Posted on 11/20/2009 4:14:37 PM PST by Bokababe
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Campbell announced today he's passed the $1 million mark in fundraising, nearly doubling what he had raised by the end of June.
The former congressman has largely been seen as an experienced but poorly funded challenger to his two GOP opponents, wealthy former Silicon Valley CEOs Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, who are spending much of their own wealth on their candidacies. Whitman has already given $19 million to her own campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Great video find. But Meg has creeped me out from day 1. For me, she was never an option. It was really a choice between Campbell and Poizner, and after listening to both of them and looking at their records -- it's Campbell, with zero doubt.
Campbell is the only one whose offered specifics, not crowd-pleasing platitudes.
He has also in he past made statements about more gun control. He is considered to be a liberal Republican.
The voters of California needs to do more research on this guy before casting a vote. In all reality we (CA voters) need to start with the local reps and vote out the RINO’s and Dems. Build a good base to begin the political takeover of CA.
The problem is that all three of them are liberal and terrible candidates but one of them is less terrible, I have already eliminated Meg Whitman from consideration, so for me it is time to check out Campbell and Poizner.
Same here.
Then don’t click on that link to his web site or you will puke, he is so far left that I may have to throw Whitman back into the mix.
I voted that way because I don't see it to be the role of government to define what is or isn't "a marriage". Once government is empowered to define marriage as "only between a man and a woman", then government can also change its mind and force us to accept that it can be "between anyone of any gender and anyone else of any gender" if it gets enough votes -- and that violates everyone's rights. I don't think that the definition of marriage should be turned into a high-school style voting popularity contest and then signed into law.
I see marriage a Sacrament and I wouldn't trust throwing a Sacrament to the political winds anymore than one should cast pearls before swine.
I will, however, research Campbell's views on gun rights.
Campbell is a fiscal Conservative, not a Social Conservative. He also wants to build a border fence.
This is California -- a social Conservative doesn't stand a chance in hell here of ever getting elected Governor. The best that you are ever going to get here is a libertarian-leaning Republican like Campbell. Otherwise we'll be stuck with RINO like Meg or a raving Liberal like Jerry Brown, both of whom will take this State even further down the tubes into a sea of red ink.
Of course, it is. There are three different arbitrers of what is, and is not, a marriage.
One is religious. Churches have a perfect right to define marriage, as it is a rite of the church.
Another is the civil (or societal) definition -- for those married in a civil ceremony.
But, finally, it falls to government to write the legal definition of marriage -- which has application to taxes, inheritance and ownership, divorce, the status of children, etc.
If there were no legal definition of marriage, we'd be in a helluva mess.
How do you feel about social conservatives as president?
The legality is actually nothing more than a neutral legal partnership. It is not the marriage itself, it is just the legal recognition of the partnership that we call marriage. When you put all three functions of that marriage -- civil, social and religious -- into one legalized container called "marriage" to try and legally protect it, you actually make all three functions more vulnerable to societal whims based on popular vote.
Gay groups have already looked at the numbers. Based on older socially conservative voters dying off and younger voters having no problem with gay marriage, they will have the votes to to overturn Prop 8 in less than five years.
Going all the way back to the Briggs Amendment in the 1970's until today, every single overt attempt to crack down on the rights of homosexuals in California has produced a backlash that has longterm given them far more than they even started with. In the Briggs Amendment case, Bible-toting Anita Bryant was the best thing that ever happened to the gay community because she forced them to politically organize to fight back in a way that they never had before, just to keep their jobs and their lives. And Prop 8 did pretty much the same thing, alienating and mobilizing them even further.
I already expected more gay militancy after Prop 8 passed, so I wasn't surprised when they got Harvey Milk Day passed in the California legislature.
My personal opinion is that we need to neutralize the argument and come up with some neutral legal solution. Because if we don't, we are all going to suffer for it -- most especially those who will be forced to accept gay marriage as equal to straight marriage in every respect -- not just legally.
It depends on who you are talking about. If you asked me to build the perfect president, he'd look a lot like Representative Tom McClintock.
My view is that most of the people who have sold themselves as social conservatives use it as a marketing device to get votes rather than live it, breathe it, vote & act on it as a real personal conviction.
I’ll try it again, do you prefer a social conservative president?
Here is his statement on the 2nd Amendment
http://www.campbell.org/2nd-amendment
If you read the comments and his replies, you’ll see he supports just about every gun control law in California, including the new ammo registration/ban law (AB962). No way I can vote for this guy.
I prefer a president who walks the walks rather than talks the talk. I say to any candidate:
Don't tell me you are "for family values" -- just show a history of keeping your pants zipped and don't cheat on your wife.
Don't tell me that you "want to keep America strong and well-defended", tell me how you are going to do that -- protect the borders, slow immigration -- and actually do it.
Don't tell me that you are "pro-life" and then ignore the issue for the next four years -- or worse, allow me to believe that your words can change things when it isn't even an issue that you have any control over and you know it.
Don't wrap yourself in the American flag & the US Constitution to get elected and then support every UN, NATO and other globalist agenda that sounds good to you & your campaign coffers.
Don't tell me that "Jesus is your best friend", and then start bombing the crap out of another country who did us no harm, and call it "keeping America strong" or "American leadership in action". I am not that stupid -- and if you are, then you shouldn't be president.
So, no, I don't prefer a president who channels Jimmy Swaggart or Anita Bryant to get elected. I prefer a president who has real integrity, and doesn't pay lip service to "socially conservative values" just to get elected -- and then acts like a cross between Attila the Hun, Hugh Hefner and Nikolo Machiavelli and screws me over once he/she gets my vote.
I’ll take that as an evasive no.
Take it any way you want, you usually do, ansel.
California's biggest problems right now are economic, infrastructure and immigration related, and these problems have happened mostly due to the behavior of an out-of-control State legislature plus the interference of the Federal government. THESE are the priority issues any governor worth their salt needs to take on -- the rest is window dressing for the stupid.
So when you talk about Social Conservatism re a CA gubernatorial campaign, it's like worrying about your daughter's skirt length when your house is burning down. It's irrelevant.
So far, Campbell is the only one of the candidates who has taken each one of the priority issues and addressed them head-on: "force the legislature to put a price tag on every piece of legislation and tell me where the money is coming from or I'll automatically veto it", "Lower business taxes to attract companies back to California", "Build a border fence & put the National guard at the border if we have to and punish employers who hire illegals", "Defy the Feds and turn the water back on in the Central Valley -- people are more important than some fish".
You heard anything like that from Meg Whitman? No, she didn't even show for the debates. Smart move because it means that people can write whatever agenda they want on her so she doesn't have to be specific. Meg just has private little rallies with the rich & influential, sure that she can buy enough quality advertising to sway the little people with pretty soundbites.
I like candidates who tell me where they stand and what they are going to do, even when I sometimes disagree with part of their stand on issues. I'll choose that candidate any day over some mealy-mouthed BS artist.
I was merely inquiring about you, there won’t be any conservative candidates in this race but after seeing how angry you always are and how much you despise Governor Palin I just wanted to verify that you don’t like conservatives, you only like conservative monetary policies.
Huh? I don't "despise Governor Palin".
I have just never understood why many conservatives act like starry-eyed groupies every time she opens her mouth --it's like watching the Republican version of the Liberal "Hope & Change" Obamabots.
Sarah Palin is a politician, just like every other politician and should be subject to the same scrutiny, but too often isn't.
And as soon as anyone questions what Sarah Palin does based on facts -- like making substantial donations to the re-election campaigns of RINOs like McCain, Graham and Hatch -- it's, "Oh, you must be saying that because you despise her". That's nonsense.
I'm not "in love" with any politician. I look at hiring them the same way I look at hiring anyone for a job to do. And I don't like it when they try to promote a false image of themselves as being something they aren't.
Sure I have a substantial amount of anger at politicians these days. Who doesn't?
But I also think that you are mistaking some of what you percieve as "anger" for "annoyance". And the annoyance is with you Ansel, because your attempts at cornering, twisting and manipulating my words are so obvious that it is impossible to have an intelligent debate of issues with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.