Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist defeated

[EmGeeGeorge]

whose standards? the bibles?

 

[longeyes]

Jim Gilchrist isn't a one-issue candidate; he's a candidate who has focused on the critical. Besides illegal immigration I've heard him speak at length on the nation's indebtedness problem, outsourcing, currency depreciation, et al. It's fair to say that Gilchrist has dared broach some of the unmentionables in American political discourse.

 

[ArmedBear]

Jim Gilchrist isn't a one-issue candidate; he's a candidate who has focused on the critical. Besides illegal immigration I've heard him speak at length on the nation's indebtedness problem, outsourcing, currency depreciation, et al. It's fair to say that Gilchrist has dared broach some of the unmentionables in American political discourse.

It was when he talked about those things that he showed that he is a protectionist reactionary, actually.

What no politicians will broach is the fact that, to economists, outsourcing is a GOOD thing, the US is becoming wealthier, and the economy is booming, with a healthy GDP growth more than double that of European nations with protectionist and "pro-labor" (actually high-unemployment) policies. Politicians can all go on with their fearmongering about how horrible it is to "outsource."

Currency depreciation? Uh, if you don't want outsourcing, then you don't want a dollar with an inflated value on world currency markets. A high dollar does benefit consumers, but of course so does outsourcing. And a lower dollar usually means that interest rates are low, so investors look to other currencies. Low interest rates = historically high home ownership, very good for the average joe. The two issues are inherently contradictory. On the other hand, our historically low inflation doesn't support the notion of genuine depreciation.

WRT indebtedness, I'd hardly say that's a taboo.

Gilchrist came off as a populist reactionary with no understanding of economics, not a pro-growth conservative who wants effective border security. Pro-growth conservative defines Orange County voters far better than populist reactionary.

 

[longeyes]

Thank you, Mr. Bush. I guess we'll see in time who has the sounder view of economics.

One thing not reported by the L.A. Times was the meager turnout, which I believe was under ten per cent of registered voters.

 

[ArmedBear]

Thank you, Mr. Bush. I guess we'll see in time who has the sounder view of economics.

We already have. France and Germany have had these policies already. Their GDP growth is half of ours and unemployment is double. Mexico had these policies, but dumped them.

Gilchrist and you might benefit from a little reading (so could Bush).

Here's a start:

http://www2.techcentralstation.com/1051/searchauthor.jsp?Bioid=BIOKLINGARNOLD

 

[308win]

Being here in Ohio we got little information on the campaign that Gilchrist ran. I expect that 1. Both the R & D oraganizations were demonizing his ideas and 2. It was a TV sound bite campaign and he had no money with which to compete. I did read that he succeded in moving what's-his-name to the right on immigration issues which is an accomplishment in itself. The first electorial shot on this issue has been fired ; volley fire is next.

 

[ArmedBear]

Being here in Ohio we got little information on the campaign that Gilchrist ran. I expect that 1. Both the R & D oraganizations were demonizing his ideas and 2. It was a TV sound bite campaign and he had no money with which to compete. I did read that he succeded in moving what's-his-name to the right on immigration issues which is an accomplishment in itself. The first electorial shot on this issue has been fired ; volley fire is next.

It really isn't that.

I heard a long interview with the guy. There are good reasons why he lost.

It is important to realize that 25% voted for the man, Jim Gilchrist. That does NOT mean that 75% voted against border enforcement. The majority of America want abortion legal, but somewhat restricted; Bush does not believe it should be legal except for special circumstances. But he won the election. Does that mean that a majority turned ideologically pro-life? No. You gets your ballot and you takes your choice.

So it IS good that Gilchrist raised the issue. Frankly, I figure most of the 25% he did get was because of this one issue.

 

[KriegHund]

Its a good start.

 

[longeyes]

We already have. France and Germany have had these policies already. Their GDP growth is half of ours and unemployment is double. Mexico had these policies, but dumped them.

Gilchrist and you might benefit from a little reading (so could Bush).

I'm well aware of the economic situation in Europe, and I don't support their policies, Ursine One. Bush's economic policies are a mixed bag as far as I'm concerned. His hands-off immigration policies have been disastrous and show no promise of implementing any real solution to the problem. Gilchrist was a strong toe in the water. His showing was impressive considering the voting constituency in that area; he actually outpolled Campbell on election day but lost because of absentee ballots cast long before his message was fully out there. Gilchrist wasn't the ideal messenger for the Do Something About Illegal Immigration message but he clearly demonstrated that people ARE concerned and slowly becoming aware. When you get 25 per cent of the vote you can swing elections; that means you are a force to be reckoned with.

The latest buzz is that Bush & Friends are contriving a strategy to ram through the "guest worker" program (as I have said, WE are the real guest workers) by letting the Senate carry the ball on that while the House pushes border security measures, then conflating the two. Whatever the pods do the anger is going to mount and become one of the two major issues of '08.

 

[Lupinus]

Fo a third paty 25% is huge. Maybe it is enough to get more third party votes and not be considered a waste of a vote. That or scare the republicans back to their base and relize how easily they can loose it.