Only two days left til the election!!
Posted on 12/04/2005 2:53:18 PM PST by EternalVigilance
Only two days left til the election!!
ping...
I can only wish that I could vote in the 48th Congressional District. Gilchrist would have my vote in a heartbeat.
California conservatives in the district must vote for Jim Gilchrest. Not because he has any chance of winning, but because the Bush administration and Congress are not serious about border security and need to be sent a message.
I already voted. Campbell 52%, Gilchist 20%, Young 28%.
"These people are clearly members and rooted in our community. They’re going to stay here every bit as much as you or I are going to stay here.” -John Campbell, OC Register
“Illegal immigrants should be given the same benefits as everyone else…” - John Campbell, OC Register, 3-11-00
In the Assembly, John Campbell voted to give in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, AND he voted to allow Mexican-issued ‘Matricula Consular’ cards to be used as identification in California!
** A Sample of Campbell’s Voting Record: (taken from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html)
AB 540 (Firebaugh) Provides in-state tuition fees for illegal immigrants.
Passed the Assembly 57-15, 9/14/01 - John Campbell: Aye
ACR 229 (Diaz) Allow illegal aliens to use the sham Matricula Consular (Mexican ID) as legal form of identification.
Passed the Assembly 71-7, 8/30/02 – John Campbell: Aye
AB 60 (Cedillo) Would give illegal immigrants the right to have California driver’s licenses.
Passed the Assembly 52-20, 9/14/01 – John Campbell: Abstain
We'll see, won't we...
ping...
Yup. As I said, all along, it was the wrong CD to wage the anti illegal jihad. Maybe Gilchrist should move on the the Cunningham district, and try there. It would be more fertile ground for him, and he would have a better chance of installing a Dem. Just a thought.
Campbell favored consular ID cards too? Amazingly stupid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04election.html
Indeed, Mr. Campbell voted to allow illegal immigrants at state colleges and universities to pay in-state tuition, which he later said was a mistake. And he favored a resolution that would have allowed Mexicans to use their government ID cards for identification purposes in this country. He withdrew his support after the F.B.I. said it was a bad idea.
It's my district and Gilchrist gets my vote but Canpbell will win.
I'm glad you'll be voting for Gilchrist. I just hope you're wrong about Campbell winning. I've had it with these "vote for what I say, not what I do" RINOs.
Oh, come on. You know better than to invoke 'installing a Dem'.
Young has no chance of winning in the 48th, and you know it.
I'll give you credit for consistency in your theorizing about JG's motives, but it just doesn't hold any water.
In the primary, Gilchrist singlehandedly made the Dems the third party.
Historic.
No reason to believe it is going to be any different on Tuesday.
Why isn't that democrat Steve Young the favorite in this district.
The district gave Kerry 41 percent. Bush got 59 percent.
If Gilchrist and Campbell were to split 59 percent of the vote Young would win. If they each get 30 percent that would leave Young with 40 percent.
The primary were misleading too because the dems didn't put any money into them and it occured during a jewish holiday which is part of young's base.
I am all for Gilchrest running I just wished he would run as a republican and try to win a primary. Because if he were truly to split the vote with Campbell that conservative district would have a socialist dem representing them.
This run off system sucks. I can't stand the same system they use in Louisiana. I remember last year tauzin and the romero got way over 50 percent during election day but the vote was split between the two gop candidates. Then when tauzin ran a few weeks later without the pres race at the top of the ticket he lost to a radical leftist in melancon who is Blanco's water boy.
Another of Campbell's out and out lies.
All you have to do is read what he was saying in the Register and on the floor of the Assembly during that time period, and it is clear that he knew EXACTLY what he is doing.
He has been just as disingenuous about his pro-life record since he decided to run for Congress, by the way.
Completely disagree.
Gilcrest is a one issue noisemaker. The Republican is a very conservative, good man, and he will make a good congressman.
The WORST thing that could happen is for enough people to vote for Gilcrest and throw the race to the D's. That's the real problem.
Your answer is in my post #13 to Torie.
You've got it all wrong.
Jim's issues run the gamut of the conservative agenda:
He's 100% prolife, for the FairTax, pro-gun, etc.
You're also wrong about Campbell. He's a squishy 'moderate' masquerading as a conservative. Congress needs more of his type like it needs more tax dollars to spend.
And, as I've pointed out previously, the Dem is not a factor in this race.
Not even close.
Those who claim he is a factor are just trying to scare the ignorant into the Republican column.
No idea why the headline freaked out...it wasn't that way when the thread posted.
Could you repair it for me, please?
Thanks!
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.