Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Border activist a wild card in Calif. election
Yahoo News/Reuters ^ | October 1, 2005 | Dan Whitcomb

Posted on 10/01/2005 6:30:23 PM PDT by SC33

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - When voters in one of California's most conservative congressional districts go to the polls on Tuesday, they will find a wild card on the ballot: The founder of the Minuteman movement, who has become a lightning rod in the furor over America's borders.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 48th; aliens; gilchrist; immigrantlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 last
To: FairOpinion

http://www.jimgilchrist.com/article.php?id=52

In a rousing address to hundreds of supporters of Minuteman Founder Jim Gilchrist packing the Irvine Marriott Hotel yesterday, former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes strongly endorsed Gilchrist's candidacy for Congress to fill the vacant seat in Orange County's 48th District.

Keyes, whose speech was met with thunderous applause and several standing ovations, chastised the political establishment "experts" who failed to protect American national security on 9/11, during the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster, and for years along the Mexican-American border.

Keyes urged the voters of the 48th District to elect Jim Gilchrist to Congress and send Washington a message that it's the government's role to serve the people and not the other way around. He applauded the initiative taken by Gilchrist and other American citizens to form the Minuteman Project and assist the border patrol to do its job to keep the borders secure.

"Our government should have wholeheartedly embraced the offer of the Minuteman Project to help our border patrol," declared Keyes.

Keyes added that it is the dedicated citizens of this country, as exemplified by Jim Gilchrist, who should be trusted to address the tough issues of our time and protect the interests of Americans, rather than the political elite and establishment experts who have failed our nation time and time again.

Ambassador Keyes was the featured speaker at the Gilchrist rally in Irvine yesterday afternoon that celebrated the one year anniversary of the Minuteman Project. Later that evening, he was the guest of honor at a reception on behalf of the Gilchrist Campaign at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Ted Phillips, on a private island in Newport Beach.


51 posted on 10/01/2005 9:10:45 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

http://www.jimgilchrist.com/article.php?id=41

48th District congressional candidate Jim Gilchrist has received a major boost for his campaign in the special election to be held on October 4, 2005. He has been endorsed by prominent Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo, of Colorado, who is the chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the acknowledged leader in the United States Congress on the issues of immigration reform and border security, stated, "I need Jim Gilchrist with me in Congress. Together, Jim and I can fight to stop illegal immigration. The voters of the 48th Congressional District will be well represented by Jim Gilchrist—he's the real deal, he's a real leader." To underscore Tancredo's commitment to the Gilchrist campaign, he and Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, have spent substantial time together in recent days mapping strategy designed to help halt illegal immigration and enhance border security.

In acknowledging the Tancredo endorsement, Gilchrist stated, "I am heartened and most appreciative to receive the endorsement of Congressman Tancredo. He is an outstanding leader in Congress and a great American. I look forward to working with him in Congress on issues of importance to Americans such as border security, immigration reform, and tax reduction. Working together to provide effective leadership, we can and will make a difference."

The special election became necessary due to the appointment of the district's former representative, Christopher Cox, to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission. Gilchrist, who won wide acclaim for founding and directing the Minuteman Project border watch over the past year, is running as an Independent. The race has attracted 17 candidates from various parties. If no candidate wins over 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff election on December 6, 2005, which will include the candidates of each ballot-qualified party who receive the highest vote. In that eventuality, Gilchrist, the only Independent in the race, is guaranteed to be in the run-off.


52 posted on 10/01/2005 9:12:17 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

http://www.jimgilchrist.com/article.php?id=36

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a national non-partisan political action committee supporting candidates who will enforce America’s immigration laws, announced its endorsement of “Minuteman Founder” Jim Gilchrist, Independent Congressional Candidate for the upcoming California District 48 special election on October 4th.

“Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is endorsing Jim Gilchrist because of his selfless dedication and successful activism addressing our national crisis of border security and illegal immigration,” states William Gheen, president of ALIPAC. “In Jim’s California district, as is true nationwide, all the surveys show voters are ready to hold Washington accountable for the government’s failure to act to control illegal immigration—on our borders and in our communities. We need to send Congress a message and Jim Gilchrist IS the message.”

The immigration reform group has also called upon ALIPAC supporters in all 50 states to assist the Gilchrist campaign as volunteers and contributors. ALIPAC member communications have asked that reform activists help the Gilchrist campaign mobilize voters to send Mr. Gilchrist to Congress to further the national debate—and promote federal action—on illegal immigration. “Jim Gilchrist’s record of effective advocacy in the enforcement of immigration law is sterling, and the electorate in Jim’s 48th CA District seeking a new Congressional leader need look no further than this patriot Minuteman… Jim Gilchrist is the man America needs to take on the career politicians.”

“We feel that Jim Gilchrist’s plan to tackle border security and illegal immigration will have a positive impact on our national security, jobs, schools—and effect a reduction of crime, healthcare costs and taxes,” Gheen says. “We need to elect Jim Gilchrist to Congress because he is a real leader—the perfect messenger to send to Washington to get these problems solved.”

Jim Gilchrist is the only Independent Candidate seeking to represent California’s 48th District in the U.S House of Representatives. The special election will be held on October 4, 2005. For more information about Gilchrist’s campaign for Congress, please visit www.JimGilchrist.com


53 posted on 10/01/2005 9:14:21 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

http://www.azconservative.org/NFRA_Gilchrist.htm

In many conservative circles, the nation’s borders and the State of California are considered lost causes. Minutemen Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist is not ready to concede either, however. He’s running for Congress next year.

In a recent address to the National Federation of Republican Assemblies’ (NFRA) national convention, Gilchrist described himself as a “recovering Republican” and said he hopes that Reagan Republicanism will re-ignite the Grand Old Party.

Gilchrist, a Purple Heart winner while serving as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam, speaks of the rule of law, the failure of elected officials to secure the border and his desire to work for the ideals of the United States. Along with Chris Simcox of Tombstone, Gilchrist co-founded the Minutemen Project, which shut down the border invasion over a 23-mile stretch of land near Naco, Arizona for the entire month of April.

“Our people are done with talking and now we’re taking action,” Gilchrist said of the highly successful rise of the Minutemen earlier this year. “We have begged and pleaded with political leaders, who have violated their oath of office.”

The government has refused to protect Americans from unchecked border invaders and drug smugglers.

Gilchrist said, “The border has become a war zone. Until politicians find the will and the guts, the Minutemen Project will do the job the politicians are unwilling to do. It’s dangerous and heart wrenching. Traffickers, gun runners and unfortunately potential terrorists are coming in. I’ve seen it all. They’re exploiting society.”

The Minutemen Project is expanding to other states to monitor the border and to hold elected leaders’ feet to the fire in the process.

“We demand the government immediately secure the borders just as our laws prescribe,” Gilchrist told the NFRA. “We are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. You lead, follow or get out of the way. I choose to lead. No more excuses from our government. We have not only the right but the duty to protect our borders. Government inaction is unacceptable. We abide by the rule of law.”

Gilchrist likes to invoke the words of Frederick Douglas, who once talked about how to be your own master. “It is all too often forgotten, but we govern this country,” Gilchrist said. “That’s what motivates the Minutemen Project, and I invite all of you to join with us.”

More than a one-issue candidate, Gilchrist is concerned about government malfeasance on other topics as well. He says there are all kinds of government violations, abuses and bad laws – including abortion on demand. Gilchrist favors a shut-off valve for the lack of fiscal maturity in government. None of the government’s failures typify the spirit of Reagan Republicanism, he said.

“Yet we still see resolution through law, not violence,” Gilchrist stresses. “Ensure that America stays free, strong and prosperous. God bless America and God bless Ronald Reagan’s legacy.”

If elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Gilchrist will represent District 48 in Orange County. But his votes will impact every American. For more information on the Gilchrist campaign, see: http://www.jimgilchrist.com/


54 posted on 10/01/2005 9:19:45 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Please don't bother responding if all you can offer is personal insults. You are wasting bandwidth.


55 posted on 10/01/2005 9:49:05 PM PDT by Once-Ler ("Our only hope is that Congress will continue to do what is does best... nothing." John Roberts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I wouldn't mind if we lost that district due to splitting the R vote. Given a choice between sending a message in a single special election in a "safe" Republican district, when we have a ~30 seat majority in the House, and sending a message in a general election, I'll take the former. Perhaps the fact that this race is occurring by itself will give the message greater clarity and resonance.


56 posted on 10/01/2005 9:54:02 PM PDT by boomstick (It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You can't rationalize away from that, unless you admit that you prefer an open border Democrat to a Republican -- and BTW Campbell is also against illegal immigration.

Republicans have to be "punished". Faces have to be spited. Noses must be cut off!

57 posted on 10/01/2005 9:58:30 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Okay, Campbell. Now we know you don't like the Bush plan. Tell us YOUR plan, and how it differs from Gilchrist's.

Uh, what's Gilchrist's?

58 posted on 10/01/2005 9:59:59 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

"Noses must be cut off!"


===

LOL! That's about it.

And they are so proud of it too.


59 posted on 10/01/2005 10:00:57 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

A Democrat isn't going to be elected in that district.


60 posted on 10/01/2005 10:01:33 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Jeanine Pirro for Senate, Hillary Clinton for Weight Watchers Spokeswoman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Wow! The whole circus has come to town. First Tancredo (who no doubt issued a press release to announce his forthcoming press release) and now Keyes. Ron Paul would make it the trifecta.


61 posted on 10/01/2005 10:03:04 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

It can, if the Republican vote is split.

Think Clinton winning with 42%, while the Republican vote was split between Dole and Perot.

Same thing can happen here.


62 posted on 10/01/2005 10:04:11 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner

I wouldn't worry about it. I doubt Gilchrist will get much support at the ballot box.


63 posted on 10/01/2005 11:30:59 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I did get the story straight about Gilchrist's party's opposition to the Iraq War (and thus being a liberal stance). It says it right on their party's home page. Do your own some research!


64 posted on 10/02/2005 4:57:16 AM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TBP; FairOpinion; AmishDude
He's not a Republican. He's on the AIP.

Precisely why he shouldn't be nominated.

65 posted on 10/02/2005 5:16:09 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
You are wasting bandwidth

Oh, I'd say you got that covered.

66 posted on 10/02/2005 1:44:14 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district

You are clearly attempting to misstate Gilchrist's position on the war, which I stated accurately. You're trying to make him out as some sort of liberal when he's the only conservative in the race because you're afraid of the effect he'll have on your candidate. But lying about an opponent's record and positions is a liberal tactic, not a conservative one, and reveals your true worldview.


67 posted on 10/02/2005 4:00:04 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I correctly stated that Gilchrist's party's platform has a firm anti Iraq War stance which is liberalism. His party's platform opposes what would have amounted to the Vietnam War. Again, that's liberalism. Read it on their home page for yourself.

Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Iraq. That's liberalism. You'll counter with, "but he supports the troops." Well that's typical liberal spin machine philosophy that you hear from the anti-war left. You can't support the troops and oppose the war. That's the same as saying you support firemen except when they put out fires. Doesn't make sense. Thus, liberalism.

......... he won't win in that particular district.


68 posted on 10/02/2005 4:06:58 PM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district
Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Iraq. That's liberalism. You'll counter with, "but he supports the troops."

Are you really this obtuse? You sound just liek that phony "candidate" that we ran out of here. I don't think he was really this obtuse eitehr. I think it was a deliberate smear because you Republibot open-borders security-risking libs are afraid of Jim Gilchrist.

Gilchrist has said that he supports staying in Iraq to finish the mission. Whether or not we should have gone, we're there. To leave now would be a worse disaster than what was there before. That is the same position that we hold. You go to war, you have to win the war. Period. And that is Gilchrist's position.

69 posted on 10/02/2005 4:16:11 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TBP

You need to research Glchrist's party's platform further before you post here and support him. Also, you need to research my anti-liberal views. I'm Pro-America!! I have supported the invasion of Iraq from day one and continue to support the mission. We'll stay the course until the mission is completed. In fact, I myself served in earlier rounds of the Persian Gulf War. Have you ever served in the military? I speak from experience. I'm for enforcing laws to eliminate illegal immigration. Thus, I'm no lib.


70 posted on 10/02/2005 4:25:15 PM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district

You need to research Gilchrist's own views, not try to tar him with views he doesn't hold. Doing that is a liberal tactic, showing how worried you Republibots are that people will catch on to the fact that your boy is an open borders liberal.

Of course, we'll stay the course until the mission is completed. Gilchrist has said that he supports that. Deal with it.

And yes, I have worn my country's uniform, and proudly so.


71 posted on 10/02/2005 7:29:05 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom from Day one and continue to do so. I'm Pro-America.

I'm not trying to give both sides a sales pitch in that "I oppose the invasion, but support the troops" such as you, Gilchrist, and John Kerry are doing.


72 posted on 10/03/2005 5:07:05 AM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district

You're still misstating the Gilchrist position on Iraq, I think deliberately. He has said that we need to stay in Iraq and finish the job we started, and that he supports winning the war. I don't know why that seems to be so hard for you to understand, unless it's on purpose.


73 posted on 10/03/2005 6:31:02 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Read closely: "He opposed the invasion of Iraq." That came from his supporters.


74 posted on 10/03/2005 6:37:42 AM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district

You have someone read it to you more closely, since you are obviously incapable of reading it for yourself: He supports the mission and supports victory in Iraq. That comes from Gilchrist himself.

But for some reason youo refuse to understand this. Dilletantes and losers, open-borders security riskers like you are useless in this forum.


75 posted on 10/03/2005 6:40:49 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TBP
And Gilchrist won the endorsements of Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Alan Keyes.

I don't give a rip about endorsements. I want to hear the candidates put forth ideas. That Campbell is against the Bush plan tells me nothing about what he is for. I've got a good idea what Gilchrist's border policy is, but all I've heard of Campbell's is what his isn't.

76 posted on 10/03/2005 6:52:40 AM PDT by LexBaird (tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Uh, what's Gilchrist's?

Perhaps you have heard of Project Minuteman? You know, the only actual attempt to do anything about the flow of illegal immigrants since Janet Reno's token attempts? Gilchrist has a lot of cred in this area, and I'd like to hear Campbell address it.

77 posted on 10/03/2005 7:09:08 AM PDT by LexBaird (tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Well, if Gilchrist's idea is the Minuteman project, then why is he trying to get elected to Congress?

And, long-term, substantively, what has Minuteman actually accomplished?

You know, besides getting Gilchrist some PR.

78 posted on 10/03/2005 7:18:11 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
And, long-term, substantively, what has Minuteman actually accomplished?

It got the issue off of the back shelf and made it something that people like Tom Campbell, Arnold Swartzenegger, and David Dreier actually need to address if they want to avoid splintering their base.

I've said it before: the purpose of a political party is to serve the needs and interests of its members, not vice versa. The CA and National RP have NOT been doing so on this issue. It is the number one issue effecting day-to-day life in CA, from schools to hospitals to traffic to crime to taxes for social services to crumbling infrastructure to wages. If the CARP does not get behind this, they deserve to lose.

79 posted on 10/03/2005 9:03:26 AM PDT by LexBaird (tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I'm denouncing Gilchrist's party's platform simply from info posted on their home page! Why don't you read it? They oppose the Iraq War and Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Bagdad. That's a liberal stance. Are you all, Cindy Sheehan, Martin Sheehan, Jodie Evans, and the peaceniks getting along real well now?

Your trying to flip flop on the issue since you see his candidacy failing. I suggest that Gilchrist go to the far southeastern California border district and run there.

Oh, also read what I'm telling you. I support a strenghthening of laws to block illegal immigration.


80 posted on 10/03/2005 9:11:47 AM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
If Minuteman's main accomplishment was PR, then why is Gilchrist trying to use circus tactics (running in a third party in a primary where he could easily have run as a Republican, just so he can gum up the works in November) in the election?

The CARP is a shell, managing to get lucky that Arnold Schwartzenegger has enough sense not to be a Democrat. It has no power in the state, but somehow they are the problem. Why go after Boxer, who is a terrible Senator besides, when you can completely decimate the California Republican party and get a complete Democrat monopoly.

And they will solve the borders problem. If Gilchrist were really serious and if his "issue" was the only one worth worrying about, then there is no question that he would have won the Republican votes in the primary.

Right?

Right???

81 posted on 10/03/2005 9:20:11 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district
You sound like you're really scared of Gilchrist.

I'm denouncing Gilchrist's party's platform simply from info posted on their home page! Why don't you read it?

I have read it, and I disagree with it. So does Gilchrist (at least in part), as you very well know. He has said that he supports victory in Iraq, and he said so before he was running for anything. Try getting that through your head.

Furthermore, there is a significant difference between opposing the invasion of Iraq but supporting victory now that we are there and oppoisng America, as Cindy Sheehan and the others have done. You refuse to make such distinctions becaue you are not intellectually honest or scared of Gilchrist, or both.

What have you ever actually done to protect our borders? Gilchrist has been there working actively to stop illegal immigration.

I support a strenghthening of laws to block illegal immigration.

So you say, but I'm sorry, I don't believe you. You're trying to flip flop on the issue since you see your guy's candidacy failing. An operative without much of a brain.

And Gilchrist is clearly to your right (and that of your all-but-certain nominee) on abortion, among other issues, so I question your commitment to conservatism.

82 posted on 10/03/2005 9:22:57 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

You want to go back and rewrite that with some coherence? Because I really don't understand what you are trying to say, although you are clearly emphatic about it.


83 posted on 10/03/2005 10:32:21 AM PDT by LexBaird (tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: TBP

There, you said it yourself! Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Iraq- that's a liberal stance. With military operations being highest on our political list of priorities, this makes him liberal. You didn't address my question: "how are you all, Cindy Sheehan, Martin Sheehan, Sheryl Crow, and Jodie Evans getting along?"


84 posted on 10/03/2005 1:01:01 PM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district

Whether or not one opposed the invasion, Gilchrist suppoorts seeing it through to victory. Do you? I don't believe so.

Frankly, you're not an honest person, at least when discussing this matter. Gilchrist is more conservative than you'll ever be, and you're clearly afraid of him.

The guy's a force in this race. He'll be on the ballot in the runoff in November. Deal with it.


85 posted on 10/03/2005 1:35:44 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district
There, you said it yourself! Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Iraq- that's a liberal stance.

Here is what I wrote. Please show me where I said that "Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Iraq":

I have read it, and I disagree with it. So does Gilchrist (at least in part), as you very well know. He has said that he supports victory in Iraq, and he said so before he was running for anything. Try getting that through your head.

Furthermore, there is a significant difference between opposing the invasion of Iraq but supporting victory now that we are there and oppoisng America, as Cindy Sheehan and the others have done. You refuse to make such distinctions becaue you are not intellectually honest or scared of Gilchrist, or both.

86 posted on 10/03/2005 1:39:13 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TBP

There you go again, changing my philosophies around and trying to skate around the fact that Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Iraq (a liberal stance). He won't win in the 48th District. Encourage him to run in California's southeast border district!

I have supported the invasion of Iraq back from when we came to the defense of Kuwait in 1990. I have supported the overthrow of Bagdad from day one. I urge the President to stay the course until the job is done.

I support strengthening laws preventing illegal immigration.
In the fight over enforcing illegal immigration laws, don't forget to concentrate on terrorists!

Also, you spelled "because" incorrectly.

Thank you,
Scott
P.S. The "T's" in Scott stand for tinsel town.


87 posted on 10/03/2005 1:49:55 PM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SC33

Dan Whitcomb seems to think Brewer is a Dem. LOL. What an idiot.


88 posted on 10/03/2005 1:53:22 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district

Scott, you've overtly lied about Gilchrist's position. Cna you not get it through your head that he supports winnign the war, seeing the war through to victory, not withdrawal? Or do you just not want to?

Given your distoritons of Gilchrist's views, which ar eprobably intentional, plus your posturing as a conservative when you're an open pro-abort, I don't trust anything you say about yourself.

Besides, you're from Hollywood.


89 posted on 10/03/2005 2:07:33 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
You're right, posting too fast today.

If Minuteman's main accomplishment was PR, then why is Gilchrist trying to use circus tactics in the election? He's running in a third party in a primary where he could easily have run as a Republican, just so he can gum up the works in November.

The CARP is a shell, managing to get lucky that Arnold Schwartzenegger has enough sense not to be a Democrat. It has no power in the state, but somehow it's the state GOP that is the problem.

Why go after Boxer, who is a terrible Senator besides, when you can completely decimate the California Republican party and get a complete Democrat monopoly?

And Democrats will surely solve the borders problem.

If Gilchrist were really serious and if his "issue" was the only one worth worrying about, then there is no question that he would have won the Republican votes in the primary. Right? Right???

But now, we see that Gilchrist is a peace weenie. That's interesting information. I'm suspecting I know where Gilchrist stands and I don't think I want to be in that camp.

90 posted on 10/03/2005 3:02:58 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Gilchrist opposed the initial invasion of Iraq- that's a liberal stance. I have supported the Iraq War from day one and urge the President to stay the course until the job is completed.

Why are you spending so much time patronizing Gilchrist? And why do you and Gilchrist align yourselves with a party that firmly opposes the Iraq War (and what would have amounted to the Vietnam War)?


91 posted on 10/03/2005 3:11:02 PM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district (J. SCOTT DAVIS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jscottdavisfanclub DAVIS- HOLLYWOOD'S NEXT ACTION HERO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jscottdavis_for_48th_district
urge the President to stay the course until the job is completed.

So does Gilchrist.

92 posted on 10/03/2005 3:29:27 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
If Minuteman's main accomplishment was PR, then why is Gilchrist trying to use circus tactics in the election? He's running in a third party in a primary where he could easily have run as a Republican, just so he can gum up the works in November.

Your arguments would fare better if you refrained from using opinion as fact. Why is his PR "circus tactics", but all other candidates aren't? Was Arnie announcing his Governor candidacy on the Tonite Show a circus tactic? He might have run as a Republican, true, but since the CA established party apparatus had already endorsed Campbell, what good would that have done him? About as much good as when McClintock continued to remain as a Republican candidate after Schwartzenegger jumped in to the Gubernatorial race on the last day: he would have seen his campaign sabotaged by the CARP at every opportunity.

The CARP is a shell, managing to get lucky that Arnold Schwartzenegger has enough sense not to be a Democrat. It has no power in the state, but somehow it's the state GOP that is the problem.

Schwartzenegger is a populist, not a Republican in anything but name. He's like Bill O'Reilly, supporting whatever he sees as popular. Hence Arnold's stance on guns, stem cells, eco land grabs, teachers unions, and illegal alien DLs.

Why go after Boxer, who is a terrible Senator besides, when you can completely decimate the California Republican party and get a complete Democrat monopoly?

What does Boxer have to do with this election?

And Democrats will surely solve the borders problem.

HAHAHAHAHA! At least you maintain your sense of humor.

If Gilchrist were really serious and if his "issue" was the only one worth worrying about, then there is no question that he would have won the Republican votes in the primary. Right? Right???

But now, we see that Gilchrist is a peace weenie. That's interesting information. I'm suspecting I know where Gilchrist stands and I don't think I want to be in that camp.

Without the support of the Party, he could not win against the established Fair Haired Boy. They would have savaged him with the same tactics that were used in the Gubernatorial race against McClintock.

That's the problem with the CARP. They are not willing to let anyone into the clubhouse who threatens to rock the boat. The CARP is not interested in California except as a money source; they are interested in Federal power politics, where Party line orthodoxy is paramount.

But now, we see that Gilchrist is a peace weenie. That's interesting information. I'm suspecting I know where Gilchrist stands and I don't think I want to be in that camp.

Again with the unsupported assumptions. Although I don't agree with it, there is a valid libertarian argument to be made against the Iraq invasion. That doesn't make them "peace weenies".

93 posted on 10/04/2005 8:19:10 AM PDT by LexBaird (tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
You're all over the place. Circus tactics is to run on a third party ticket to specifically avoid confrontation. Gilchrist could win as a Republican or as a Democrat by . . . wait for it . . . getting the most votes. It's a primary. He can just get more people to vote for him. It's not about a club or an endorsement. And, if people follow the endorsement of the CAGOP, then maybe that's because they trust that organization more than they trust a guy who came out of the woodwork less than a year ago.

Schwartzenegger chose to run as a Republican in an open election. He could have very easily chose to have run as an independent. And won. It says less about his ideology than about his ability to be a team player.

Boxer has everything to do with this election. The immigration fetishists have chosen to destroy what's left of the CAGOP rather than trying to make a dent in the Dems.

Although I don't agree with it, there is a valid libertarian argument to be made against the Iraq invasion. That doesn't make them "peace weenies".

Gilchrist is most decidedly not a libertarian. Libertarianism is about open borders. If you're not a liberal Democrat and you opposed the Iraq invasion, I want to know a LOT more about your views.

94 posted on 10/04/2005 10:31:57 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
If I'm all over the place, it's because I am replying to your scattershot criticism. In that vein:

1) It's not a primary. It's a special election to fill an empty Congressional seat. He could only run as a Republican by jumping in on the previously endorsed GOP candidate (Campbell) and splitting Party resources. If no one receives over 50%, it goes to a run off, and it would be damn strange to have two GOP candidates in a run off.

2) Boxer isn't running, so is irrelevant to this vote. This isn't for Boxer's seat; it's for Chris Cox's. The CAGOP chose to spend absolutely no money opposing Boxer in the last election, neither to attack her positions nor to support their own candidate, Bill Jones. Or John Doe Smith, or whatever his name was. Certainly the GOP made no effort to get anyone in California to know.

3) Schwartzenegger chose to run as a Republican because he had access to the Riordan organization by doing so, and because he had other GOP connections, and because the recall effort had built a lot of momentum for the GOP. The Indie path would have been organizationally impossible, considering he jumped in on the last day to declare.

4) I pointed out the libertarian angle to show how opposing the invasion of Iraq isn't automatically a "peace weenie" position. Maybe Gilchrist is strongly in favor of National sovereignty for both the USA and Iraq. Maybe he is against "foreign entanglements". Maybe he was against the fiscal burden.

5) None of this has anything to do with the fact that Campbell has proposed NO solutions of his own. Which is what I asked for in the first place.
95 posted on 10/04/2005 12:27:34 PM PDT by LexBaird (tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson