Posted on 10/01/2005 6:30:23 PM PDT by SC33
He is? Has he led a campaign to secure the border, like Gilchrist? When he gets to Washington, will he pledge to oppose the President on Amnesty? Guest Workers (=amnesty)?
Nonsense. He's another "team player", going along with the Texas sellout crowd.
So a few dims get in, make life miserable for the sleaze crowd. Big Deal. Either the Republican party gets the message or they end up like the Democrats: alienated from their base, out of touch with Americans, headed for oblivion. New parties, and new faces, will take their place.
No, I want a conservative elected and Gilchrist is the only one there is. Campbell is an open borders guy.
This lame Republibot scare tactic is not going to work.
Are you sure you have your mommy's permission to play with the computer?
Gilchrist for Congress. Let's get a Constitutionalist in the House.
How would he do that? He's not a Republican. He's on the AIP.
"Campbell won the endorsement of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and has also taken a strong stance against illegal immigration -- coming out against Bush's controversial "guest worker" program. "
I guess you will be happier with an open border Democrat, because that's what you are going to get by voting for Gilchrest.
Okay, Campbell. Now we know you don't like the Bush plan. Tell us YOUR plan, and how it differs from Gilchrist's.
Tuesday's election will only decide who wins each party for the December 6 general election, unless one candidate receives over 50% of the entire vote.
Gilchrist won't beat a Republican head-to-head on December 6 in the very conservative 48th District. Gilchrist's party platform has a liberal anti- Iraq War stance and this won't fly in this District which is predominantly Republican.
~Scott~
Agree.
Enough of the Republican slap in the chops!
Gilchrist is NO conservative. He is running on the American Independent Party ticket.
http://www.aipca.org/
Here is some stuff from their website:
"California and the nation need the leadership of the American Independent Party, California affiliate of the Constitution Party. We pledge to:
Stop the undeclared wars which are daily costing American lives and billions of tax dollars;"
And here is their platform:
http://www.aipca.org/platform.html
SECRECY IN GOVERNMENT
We are concerned that, in response to the so-called “war on terrorism,” Americans are giving up their civil liberties and rights of privacy, to a government being made all powerful; and that governmental powers, enlarged in the name of fighting terrorism, will be turned against
citizens with no connection to terrorism. The American Independent Party will be on guard to protect the people from such abuse by government of its powers.
The American Independent Party advocates more effective control by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the prices charged for energy by the interstate marketers, and by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of the prices charged by intrastate marketers and the rates charged consumers by the great utility monopolies. All sums charged to Californians which were not fair and reasonable must be repaid by the offending companies. The adhesion contracts entered into by the State with the energy pirates must be re-written to protect the consumers and taxpayers
Yeah, right. And he was just "fooled into believing...".
Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: Mar 11, 2000. pg. B.05
He calls himself a "new California Republican," bucking the "moderate" and "conservative" titles assigned to party members."I'm not even sure I know what (moderate and conservative) mean sometimes," he said. "The minute you use those labels, people get an image."
Campbell favors school vouchers, but only in poor areas. He opposes abortion rights, but is not willing to create a law to ban them. And he says illegal immigrants should be given the same benefits as everyone else, since the federal government has not controlled the border to prevent the immigrants from coming in.
On local issues, Campbell...wants to make sure all schools receive the same amount of money and wants to ensure that the coastline stays clean.
Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: Aug 11, 2005
"[Campbell voted] in 2001 in favor of allowing undocumented residents who have been in California for a number of years to pay the state-resident fee at state universities.""[He explained] Republicans who voted for the bill were fooled into believing it would only apply to people who were on the verge of being sworn in as citizens. Later, he said, they learned it would be applied to anyone who simply said he wanted to be an American."
I emailed the Reuters editor last night to correct them. As of tonight, they still hadn't corrected it. The sloppiest part is them indicating there could be a runoff that includes both Campbell and Brewer. Very sloppy, indeed.
Intereesting stuff about Campbell! Thanks.
Well, I won't be voting in that election, but I will follow it and see who wins. There are several Democrats and Republicans running.
I still don't like Gilchirst, a candidate of the American Independent Party, minutemen or not.
Why aren't you railing against Brewer(R) splitting the Republican vote?
She and Campbell(R) are both on the ticket.
Reinforces my impression of the guy: trying to straddle the issues, and not take any real stand.
Standard issue brand name politics, not what we need now.
I don't know anything about the candidates.
Gilchrest isn't even a Republican, it's a third party, single issue candidate.
You're welcome.
After seeing for many years that the letter next to ones name does not indicate what principles they hold true, I think one needs to look further than (R) and (D). After reading about Gilchrist, his beliefs and his platform, I find he is more of a Republican than the other two, in my book, no matter what letter he has by his name. I honestly don't know why Brewer doesn't just own up and put a (D) next to her name.
I'm also not in this district--just watching.
http://www.jimgilchrist.com/issues.php
On average, the government consumes 50.4% of the income of every taxpayer. This means that in more than half of your work days, you are working solely to fund the government.
Much of your tax money, of course, is wasted. This year, Congress bloated the budget with 14,000 new "pork" projects, compared to 1,400 a decade ago. To cover these unnecessary expenses, Congress has nearly tripled pork-barrel spending, from $10 billion in 1995 to an unprecedented $27.3 billion in 2005.
Politicians treat your hard-earned money like an endless cash flow from a communal spigot. They can hardly resist the temptation to sprinkle the money around. Even when they approve budget caps, somehow more dollars manage to drip out of that leaky faucet for more pet projects.
And the real, Constitutional duties of the federal government, limited and essential as they are -- like securing our national borders against foreign invasion, and protecting America's national sovereignty against foreign subversion -- get pushed aside in the floodtide of pork-barrel expenditures.
Government spending needs a shut-off valve!
I believe our elected officials have forgotten what it means to be accountable to the people, and to adhere to the standards of responsible self-government. The federal government has grown to towering levels, well beyond the control of everyday citizens. The more it grows, the less responsible it becomes. Government serves best when it is closer to the people.
Republican Party leadership, those of my old political party, are acting little different than the "tax-and-spend" liberals of the Democrat Party. Bill Clinton once said that "the era of big government is over." Unfortunately, in the nine years since this declaration, the opposite has been true. Federal spending on the whole is rapidly increasing, and now has reached its fastest growth rate in 30 years. The 2004 fiscal year gave us the largest budget deficit in U.S. history: $520 billion. This year, Congress spent $22,039 per household, but will recover only $18,248 per household in taxes. The remaining $3,791 will be saddled on the backs of our children to pay in debt, plus interest. By the end of 2005, our national debt will likely reach $8 trillion. That's a debt increase of $1 trillion in just two years.
Much of the federal spending increases are for corporate welfare, farm subsidies, medical research, education, unemployment benefits, and numerous low-priority programs. Combined, these add more to the budget than national defense.
We need to cut government largesse, eliminate waste, rethink programs, improve bureaucratic efficiency, and carve the federal government down to a manageable -- and constitutionally authorized -- size. Only then will it truly be responsive to citizens.
It's your government spending your tax money. Isn't it about time Congress remembered that?
As a moral conservative, I stand firmly on the words of the Declaration of Independence in defending the right to life. I do so proudly, without equivocation or exception.
According to the Declaration, there can be no right to abortion, since abortion means denying the most fundamental of rights to human offspring in the womb. The Declaration states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with our basic human rights, including the right to life.
If human beings -- whether legislative bodies, courts, mothers, or anyone else -- can choose who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights upon which rests all the rule of law is utterly corrupted. We then become a nation governed by the arbitrary rule of those with privilege and power.
There can be no question that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life -- and thus a breach of the fundamental principles of human equality and justice enshrined in our public moral creed and our Republic's most respected institutions.
Some people talk about "viability" as a test to determine which human offspring have rights that we must respect, and which do not. But might does not make right. So the mere fact that the person in the womb is wholly in its mother's physical power, and thus completely dependent upon her for sustenance, gives her no right whatsoever to extinguish that human life, since the mere possession of physical power can never confer such a right to kill.
Medical procedures deliberately resulting in the death of the unborn child are therefore impermissible. Medical intervention to save the mother's physical life that has the unintended consequence of failing to also save her unborn child is not abortion, per se, but rather a human tragedy.
Not only does the Founding philosophy of our great nation preclude us as a society from destroying innocent human life, but it also precludes us from engaging in embryonic stem cell experimentation, and other medical technology practices that violate the dignity and humanity of life at its earliest, most vulnerable stages.
As for the so-called "right to suicide," and related practices such as euthanasia: whatever emotional arguments may be made to defend such practices, they represent a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and for that reason alone I reject them.
Our rights, including the right to life, are unalienable. If we intentionally kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our right to life. We act unjustly. We usurp the power that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.
Yep, sounds like a single-issue candidate to me. These "moderate" RINOs will say anything to get elected.
The same specious argument as that phony "candidate" whom we ran out of here.
The fact is that Jim Gilchrist is the only significant conservative running.
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.