This is the first of a series of posts that will illustrate why I plan on voting for a particular candidate and why I don't plan on voting for others.
Senate
Bill Nelson (D)* - I disagree with his positions on economic growth, education, some of his environmental issues, and health care. I do like his commitment to national security. No dead hookers in his closet that we know of. Kinda looks like Bob Eubanks. Have been impressed that the majority of his ads haven't been negative.
Katherine Harris (R) Scary religious views. Too much political baggage. Mostly negative ads. Strikes me as a statist who, while I agree with many of her stands, I don't agree it's her place to make those choices for me. Reminds me of someone on Diffrn't Strokes.
Floyd Frazier (I) - Quotes Malcom X on his web site. Main page has too many instances of the word 'pimp'.
Brian Moore (I) - Anti-war, pro-Cuba, green party supported kook. Website reads like a Daily Kos diary.
Belinda Noah (write in) - Supports FairTax. Definitely a positive. Endorsed by FairTax and Libertarian party - not bad. Supported by Green party - uhhh...
Bernard Senter (write in) - No website, no vote. Sorry, it's my policy.
Lawrence Sidney Scott (write in) - Agree with stance on illegal immigration and terrorism. Not so clear on his insurance policies nor am I inclined to give Cuba a pass. I understand the desire to stop the embargo, but it's not that cut and dry.
Roy Tanner (I) - Wow. Now this guy might be worth looking at. A hawk. Libertarian. Doesn't want to cut and run. Believes in the sanctity of life. Doesn't like the R's or the D's. Thinks like an independent. I unfortunately haven't noticed him until today. I will devote some time tonight pouring over his site.
I was originally going to vote Nelson. His main charm is that he's not Harris. But this Roy Tanner sounds more like my guy. I want to read his site more thoroighly but if he's anywhere near what it appears, I found my candidate.
*incumbent