Thread: Start Thinking About A Write In Candidate For '08

I don't think I have heard of Gadiel - that I would remember him.

As for Gilchrist, while I might like him in there - he does truly seem like a one-issue person --

As for arm twisting, anyone who runs on a third party will have to withstand more than just arm twisting. America is too big a plum to give up without some serious 'negotiations'.

Off the top of my head. Someone like a Jim Gilchrist comes to mind. Someone like a Peter Gadiel(who lost his son in 9-11) of 911 Families for a Secure America comes to mind.

While I respect your opinion dxd, Jim Gilchrist, would not have a snowball chance in he$$ of getting elected as President of the United States (talk about extreme). Every soldier has his place and Mr. Gilchrist has found his. Basically what I'm saying is he's a foot soldier (and a damn good one), but he's not presidental material. As for Peter Gadiel, what are his qualifications? I must admit, you've thoroughly confused me. You spoke about Tancredo being a lost opportunity - what do you think Gilchrist or Gadiel would be? I still think we need to convince the RNC to warm up to Sen. Sessions.

Hey, great to see so many enthusiastic people responding! I'm glad I decided to post a message about this very important topic.

In my opinion, I truly believe that this next election will be one of the most important elections ever held in our nation's history. It will determine the kind of society we will live in, our economic future, and perhaps even our survival as a sovereign nation.

Think about it. Besides illegal immigration here are some other issues to consider:

Outsourcing of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets
Costly free trade agreements
NAFTA Superhighway
SPP
Our nation's enormous debt

I too, have been very impressed by Jeff Sessions however, I still have misgivings about voting for either political party. They both answer to the big Corporations and not the American people. No matter how sincere the intentions are of a particular candidate, they will always be under pressure by the party they belong to, don't you think?

Why don't we make up a list of potential independent candidates and go over some of their qualities?

Also, we have to consider something else: Our voting system has been compromised. Electronic machines that are owned by foreign countries, machines that can be manipulated and don't leave a paper trail; Illegal aliens being recruited to vote in elections, etc. I mean, this is outrageous!
Personally, I think people should do either a write in vote or an absentee ballot. I don't trust those electronic machines. Plus, I'm contacting my representatives about my concerns over non- citizens voting.

I look forward to hearing more opinions about this.

Originally Posted by MW

Off the top of my head. Someone like a Jim Gilchrist comes to mind. Someone like a Peter Gadiel(who lost his son in 9-11) of 911 Families for a Secure America comes to mind.

While I respect your opinion dxd, Jim Gilchrist, would not have a snowball chance in he$$ of getting elected as President of the United States (talk about extreme). Every soldier has his place and Mr. Gilchrist has found his. Basically what I'm saying is he's a foot soldier (and a damn good one), but he's not presidental material. As for Peter Gadiel, what are his qualifications? I must admit, you've thoroughly confused me. You spoke about Tancredo being a lost opportunity - what do you think Gilchrist or Gadiel would be? I still think we need to convince the RNC to warm up to Sen. Sessions.

Based on our experience, having the right positions is pretty easy and straightforard. Holding that position is something else. I am placing a lot of emphasis on the type of person who can hold their position. I think that a person like Gadiel could hold his position. He was once campaigning against the Mexican Matricula card. The Mexican consul sent him a threatening letter because he had a fraudlent card that he was showing and they claimed the cards are secure. His response was to appear on Lou Dobbs with another black market Matricla card and even got one made for Dobbs and presented Dobbs with a black market matricular card on the air. I am not saying it has to be him I am just pointing out that I am placing heavy emphasis on the type of person who could hold their position when it counts. His son was killed in the 9-11 attack so I don't think he would go soft on the issue.
But there are plenty of choices and we have time.
http://911fsa.org/

"News Article of Senator Sessions
Sen. Sessions's Immigration Op-Ed Appears in the Washington Times

REFORM THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

The Pence-Hutchison immigration-reform proposal, like the other prominent plans, fails to address critical issues relating to meaningful immigration reform. It must not become law.
The legislation fails to provide a real solution for a number of important reasons. Namely, the proposal: 1) will allow for a virtually unlimited number of immigrants to come to the United States; 2) favors low-skilled workers; 3) provides more preferences to the eight NAFTA and CAFTA countries over the rest of the world; and 4) gives no preference for English-language or employment skills that help make immigrants successful in our dynamic economy.

This plan swallows hook, line and sinker the idea that as long as there is a foreign worker wanting to come to America, and an American company that wants to hire the individual, the foreign worker should be admitted, allowed to work and put on a path to citizenship. This concept violates the principle followed by every other nation in the world, that immigration policy should be based on the needs of the nation, not the desires of those that want low-cost labor.

Under the Pence-Hutchison plan, foreign workers will initially be granted two-year work visas, automatically renewable for an additional 12 years. Then the foreign worker is given an "X-Change" visa, newly created by the legislation. After five years, the "X-Change" visa will allow the worker to transition to permanent resident status (a green card holder). Permanent residents are entitled to citizenship after five years. Because "temporary" workers will have the right to bring their families, the right to stay and work for 17 years and then the right to stay permanently, the vast majority will certainly do so.

A temporary worker program can play an important role in our immigration reform policy, but the Pence-Hutchison proposal, like the flawed Senate bill, does not create a real "temporary" worker program. To be truly "temporary," the workers' stay must be limited, for instance, to 10 months each year, and they cannot be allowed to bring dependents. This is common sense -- we cannot expect that workers invited to move their entire families to America and live here for years will want to go home. Who will uproot these long-settled families if they become temporarily unemployed? The answer is that no one will.

Foreign workers entering under this proposal will overwhelmingly be low-skilled. It is well documented that such workers will cost the U.S. Treasury far more than they will ever pay in taxes. A flood of low-skilled workers will further depress wages for American workers who compete with them for jobs. There is a basic economic truth that cannot be escaped -- an excess of labor drives down wages, a shortage of labor causes wages to rise. Few dispute that in recent years lower-wage earners have seen their wages decline. Professor George Borjas of Harvard, the leading expert in the field, reports that immigration has already reduced the incomes of low-skilled workers by as much as 8 percent, or $1,200 per year. For a family making around $25,000 a year, a decrease such as this can be the difference in making it or not.

By limiting the new program to only NAFTA and CAFTA countries, the bill would be a further and dramatic tilt to Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, over every other country in the world. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, a witness for the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, Nial O'Dowd, explained that "if the Irish antecedents of Andrew Jackson, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan were trying to enter the United States today" they could not get in legally. He justified his comment by noting that "of the 1 million green card visas given out last year, about 2,000 went to the Irish." Irish settlers helped form this nation yet, amazingly, they received only two-tenths of one percent of our green cards last year.

Finally, in establishing a good immigration policy for the United States through comprehensive reform, it is critical to decide the number of immigrants we can accept and the skills we want them to possess. Clearly, these decisions should be based on the national interest, not special interests. Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, developed nations all, have objective employment-based immigration policies, usually centered on a merit-based points system used to evaluate which potential immigrants will contribute the most to their society and take full advantage of citizenship opportunities. Why are we not considering reforms to our immigration system that take these important issues into account?

The need for border and workplace enforcement is a given. What we have lacked in this discussion is a serious evaluation of the merit-based policies other developed nations have adopted. Neither have we had a real discussion of the number of immigrants that America should admit annually. Without such a discussion, good comprehensive reform cannot occur. "

http://www.sessions.senate.gov/pressapp ... id=260468&

Sen. Sessions makes a lot of sense and he does have our countries best interest at heart. Sure, we would all like to have a candidate that will instantly go about the task of deporting all illegal immigrants immediately, militarize the border, build a fence over every inch of the border, throw ALL employers that hire illegals in jail, etc., but there isn't a politician (not a viable presidental candidate anyway) that would be as hard-line as we'd like. Such a man would never have a shot at being elected President of the United States. With that said, we have to temper our desires with reality and support the man that has a chance of being elected and stands with us on most issues regarding illegal immigration. Additionally, this man must have a consistent record, be articulate, possess the power of persuasion, be respected by his peers, and above all else - have any possible skeletons well hidden.

From what I've seen and heard of Sen. Sessions so far, he could be that man.

Sessions in what capacity?
As the republican ballot candidate?

We are talking write-in here and if Sessions stayed a Republican on a write-in campaign he would be pulling votes from the party nominee. He probably wouldn't agree to be a write-in candidate as a republican and if he did he would get very heavy heat from the party and may pull a Tancredo type sellout to endorse the R ballot candidate. Would he leave the Republican party so as not to have the conflict of interest? If so then I would say. great.

Here's a link to a list of the immigration voting records of every congressman and senator. (The Dems records are appalling!)

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/vie ... =5&VIPID=6

Sessions in what capacity?
As the republican ballot candidate?

No, as the Republican party nominee. Of course convincing the RNC to consider him is another issue. What I'm looking at is supporting the person that shares many of our beliefs on the illegal immigrant issue and has the best opportunity for election. Even though I'm a registered Republican, I'd feel the same way about a Democrat, if one existed that would help our cause.

I would rather have Tom, He is tougher then Jeff but I like them both. They both have good name recognition. I am thinking we have the president and vice in these two. It's nice to dream.

I was thinking of someone with experience and name recognition that would perhaps have a chance.