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.
Putting aside immigration, just why do you describe Campbell as a RINO? Heck, he is considerably more conservative than I am. :)
Why is it that, whenever there is some unelectable wingnut running that beats one note again and again, the guy who's got an actual conservative record is suddenly 'masquerading' while the guy with NO political record beyond public statements is assumed to be 100% genuine?
Oh, and I'd also like to mention, that it is never true that the Dem isn't a factor, in any race. There isn't a district in the country that is reliably over 66% R, especially in terms of Congressional races.
And if, among other things that people had mentioned, Gilcrest was really interested in making a difference, he would have run as a Republican and tried to win the primary, which would have three effects: A. Prove he's not a wingnut out for himself, B. Even if he lost, force Republicans to take the immigration issue into account, C. Actually give him a realistic path toward winning.