guy, but is extremely weak on issues, except of course same sex marriage, which is of course couldn’t be further from what every American is most concerned about, no to mention the Dems will have a field day.
I find it especially funny that he considers his campaign as a bridge. Does he have the endorsement of even one tea party group? He has as his coalitions director a person who has insulted, demeaned and/or blocked many of NC’s top conservatives. What? This is the US Senate were talking about. This is about trying to restore a once great Nation. This is not high school. Issues are the most important thing in this race. If a candidate can’t articulate strong issues based policy positions, they need to go back to school.
As for Richard a Burr- yes, just what we need, another US Senator who openly ridicules his constituents and refuses to meet with them or answer to them. Where is he this week? Holding any Townhalls? Anyone? His Heritage Action conservative score is in the 65% range. We will be working hard to send him packing in #2016, but for now, no more Richard Burrs.