PDA

View Full Version : Tom Campbell polling ahead of Boxer may change Primary




Brian4Liberty
06-04-2010, 11:42 AM
Have been hearing on the ground that Republicans are switching to Campbell because he is polling ahead of Boxer for the General Election. Who knows...


Tom Campbell still confident he can beat Fiorina in primary

By Jessica Bernstein-Wax

Bay Area News Group
Posted: 06/03/2010 05:58:23 PM PDT

FILE -- Republican Senate candidate Tom Campbell is confident he can still win... (Nhat V. Meyer)

Republican Senate candidate Tom Campbell, appearing before Silicon Valley business leaders in Palo Alto on Thursday, said he is confident he can still win next week's primary despite recent polls that show him trailing Carly Fiorina by about 15 percentage points.

In a Capitol Weekly poll released Thursday, Fiorina led Campbell 40 percent to 24.5 percent, counting those "leaning" toward either candidate. Over the weekend, the University of Southern California and Los Angeles Times released a poll in which Fiorina led Campbell 38 percent to 23 percent. Candidate Chuck DeVore came in last with 16 percent.

However, the Los Angeles Times poll also showed Campbell beating incumbent Barbara Boxer 45 percent to 38 percent in a general election matchup. By contrast, Fiorina trailed Boxer by 6 percentage points, commanding 38 percent to Boxer's 44 percent.

"That's the argument that wins, particularly for the voters who have not yet made up their minds: Pragmatically, I can beat Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina cannot," Campbell said before a round-table discussion with Silicon Valley business figures. "If we're interested in beating Barbara Boxer, we need to nominate somebody who's fiscally conservative and socially moderate."

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_15222526?source=autofeed#


GOP Senate candidate Campbell back on the air
Posted: June 3rd, 2010 09:38 AM ET

From CNN's Kevin Bohn and Jessica Yellin

Los Angeles (CNN) – After being dark for two days in the crucial home stretch of the primary campaign because of a shortage of cash, Republican Senatorial Candidate Tom Campbell is back on the air Thursday with a new television ad touting his electability.

"I do have something neither of my opponents can offer. The Los Angeles Times announced a poll that shows me beating Sen. Barbara Boxer by 7 points. Carly Fiorina loses to Barbara Boxer by 6 points. Let's not lose this historic opportunity to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer," says Campbell in his new ad.





Why Tom Campbell Should Win the California Republican Senate Primary
June 02, 2010 01:10 PM ET

By Scott Galupo, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

As a traditionalist on social issues, I tire pretty quickly of the media’s—and much of official Washington’s—never-ending quest for more fiscal conservatives with moderate social views. As my friend Ramesh Ponnuru often notes, social conservatives, especially evangelicals, are the GOP’s most dependable bloc of fiscal conservatives. And so-called moderate Republicans, like the fading Arlen Specter once was, are as likely to cross party lines on spending, not just on abortion.

But in coastal states like Massachusetts (see Brown, Scott) and California, flexibility on life issues and marriage, as a practical matter, is hard to quibble with. So it’s a bit troubling to read Jim Carlton’s report in the Wall Street Journal detailing Republican Senate candidate (and former House member) Tom Campbell’s apparent stall in Tuesday’s primary against Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. (The winner gets to face Sen. Barbara Boxer in November.)

[See where Boxer gets her campaign funds.]

I remember Campbell well. When I moved to Washington permanently in June 1998, the capital was about to become embroiled in the Clinton impeachment drama. At some point during the summer—August, as I recall—the president delivered his notorious non-apology apology. “I misled people,” and all that.

One by one, a group of about 20 moderate House Republicans who’d been hedging on impeachment fell in line against Clinton. Among them was then-Rep. Tom Campbell.

In the rash of television interviews for and against impeachment, Campbell was, to my lights, easily the most persuasive advocate for impeaching the president—far more effective than the Judiciary Committee members, including even the late, great Henry Hyde, who would actually argue the case in the Senate.

I don’t remember Campbell’s words verbatim, but they came down to this: If it’s in Bill Clinton’s interest to lie, he will lie. And if he lied about this, what wouldn’t he lie about?

I’d love to see that guy back in Congress.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/scott-galupo/2010/06/02/Why-Tom-Campbell-Should-Win-the-California-Republican-Senate-Primary.html

specsaregood
06-04-2010, 11:44 AM
Just talked to 2 associates in cali that aren't really into politics. They are both voting for Campbell, they hate fiorina. The fact that campbell has a better chance of beating boxer pushed them both his way.

TXcarlosTX
06-04-2010, 11:48 AM
is campbell one of us?

specsaregood
06-04-2010, 11:54 AM
is campbell one of us?

I think that is up for much debate. He is definitely better than many, but does have some downsides.

Dr. Paul supposedly wrote him a letter back in 2002 and said:


“I must tell you (tom campbell) that I miss your presence here as a voice of reason. Unfortunately, the void left by the absence of one as knowledgeable about and committed to the Constitution as you is not easily filled.” (Letter May 21, 2002) "

dannno
06-04-2010, 11:54 AM
Thank you for writing to express your support for an audit of the Federal Reserve. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

I am pleased to report that the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment (S.Amdt.3738) by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to S.3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, which would require a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve. The Senate passed S.3217 by a bipartisan vote of 59-39 on May 20, 2010.

S.Amdt.3738 would require the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a comprehensive audit of all emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2007. In addition, the Federal Reserve would have to reveal to Congress and the public the names of all institutions that received more than $2 trillion in aid.

Be assured that I will keep working to ensure that a thorough and complete audit of the Federal Reserve occurs and that all future Federal Reserve activities are conducted transparently and in the light of day.

Thank you again for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

dannno
06-04-2010, 11:55 AM
is campbell one of us?

DeVore is a stronger Constitutionalist as far as talking about it and the role of govt, etc.. but he's opposed to medical cannabis and is more pro-war than most of us like..

Tom Campbell is much more open to cannabis legalization.. he's also better than Fiornia or whatever her name is.

specsaregood
06-04-2010, 11:59 AM
DeVore is a stronger Constitutionalist as far as talking about it and the role of govt, etc.. but he's opposed to medical cannabis and is more pro-war than most of us like..

Tom Campbell is much more open to cannabis legalization.. he's also better than Fiornia or whatever her name is.

Is devore also a big "social conservative"? That was the impression I got. Whereas campbell is more on the liberal side for social issues, no? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know which social issue side has a better chance in the general election.

dannno
06-04-2010, 12:07 PM
Is devore also a big "social conservative"? That was the impression I got. Whereas campbell is more on the liberal side for social issues, no? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know which social issue side has a better chance in the general election.

Ya I'm still confused as to how you can be for individual liberty and also be for locking someone up for growing a plant and not harming anybody else.

teamrican1
06-04-2010, 01:26 PM
I think the general consensus is Carly is the worst from our perspective. Campbell and Devore are both flawed in different ways, but they both also have some qualities that people on this forum would appreciate. I think on the whole, Campbell is the better guy to support. First because he can actually win, and secondly because the things he bring to the table (legalization of pot, skepticism of war) are things that aren't currently well represented in the Republican Senate Caucus.

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2010, 01:28 PM
is campbell one of us?

Relatively speaking, yes. As is DeVore.

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2010, 01:33 PM
I think the general consensus is Carly is the worst from our perspective. Campbell and Devore are both flawed in different ways, but they both also have some qualities that people on this forum would appreciate.

That sums it up nicely...

specsaregood
06-04-2010, 02:59 PM
I think the general consensus is Carly is the worst from our perspective. Campbell and Devore are both flawed in different ways, but they both also have some qualities that people on this forum would appreciate. I think on the whole, Campbell is the better guy to support. First because he can actually win, and secondly because the things he bring to the table (legalization of pot, skepticism of war) are things that aren't currently well represented in the Republican Senate Caucus.

And it currently looks like they are gonna split the conservative vote so the establishment candidate can win. Man, those establishment guys are good....

South Park Fan
06-04-2010, 04:51 PM
I heard from a DeVore intern that preliminary results from absentee ballots show DeVore to be within three points of Fiorina.

silentshout
06-04-2010, 06:16 PM
I definitely prefer Campbell. DeVore is too socially conservative for me (ie the "legislating morality" type, not one that may personally be but doesn't believe the government should legislate morality.) Also, DeVore is against medical cannabis, which I don't get when they say it's a "moral" thing, since it helps so many sick people.

The Patriot
06-04-2010, 07:04 PM
http://campbell.org/ideas/budget

The White House budget for the Fiscal Year 2011 includes a projected deficit of 1.27 trillion dollars. Last year, the budget was announced with an estimated 1.17 trillion dollar deficit, and it now appears the actual number will be 1.60 trillion. Applying that same likely growth from projection to actual deficit, we are looking at a federal budget deficit likely to reach 1.74 trillion dollars this year.

That size of deficit is unconscionable. We print the money and spend it, or we borrow the money and spend it. When we print the money, we set the stage for massive inflation, which will occur as soon as the economy revives. When we borrow the money, we place a lever in the hands of other nations’ citizens and governments, which are now our largest creditor (surpassing the 50% mark two years ago). It is morally wrong to spend money now and make our children pay for it. It is intergenerational theft. And it is hazardous to give to foreign sovereigns so great a lever over us, as to threaten to “call in our loan.”

It is our duty to stop this. We cannot send it to another generation. As President Reagan said in a related context, “If not us, who? If not now, when?” If we didn’t borrow another dollar, just to pay back what our country already owes would take more than 300 years.

I call for an alternative approach. We can stop the debt from growing by lowering the federal budget deficit to zero. We’ve done it before. The federal budget last balanced in 2000. The mechanism was Gramm Rudman Hollings, a law that has now been allowed to expire. What Gramm Rudman Hollings did was to require across-the-board cuts if the President and Congress did not reach agreement on specific yearly deficit reduction goals that had been set in advance. It supplied the backbone when backbone was lacking. We need to restore Gramm Rudman Hollings at once.

And we also need leaders in the House, Senate, and White House who will agree the time is now, the responsibility ours. I propose to lower the federal budget deficit by more than half over that the White House budget provides for Fiscal Year 2011.

Here is the outline of my plan. I invite all who read this to help fill in with specifics, especially programs that we do not absolutely need that can be eliminated from the federal budget. For every such program proposed for elimination or reduction, I know there will be criticism; I only ask that any who wish to criticize suggest what they think is better. Doing nothing is not an option.







NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY

The White House budget claims to cap this item at 670 billion.

However, this category was allowed to grow by almost 20% from FY 09 to FY 10. Let’s cap it at its FY 09 level of 581 billion.

SAVINGS: 89 BILLION

Specific Items:

Note: there are many specific items in this category that might be eliminated entirely, in achieving the overall reduction. Among candidates I would put forward are the 3 billion annual expenditure in subsidies for corn ethanol, and the net losses incurred by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Selling those latter two agencies will not only save us that annual cost, but, had we done it sooner, it would have saved us the 200 billion bail-out cost last year, and would also have prevented giving what was perceived as a government imprimatur to mortgages that were not commercially viable. That implicit imprimatur was a fundamental cause of the fiscal crisis in which we are still mired.


STIMULUS MONEY

202 billion was spent in FY 2009. 353 billion is proposed to be spent in 2010, and 232 more in FY 2011.

There is no reliable evidence that this has produced 2 million more jobs than the private sector would have with the same resources, as the President claims.[i]

Take the proposed increase over FY 2009: 585 billion, and cut it in half.

SAVINGS: 292 BILLION

Redirect the remaining 292 billion to forgiving FICA tax for hiring new employees from among those who have been out of work for at least 2 months. Add it to 33 billion the President has proposed for tax relief, but only for small business hiring. This will increase the assistance targeted to new jobs in the private sector by ten-fold. It will also afford this incentive to hire those who have been out of work to all employers, whether large or small.

100 billion more has been asked, in a new list of targeted projects, the so-called “Jobs Bill.” But, with more than half of last year’s “stimulus bill” not yet spent, save this money, pay down the debt.

SAVINGS: 100 BILLION


TARP

Congress appropriated 700 billion to purchase toxic assets off the books of banks. Not one dollar of that money went for that purpose. Instead, the money was spent to buy bank stock. Now, banks are returning the TARP money. The President is proposing spending 200 billion of the returned money to stimulate lending by small banks, with social goal requirements very similar to those that Congress and the Presidents Clinton and Bush insisted for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, over the last decade—which did a great deal to get us into the financial crisis in the first place. Don’t spend this returned money, reduce the debt instead.

(Note: specific items I would have opposed in what was already done include the 50 billion used to bail out General Motors with a special bankruptcy proceeding, much more generous to the union than normal bankruptcy would have afforded. The use of TARP money for this bailout was a particularly egregious stretch of the authority granted by Congress.)

SAVINGS: 200 BILLION


REJECT PRESIDENT’S TAX INCREASES

The President has proposed two tax increases, one on banks, one on upper income Americans. Reject them both. Banks that didn’t take TARP money, and banks that have repaid their TARP money, should not be singled out to pay more taxes. Indeed, if we want banks to lend more, taxing them more is counter-productive—they will have less to lend.

Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire as to families making more than $250,000 constitutes a tax increase on high income earners. With 50% of federal income tax currently being paid by 4% of the population, there is no basis in fairness to tax high income earners any more.

Increasing taxes is scored by the White House as helping to close the deficit. However, a dynamic, as opposed to static, scoring method would take account of the effect of a higher tax to depress economic activity, hence not raising as much revenue as a static model would predict. To be conservative in estimating the budget deficit effect, however, I will use the White House's static estimate of revenue raised by their proposed tax increases.

INCREASE (USING STATIC MODEL) IN DEFICIT: 49.4 BILLION


MEDICAID

Medicaid and SCHIP are 7% of the budget. This category went from 224 to 290 billion from FY 09 to FY 10, a rise of almost 30% in a single year. We need to approach this the way we did with welfare in 1996: don’t trim at the edges but announce that there will be a cap and stick with it. With welfare reform, that cap was a work requirement after 2 years, and a lifetime cap of 5 years. That approach has saved billions of dollars, and also brought about an end to the nature of welfare as an “entitlement.” So also with Medicaid. We will spend no more next year than this, except for an increase to cover the eligible population and the general inflation rate. That would put Medicaid at 304 billion, rather than the proposed 350 billion, for next year. Reverse the presumption that Medicaid will cover everything. That’s “entitlement” thinking. Instead, use the funding for Medicaid, and SCHIP, and the states’ contribution to each, to purchase insurance policies for the covered population AT A FIXED PRICE. Instead of going to the insurance markets announcing that we must cover so many conditions and treatments, government would announce, this is how much we have to spend, and will use its bargaining power to get the best coverage possible, FOR THAT FIXED SUM. The effect will be to enhance government’s bargaining power with health insurers. (I also advocate repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers, allowing the interstate sale of health insurance policies, and adopting serious litigation reform, that Price Waterhouse has estimated would lower the cost of health care in America by at least 10%.)

SAVINGS: 45 BILLION

The federal government claims to have a Social Security trust fund; but, in reality, it is merged into the general fund in order to make the deficit appear lower. Social Security is 21% of the consolidated budget.

Recommendation: Split off Social Security from the general fund. Further recommendations to guarantee that all social security/medicare recipients are protected, and that their trust funds are solvent, will be forthcoming

TOTAL SAVINGS IN FY 11: 676 BILLION

White House estimated budget deficit in FY 11: 1.27 TRILLION

EFFECT OF TOM CAMPBELL BUDGET PROPOSAL: 594 BILLION DEFICIT, A REDUCTION OF 53%.

james1906
06-04-2010, 08:53 PM
Campbell's downsides are that he gave money to Ron Paul's Dem-turned-Rep primary opponent in 1996 and he's not good on guns. He thinks people on the terror watch list should not be allowed to own guns (even Fiorina disagrees with him on this). He runs socially liberal, but tends to be fiscally conservative. In one debate, he said that the years he wasn't the most fiscally conservative member of Congresss were the ones when he served alongside Ron Paul.

The two arguably most libertarian reps in CA (McClintock and Rohrabacher) have endorsed DeVore. However these two tend to run socially conservative, as does DeVore.

I think Campbell should get the nomination as I believe DeVore would have trouble beating Boxer. Both are going to be in lockstep with Ron Paul more than either Boxer or Fiorina.

specsaregood
06-04-2010, 09:37 PM
He thinks people on the terror watch list should not be allowed to own guns (even Fiorina disagrees with him on this claims to disagree with him on this during the primary ).
^there, had to fix that.

james1906
06-04-2010, 09:44 PM
^there, had to fix that.

+1

AGRP
06-04-2010, 09:59 PM
Maybe she should take up boxing?