Border activist a wild card in Calif. election

Yahoo News/Reuters ^ | October 1, 2005 | Dan Whitcomb

[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.

[AmishDude]

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???

[TBP]

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.

[LexBaird]

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.

[jscottdavis_for_48th_district]

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?"

[TBP]

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.

[TBP]

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.

[jscottdavis_for_48th_district]

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.

[Torie]

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

[TBP]

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.

[AmishDude]

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.

[jscottdavis_for_48th_district]

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)?

[TBP]

urge the President to stay the course until the job is completed.

So does Gilchrist.

[LexBaird]

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".

[AmishDude]

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.

[LexBaird]

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.