Toni Casey Wins Republican Money Primary

Campaign email ^ | Jan 5 2004 | Toni

[Abram]

I guess you don't understand. Only white racists are untolerated in this country. Bustamante is a racist and he hates whites most.

Republicans did not lose in the Recall Race, but conservatives did not win. Republicans come in many different stripes: conservatives, moderates, liberals, social conservatives, social liberals, fiscal conservatives, and fiscal liberals...the list goes no. I think having Arnold win demonstrates that with the right name appeal and balance of issues...a Republican can win in any state...including CA, NY, MA. They may be RINOs by many conservatives barometers...but they are Republicans of a different stripe.
As for "my country"...I live in my country. My country is the United States. As for El Salvador...we did not have the liberties to chose democracy. Death squads prevented democratic sparks from ever catching fire...for this reason, my family left that country, renounced our El Salvador citizenship, went through the seven year process when we applied for citizenship and became U.S. citizens. Therefore, when in public, I generally speak my adopted language and live my United States' culture. I espouse my and my fellow citizens' rights to make choices...even if they are wrong or I feel they are misguided.

You are right that the Whigs dissolved and another party replaced it...but that was because the Republican Party espoused popular issues of the day...they supported abolition of slavery, federalism, and opposed pologamy. Obviously, the party has evolved several times since its early beginnings. It continues to evolve all the time.

Arnold, I don't believe is a bullet in the stomach. I see it as an opportunity for the California Republicans to get their act together, work together, and nominate moderate candidates that can get elected state wide. If not, the socialist/communists will continue to re-elect the twin Senators or will replace Feinstein with someone even worse than she is.

As a side note, my liberterian ideals take issue with many issues espoused by the American Heritage/Constitution Parties. I don't feel that we can mandate morality and the Founding Fathers supported a clear, distinct separation of church and State. The American Heritage Party (at least in the State of Washington) wants to eliminate these lines and instill some type of theocracy. Is that conservativism or protection of the Constitution?

[AIPCQRC]

I already know about racism; unlike what the Socialists feed to people, racism of any kind is really on the Left side of the political spectrum.

So you're moderate, not conservative?

Yeah, I remember the American Heritage Party from Washington, they were troublemakers in the CP and they left when they didn't get their way.
They'll never grow outside of Washington. Advocating for a Theocracy in America now is as stupid as advocating for a communist dictatorship. A theorcracy can only happen when thr Savior himself returns, but thats a different matter altogether.
There's nothing wrong with having libertarian views unless its about abortion and morality matters.

However I'll rather vote for a conservative then a RINO, I don't believe in the 'lesser of two-evil' BS.
I'm going for Don Grundmann, period. To heck with moderates, you minus well vote for a Liberal.
Going for GOP moderates should be unacceptable to freepers, since we're Conservative, not moderate.

You still need to read in-between the lines when it comes to a candidate's idealogy.

[jagrmeister]

My idea of conservative principles and yours may differ. You are not the final arbiter of what it means to be a conservative. And more pertinently, people throw the "RINO" term around far too glibly. Anyone to the Left of Tom Delay is a "RINO"- that's intellectually dishonest. It's worse- it's intellectually offensive. You can be a Colin Powell Republican, a John McCain Republican, the list goes on. We're the party where you can have an honest disagreement of opinion without being kicked out of the party like the Democratic party does to people like Bob Casey.

[GOPfan]

Boxer must be considered vulnerable now that Arnold is governor and California Republicans at least seem to be getting it together. We must remember that she won her 1998 race with just 53%, an unimpressive showing for a seasoned politician like Boxer and an incumbent at the time. A candidate like Rosario Marin is what is needed to rid the congress of Boxer. Boxer voted against Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, which cannot sit well with certain Cali voters, and their faces need to be in every negative ad against Boxer. Someone like Marin would give Boxer something she has never had before: a race against another woman, and a minority. Boxer is not sitting as pretty as she thinks she is at this point in the cycle and her defeat is within reach with the right candidate.

[byteback]

I've been saying that Boxer is beatable for the right candidate. The mainstream CA GOP is sadly a complete joke right now but with Arnold winning it shows that if we can find Republican candidates who are not their father's Oldsmobile we can win.

[AIPCQRC]

"Extremenism in the defence of Liberty is no vice,
moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue."

Remember Goldwater's quote, the words of the last great Republican should imply to all of you.

To moderate our Principals in the name of politics and maintaining the American dream dishonestly is wrong and only serves to usurp conservative, constitutional principals.

To force conservatism into the center and towards the Left is no different then the radicals destroying our nations heritage; if we remained uncompromising, we would get far and maintain our Rights, unlike what others say.

I suggest you all take Golderwater's quote seriously when you get into the matter of Politics.

We shouldn't have to compromise, that is what lead us to the system of Liberalism in the first place.

Unlike you and others, I am a uncompromising traditional conservative, I will not bend to which way the wind blows.
I will no longer vote GOP, I will vote only for those that will not compromise and uphold those dear values that most will shead to manipulate the vote.

Don Grundmann is one of those candidates, and I will be voting for him in 2004; I hope that all of you true-blue conservatives do the same.

[jagrmeister]

Your attitude (not politics) is similar to Ralph Nader. Liberals learned in 2000 how useful that attitude was.

[Impy]

Would I vote for Casey in a primary? HELL NO. In the general against Boxer? Hell Yes. The Senate is too important (at least she wouldn't filibuster) and Boxer too vile to waste a vote on a third party.

That being said, she's not gonna win the primary. The likley winner is Jones (not a RINO), he's pretty good for Cali.

And you didn't vote for McClintock? Is he a RINO too? You know your little party sucked enough votes from him to cost him the '02 Controller's race!

If you want to effect conservative change then you need to drive the GOP to the right not waste your vote and efforts. That's the only way to do it. The only thing the Constitution Party or it's various affilates can ever accomplish is electing rats by plurality vote. In the age of terrorism that could mean more than just higher taxes and gay marriage.

[AIPCQRC]

Mclintock got well over a million votes in the Recall election, while our candidate, Diane Templin got only 1,068 votes, Swarzenagger won in a landslide 48% to Bustamonte's 32%

How about you do your homework next time before you critize people ignorantly.

[AIPCQRC]

Indeed, but I also see myself more related to Pat Buchanan.

Unfortunately Nader is backing Dean this time; while I still stand my ground firmly.

[AIPCQRC]

And also a good number of the Constitution party leaders are all ex-Republicans, they tried to keep the GOP back into the Right, but the Elites took the reins.
Don Grundmann is a ex-Republican; The GOP now has a good and growing number of Liberals in the Party, and I don't just mean the Log-cabin GOP'ers.
But obviously you're too uneducated to know Right from wrong, so keep voting GOP and the Left is still going to continue altering our Principals and values.

[jagrmeister]

>Unfortunately Nader is backing Dean this time; while I still stand my ground firmly.

Not clear. Jan 9, NY Times:

"ASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — He is sounding like a presidential candidate again, charging the Bush administration with "messianic militarism and subservient corporatism," and the Democrats with soft-pedaling liberal policies that were once mainstays of their party."

[Impy]

Why don't you more carefully read what I wrote sir.

"You know your little party sucked enough votes from him to cost him the '02 Controller's race! "

Steve Westly Dem 3,228,908 45.4
Tom McClintock Rep 3,206,178 45.1
Ernest F. Vance AmI 94,088 1.3
Laura Wells Grn 409,172 5.8
J. Carlos Aguirre Nat 176,791 2.4

Did you vote for Vance? If so I'm sure Controller Westly appreciates your support.

[Impy]

It saddens me you don't realize how irrelevant you are making yourself, my highly educated non-friend.

[AIPCQRC]

Ha ha ha ha!

I didn't vote for Vance because I was only 17 at the time!
I didn't turn 18 and register to vote until January 2003.

No, Vance didn't take votes away from McClintock; McClintock took votes away from Vance.
Sorry, I misread your previous posting, but in the Recall Election, did McClintock lose votes to Templin? No! Rather I'd say McClintock lost votes to Swarzenagger, many GOP'ers chose the moderate over the conservative, sadly.
(did you vote for McClintock in the Recall, by the way?)
Republicans don't lose votes to Third-Party candidates; its the other way-around; everybody votes for just who the news says is running; (Fox, CNN), its all properganda. In the 1968 Elections, George Wallace didn't take away votes from Nixon, or Humprey. Rather, both Humprey and Nixon, but especially Nixon, took votes away from Wallace.
As long as we keep electing Republicans to Office, there won't be a dime's (or a nickle's), much difference between both Parties. But if we start electing better, all conservative, constitutional candidates to office, can we change America back to the Constitutional Republic that it was. Third Parties don't steal votes, they are there to show the people that there's a better choice then just voting the lesser of two-evils (because your're still voting for evil, period.) they're also there to educate the people on just what a "wasted vote" is.

I'm not irrelevant; I'm just not brainwashed, that's all.

[AIPCQRC]

Ha ha ha ha!

I didn't vote for Vance because I was only 17 at the time!
I didn't turn 18 and register to vote until January 2003.

No, Vance didn't take votes away from McClintock; McClintock took votes away from Vance.
Sorry, I misread your previous posting, but in the Recall Election, did McClintock lose votes to Templin? No! Rather I'd say McClintock lost votes to Swarzenagger, many GOP'ers chose the moderate over the conservative, sadly.
(did you vote for McClintock in the Recall, by the way?)
Republicans don't lose votes to Third-Party candidates; its the other way-around; everybody votes for just who the news says is running; (Fox, CNN), its all properganda. In the 1968 Elections, George Wallace didn't take away votes from Nixon, or Humprey. Rather, both Humprey and Nixon, but especially Nixon, took votes away from Wallace.
As long as we keep electing Republicans to Office, there won't be a dime's (or a nickle's), much difference between both Parties. But if we start electing better, all conservative, constitutional candidates to office, can we change America back to the Constitutional Republic that it was. Third Parties don't steal votes, they are there to show the people that there's a better choice then just voting the lesser of two-evils (because your're still voting for evil, period.) they're also there to educate the people on just what a "wasted vote" is.

I'm not irrelevant; I'm just not brainwashed, that's all.

[AIPCQRC]

Ha ha ha ha!

I didn't vote for Vance because I was only 17 at the time!
I didn't turn 18 and register to vote until January 2003.

No, Vance didn't take votes away from McClintock; McClintock took votes away from Vance.
Sorry, I misread your previous posting, but in the Recall Election, did McClintock lose votes to Templin? No! Rather I'd say McClintock lost votes to Swarzenagger, many GOP'ers chose the moderate over the conservative, sadly.
(did you vote for McClintock in the Recall, by the way?)
Republicans don't lose votes to Third-Party candidates; its the other way-around; everybody votes for just who the news says is running; (Fox, CNN), its all properganda. In the 1968 Elections, George Wallace didn't take away votes from Nixon, or Humprey. Rather, both Humprey and Nixon, but especially Nixon, took votes away from Wallace.
As long as we keep electing Republicans to Office, there won't be a dime's (or a nickle's), much difference between both Parties. But if we start electing better, all conservative, constitutional candidates to office, can we change America back to the Constitutional Republic that it was. Third Parties don't steal votes, they are there to show the people that there's a better choice then just voting the lesser of two-evils (because your're still voting for evil, period.) they're also there to educate the people on just what a "wasted vote" is.

I'm not irrelevant; I'm just not brainwashed, that's all.

[onedoug]

Didn't Commando already endorse Jones?

And, I'm a little uncomfortable with Kaloogian's being 44 & single.

[Impy]

No, Vance didn't take votes away from McClintock; McClintock took votes away from Vance.

That's ig'nant dawg.

But if we start electing better, all conservative, constitutional candidates to office

Like oh say....Tom McClintock?