Posted on 12/07/2005 7:56:36 AM PST by Checkers
You still haven't solved the fundemental problem: Gilchrist has -NO- record.
I never said Campbell's record was impressive, merely that it gave at least some indication that he would make a halfway decent congressman that was probably right more often then wrong, effective more often then ineffective.
You have no such assurance from Gilchrist, who has done nothing noteworthy then the minutemen project.
I agree with you that the issue is potent. Despite the fact that we have done a piss-poor job of it throughout our entire history, we live in a time when controlling our borders is of paramount concern.
I even applaud the Minutemen concept, because we have a long tradition in this country, going back before our founding, of citizen militias acting for the common good.
However, Gilchrist's showing was weak because: (1) he spent a lot on the campaign, (2) he had the benefit of millions in free media thanks to KFI, (3) running as an independent, he certainly drew people who always vote for minority party candidates as well as cross-over votes from Dems looking to cause mischief. On top of that, it was a low-turnout election, which should have helped Gilchrist because (supposedly) he had the most motivated voters.
Despite all those advantages, he still couldn't even beat the under-funded, virtually ignored Dem in the race.
You can spin it anyway you want, but it was a weak showing.
What I really mean is that a good number of republicans are happy with socialist/intrusive government programs that could care less about liberty and freedom, And the only thing they care about are economic polices that benefit them at the expense of the strength of our country, they have no loyalty to the country and just want their deduction or tax break or ICE to look the other way
Although I would express it differently and don't agree totally, I do largely agree. However, I wouldn't limit the statement to Republicans. ALL but the rarest politicians care first about entrenching themselves and getting reelected as often as they wish. I think most have loyalty to the country, but have loyalty to their own wallets and prestige first.
Although there have been many betrayals of the limited-federal government ideal, the worst was passage of the federal income tax in the so-called progressive era at the turn of the last century. No other single act increased the power of the federal government as massively as ratification of the 16th Amendment. The states were happy to ratify it, of course, because they also got to grab a portion of their citizens' incomes right off the top.
Sadly, many citizens were also for it, at first because they thought it wouldn't affect them, then later because they thought the government was giving them something for nothing.
It is the income tax which makes possible nearly all of the big government problems we complain about today.
What exactly do you mean by that?
That has GOT to be the dumbest statement I've ever read on FR, and I've been here almost since the very beginning.
A small minority of freepers vigorously defended Bush's Pills for Geezers scheme. That plan is about as socialist as you can get.
While I like Jim Gilchrist, whether you lose by election day or absentee ballot, you still lose. I say this as one who has voted absentee for the past six elections. Hopefully, Jim has learned his lesson for his next race.
Which part would you like me to clear up?
I'm not familiar with the term "rollerball".
Gilchrist has stated his belief that he sees reality as resembling the world as depicted in the movie "Rollerball."
Unclear as to whether he means the James Caan version or the remake with Rebecca Romayn(sp?)Stamos.
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.