Zogby--Feinstein has fragile lead over Campbell in California ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joel Harmon:
I agree with gitarmac. This is a situation where it sounds like you guys are screwed if you do and screwed if you don't. If the choices for Rep. and Dem. are this horrifying then you have nothing to loose. You must vote for a liberatarian. Even though he/she won't win it will be yet another vote that will send yet another message.

When it comes to president I will vote Dubya because to vote Browne would be a waste IMHO. For pres., we gunnies actually have a chance to possibly roll back some of these draconian measures (like the federal AW ban that expires in two years!).[/quote]

This is strongly worded, and very contradictory, in my opinion.

How can it be a "waste" to vote for Harry Browne in the national election, but not a waste to vote for the Libertarian (or other 3rd party candidate) in the Senate race in California?

And Bush is already on record stating that he WILL continue the AW ban AND the high-cap mag ban as well.

Whether you lose by two touchdowns or by an extra point, you still lose. And we're going to lose either way you cut it (both in CA and nationally).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>For this reason alone, its worth voting for Campbell this time around and then voting him down in the next Republican primary.[/B][/quote]

When was the last time THAT happened? I don't buy it, Mr. Pub. It looks good on paper, then the party faithful circle the wagons and it's all over but the crying.
 
Choosing the lesser of two evils is often the only pragmatic, realistic choice in politics today, and Feinstein MUST go. If Campbell is not perfect, so be it. Keeping a majority in the Senate is paramount, too. A Libertarian vote is a wasted one in this case. Doesn't anyone remember that clinton got elected with less than a 50% majority, after Ross Perot siphoned away votes from Bush?
 
My heart goes out to all RKBA Californians. This is definitely a lesser of two evils situation. I must admit I harbor an intense dislike for DiFi because she is anti-gun but even more so because she is a major hypocrite.

I thought WA had it bad with Patty Murray, but at least she is widely regarded as ineffective and basically useless. It's sad when you view these as positive traits in your senator!
 
Very well could vote Libertarian as I am voting Busch on the National front. I see the appointment of the SC still too critical at this time to vote third on the national but will vote stringently rkba on all other issues, and yes coin and others I may be playing it wrong going with the lessor nationally but the last time I voted third party we got King William and Prince Albert.
After this november its only very pro RKBA candidates national or otherwise. Hell if we lose this one everyone in Kali will be disarmed and will be hard to try an perserve any rights when there arent any left. So its kind of easy to vote libertarian.
 
I would sincerely hope that Californians would vote Libertarian in this race. If ever there was a case in which both candidates were mortal enemies of gun owners, this appears to be it. Why support someone who has made it clear he hates you?

Another point not raised on this thread so far: I believe Feinstein will be dropping out of the race later this month when The Evil Al Gore taps her for his vice-presidential candidate. What then in California?
 
A point to keep in mind: As a Democrat, Feinstein is an anti-gunner in an anti-gun party. As a Republican, Campbell will be an anti-gunner in a (somewhat) pro-gun party.

As I've remarked before, if the Republicans are in the majority in Congress, they need the vote of basically every Republican member to elect the leadership, and this has given the anti-gun left fringe of the party effective veto power over the choice of Repubican Congressional leadership. This has been the source of many of our problems with them over the last 6 years, their leaders constantly trying to screw us over behind the scenes, like Lott bringing the Juvenile crime bill to be debated right at the peak of the media's Columbine frenzy in order to help the Democrats push some gun control through. Campbell would only make that fringe stronger, make it even harder for the Republicans to select leaders who weren't anti-gun. So we'd face one party in Congress which is anti-gun, and has strong anti-gun leadership, and another party in Congress which is (sort of) pro-gun, but which ALSO has anti-gun leadership.

Frankly, if there are going to be anti-gunners in Congress, we are far better off having them quarantined in the minority party, rather than controlling the agenda of both parties.

A secondary issue, but no less important, is that if we tell the Republicans, through our votes, that we are willing to tolerate anti-gun Republicans, we'll see more and more elections in which our voting power is completely useless because BOTH major party candidates are anti-gun.

Personally, I think that we have GOT to start getting involved earlier in the process, in the primaries, to make sure at least one of the parties runs pro-gun candidates. Turnouts are usually much lower in primaries, so our clout will be much increased there if we just make the effort.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oberkommando:
Very well could vote Libertarian as I am voting Busch on the National front. I see the appointment of the SC still too critical at this time to vote third on the national but will vote stringently rkba on all other issues, and yes coin and others I may be playing it wrong going with the lessor nationally but the last time I voted third party we got King William and Prince Albert.
[/quote]

Why would you vote GOP on the national level in order to get good SC appointees, and NOT vote GOP in California to help ensure that those appointees are confirmed?
 
I think that it depends on how you view voting. Some people take an emotional approach, as though they were getting married. They want their candidate to be totally in sync with them or they won’t get their vote.

A different approach is to view voting as a game of chess. You decide what you want to accomplish with the choices you have available. You don't expect any politician to totally reflect your views.

Example: Suppose Diane Finestein was running for the Senate and, exact clones (with different names) of her, were running as the Republican and 3rd party candidates.

You would decide what you want to accomplish with the cards you have been dealt. One option would be not to vote at all. However, if you don't vote, you won’t have any influence at all - so forget that option.

What I would end up doing is voting for the Republican or 3rd party choice (whichever one had the greater chance of success). My reason would be:

1.) Knocking off a well known anti 2nd amendment democrat like Finestein in a supposedly safe democratic state would let other anti politicians know that they are not safe. Especially if it came out that the NRA voters were influential in her demise. This would cause other antis to take a lower profile and be less active.

2.) The Finestein clones would have no seniority and thus be less influential than the democrat Finestein.

3.) The Finestein clones would be muzzled by their parties when it came to RKBA bills. If you don't think that parties can moderate views - consider what happened to John Dingell, an NRA director at the time who was forced to vote for the assault weapon ban by the democrat party.

The point here is, by voting with your head instead of your emotions, you don't have to marry a politician, you just rent them. As long as you have influenced the outcome in some small way, then you have made a difference.
 
I will vote for Campbell, no one can be as bad as Feinstein. There was a lot of this type of discussion on Davis vs Lungren in the last election and look what happened to the gun control legislation. Mr. Pub is correct, it is a game, and I for one can't stand any more form letters back from her that say she basically disagrees with me on all issues. MWT
 
Mr. Pub, you're correct in that I no longer vote in Kalifornia, but I did for 35 years, from 1962 until Dec. 1997. I voted for certain Republicans who then turned right around and stabbed us gun owners and the Constitution, in the back. I fought the Marxist Socialist gun grabbers from very late 1963, when they told me (us, you), that I was the cause of JFK's death, because I owned a gun.

I was extremely active in the 1982 Prop. 15 fight (the only one we won). I've donated a great deal of time and money for our cause, and my wife worked assiduously in the fight, also.

I have had a dozen pro-gun letters published in the L.A. Times (Pravda West), Time Magazine, U.S. News and World Reports, and Newsweek. I have answered teeeeveeee anti-gun editorials in L.A., on both ABC and NBC, and was featured on a "gun issue" 30 minute program on CBS, nationally. (I also recruited a female IPSC shooter from the old Southwest Pistol League, to be on another "gun issue" teeeeveee show. The producer wanted a woman's POV.)

I debated the same issue on an hour long radio program on a station in Pasadena, although now, can't remember the call letters.) By the way, as an aside, if there are "lists," then I'm on them all.

That said, I feel qualified to speak on that backstabbing little wimpy weeny Tom Campbell, as to how he preaches his brand of Marxism and how we serfs and slaves don't really need to protect our lives without crawling on hands and knees to beg HIS (Big Brother's) permission to save ourselves.

Would I vote for Feinstein. Not only NO, but HELL NO! But I'd not vote for Campbell, either. If he takes her place,he'll stab you in the back. At least, Feinstein stabbed you (us) in the front.

By the way, here are my "illustious leaders" for many of my final years in Kalifornia. Feinstein, Boxer, Cranston, Wilson the Whimp,
Wilsom the Gov. Whimp, Looney Dan Lungren, Rosenthal, Waxman, Berman, and Yarovslovky... plus others of the same communistnazi ideology. See how much fun I had living there?

Do I want to see that slimey monster Feinstein defeated?? Sure. But if she is, then when you feel Campbell's long knife sliding up your backside, don't say you were not warned.

FWIW. J.B.
Life Member- Kalif. Rifle & Pistol Assoc.
Life Member- Kalif. Wildlife Assoc.
Life Member- N.R.A.
plus others.
 
Jay, it sounds like you have done a lot for protecting gun rights in California while you were here - thank you.

But like I said, I would vote for a feinstein clone as a Republican or 3rd party if he/she could knock off the democrat feinstein.

I'm not going to get emotional about it. I'm not even going to like it - but I will do it. I am making the best of the election choices that I have.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Pub (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
As the name implies, I'm not from California, so my opinion may not matter much. However, I'd like to point out a few things:

1. Feinstein is a national disaster when it comes to anti-gun legislation. She must go.

2. Campbell, for better or worse, is a republican. If the republicans can hold or improve on their lead in the Senate, pro-RKBA legislation has a chance. If we lose the house and senate, we're back to gridlock, and nothing will be accomplished.

3. If the Lib candidate has a chance to win, I'd say vote Libertarian. If this is going to be a protest vote against the two major party candidates, I'd say your wasting your vote. It probably won't send any real message except that the "gun extremists" have parted company with the republicans in Kalifornia. The practical effect will be that Feinstein will be elected, and we will be dealing with issue #1 and #2 above.

4. If it turns out that the NRA, pro-RKBA crowd is a large supporter of Campbell, maybe his views will change as his support base changes. Then again, maybe not. Kalifornia, like it or not, is enemy territory. There are more anti-gun people than pro-gun voters in the state, and he is probably counting that in his stance for more gun control. If pro-gun forces go all out for a 3rd party candidate that can't win, he'll probably think (rightly so) that you're out to get him and become more anti-gun in his policy. If the pro-gun crowd supports him and hands him the election, he might be more willing to take the more "unpopular" side of pro-gun activism in Kalifornia.

5. All in all, it's a tough decision, but any candidate that has a chance of defeating Feinstein is worth a look at. Just my two cents.

------------------
NRA Life Member
GOA
GSSF
 
This particular case, I'm gonna vote Campbell.

1) While he may support grabber bills, he's not a leader in generating them. DiFi is.

2) Showing that a major grabber can be beaten in a "liberal area" is a good thing.

3) Congressional GOP leaders are by and large very pro-RKBA right now. They get to decide committee seats IF they get the majority. They can pick as little as one committee where all grabber bills have to travel through, stack it with pro-RKBA folk, and kill off every bad bill coming down the pipe. Until something like Emerson clears the SCOTUS, that "stall plan" is the best we can hope for.

However, my support for him isn't anywhere near as strong as my support for Bush. Showing the GOP that we won't tolerate or support grabbers no matter WHO they're running against has merit. You wanna vote Lib in this one, I won't argue like I do with Bush.

But: when the Calif courts recently struck down the open primary, Tom Campbell screamed louder than anyone. He's the kind of semi-liberal "centrist" GOP that flourished under open primaries so blaming the GOP for this jerk isn't warranted.

Jim
 
If the repubs are so pro-gun then why did so many vote against the hostletter bill? If they are so pro-gun then why have all of Ala. reps vote for EVERY gun contol bill put before them. It sure does get tireing posting the same question on every website I go to and get no response at all. It's like everyone just sticks their head in the sand and doesn't want to believe what's going on around them. Saying you won't vote for a Liberatarian cause you don't think they will win, at least in this CA. case, is just a big fat cop-out. You have absolutly nothing to lose, yet you will not support the party that supports us the most. Talk about Sheeple!
 
OK, the Hostetler bill was one of two alternatives. The NRA backed the other. Here's their reasoning, posted by Mike Haas, President of the West Contra Costa NRA Member's Council (Calif) to the MC mailing list:

---------------

If you've heard of the controvery on the Hostettler amendments, this will be more than interesting. I find it curious that the Board has been deluged with mail about a "controversy" that hasn't been mentioned on MC or any familiar forum. Methinks Mr. Baker's suspicions below are well-founded.

Mike Haas

Ps. As I believe this was originally for BoD only, I've x'ed out Mr.
Baker's personal contact info. If you think you have important info
regarding such orchestration, send to me and I will forward. Thanks.

> "Michael P. Baker" wrote:
>
> > Hi, folks-- Regarding the sudden spate of angry e-mail posts which a number
> > of NRA BOD members have gotten recently regarding our position on the
> > Hostettler amendments, I believe I smell a rat.
> >
> > Every major NRA involvement either pro or con supporting an amendment or
> > bill always results in a few (or a bunch) of e-mail. However, what arrived
> > recently regarding the Hostettler amendments was more than a "bunch"--
> > it was a deluge; an unprecedented flood of angry "NRA-has-stabbed-gun-
> > owners-in-the-back" flood of posts. This is a put-up job, I believe.
> > Someone, somewhere has orchestrated this flood of e-mail.
> >
> > Here is the response I have been sending out to all the incoming posts
> > I have received on the subject:
> >
> > Mike Baker
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > TO:
> >
> > FROM: Michael P. Baker REPLY TO:
> > Micanopy, Florida
> > Member, Board of Directors 24-HR FAX (352) xxx-xxxx
> > National Rifle Association RES (352) xxx-xxxx
> >
> > NOTE!! My full-time job plus my involvement in RKBA grassroots activism
> > occasionally produces over 100 E-mail posts daily from across the nation.
> > I really DO welcome your input, but the fact is that sometimes I have no
> > time to deal with anything other than official material or posts of a
> > personal concern. Job, family, NRA business (& sometimes, a "real-life")
> > force ruthless deletion of many non-critical and/or non-personal posts
> > whose addresses are not outstandingly familiar.
> >
> > For personal response, put "ATTN: MIKE BAKER" in the subject line.
> > ******************************************************************
> >
> > Dear - - - -,
> >
> > This is in response to your post to me regarding NRA's position on the
> > Hostettler amendments.
> >
> > The problem with only hearing ONE side of the story (from Mr. Knox's
> > or GOA's perspective) is is just that-- You only have ONE side of the
> > story. The internet is rife with uninformed, childish chatter from
> > folks who may mean well, but are quite uninformed about the details
> > surrounding legislative activity. Such uninformed chatter is frequently
> > both unreliable and misleading. Even certain pro-gun organizations
> > and well known pro-gun people (see above) sometimes have personal agendas
> > that color their "reporting." I suspect the latter to be the cause for
> > your concern.
> >
> > On occasion, even *pro-gun* legislation is poorly thought out or will
> > likely result in creating other problems. The Hostettler amendments, in
> > NRA's opinion, clearly fell into that category. I can give you several
> > pages of valid reasons why NRA did not support the Hostettler amendments,
> > but in the interests of brevity I will limit this to a few paragraphs.
> >
> > Please investigate a bit deeper and I believe you will understand that
> > NRA has done the right thing. NRA HAS NOT COMPROMISED! It carefully
> > examined the proposed amendments and made the right choices.
> >
> > In the last few days, based on some one-sided and poorly informed reporting
> > circulating on the Hostettler amendments, there has been a bit of an uproar
> > within the ranks of the pro-gun-rights community regarding NRA's position
> > on Rep. Hostettler's series of amendments.
> >
> > After reading the pronouncements on the situation distributed by Mr. Knox
> > and others, I now understand what has generated the well intentioned (but
> > mis-informed) protests to me and other NRA BOD members. Some of the
> > statements by Mr. Knox and others did not tell you the whole story. After
> > looking into the situation and communicating with both Rep. Virgil Goode
> > and the NRA staff at Fairfax, I have some insight on the situation.
> >
> > In preliminary strategy meetings, NRA met with Rep. Hostettler and agreed
> > that his goal of putting a stop to Cuomo's anti-gun efforts was much
> > appreciated, but there were substantial differences of opinion as to how
> > best to proceed.
> >
> > In a nutshell, the most basic point is that Hostettler's amendments were all
> > designed EXCLUSIVELY to save S&W from themselves, while our Goode amendment
> > is designed to save the rest of us from S&W as well as to put a stop to other
> > games being played by Cuomo and his ilk. The following is the perspective
> > on the situation from NRA's point-of-view.
> >
> > Mike Baker
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Hostettler's recent series of amendments posed two problems. First, drafting
> > limitations forced the Congressman to put forward language that was, and is,
> > very limited in scope. NRA's opinion was that these amendments would not
> > achieve their intended goal of blocking Cuomo, as their very limited language
> > focused simply on preventing enforcement of, and further participation in,
> > the Smith & Wesson Sellout.
> >
> > The net effect would have been to give S&W a "free ride" to get out of the
> > agreement it intentionally brokered with Cuomo and the Clinton-Gore
> > Administration, but the amendments would have done nothing to keep the
> > Administration from harassing or enticing other gun companies into signing a
> > similar agreement. In particular, Hostettler's amendments did nothing to
> > preclude the type of financial extortion Cuomo has sought to deploy by
> > encouraging "purchase preferences" for S&W firearms.
> >
> > NRA's primary goal, by contrast, has been to ensure that no other gun makers
> > are driven into surrendering to the anti-gun extremists. As such, our
> > effort has focused on prohibiting the Clinton-Gore Administration from using
> > lucrative government firearms contracts to coerce other gun makers into
> > following S&W and surrendering our rights. Therefore, NRA worked with U.S.
> > Representative Virgil Goode (I-Va.) to introduce language that would prohibit
> > establishing politically-motivated purchase preferences for government
> > firearms contracts -- thus eliminating the "hammer" of Cuomo's effort, and
> > removing the threat that gun makers could expect to be financially rewarded
> > for agreeing to craven capitulations.
> >
> > The Goode amendment is similar to an amendment Hostettler offered several
> > weeks back, which NRA also supported, that sought to prohibit purchase
> > preferences for government firearms contracts originating with the
> > Department of Defense. However, as noted above, Rep. Hostettler's recent
> > amendments have diverted from this strategy.
> >
> > NRA is pleased to report that the Goode amendment was made part of the
> > Treasury / Postal Appropriations bill in the House with bipartisan support.
> > Opponents of the Goode amendment withdrew a threat to challenge it on the
> > floor, and similar language was introduced in the Senate Appropriations
> > Committee by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and accepted with strong support
> > from committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Rest assured NRA will
> > strongly defend the Goode / Shelby language from any effort to remove it
> > as the process nears completion.
> >
> > Again, NRA appreciates your concerns regarding recent activities in Congress,
> > and we hope that this detailed discussion of legislative strategy addresses
> > your query. NRA hopes that you will agree that it is extremely important
> > to keep other gun makers from being enticed into caving in to the Cuomo-
> > Clinton-Gore team with the lure of lucrative government contracts. NRA also
> > hopes that you will agree that such efforts are far more strategically sound
> > than focussing exclusively on saving S&W from the consequences of the
> > groundbreaking surrender that the company brought upon itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top