The American Spectator

Craig Goodrich| 3.12.10 @ 2:56PM

She's quite correct that the LV Sun is a shrill Progressive-left fish wrapper. I wouldn't believe anything appearing there, and I doubt that many Republican primary voters would, either.

Francis Beckwith| 3.12.10 @ 3:31PM

In 1992 I ran for the state senate in Nevada, in District 8. I lost in the primary in a very close election against long-time Assemblyman, John Dubois. In any event, I, like candidate Sue Lowden (in District 2), filled out many forms requested of us by many groups, including the Nevada Christian Coalition. As I write, I have in front of me, taken from an old file in my cabinet, the 1992 answers by all the candidates. It was published by the NCC under the title "Nevada Roll Call." Here is Sue Lowden's answer to the query of whether she supports the prohibition of abortion except when the mother's life is in danger: "Oppose." When asked if she believes in the "right to die," she answered: "No Response." On school prayer she answered "Undecided."

People, of course, can change their minds on these matters. But it was pretty clear to me at the time that Sue was prochoice. In fact, a Nevada Resort Association dinner we got into an argument about abortion in which Sue suggested to me that "we can't turn back the clock," to which I snarkily responded, "So, you determine the nature of persons by looking at the calendar?"

So, it wouldn't be shocking at all to discover that she was in favor of removing the plank from the national platform. There's no shame in admitting this and saying you've changed your mind.

If Mr. Ante wants me to fax to him the 1992 "Roll Call" I would be more than happy to do so.

For the record, I like Sue Lowden and think she would make a terrific U. S. Senator from Nevada (though in the primary I am supporting my former high school basketball teammate, Danny Tarkanian).

Bob Hastings| 3.12.10 @ 7:02PM

Francis - Is there any way one could get a copy of those forms??????

Francis Beckwith| 3.12.10 @ 7:43PM

Bob:

Just click my name and you can get it.

Because some may question the authenticity of my claim, I decided to scan the whole thing and post it on my website.

Frank

Robert Holloway| 3.12.10 @ 4:32PM

Chuck Muth has a role in the Lowden campaign, so I don't think his opinion is objective. One thing that Sue Lowden does support is stealing elections. For more information on that see www.fairnevadaelections.com

GOPiper| 3.15.10 @ 5:14PM

Can't comment on Muth's involvement.

I was at the 2008 GOP Nevada State Convention. Robert's account at www.fairnevadaelections.com is heavy on hyperbole but it's essentially accurate.

Why do we care? It was 2 years ago and the outcome of the election would not have changed? I agree with Robert: it's an issue of integrity and leadership. If your vote had been one of the ballots Lowden threw away so she could put in her own list of delegates, you might see this as the central issue as well.

Howard Hirsch| 3.12.10 @ 5:01PM

Bob--

Let it go already. The convention was two years ago and had things gone your way the outcome of the election would not have been altered.

Howard Hirsch
past chairman, Lyon County Republican Central
Committee
Dayton, Nevada

Char Coburn| 3.12.10 @ 5:39PM

Having spoken with Sue Lowden about her pro-life position, I can say that her beliefs are very strong and she is against abortion. For my part, Francis, when I read that question about supporting abortion I couldn't understand your citing that Sue was pro-abortion until I re-read the question. Initially, I thought she said she opposed abortion, as I know she does. This is one of those double-negative questions that change the meaning. I'd ask that in all fairness, you ask her today to answer that question and phrase it clearly and without ambiguity. I don't know what Sue's position on the right to die has to do with anything. We will all die, so it is a moot point. And as far as school prayer is concerned I would also concur with her undecided. I think each instance when the question arises has to be considered on its own merits.

Robert - sour grapes from you is unbecoming. Chuck Muth has chosen who he thinks can best win the November elections. He has every right to voice his support. A personal attack is unnecessary. I've never seen him at campaign headquarters nor has anyone mentioned him to me as being part of the campaign.

Danny Tarkanian's campaign has been negative, and against Sue Lowden from the get-go. Sue has the best chance to beat Harry Reid as witness Harry's attacks against her that rival Danny's. Sue, on the other hand has focused on Harry and has finally been forced to at least refute some of the claims. Get it together so we can be assured of beating Harry this fall. That is the most important thing!

One last point - Danny is an attorney who knows how to sue - as witness the family history of winning lawsuits. However, that won't make him a good senator. In fact, do we really need another lawyer in the senate? Do you think we would ever get tort reform?

I'm just sayin...

Bob Hastings| 3.12.10 @ 6:13PM

Here are the dates and places the articles can be found. Interesting when she was running for Satae Senate in a Democratic heavy area her positions were a lot more liberal. Suddenly she runs for a State Wide position and she never said those thing and she is very conservative. Queen of the flip flop!!!

LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL/Jan. 23, 2010
But as a state senator 17 years ago, Lowden voted to impose taxes and fees on things from slot machines to water distribution. She also voted for changes to an employment tax that increased revenue an estimated $7.9 million, a vote her campaign now says wasn't a tax increase but a "matter of fairness."

And it was in a Jan. 14, 2009, letter to Republican legislators that Lowden, then chairwoman of the state Republican Party, characterized mandatory fees as "a tax by another name." Yet several times in 1993, during her first session in the Legislature, Lowden voted to impose higher taxes or fees on everything from limited liability corporations to water distribution to slot machines.

Lawrence, who reviewed descriptions of the bills in question from the Nevada Legislative Appropriations Report, said at least four of the bills Lowden voted for could be clearly classified as either a tax increase or imposition of a fee that's akin to a tax.

LAS VEGAS SUN/May 18, 1996 (NOTE: I guess that were after her in 1996 as well)
Joining Ernaut in opposing an abortion ban: Las Vegas Assemblywoman Deanna Braunlin, state Sens. Kathy Augustine and Sue Lowden of Las Vegas,

Lowden and Hettrick said the national party ought to follow Nevada's lead and take abortion out of the platform.

RECORD COURIER/Jan. 15, 2010
Sue Lowden: “I voted for choice in 1990.”

Bob Hastings| 3.12.10 @ 6:24PM

Char - You are sounding like a democrat. Don't be negative. Pointing out the shortcomings and flip flopping of a candidate IS NOT negative politicing. It is stating the facts. Facts are not negative. Danny does not make personal attacks. Personal attacks would be negative. We all need to get our big boy and big girl panties on and choose the best candidate. And regardless of who wins the primary we need to band together to get rid of Reid.

Char Coburn| 3.12.10 @ 11:17PM

Wow, Robert! Let me try to understand this. By making a vicious personal attack against me, by calling me a democrat, and to put on my big girl panties (what is that???) you expect to sway my opinion? That is a typical liberal approach. If you can't refute the logic, then attack. I'm not here to argue with you. I believe Danny is a RINO and you should probably take a look at his overall campaign so far. His tactics match yours.

Moving right along...Francis made one good point - people can change their minds. There is nothing wrong with that. As one ages and learns or researches and situations evolve, we can all change our positions. I actually supported Harry Reid some thirty years ago. He is no longer the man he was then and I will do eveything I can to see that he is defeated this fall.

Having said that, I can understand how Sue voted for a tax or a fee twenty years ago. Not all taxes are bad. As far as taking the abortion issue out of the Republican platform - I would support that implicitly. I would never have an abortion. I think life begins at conception. However, I totally resent having a senator or congressman telling me I can't. Government shouldn't be involved in this issue. In Samoa it is a family issue and the woman's decision.

Danny hasn't been in a position of making a decision in government. It is a bit arrogant to question the decisions made about which he knows nothing. Harry has the same problem .

I believe I said it first - we need to stay on track and choose the person who can best beat Harry. The polls show Sue is ahead of Danny by 18 points.

Bob Hastings| 3.16.10 @ 2:10PM

Char - I truly apologize. My attempt at humor didn't work. It was meant as a general statement that appeared to be targeted specifically at you.

My point was everyone is running around talking about negative politicing. It all sounds so PC. My true point is just because a candidate points out differences between themselves and the other candidates - everyone takes it personal. It is not. Differences are differences. In this case I think you are interpreting things the way you want to. Why could Sue, in the very same article, say she would have voted a "difinitive no" on the stimulus package but could not do the same on the bailout. Chuck Muth, one of Sue's biggest supporters, evened blogged that the bailout "stunk of yesterdays diapers" from day one. As he put it the Americn people were not fooled but Congress was. I laugh when people call Danny a RINO. Thats another catch phrase to put fear into people who only pay attention to soundbites. If you are going to reference a RINO you should look at Sue's record over the last 15 years. She has flipped her views on abortion, Harry Reid, taxes and Yucca Mountain. In addition she has shown questionable busniess practices and been reported to the SEC by way of complaint.

Bob Hastings| 3.17.10 @ 11:08AM

I have spent the last three days attempting to have a dialogue with Mr. Muth on his TarkTales site. I have posted a multitued of article references and candidate quotes. At every turn he takes my information and references down. Even after I complied with every demand he made. Though he does leave up his requests for information making me appear to have not responded. His final post stated: "Start your own blog to tout your own candidate, Bob. You don’t get to use my platform to campaign for your candidate. It’s like walking into someone else’s house and throwing your coat on the floor and putting your feet up on the furniture. You have the right to free speech; however, you do not have the right to use my soapbox to exercise your right.". Isn't that a blog that people can comment on? For a man who is supposedly all about the truth (i.e. Muth's Truths) he seems to want to hide behind his blog and not allow those reading to see the opposing side. Another interesting point is that in his bio of the "Tark Slayer" and then later in our initial battle he has repeatedly stated that Sue Lowden, in his opinion, has the best chance to beat Reid. He has never once written that she is the BEST CANDIDATE. Is that what Nevada really needs?

Ewell| 3.26.10 @ 4:46PM

IF she was guilty of all those accusations, she would be almost as good a socialist liberal Democrat as Harry Reid, wouldn't she? So what's the Dem complaint?