Tom Campbell is my choice even though there are things I can seriously disagree with on all three of the nominees running this year. None of them are perfect individuals and they do have a sincere desire to make a difference for the people of our state.
California is a different state since Reagan left the White House in 1989, California is not as white as it used to be and we vote for Democrats most of the time now. Californians have not really taken kindly to anyone who is pro-life or opposes major Democratic or other progressive initiatives.
However I want to help elect someone who could reach out to dissatisfied Democrats and Decline to State voters who want a new direction for our state in a changing political climate.
If we want to get people to vote for a pro-life candidate we need to change the political climate, but I don’t expect the voters to easily turn on a dime to accomplish that feat. However if you want to help reduce abortions, we need to educate the youth.
Tom may be unorthodox, but maybe we do need someone who thinks outside the box to help us provide solutions to the problems we face in society such as health care, education and the budget deficit.
If Tom is the nominee he will need to reach out to the Israel supporters and the 2nd Amendment folk if he wants to make any headway so people do not end up abandoning him a second time.
I am afraid that people will sink Carly and Chuck much worse than Tom Campbell and that is why I am supporting Tom. I believe Tom is more electable.
Welcome to Campbell or No Deal. I am usually open to voting for the far right candidates at times, I voted for Richard Mountjoy in 2006 as an example. However the DeVore or No Deal movement is going to kill the enthusiasm for Republicans of the centrist and liberal perspective to consider voting for another DeVore or McClintock in a future election.
Here is the criteria, if Tom gets 10% less of the vote as compared to the Governor Nominee in November if Tom is our nominee and loses, but could of won if those missing voters supported him. Then we all vote a straight Libertarian Party ticket in 2012 from State Assembly to President.
If we all vote Libertarian in 2012, maybe it could show all the lost voters who left the Republican Party for an election.
Honestly, I will still vote for Carly or Chuck in the general election if Tom is not going to win the nomination. However I am going to be yelling SEE I TOLD YOU SO, if Boxer wins another term.
Privately some of us did not vote straight ticket for various campaigns, but yes I am worried about the DeVore or No Deal movement. However if Campbell can run without the Conservative establishment and win, maybe we can change the party for the better.
This is a scary reminder of the 2000 Campbell campaign where people refused to vote for him and instead either voted for Feinstein or third party. Where we saw less people voting for Campbell 3,886,853 as compared to Bush 4,567,429 in the 2000 election. Voting for Boxer would be like cutting your nose off for no apparent reason.
Working the San Bernardino County Republican Party GOTV effort in 2000, I even had people say I refuse to carry any of the flyers because Tom is pro-choice and not toeing the line of the NRA. And the executive director sent all his fliers to the recyclers because most of the volunteers were far of the right wing of him.
I bet social liberal/fiscal conservatives in our party could play the same game too and that would be rather counterproductive. I wish we could learn how to hold our noses and just simply vote for the individuals. I may have not liked John McCain and Sarah Palin’s positions on LGBT equality, but I knew President Obama’s vision for America would be way more dangerous for our nation.
Just as how Assemblyman DeVore said he would do his best if Tom Campbell or Carly Fiorina became our nominee for U.S Senate, I will do the same if Chuck or Carly will be our nominee. However if I see the same situation happen in 2010 to Tom, I will likely just vote a straight Libertarian Party ticket in 2012 whenever possible (as long as Proposition 14 does not pass).
We are in a two party system, and we have to learn how to make sacrifices whenever possible. No party will be exactly perfect to an individual’s beliefs. Ask the pro-life big government Latino, or the pro-gay rights limited government homocon on how tough their voting choice can be.
Ideological Purity is only going to help Boxer win another term in California. Here is an excerpt from a column by Dennis Saunders about how the far right is ganging up on Tom Campbell.
Tom Campbell, a former Republican congressman from California, decided late last year to drop his bid for Governor of the Golden State and instead join the race the GOP Senate primary in the bid to unseat Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.
Early on, some feared that Campbell’s entry would split the socially moderate vote between Campbell and Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett-Packard, leaving social conservative, State Senator Chuck Devore, as the winner. Instead, Devore is trailing in third, while Fiorina and Campbell duke it out.
In another time, heck, in another universe, Campbell would be the clear winner in a GOP Primary. He is what might have passed for a California Republican 20 years ago: fiscally conservative and socially moderate. He was against Prop 8 which banned gay marriage in 2008 and has long supported same sex marriage. Indeed, Log Cabin Republicans, one of two gay Republican groups, has endorsed Campbell because of his pro-same-sex marriage stance.
As I said, in another time, Campbell would be an easy winner. But this is not another time. Because we live in an era where ideological purity seems to matter more and more, Campbell is receiving the brunt of some unfair attacks by other groups.
More at: Republicans United
I know some groups want purity, but we also want leaders who are inclusive. I know GoProud is more conservative in nature than Log Cabin, but will their conservative friends help in the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or other non-marriage equality issues?
Recently Tom Campbell wrote up a response about how to solve the health care issue in the United States for an alternative to the proposals the Democratic Party and President Obama have proposed. I am glad that Tom is actually thinking up solutions on how to solve the pressing issues that we face in California instead of telling people only what we oppose.
Unfortunately Tom needs to go back on the drawing board because his proposal has some externalities that could actually hurt the people that it is intended to benefit. Relying on the private insurance industry is not a good idea because as what Calitics stated, if we remove the anti-trust laws to allow for inter-state insurance policies then insurance companies will set up shop in the states that have the weakest regulations and consumer protections. It sounds good for the opportunity to drive down insurance prices by allowing for more competition, but without regulation we will have bare bones policies that do not cover anything.
Insurance is an industry that is measured based on risk and will insurance companies bid on high risk clients in an open bidding process? If no one bids in a particular region according to Tom Campbell’s plan, the status quo would still be maintained and nothing would happen for the people in a given region to those who are involuntary uninsured for example with pre-existing conditions or people under a certain income level.
Tom’s proposal needs revisions so it could pass scrutiny with congress and the general public. If Tom wants a waiver in how to spend Medi-Cal and SCHIP monies, Tom will need to make sure consumers are protected and the taxpayer’s money is spent efficiently to provide the services people depend on. The problem is private insurance has a bad reputation and with the public option the grass is not greener on the other side. Tom should be applauded for trying to start dialogue on the health care issue, but we need to keep on thinking further for the best solution.
Recently I decided to visit the Tom Campbell website, home of one of the leading candidates for California Governor. Visit his exploratory committee website to get on his email list or to donate some money to his campaign.
There is not much on his site right now, but when 2009 approaches there will likely be more content about why he wants to be the Republican nominee.
Tom Campbell is a former congressman, state senator, budget director with a doctorate in economics and a law degree has decided to setup an exploratory committee to run for governor of California under the Republican Party.
Although being an academic, Tom defiantly had politics in his mind when deciding to get back in the swing of politics. Tom is the type of candidate California needs when we have a 15 to 20 billion dollar fiscal crisis where leadership can finally be provided unlike the Davis and Schwarzenegger administrations. With his economics and law background, Tom could end up providing leadership on the issues that have been causing great pain to our state.
The irony is all the leading California Republicans who are wanting to run for governor are from the Silicon Valley. It may hurt the base that they do not want Republicans who are weak in their political ideology, but many of the Republicans have been unsuccessful in their state wide elections for offices such as Attorney General and Lt.Governor. I remember in 2000, when Tom was our nominee for US Senate many of our volunteers in San Bernardino County did not want to pass out Tom Campbell campaign flyers when we were doing precinct walking, but maybe if Tom could reach out to voters in counties such as San Bernardino, Ventura, Riverside and even San Diego he might have a chance to win the nomination in 2010.