Posted on 09/20/2005 6:37:39 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
"I suppose there are one or two people fool enough not to recognize "Reagan Republican" as statement of political philosophy."
When one says that one is any sort of "Republican," Reagan or otherwise, with a capital "R," that indicates that one is a member of the Republican Party, or is registered as such. If one is merely stating one's political philosophy, then one says "republican." That's because the capital letter denotes a proper noun, which is something that Sister Martha beat into my head and knuckles back in the glory days of Catholic education.
And he never mentions his American Independent Party affiliation on his website. Almost like he's ashamed of it or something.
I don't think you are being any more honest now than you were the first time. But keep doing the spin job, maybe you will achieve your true goal of smearing Gilchrist. So far we haven't had a peep out of you about illegal immigration, so apparently your only worry is that a GOP hack might not win if the locals get a chance to vote for someone who will address their concerns.
"I don't think you are being any more honest now than you were the first time."
I think that you've always been, always are, and always will be a lying sack of fecal material.
"But keep doing the spin job, maybe you will achieve your true goal of smearing Gilchrist."
I do not have any goal of smearing Gilchrist, nor am I engaged in a spin job. (You, on the other hand, are spinning so furiously that you're going to take to flight if the tether breaks.) I just want to know why he ducks the issue of his party affiliation.
Your problem is that Gilchrist is smearing himself.
"So far we haven't had a peep out of you about illegal immigration"
Until Mr. Gilchrist comes clean and starts honestly stating his party affiliation, none of his other stated positions are worth anything, because I'm left to wonder whether or not he really believes them.
"Go read his website. He talks about how he's a "Reagan Republican." That doesn't sound like he's a member of the American Independent Party, does it?"
Such, however, is not a refusal to admit AIP membership.
About that, I tend toward agreement with you.
It's a mystifying process as a Republican here and that is that there's moreorless a Liberatarian group who manages CA's Republican Party and what we end up with is misguided candidates who remain somewhat questionable, clouded, moreorless like the same complaints now being suggested by those Republicans about Gilchrist.
I have permanent Absentee Ballot status and I just completed my ballot earlier today and now wonder if I can show up at the voting place, surrender the Absentee Ballot and vote again differently.
Not saying what the mistake is, for whom...but now rethinking my vote, is my point.
Back to CA Republican Party: yes, something's not well here as to the Party organization. They exclude rather than include and so far, in my experience, they're more accurately defined by Libertarians than anything else.
Excellent recap. I'll now reveal that I voted for Campbell after initially leaning toward Gilchrist, but find a bit of a grey area about Gilchrist that is uncomfortable. After reading about the Club for Growth endorsing Campbell, and then also reading Campbell's positions on the border/immigration/security issues, I agree with his formuation and order of intentions.
My worst fear is that he'll fail to assert those intentions if/after elected and we'll end up with more of Bush's/McCain's/RINO's pandering about illegal aliens and open borders.
If I want anything as a voting Republican, it is that they (1.) maintain approachable and fluent communications with constituents and (2.) secure our borders starting with a firm and absolute control over the southern border and (3.) eliminate all financial programs to anyone and all who are in the country illegally and (4.) increase penalties for anyone who employs illegal aliens.
Those plans implemented would solve many of our problems in the U.S. right there. It'd also put more Americans back to work among those who aren't currently working...more opportunities, more social helps for those who REALLY need/deserve them and those are our own citizens.
Excellent recap. I'll now reveal that I voted for Campbell after initially leaning toward Gilchrist, but find a bit of a grey area about Gilchrist that is uncomfortable. After reading about the Club for Growth endorsing Campbell, and then also reading Campbell's positions on the border/immigration/security issues, I agree with his formuation and order of intentions.
My worst fear is that he'll fail to assert those intentions if/after elected and we'll end up with more of Bush's/McCain's/RINO's pandering about illegal aliens and open borders.
If I want anything as a voting Republican, it is that they (1.) maintain approachable and fluent communications with constituents and (2.) secure our borders starting with a firm and absolute control over the southern border and (3.) eliminate all financial programs to anyone and all who are in the country illegally and (4.) increase penalties for anyone who employs illegal aliens.
Those plans implemented would solve many of our problems in the U.S. right there. It'd also put more Americans back to work among those who aren't currently working...more opportunities, more social helps for those who REALLY need/deserve them and those are our own citizens.
I suppose there are one or two people fool enough not to recognize "Reagan Republican" as statement of political philosophy.
---
Ahem, I *am* a Reagan Republican, and I mean it the way most people who call themselves mean it: A Reagan-loving Conservative member of the *REPUBLICAN* Party. If he was a "Reagan Republican" why isn't he a member of the party of Reagan like the rest of us Reagan Republicans are?!!?
Argh. If that's true -- any part of it, actually, much moreso all of it -- I need to surrender existing ballot at voting location and start over.
Argh. If that's true -- any part of it, actually, much moreso all of it -- I need to surrender existing ballot at voting location and start over.
"Argh. If that's true -- any part of it, actually, much moreso all of it -- I need to surrender existing ballot at voting location and start over."
Given Gilchrist's refusal to openly state his party affiliation (American Independent Party) and attempts to portray himself as a Republican (which he is not), I would take any statement by a Gilchrist supporter on Campbell's voting record (or anything else) with a largish grain of salt and verify it independently.
I agree, as in, that point also bothers me (and I already noticed that point a while ago on Gilchrist's site, which is why I opted to redirect my vote over time back to Campbell). It's something so obvious and unusual that it should be explained, why the party affiliation is compromised as has been explained here, this thread (and I agree that it is).
There's more that bothers me about the American Independent Party but California Republicans need to knock off the "private party club" environment by the "ruling members" influences among the CA GOP and become accessible to Republicans in general.
And that includes being responsible to constituent opinions, at least being polite and available in receiving them. In my experience, the CA Republican Party is not the Party of Reagan so much as it's assumed a disturbing personality that denigrates (and ignores) every voter who asks so much as a question.
The Hugh Hewitt and similar influences in the CA GOP are sending many moderate and conservative voters to silence. That's not good. There should be room to include Hewitt's fans and fan club approach to and about government and for the rest of us, too.
I no longer see much difference in CA between the DNC and the GOP, as to candidates and behaviors. Which is disappointing.
However, all things considered, I'll go ahead and mail the Absentee for Campbell but this is the LAST TIME I vote for anyone unless I see accountability to individual concerns by elected locally and statewide.
I've just had a truly awful experience attempting to followup with the Governor's office on a very serious issue -- the 'staff' there are deplorable, in awful contrast to my comments here from a few weeks ago when contacting that office about pending legislation -- and I am just no longer, as in NEVER, going to go with the party line (ANY party line) just to foreward the possible split election results because, I, for one, am no longer a believer.
I think that groups get people elected, they make a great presentation to the public (or not) and then they go about jury-rigging nearly every opinion possible such that people end up voting out of exhaustion, to just get it over with. I now understand why many opt to not vote at all.
I'll go ahead with Campbell but this is my test case for voting in CA of the last kind. If Campbell and the rest of the CA GOP continue to refuse public interactions and contact about consituent concerns -- INDIVIDUALLY with some accountability -- and that includes securing our border, penalizing people who employ illegal aliens here, and ceasing any/all public assistance (including education) to illegal aliens in the state, I won't ever vote for a CA Republican again.
Maybe allowing the DNC to win more votes will teach the GOP a lesson, I don't know. They sure need to learn one.
I agree, as in, that point also bothers me (and I already noticed that point a while ago on Gilchrist's site, which is why I opted to redirect my vote over time back to Campbell). It's something so obvious and unusual that it should be explained, why the party affiliation is compromised as has been explained here, this thread (and I agree that it is).
There's more that bothers me about the American Independent Party but California Republicans need to knock off the "private party club" environment by the "ruling members" influences among the CA GOP and become accessible to Republicans in general.
And that includes being responsible to constituent opinions, at least being polite and available in receiving them. In my experience, the CA Republican Party is not the Party of Reagan so much as it's assumed a disturbing personality that denigrates (and ignores) every voter who asks so much as a question.
The Hugh Hewitt and similar influences in the CA GOP are sending many moderate and conservative voters to silence. That's not good. There should be room to include Hewitt's fans and fan club approach to and about government and for the rest of us, too.
I no longer see much difference in CA between the DNC and the GOP, as to candidates and behaviors. Which is disappointing.
However, all things considered, I'll go ahead and mail the Absentee for Campbell but this is the LAST TIME I vote for anyone unless I see accountability to individual concerns by elected locally and statewide.
I've just had a truly awful experience attempting to followup with the Governor's office on a very serious issue -- the 'staff' there are deplorable, in awful contrast to my comments here from a few weeks ago when contacting that office about pending legislation -- and I am just no longer, as in NEVER, going to go with the party line (ANY party line) just to foreward the possible split election results because, I, for one, am no longer a believer.
I think that groups get people elected, they make a great presentation to the public (or not) and then they go about jury-rigging nearly every opinion possible such that people end up voting out of exhaustion, to just get it over with. I now understand why many opt to not vote at all.
I'll go ahead with Campbell but this is my test case for voting in CA of the last kind. If Campbell and the rest of the CA GOP continue to refuse public interactions and contact about consituent concerns -- INDIVIDUALLY with some accountability -- and that includes securing our border, penalizing people who employ illegal aliens here, and ceasing any/all public assistance (including education) to illegal aliens in the state, I won't ever vote for a CA Republican again.
Maybe allowing the DNC to win more votes will teach the GOP a lesson, I don't know. They sure need to learn one.
No remember...think Bush...GOP keep saying that over and over and no matter how many billions they throw away at least Republicans are running the show.
Isn't that the tired old mantra they keep pushing; Socialist or socialist lite, take your pick while the single party system keeps picking your pocket.
Because the precious Party is pushing a RINO. Gilchrist wouldn't get support. I know that greatly upsets those of you who put Party interests above all other considerations, but California voters who are damned tired of GOP betrayals are going to have a chance to make their vote count.
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.