Posted on 10/01/2005 6:30:23 PM PDT by SC33
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - When voters in one of California's most conservative congressional districts go to the polls on Tuesday, they will find a wild card on the ballot: The founder of the Minuteman movement, who has become a lightning rod in the furor over America's borders.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wow! The whole circus has come to town. First Tancredo (who no doubt issued a press release to announce his forthcoming press release) and now Keyes. Ron Paul would make it the trifecta.
It can, if the Republican vote is split.
Think Clinton winning with 42%, while the Republican vote was split between Dole and Perot.
Same thing can happen here.
I wouldn't worry about it. I doubt Gilchrist will get much support at the ballot box.
I did get the story straight about Gilchrist's party's opposition to the Iraq War (and thus being a liberal stance). It says it right on their party's home page. Do your own some research!
Precisely why he shouldn't be nominated.
Oh, I'd say you got that covered.
You are clearly attempting to misstate Gilchrist's position on the war, which I stated accurately. You're trying to make him out as some sort of liberal when he's the only conservative in the race because you're afraid of the effect he'll have on your candidate. But lying about an opponent's record and positions is a liberal tactic, not a conservative one, and reveals your true worldview.
I correctly stated that Gilchrist's party's platform has a firm anti Iraq War stance which is liberalism. His party's platform opposes what would have amounted to the Vietnam War. Again, that's liberalism. Read it on their home page for yourself.
Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Iraq. That's liberalism. You'll counter with, "but he supports the troops." Well that's typical liberal spin machine philosophy that you hear from the anti-war left. You can't support the troops and oppose the war. That's the same as saying you support firemen except when they put out fires. Doesn't make sense. Thus, liberalism.
......... he won't win in that particular district.
Are you really this obtuse? You sound just liek that phony "candidate" that we ran out of here. I don't think he was really this obtuse eitehr. I think it was a deliberate smear because you Republibot open-borders security-risking libs are afraid of Jim Gilchrist.
Gilchrist has said that he supports staying in Iraq to finish the mission. Whether or not we should have gone, we're there. To leave now would be a worse disaster than what was there before. That is the same position that we hold. You go to war, you have to win the war. Period. And that is Gilchrist's position.
You need to research Glchrist's party's platform further before you post here and support him. Also, you need to research my anti-liberal views. I'm Pro-America!! I have supported the invasion of Iraq from day one and continue to support the mission. We'll stay the course until the mission is completed. In fact, I myself served in earlier rounds of the Persian Gulf War. Have you ever served in the military? I speak from experience. I'm for enforcing laws to eliminate illegal immigration. Thus, I'm no lib.
You need to research Gilchrist's own views, not try to tar him with views he doesn't hold. Doing that is a liberal tactic, showing how worried you Republibots are that people will catch on to the fact that your boy is an open borders liberal.
Of course, we'll stay the course until the mission is completed. Gilchrist has said that he supports that. Deal with it.
And yes, I have worn my country's uniform, and proudly so.
I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom from Day one and continue to do so. I'm Pro-America.
I'm not trying to give both sides a sales pitch in that "I oppose the invasion, but support the troops" such as you, Gilchrist, and John Kerry are doing.
You're still misstating the Gilchrist position on Iraq, I think deliberately. He has said that we need to stay in Iraq and finish the job we started, and that he supports winning the war. I don't know why that seems to be so hard for you to understand, unless it's on purpose.
Read closely: "He opposed the invasion of Iraq." That came from his supporters.
You have someone read it to you more closely, since you are obviously incapable of reading it for yourself: He supports the mission and supports victory in Iraq. That comes from Gilchrist himself.
But for some reason youo refuse to understand this. Dilletantes and losers, open-borders security riskers like you are useless in this forum.
I don't give a rip about endorsements. I want to hear the candidates put forth ideas. That Campbell is against the Bush plan tells me nothing about what he is for. I've got a good idea what Gilchrist's border policy is, but all I've heard of Campbell's is what his isn't.
Perhaps you have heard of Project Minuteman? You know, the only actual attempt to do anything about the flow of illegal immigrants since Janet Reno's token attempts? Gilchrist has a lot of cred in this area, and I'd like to hear Campbell address it.
And, long-term, substantively, what has Minuteman actually accomplished?
You know, besides getting Gilchrist some PR.
It got the issue off of the back shelf and made it something that people like Tom Campbell, Arnold Swartzenegger, and David Dreier actually need to address if they want to avoid splintering their base.
I've said it before: the purpose of a political party is to serve the needs and interests of its members, not vice versa. The CA and National RP have NOT been doing so on this issue. It is the number one issue effecting day-to-day life in CA, from schools to hospitals to traffic to crime to taxes for social services to crumbling infrastructure to wages. If the CARP does not get behind this, they deserve to lose.
I'm denouncing Gilchrist's party's platform simply from info posted on their home page! Why don't you read it? They oppose the Iraq War and Gilchrist opposed the invasion of Bagdad. That's a liberal stance. Are you all, Cindy Sheehan, Martin Sheehan, Jodie Evans, and the peaceniks getting along real well now?
Your trying to flip flop on the issue since you see his candidacy failing. I suggest that Gilchrist go to the far southeastern California border district and run there.
Oh, also read what I'm telling you. I support a strenghthening of laws to block illegal immigration.
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.