NRCC Absentee Mailers For John Campbell

The National Republican Campaign Committee has done an independetn expenditure for John Campbell's congressional candidacy in the form of an absentee voter campaign. At least two absentee voter applications and one follow up piece were mailed to an approximately 100,000 voter universe.

This piece went out at the end of October:

And this piece went out during the first week of November:

And the follow up piece:

In light of how much of the December 6 votes will be cast by absentee -- some estiamtes as many as 70% -- the NRCC IE adds another magnitude of power to the tsunami that will hit the Gilchrist and Young campaigns that day.

 

Comments

[Phil Paule]

Jubal

Let's not underestimate the vast resources of the American Indenpendent Party. I am sure they will come to the rescue of the Gilchrist campaign.

[gopher]

Golly, it would sure be swell if they took half an interest in unseating Sanchez.

[Allan Bartlett]

Why would they do that Gopher? They might upset that vast non voting group known as the "hispanic vote". President Bush & Karl Rove want to keep hope alive with these people. Besides Loretta actually represents her Mexican/illegal aliens, ooops I mean Santa Ana constituents very well. Why would they want to change their rep. who wants to give em amnesty?

Powder Blue Report

[lanceman]

My wife and I vote by absentee ballot and we will sit this election out before voting for Campbell.

[JozefColomy]

Yeah, that's really smart...relinquish one of your inalienable rights as an American just because you're disgruntled about God knows what...

What I know is that John Campbell is the best choice for Congress in the 48th district, and anyone who thinks not is as sub-moronic as Uncle Jimmy. Anyone who questions Senator Campbell's stance on anything has obviously not looked at the facts. And no, by facts I don't mean what JimG posted on his website himself, I mean an actual voting record; an actual legislative record of fighting high-taxes, illegal immigration, and criminals in our great state. Senator Campbell will make a great addition to our House leadership and has the ambition to do great things once there.

[lanceman]

Little touchy aren't we Jozef? What "great house leadership" are you referring to? The only "house" Hastert, DeLay, Blunt etc. belong in is the big house. What about that "hot" item, the line-item veto? Haven't heard much about that lately have we.

Fighting for the issues that we care about? What about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? I guess those aren't "our" wars in the OC. In 2006, you better believe Iraq will be the top issue for the mid-term election. Where do you stand Mr. Campbell?

[lanceman]

Campbell stands wherever Bush, Hastert, DeLay and Blunt tell him to stand.

[JozefColomy]

lanceman, that's just fallacy, and the fact that you say it does not make it fact. Senator Campbell, like I've said before, has broken with the President on things such as the President's proposed reduction of the mortgage tax-cut.

You seem to have a very narrow political world-view, only bringing up topics that we see on Fox News or MSNBC or whatever you watch. Remember that there are many other issues facing America, such as the Chinese threat, tax reform, etc. I really don't see why you feel that Iraq will be a bone of contention in this mid-term...perhaps because the Democrats want it to be. Either way, though, the fact is we should let the military do its job, and quit criticizing and degrading the job that our good soldiers are doing.

Also, Mr. Anonymous, what are you talking about when you say "I guess those aren't our wars here in the OC"? I mean, seriously, that came from further out in left-field than when Uncle Jimmy brought up Rollerball.

And lanceman, that's 'President' Bush, 'Speaker' Hastert, 'Majority Leader' Delay, and 'Majority Whip' Blunt to you. And you should feel lucky to have them in the places that they are; although it seems as though you'd rather have Al Gore or John Kerry in the oval, Barney Frank in the Speaker's seat, Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader, and perhaps Pete DeFazio as the majority whip. If that were the case, then Iraq really would be the issue, because Saddam Hussein would still be in power and still gassing the Kurds and Iranians and still taking billions in oil money and converting that into nuclear technology completely under the radar.

I don't know why you feel that being Republican is bad in today's day and age, but shifting with the wind, a la John Kerry, is not the way that a politician should be. Politicians should maintain principles, no matter how fashionable or not-fashionable their opinions are. If you want to elect someone who will turn democrat when bad things transpire when their is a republican majority, then go ahead and vote for Jim Gilchrist; he's already clarified that he has more faces than a dodecagon. However, if you want someone who has principles and will actually vote how he advertisied he would to his consituents, then John Campbell is the only choice for the 48th.

[Blog Watcher]

Al Gore or John Kerry in the oval, Barney Frank in the Speaker's seat, Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader, and perhaps Pete DeFazio as the majority whip. If that were the case, then Iraq really would be the issue, because Saddam Hussein would still be in power and still gassing the Kurds and Iranians and still taking billions in oil money and converting that into nuclear technology completely under the radar.

Can you please tell me how you know this? How is it you know such things?

[Blog Watcher]

Al Gore or John Kerry in the oval, Barney Frank in the Speaker's seat, Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader, and perhaps Pete DeFazio as the majority whip. If that were the case, then Iraq really would be the issue, because Saddam Hussein would still be in power and still gassing the Kurds and Iranians and still taking billions in oil money and converting that into nuclear technology completely under the radar.

Ooops. I meant it to look like this.

[lanceman]

In his most recent mailer, Campbell declares that he won't vote for the Kennedy-McCain Amnesty. What he DOESN'T say is his stand on the Corzine-Kyl bill which is almost as bad. The mortgage tax cut was not Bush's proposal it was the proposal of a commission Bush set up. No political risk there.

Face it, Bush's domestic agenda is toast. The agenda for 2006 is for the GOP to save itself and Bush at all costs. If it means reckless spending, lip-service to "get-tough" on illegals they will do it. The primary reason Bush is toast is that citizens have realized that they were sold a bill of goods on the Iraq war and that the war has been a disaster despite all the candy handed out.

Why was Chalabi welcomed in Washington last week when he has given us bad intelligence as well as told the Iranians that we had broken their code???

Why can't any of the war hawks explain this???

Why does Bush appoint campaign donors (ie cronies) to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and encourage illegal aliens to cross the border????

[JozefColomy]

Blog Watcher: If the election in 2000 had transpired the way that I hypothecized we would not have gone to Iraq. If this were the case, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be gassing people because until we took him out of power, he hadn't shown any signs of becoming a nice-guy. Not to mention that the Oil-For-Blood, err I mean Oil-For-Food, fiasco would still be around and would be pumping billions of dollars into Saddam Hussein's pocket still. It's not that hard...

lanceman: In my opinion, which does not necessarily represent that of John Campbell, we need the illegals over here to keep our economy afloat. Face it, our welfare system is so beyond screwed up that the welfare recipients don't actually work. Keeping all illegal people out only hinders our economy by stifling labor. Personally I love the idea of a guest-worker program, but only if it is a hybrid bill that lowers welfare benefits at the same time, because the welfare system is the real problem. Also, you must have been smoking out of CNN's crack-pipe to call our operation in Iraq a "disaster". The only reason the public support for the war is so low is because the media creates a false image of what actually goes on over in Iraq. Ask anyone who is actually in the military and they will tell you tales that vastly differ from that of any media outlet. As for the Corzine-Kyl Bill--Why waste money printing your opinion on something that most people have not heard of? I mean honestly, most even half-politically-active Americans have heard of the Kennedy-McCain tomfoolery, and stating your opinion on that gives voters a pretty good idea of where you stand on immigration issues. You're just nit-picking now...

[Blog Watcher]

Blog Watcher: If the election in 2000 had transpired the way that I hypothecized we would not have gone to Iraq. If this were the case, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be gassing people because until we took him out of power, he hadn't shown any signs of becoming a nice-guy. Not to mention that the Oil-For-Blood, err I mean Oil-For-Food, fiasco would still be around and would be pumping billions of dollars into Saddam Hussein's pocket still. It's not that hard...

Baalllloonneey. Your hypothetical is exactly that. A hypothetical and nothing more.

Here's some tidbits for you to chew on. The only time Hussein gassed his fellow countrymen took place while Reagan was in office and we did nothing.

And he was the monster he became because we made him. We put him in power in the late 60's, and we helped arm him during the 80's. And who was President then?

Here's a hypothetical for you. If Gore had been elected POTUS, the wacko right wingers would have been trumping up any number of bogus charges for possible impeachment while over 200 FBI agents were working for a special prosecutor scouring the Tenesee countryside looking for dirt instead of looking for real criminals. Thereby distracting him and the nation while the deadliest terrorist plot was being hatched locally. And when it was executed, guess who would have taken the blame? And if Gore had gone after Hussein, the same wacko right wingers would have started bellyaching about him invading a sovereign nation. Sound familiar? Given recent history, I have no doubt my hypothetical is more realistic than your hypothetical.

[WindsurferJohn]

Anyone that believes John Campbell won't be voting for some form of the Bush Amnesty is smoking rope.

“These people are clearly members and rooted in our community. They’re going to stay here every bit as much as you or I are going to stay here.” -John Campbell, OC Register

“Illegal immigrants should be given the same benefits as everyone else…” - John Campbell, OC Register

[JozefColomy]

Hey BlogWatcher, if you give someone a knife and they stab you, it is still a crime.

By the way, conservatives never complain when our country is defending itself, only liberals do. Please tell me the last time that we whined about invading a sovereign nation in order to protect our people...Did we during our invasion of France, The Netherlands, Germany, Mexico, Grenada, Vietnam, Panama, El Salvador, Cambodia, Italy, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria, etc.? I think not.

Trumped up charges for impeachment? You mean like those that Defeat Bush, MoveOn.org, and any number of other "PAC"s are making about the current administration? Because I know you aren't talking about when Slick Willy was impeached because the charges were completely legitimate and the only reason that he was not kicked out of the oval was because President Clinton was above the law, apparently, and the Senate Dems ignored acutal evidence and subsequently let him off.

Now, to get back to the point of this blog: John Campbell is the best choice for the CA-48...You say he will support amnesty, yet you have no tangible evidence to support your assertion. However, Uncle Jimmy himself, Mr. MinuteMan-I'll-protect-America-and-John-Campbell-will-eat-your-children, said in June of this year that he would support amnesty for illegals. Windsurfer, that first quote you posted has nothing in it that would say that he supports amnesty...it's just the cold, hard truth that if we don't do anything, nothing will get done. Also, that second quote was taken out of context with extreme prejudice and you know it. Why don't we look at the legislative record of John Campbell? Hmm, let's see he voted against SB 60, SB 804, and AB 60, all of which would have given driver's licenses to illegals, an amazing 5 times. He also voted against providing in-state tuition for illegals 3 times by voting NAY on AB 328 twice and AB 153 once. Hmm, let's see what else...oh he voted against requiring law enforcement to accept Matricula consular ID cards when he voted against AB 522. He also fought to get $500 million in benefits for illegals taken out of the state's '03-'04 budget.

I mean, you can believe JimG and his followers, who only put forth hear-say and lies, or you can believe the actual Assembly and State Senate record when you go to vote on December 6th. Just know that Uncle Jimmy has made it fairly clear that he either has no stance, or he has more than one stance on every issue...is that the kind of Congressman you want? Do you want your representative in the Federal government to be someone who describes themselves as being "part conservative, part left-wing wacko"? A former Democrat who calls himself a Reagan Republican who is running as an American Independent and who votes for Socialist/Green candidates?

[Blog Watcher]

Hey Jose. Nice attempt at deflection. But the fact remains my hypothetical has more basis in fact than your hypothetical.

As far as Dems ignoring evidence? Well shucks. There Repubs who voted against conviction as well. Reason being, they like most normal Americans, realized the whole proceedings were pretty much bogus from start to finish. Anyone with the sense God gave a lemon can see that. And with all the fawning by conservatives over 'Scooter' Libby, perjury must not be that serious. Because all we hear about is his being a great American who has devoted his life to public service.