[Jim Robinson]

"despite the fact that those in the GOP concerned with border security and illegal immigration are polling at over 80%."

I don't get it. If this is true looks like he'd get enough support from the Republican voters to be a shoo-in. Why not run as a Republican?

[EternalVigilance]

Why not run as a Republican?

He couldn't, Jim. You have to switch parties three months before an election, I think it is, by law.

[Jim_Curtis]

I don't get it. If this is true looks like he'd get enough support from the Republican voters to be a shoo-in. Why not run as a Republican?

I agree that it would be death by fragmenting voting blocks if there were two conservative parties against the liberal but it would also be glorious to elect JUST ONE who isn't a Republican or Democrat and if elected would be able to speak freely without being attacked by his party. Such a victory would create a force to the right.

[Torie]

I checked out the law on this one, because I suspected that Gilchrist was out to sink the Pubbie to send an immigration message, which is his right, but if that was what it was about, it should be known. Cox's nomination to the SEC was announced within 90 days of the filing deadline, so Gilchrist was unable to switch parties.

Having said that, Gilchrist needs to explain why he was an American Independent Party member, rather than a Republican, and what issues he agrees with, and does not agree with, endorsed by that party, in my opinion, if he is going to be upfront, and let it all hang out.

I write this as a supporter of the one whom I characterized above as an apparent "dunderhead." But Campbell is no Cox. There seems to be about a 30 point IQ gap between the two.

[GVnana]

That's all he'd have to do. As far as a supporter of Campbell trying to get a resolution, well, you can TRY anything!