Replies

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.

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.