PDA

View Full Version : Tom Campbell


Peaceful John
01-21-2010, 9:57 AM
Found on Real Clear Politics:

"In the race for only a week, former congressman Tom Campbell has taken the lead in the Senate Republican primary in California. According to a new Field Poll (Jan. 5-17, 958 LV, MoE +/- 3.3%), Campbell jumps out front against previous front-runner Carly Fiorina, while conservative Assemblyman Chuck DeVore trails by a significant margin."

Does anybody know if Tom Campbell is good for our side?

Glock22Fan
01-21-2010, 10:01 AM
There was a thread, I think yesterday, that said that he was not a good choice for us, as he favors "common sense" restrictions and different laws for urban and rural areas (I presume this is something like farmers can have shotguns, but townies don't need anything).

Apart from that, I like Tom, and have followed his career for a while. He holds most of the same fiscally conservative views I do and talks common sense. Pity about his views on the Second.

PatriotnMore
01-21-2010, 10:09 AM
Take the time to review candidates, their voting record and positions on issues. This is not complete but it is better than having to guess.

I don't know if this site is a sticky, but it should be.

http://www.ontheissues.org/states/ca.htm

bwiese
01-21-2010, 10:29 AM
Tom Campbell discussed things with a few folks and he [or a campaign minion writing in his style] actually visited here and joined the thread...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231083

Thus we see Tom Campbell and Babs Boxer are not appreciably differentiable on the gun control front.

We do generally own Congress on gun matters, so the election of one or the other doesn't really change things w/r/to gunrights.

Given that there's gonna be a tight race between Babs and Tom (this IS California) as despicable as Babs is, it'd be great to shut down Campbell on this issue alone - the margin is likely to be thinner than the number of active gunnies in CA.

I hate Babs too but the priority needs to be "toast an anti in a marginal election where we don't lose anything for experimenting". We have more weight on this issue on the R side than D side so we might as well use our leverage.

bigstick61
01-21-2010, 11:21 AM
DeVore is definitely a better choice than Campbell and way better than Fiorina.

7x57
01-21-2010, 12:03 PM
Indeed, the last time I was following a thread on the Senate race nobody had anything really bad to hold against DeVore. I recall finding one vote I didn't like. I don't remember what it was, but I don't believe it was on a really core issue. More like something that would sound reasonable to a non-hostile but not terribly well gun-rights educated non-gunnie.

The converse of Bill's argument is that the danger to the republic appears to be on other fronts now that the Democratic party appears to have pulled their troops out of the Gun Rights fight, and Tom Campbell does appear to be genuine on fiscal issues. Since I'm not a single-issue voter and I don't think individual liberty, including self-defense, can endure without economic freedom, I am far more conflicted than he is. I have been facing the same conflict in a different race, unfortunately.

I got a call from Campbell's campaign for a telephone Town Hall at a bad time (putting the kids to bed) and only listened for a few minutes. Pity it didn't occur to me to just set the phone down until I had time and then asking a Second Amendment question. He can blow us off in private, but might find it a bit uncomfortable if he has to do it publicly. OTOH he might be quite happy to do so, but I can't see the harm in trying (if I had thought of it).

7x57

Legasat
01-21-2010, 12:16 PM
Doesn't look like I am going to get anywhere close to what I want in the upcoming Senatorial election. Chuck DeVore is the closest, but I don't think he has a real chance. Another election of choosing the lesser of the evils available. D@mn!!!!

bigstick61
01-21-2010, 12:21 PM
Well, if you're a Republican, you can always votein the primaries and try to convince others to do the same.

7x57
01-21-2010, 12:24 PM
Doesn't look like I am going to get anywhere close to what I want in the upcoming Senatorial election. Chuck DeVore is the closest, but I don't think he has a real chance. Another election of choosing the lesser of the evils available. D@mn!!!!

I don't think Tom Campbell really does either. The reported poll surprises me because I'd have guessed DeVore had the best chance of anyone worth electing.

7x57

Fjold
01-21-2010, 12:35 PM
I usually vote against people and things. Usually I have to vote for the person who is running against the person I loathe more.

If I can get a 50% candidate in and boot a 10% candidate out, I'm satisfied.

Peaceful John
01-21-2010, 1:05 PM
Legasat wrote:
"Another election of choosing the lesser of the evils available."

I've had it quite up to here with the lesser evil option. Every time I've succombed, we always seem to wind up with the Greater Evil in drag. Consequently, and prior to last election, my wife and I changed or registration to "Independent" and vote only for those we can support without holding our noses. Surprised how few pass that simple filter.

The argument that a liberal republican is better than a liberal democrat just doesn't hold water any more. And I understand that our position may well cause republican defeats, but I've come around to the "Springback" idea. If things get bad enough, there may be a rebound taking our society w-a-a-y over to the political right. All in all, that sounds pretty good, to me even considering the transitional costs.

Quser.619
01-21-2010, 3:43 PM
At this point I can say that anyone would be better than Boxer. There is no 2A support there. Fiscally what increase of spending has she not supported?

In regards to guns or money, I fear a left leaning Congress more than moderate or right one, especially w/ Obama wanting to be re-elected. The last thing Democrats want is to awaken even more people, so guns should be politically safe, the economy, I'm not so sure.

But appreciate hearing from this community regarding any candidate

7x57
01-21-2010, 4:11 PM
The bad thing about not putting up with the lesser of two evils anymore is that it increases the probability of getting the greater. I'm done with ideological purity in terms of the gun-rights fight, and I suspect it is a similar mistake to insist on it politically.

But then, not being a one-issue voter almost makes me an anomaly on this board.

7x57

PORCH
01-21-2010, 9:49 PM
Tom Campbell discussed things with a few folks and he [or a campaign minion writing in his style] actually visited here and joined the thread...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231083

Thus we see Tom Campbell and Babs Boxer are not appreciably differentiable on the gun control front.

We do generally own Congress on gun matters, so the election of one or the other doesn't really change things w/r/to gunrights.

Given that there's gonna be a tight race between Babs and Tom (this IS California) as despicable as Babs is, it'd be great to shut down Campbell on this issue alone - the margin is likely to be thinner than the number of active gunnies in CA.

I hate Babs too but the priority needs to be "toast an anti in a marginal election where we don't lose anything for experimenting". We have more weight on this issue on the R side than D side so we might as well use our leverage.

As much as I agree with your logic Bill, I have to throw my support behind Campbell in this race. I work in the agriculture industry in the Central Valley which is hurting for water right now and Boxer is a big time enemy. Campbell will work towards a solution. If I don't have a job then I won't have to worry about my gun rights because I won't be able to afford a gun or the ammunition to feed it.

CCWFacts
01-21-2010, 9:54 PM
I understand Bill's logic, but Babs is so bad on so many other issues. Everything from being at the center of the unrestrained orgy of spending, to numerous anti-privacy bills, to almost anything else I can think of, Babs is always on the wrong side.

Tom doesn't sound like a winner on the gun issue but I would rather have one less D- in Senate. 7x57's logic works for me. There are some other very serious issues facing this country and Babs is part of the problem.

Also, getting more Rs elected here would help return that party to viability in this state. We need to break the hold of Democratic machine politics here.

navyinrwanda
01-22-2010, 3:53 AM
Given that there's gonna be a tight race between Babs and Tom (this IS California) as despicable as Babs is, it'd be great to shut down Campbell on this issue alone - the margin is likely to be thinner than the number of active gunnies in CA.

I hate Babs too but the priority needs to be "toast an anti in a marginal election where we don't lose anything for experimenting". We have more weight on this issue on the R side than D side so we might as well use our leverage.

I can't agree that Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer are "equivalent" on gun rights. While Campbell is no supporter of the Second Amendment, he's never actively pursued an anti-gun agenda like Boxer has.

And Boxer has been an 18-year disaster for California and the entire country. I'm voting for "Anyone but Boxer."

Skullster
01-22-2010, 5:06 AM
BOOT BOXER

Any Senator that scolds a General for using the term Maam or Sir does not represent me. She wanted to be called Senator because she "earned" it. NO she did not earn it. The Title of Senator is bestowed upon the winner of the Election for the PEOPLES Seat. The Title could have been bestowed upon Michey Mouse if he received enough write in votes. NO BOXER NO MORE

BOOT BOXER

7x57
01-22-2010, 7:18 AM
BOOT BOXER

Boxer delenda est?

7x57

Skullster
01-22-2010, 8:23 AM
Boxer delenda est?



Sure why not! Personally, I am for Incumbant delenda est.

7x57
01-22-2010, 8:33 AM
Sure why not! Personally, I am for Incumbant delenda est.

Not me. I'm quite happy with incumbents such as Jim DeMint. But let's leave that aside and examine the problem with this particular variant of the 'purity' strategy. Our system rewards incumbents strongly, explicitly through things like committee appointments and implicitly through experience and so on. If you take a stand against all incumbents and your opponents (whoever they are) do not, guess what? Their seats are worth more than yours, because they have more seniority. They get a force multiplier.

In any event, incumbents are not the problem, they are a symptom of the fact that voters fail to hold them accountable for their votes. Among the many reasons for this is the simple fact that Americans expect their government to somehow work without them being involved more often than once an election cycle. Americans have done the equivalent of setting the cruise control on the motor home and then going back to take a nap while the vehicle drives straight and steady for the guard rail.

I'm more interested in addressing the problems than in addressing the symptoms, and my interest in purity wanes. I can't see how I could tell James Madison we lost the Republic over purity when they told us over and over we wouldn't get it and the system isn't even designed for it.

7x57

wildhawker
01-22-2010, 8:42 AM
Something to consider is the strength of the caucus; given a majority and political fortitude, a party can carry some votes internally by means of the herd. If the Reeps have strong pro-2A leadership made up of non-CA GOP elected officials, the borderline on the fence vote will typically run with the party. With this in mind, Campbell might not be an entirely 2A friendly candidate in a vacuum, but likely will carry the GOP torch when the bill(s) go to the floor... Whatever that might look like.

7x57
01-22-2010, 9:09 AM
In any event it seems unlikely that he'll actively shy bricks in our direction at every opportunity. Babs isn't quite an arch-gun grabber like DiFi, but she's certainly an enthusiastic follower.

7x57