# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Announcing: Rick Williams For US Senate In California

## Rick Williams

Hello fellow Ron Paul Forum folks. This post announces my campaign: Rick Williams For US Senate In California. All papers have been filed and my fees are paid; visit my website at www.rickwilliamsforsenate.com. I'm running as a Ron Paul Republican.

Many of you know me already, but for those who don't, here's a bit of background. My undergraduate degree was in business finance, and I graduated from UCLA Law School in 1973, where I served on the Board of Editors of the UCLA Law Review. I've been a corporate and business trial lawyer in Los Angeles for more than 30 years. My first political campaign was for Barry Goldwater in 1964 (I was 18 at the time) and I've been supporting freedom/liberty candidates ever since.

I became active in the Ron Paul grassroots in the summer of 2007 as a regular broadcaster on RonPaulRadio, and later on RonPaulRevolutionRadio. My radio shows focused on bankers and economics. In 2008 I co--founded Breakthematrix with Trevor Lyman where I acted as Chairman of the Board. At Breakthematrix I did daily streaming television shows, and we broadcast live from the RP Minneapolis Convention and a number of other RP events. My objective (then and now) was to create a meaningful, for--profit, liberty oriented broadcast network able to compete with the mainstream media. The work goes on at www.Revolutimes.com (I'm Chairman of that entity). One of these days we're going to get a competitor to Fox News off the ground-- I live and practice law right here near Hollywood; and I want to be part of the soon-to-come broadcast entity that brings freedom content to the mainstream for the first time. There is an immensely talented group of Ron Paul supporters in the Hollywood community; we can do this.

My Senate campaign has been in the works for more than two years. In 2010 I put together a "Freedomslate" of seven candidates who ran together for Central Committee seats in the Los Angeles County GOP. Two of our group won seats-- in a very close election where the rest of our slate members were within a few votes of victory. I'm quite well known among the Ron Paul grassroots activists in our local LA community-- hopefully they'll speak up about my campaign. I think you'll hear good things.

Check out my website. My core issue in the campaign is End the Fed, and I share Ron Paul's views and values on the other great issues of the day. By background, experience, expertise, skills and platform, I'm highly confident I'm the best candidate running as a Republican in the Senate race. In other words-- I'm the candidate that actually has a legitimate chance to unseat Dianne Feinstein. A Ron Paul Republican for the United States Senate in California. Quite a thought, when you ponder what that could mean for our movement. As a life long (and well known) attorney in the California community, I expect to receive significant support from people who may not support Ron Paul on all issues; and I certainly hope to earn the support of all Ron Paul voters in California. Putting it all together-- I can win. Follow my campaign; support Rick Williams For Senate; and thanks for reading.

----------


## Paulistinian

I am currently living in Sonoma County but I'm registered in the 26th district in L.A. County.  You've got my support and if and when you need staff I'll be willing to help every way I can.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Welcome to the forum. Great to have a "Ron Paul" Republican in the race in California!

Edit: I see you have been here since '07. Sometimes the search function doesn't go far back enough.

----------


## Danan

> Welcome to the forum. Great to have a "Ron Paul" Republican in the race in California!


He joined in 2007 if you meant that.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Can you win?

----------


## Endthefednow

Are you Electable Mr. Rick Williams

will you be willing to introduce a bill to support competing currencies, if not nation wide at least in CA?

----------


## trey4sports

cool. Glad to have you around. How are your chances in the primary?

----------


## Antwan15

Where do you stand on interventionism/noninterventionism foriegn policy. Running on the Fed is great, but the overseas spending is one of the main reasons for their manuvering. Not being critical, just curious where you stand and why.

----------


## fcreature

You've got my support!

----------


## cero

> Where do you stand on interventionism/noninterventionism foriegn policy. Running on the Fed is great, but the overseas spending is one of the main reasons for their manuvering. Not being critical, just curious where you stand and why.


dude is on his site, pretty much same as RP

He got my vote.

----------


## Antwan15

> dude is on his site, pretty much same as RP
> 
> He got my vote.


Good to know, if that is the case, let us know if/when he needs money.

----------


## Shane Harris

> cool. Glad to have you around. How are your chances in the primary?


Yeah the primary is always the hardest part for us.

----------


## Rick Williams

Thanks for the supportive words. Here are answers to some commenter questions:
(1) Can I win the primary?  So far there are 10 Republican candidates indicating interest in the race. I won't "run down" my competitors, but it's fair to say that: (a) None of my competitors has ever held public office before (neither have I):
(b) None of my competitors has any significant money (I'll be able to raise money); (c) None of my competitors has any meaningful base of support (I do have a base); (d) None of my competitors has my strength of background, experience and expertise; (e) None of my competitors has my platform-- I'm the only Ron Paul Republican in the race. So can I win the primary? Yep.
(2) Can I win against Dianne Feinstein? Check out her record-- she's vulnerable. Anything can happen if it's a two-person race between Feinstein and me.

Brian edited his post, noting that I've been here on the Forums since 2007. I first met the founders of this Forum in August, 2007 at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll event. Here's a video of my RonPaulRadio interview with Ron Paul from those early days. Seems like it was yesterday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpA0ZsYaxE

----------


## Roxi

I've known of Rick Williams since 07, and met him in Boston. He's awesome in my book.

----------


## Rick Williams

Hey thanks, roxic27

----------


## PaleoPaul

I give you my personal endorsement.

From,

Your FB Friend Paul

----------


## doronster195

Thanks to all the endorsements, and reading the issues on your website. You have another registered California voter right here.

EDIT: Just thinking about how great it would be to make California into a state of Liberty and a model for the rest of the nation. Although, it takes more than just a Senator, this would be a huge step in the right direction... Also would love to see Feinstein kick rocks.

----------


## giovannile07

> Thanks for the supportive words. Here are answers to some commenter questions:
> (1) Can I win the primary?  So far there are 10 Republican candidates indicating interest in the race. I won't "run down" my competitors, but it's fair to say that: (a) None of my competitors has ever held public office before (neither have I):
> (b) None of my competitors has any significant money (I'll be able to raise money); (c) None of my competitors has any meaningful base of support (I do have a base); (d) None of my competitors has my strength of background, experience and expertise; (e) None of my competitors has my platform-- I'm the only Ron Paul Republican in the race. So can I win the primary? Yep.
> (2) Can I win against Dianne Feinstein? Check out her record-- she's vulnerable. Anything can happen if it's a two-person race between Feinstein and me.
> 
> Brian edited his post, noting that I've been here on the Forums since 2007. I first met the founders of this Forum in August, 2007 at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll event. Here's a video of my RonPaulRadio interview with Ron Paul from those early days. Seems like it was yesterday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpA0ZsYaxE


You have my vote, will be my first Senate election I go through as a registered voter seeing as I am 18.  When is the election? Can't wait until you dethrone Dianne Feinstein!  She needs to be removed and hopefully Barbara Boxer too soon after!

----------


## sdsubball23

California represent! You got my endorsement! Though in my opinion, I think a better view of immigration would be nice. God Bless!

----------


## Karsten

> Yeah the primary is always the hardest part for us.


In California the General will be very hard as well.

----------


## giovannile07

> In California the General will be very hard as well.


I concur. Too many liberals in California and many I bet that look at candidates by the label of the party rather than the actual issues.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> In California the General will be very hard as well.


Yep, harder than the Primary, but you never know what might happen.

----------


## Jenny Worman

Congratulations!  Great news!

----------


## SneakyFrenchSpy

Will you officially endorse the cannabis initiatives on the ballot in November and will you actively campaign for a yes vote simultaneously to your own campaign?

----------


## Rick Williams

I support ending the federal drug war. The issue of drug legalization is for states and local communities to decide. I support "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine" in California. Dianne Feinstein, by the way, supports the federal drug war. She is pro Patriot Act; pro NDAA-- against civil liberties right down the line. Yet liberals support her. Go figure.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I support ending the federal drug war. The issue of drug legalization is for states and local communities to decide. I support "Legalize Marijuana Like Wine" in California. Dianne Feinstein, by the way, supports the federal drug war. She is pro Patriot Act; pro NDAA-- against civil liberties right down the line. Yet liberals support her. Go figure.


This is why we stand a chance in the General! (and not wishing ill on anyone, but Feinstein is getting long in the tooth, and she will have to retire at some point.)

----------


## Cleaner44

I will add you to my blog later today:
http://libertycandidatesunited.wordpress.com/

Name: Rick Williams

Body: U.S. Senate

Office: Senator for California

www.rickwilliamsforsenate.com


If you know of any other California liberty candidates please let me know.

----------


## Rick Williams

Two other OUTSTANDING liberty candidates in California are running parallel campaigns with my Senate race. Christopher David for Congress in California 33rd District (Beverly Hills, Malibu, South Bay coastal); and Jenny Worman for Congress in California 28th District (Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale). Chris and Jenny are the real deal-- the three of us are running together; all operating out of the grassroots Ron Paul Headquarters office in Venice where Paul supporters are making phone calls and organizing Central Committee races for LAGOP seats every day. Southern California has become a major focal point for RP activism. Check out Chris and Jenny websites-- you'll see why I'm proud to be campaigning with them.

----------


## twomp

As a registered Republican (switched from Democrat last November) from Morgan Hill, Ca. You sir have my vote and my families vote. I think you will have a tough time getting past Feinstein, I should know, I sipped on her and the Democrat's koolaid for the past few years. With that said, I wouldn't be a Republican if it weren't for Ron Paul and I still have a strong disdain for most of the GOP. How do you intend on differentiating yourself from the neo-cons? Most people in our state will see the (R) behind your name and vote the other way because they will automatically associate you with the likes of Mitch Mcconell and Jim Boehner.

----------


## SeanSerritella

Good luck Rick Williams. It's good to see Ron Paul followers running for office. This is what we need if we're ever going to take our country back.

----------


## Rick Williams

I'm a lifelong Republican, and there's no doubt-- Republicans have a huge "brand" problem in California (and all around the country for that matter). That's why I call myself a "Ron Paul Republican." Here's my recent blog post on the subject from my Senate website. A Ron Paul Republican operates under its own definition. http://rickwilliamsforsenate.com/why...ul-republican/

----------


## truthsaga

The time is ripe for a Republican to take a Senate seat.  The base in my area is becoming less favorable of democrat's and moving to the side of "I am going to pick the best candidate!"  Having a Ron Paul Republican would be able to attract these dem's and independent voters as well.  Excite Us!!

----------


## Hyperion

Best of luck in this campaign. You are to be commended for taking up the fight in what is a very difficult race.

----------


## MikefromSyracuse

I think there's a meme emerging with the phrase 'Ron Paul Republican' (RPR) --- next we'll hear others say  "I'm a Ron Paul Democrat" (RPD) and "I'm a Ron Paul Independent" (RPI).

----------


## truthsaga

> IMMIGRATION
> 
> The contentious issues involving legal and illegal immigration are actually quite simple to resolve if we look to rule of law as our guideline. We should protect our border; send home all immigrants who are illegally in this country; and welcome legal immigrants under programs which offer value to the American people as a whole. Once we create a renewed entrepreneurial spirit in this country by ending the Federal Reserve and utilizing sound money, a fresh America as the Great Shining City on the Hill will quickly emerge. Value–add immigrant investors and skilled workers will want to be part of it.


This presents a problem for me... 

I spent three years living in the downtown area that could be considered San Jose's Lil Mexico and in this area is more "illegals" than legal U.S. Citizens.  The government policies is what created the immigration problem; remember when we subsidize something we get more of it!  Free Healthcare, Food Stamps, Education, and Healthcare is what driving people into our state, but it doesn't make all of them dead beats.  There is power and support in the message of getting rid of the welfare policies, new immigration policy, no amnesty, but allow people who are here to continue to live their lives.  If Republicans offer up a policy of removing all illegal immigrants it will move the support right into the hands of the democrats and condemn us to 6 more years of DF or BB.

From my point of view, coming off straight with the people on the financial crises from the welfare / warfare state and addressing the problems / solutions.  Offering up no amnesty, but deporting violent offenders and allowing working families to live their lives without the fear of the ICE hauling them off everywhere they go.  Perhaps, be bold and call out other politicians for using illegals as scape goats for a larger problem they created and call out the democrats for just trying to buy votes.  Bring the troops home to secure our border and end the welfare programs to illegals, I don't see why we need to round all of them up..

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Sorry, man, I dig most of your platform, but I just can't support or vote for someone who advocates such a tyrannical and draconian policy of deportation for immigrants. If you do this to win the primary and then ditch that platform ASAP, I'll consider it a wash.

If you ditch it now, PM me and we'll talk about what I can do to help you in your election efforts. I live in Riverside County.

----------


## Rick Williams

To commenters who think my immigration policy is too harsh-- I understand your view. But I'm a lawyer, and I believe rule of law (not rule of man) is the single most significant aspect of a free society. When I say "rule of law" I mean principles that will apply with equal force to our highest elected officials and bankers; just as it does to "ordinary" citizens. I don't see how we can then turn around and say we won't apply rule of law to illegal immigrants. Rule of law means nothing if it doesn't apply to all. Guest workers-- for sure; legal immigration-- yes. But defacto amnesty for illegal immigrants? I simply can't support that concept. Over time, we need to move away from the illegal immigration culture that has gained so much prominence in the last few decades.

----------


## eleganz

Both California senators Boxer and Finestein voted in the "30,000 drones" bill.

----------


## Cleaner44

http://libertycandidatesunited.wordp...or-california/

----------


## truthsaga

> To commenters who think my immigration policy is too harsh-- I understand your view. But I'm a lawyer, and I believe rule of law (not rule of man) is the single most significant aspect of a free society. When I say "rule of law" I mean principles that will apply with equal force to our highest elected officials and bankers; just as it does to "ordinary" citizens. I don't see how we can then turn around and say we won't apply rule of law to illegal immigrants. Rule of law means nothing if it doesn't apply to all. Guest workers-- for sure; legal immigration-- yes. But defacto amnesty for illegal immigrants? I simply can't support that concept. Over time, we need to move away from the illegal immigration culture that has gained so much prominence in the last few decades.


You can't move away from it until you understand what causes it.  You have one law saying no to illegal immigration, but on the other hand you have other laws and incentives encouraging it.  We can apply the rule of law to Social Security and just end it, but many of us champion the phasing out of social security while taking care of those who have become dependent.  I understand these are U.S citizens, but if it is government incentives and laws that encouraged the problem why can't we end all of the incentives, remove violent criminals, secure our border, and let the market for labor level out.  If there is no work, no handouts, and no ability to sustain themselves here they will return to Mexico and others will have no incentive to come across.  We need to get our house in order, but the money saved from these support programs will save money and avoid having National Guard Units patrolling our streets and invading our property in the search for "illegals."

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Get rid of the welfare state first. More amnesty is not the answer, it's been done before and was a miserable failure. The amount of legal immigration should be based on unemployment numbers, and a need for additional workers, not just a desire for cheap, easily intimidated labor.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Sorry, man, I dig most of your platform, but I just can't support or vote for someone who advocates such a tyrannical and draconian policy of deportation for immigrants. If you do this to win the primary and then ditch that platform ASAP, I'll consider it a wash.
> 
> If you ditch it now, PM me and we'll talk about what I can do to help you in your election efforts. I live in Riverside County.


You prefer a neo-conservative or Dianne Feinstein over a fellow Ron Paul supporter who doesn't agree with you completely on a single issue?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

On second thought, we have had hundreds of threads debating the nuances of immigration. Probably best not to derail this thread.

----------


## Suzu

This topic belongs in the "Liberty Candidates" sub-forum. Good luck with the campaign!

----------


## truthsaga

> Get rid of the welfare state first. More amnesty is not the answer, it's been done before and was a miserable failure. The amount of legal immigration should be based on unemployment numbers, and a need for additional workers, not just a desire for cheap, easily intimidated labor.


It would be hard for a fellow RP supporter to win with that message.  In our local groups here in San Jose we see the removal of "illegals" unnecessary to fix the problems and a dangerous tool for government to have.  Imagine a large scale deportation plan being carried out by state, national guard, or who ever - going house to house, new necessary power for removal, and think about the accidental police killings of innocent people on the couch when they pick the wrong house. 

We all know why our employment situations sucks; monetary policy, unions power, regulations, lack of education of Americans in desired tech fields.  Ending all of the incentives is immediately necessary, but moving to kick people who have lived here for 1yr to generations is unnecessary.  I am not saying they should get voting rights, social security, just to be able to operate within the state.  It was bad government policy that created the immigration mess and I doubt they will do much better in patrolling the streets looking for terrorists... oh, illegals.

----------


## singe22

Think thats where your getting it wrong.  Its more of we should ENFORCE the law. If someone gets arrested, goes to apply for some Federal or state programs and they come up on the radar as a illegal or unknown status then a investigation with ICE should be done.

Nowhere does he state wanting to have governement assest actively knocking on doors and patrolling streets to deport people.  Part of fixing the problem is showing illegals that we will enforce laws on our books.

We need to apply the rule on how we support Ron Pauls foreign policy of what would we feel like if others did that to us.   Go overstay time in a another country, they will have no problem rounding you up and escorting you to the airport.

----------


## giovannile07

> Two other OUTSTANDING liberty candidates in California are running parallel campaigns with my Senate race. Christopher David for Congress in California 33rd District (Beverly Hills, Malibu, South Bay coastal); and Jenny Worman for Congress in California 28th District (Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale). Chris and Jenny are the real deal-- the three of us are running together; all operating out of the grassroots Ron Paul Headquarters office in Venice where Paul supporters are making phone calls and organizing Central Committee races for LAGOP seats every day. Southern California has become a major focal point for RP activism. Check out Chris and Jenny websites-- you'll see why I'm proud to be campaigning with them.


Oh Burbank!  I have some friends in Burbank. Do you know anyone in the 42nd District who has a potential to run, my district is ran by a neoconservative Congressman Gary Miller.

----------


## truthsaga

I cannot in good conscious see the reasoning of removing non-violent offenders that were lured here by bad government policy.  If we were a thriving economy all these workers would be welcomed with open arms, but since we are in the midst of a government / fed cause financial crises they have become the scape goat.  We should cut are losses with bad policy and the handouts, but we should secure up the border and leave what we have as is.  I have more faith in the market clearing out the productive and unproductive once we do this.  

Libertad Por Todo's

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> You prefer a neo-conservative or Dianne Feinstein over a fellow Ron Paul supporter who doesn't agree with you completely on a single issue?


As if I'd vote for Feinstein or a neo-con from the Republican party. Absurd.

I'm not going to volunteer my time and energy for someone who supports a government so huge and tyrannical that it would have the tools necessary to round up and deport 15+ million people. Such a massive government would assuredly require a national ID card, additional taxing and spending to appropriately equip federal police forces to do this job, and clamp down on the contractual rights of individuals to employ anyone they so choose.

Remind me how any of this supports limited government, again?




> To commenters who think my immigration policy is too harsh-- I understand your view. But I'm a lawyer, and I believe rule of law (not rule of man) is the single most significant aspect of a free society. When I say "rule of law" I mean principles that will apply with equal force to our highest elected officials and bankers; just as it does to "ordinary" citizens. I don't see how we can then turn around and say we won't apply rule of law to illegal immigrants. Rule of law means nothing if it doesn't apply to all. Guest workers-- for sure; legal immigration-- yes. But defacto amnesty for illegal immigrants? I simply can't support that concept. Over time, we need to move away from the illegal immigration culture that has gained so much prominence in the last few decades.


Seriously? You're a lawyer, and you can't see that the rules we have now are, in every sense of the word, the rule of man?

If you want to talk about principles, enforcing the policies I stated above would trample on the natural rights each and every one of us possesses. There is nothing limited government about advocating or agitating for a massive police state. Papers, please?

The correct position is to oppose mandates from the federal government that states and localities must provide government services to anyone. The goal is to reduce government involvement in our lives, not increase it. We don't trust the government to run healthcare, but we're going to equip hundreds of thousands of federal agents with more weapons and the power to point them in our faces and determine if the whims of our wise overlords are such that we are allowed us to grace their presence with our residency?

----------


## Canderson

Well we seem to be putting together a nice slate of Liberty Candidates:

Rick Williams for California Senator
Christopher David for the 33rd Congressional District
Jenny Worman for the 28th Congressional District
John Dennis for the 8th Congressional District
Gary Clift for the 10th Congressional District

am I missing any? too bad Peter Thiel isn't running, hopefully he'll be funding the above candidates though

----------


## singe22

Again i ask where does Mr Williams write anything saying he would support a Army of Feds going door to door?  Troops on our borders, hmmm Ron Paul supports that.  Somone with illegal status getting caught breaking the law? What dont deport them because government hasnt been doing their job?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Again i ask where does Mr Williams write anything saying he would support a Army of Feds going door to door?  Troops on our borders, hmmm Ron Paul supports that.  Somone with illegal status getting caught breaking the law? What dont deport them because government hasnt been doing their job?


1. How else are you to round up and deport illegal immigrants without an army of Feds and corresponding police state measures? You can't sprinkle pixie dust and make them disappear.

2. Ron Paul has rejected the idea of troops on the border several times during this campaign. He supports improving the immigration service to allow immigrants easier access to come here and work.

----------


## singe22

And again nowhere does he state he would support or attempt to start a active force going around rounding up people.  He will support upholding the law of the land.  Meening if someone illegal does something wrong or basically comes up on the radar , ICE will be informed instead turning a blind eye.

Using the National Guard to support border efforts to help crackdown is not a bad idea. And thats who would be supporting immigration service along with the hiring of more border patrol agents.

I know someone who is here in California illegal. And i urge her everytime to get some kind of legal status so she doesnt have to deal with the shady employment of working under the table. But she wont as long as they keep allowing her to get government aid with food stamps, social security(wtf?) and section 8.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> IMMIGRATION
> 
> The contentious issues involving legal and illegal immigration are actually quite simple to resolve if we look to rule of law as our guideline. We should protect our border; *send home all immigrants who are illegally in this country*; and welcome legal immigrants under programs which offer value to the American people as a whole. Once we create a renewed entrepreneurial spirit in this country by ending the Federal Reserve and utilizing sound money, a fresh America as the Great Shining City on the Hill will quickly emerge. Value–add immigrant investors and skilled workers will want to be part of it.


Doesn't get much clearer than that. If he wanted to say "send home all immigrants who have committed crimes," he could have done so.

He also said this:




> Guest workers-- for sure; legal immigration-- yes. But defacto amnesty for illegal immigrants?


If illegal immigrants are living here and don't commit crimes, but are allowed to stay, Rick Williams describes this as "defacto amnesty for illegal immigrants" and refuses to accept it. What else is he suggesting than rounding them up and deporting them? How else do you round up and deport peaceful, non-criminal immigrants other than erecting a massive surveillance state with armed federal agents?

And if you want to use personal anecdotes as the basis for an illegal immigration opinion, I also live in California, and know and have worked with several illegal immigrants; none of which received welfare, and all of them and their spouses worked hard to provide for their children (if they had any).

----------


## bluesc

Let's not derail the thread. If anyone did this to a Thomas Massie thread (over him disagreeing with Paul's foreign policy) they would be banned immediately and the thread would be cleaned up.

Take debates on immigration elsewhere.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Let's not derail the thread. If anyone did this to a Thomas Massie thread (over him disagreeing with Paul's foreign policy) they would be banned immediately and the thread would be cleaned up.
> 
> Take debates on immigration elsewhere.


It's a grassroots forum thread, and I'm explaining why, as a member of the grassroots, I will not volunteer my time and energy to someone who holds certain policies. I've even explained a way to improve his platform so that I, a member of the grassroots, would then volunteer time and energy to his campaign. All of this in response to a candidate starting the thread and requesting the support of myself, other Californians, and anyone else willing to contribute. If that's not the function of the grassroots subforum, there's no reason for it to exist.

----------


## singe22

Lets not clutter his thread with this.  We beg to differ.  I dont want no authorities going door to door.  But i'm tired of the law being ignored just because someone looks or acts harmless.  Thats basically saying its ok to steal food from a grocery store because you needed to feed kids.  Or a pregnant woman to hail a taxi for a ride across town, gets the ride and turns out she has no money and cant pay. The law is the law. If your status is illegal and you have a run in with any law enforcement you should be processed and setup for deportation in a respectful way.

----------


## bluesc

> It's a grassroots forum thread, and I'm explaining why, as a member of the grassroots, I will not volunteer my time and energy to someone who holds certain policies. I've even explained a way to improve his platform so that I, a member of the grassroots, would then volunteer time and energy to his campaign. All of this in response to a candidate starting the thread and requesting the support of myself, other Californians, and anyone else willing to contribute. If that's not the function of the grassroots subforum, there's no reason for it to exist.


So it should become a 20 page mess because you can't support him?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> So it should become a 20 page mess because you can't support him?


Why not? The grassroots forum is so we can exchange ideas and find ways to rally support around Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporting candidates, is it not? If the mods want to split this discussion and put it in Hot Topics or the Philosophy subforums while moving the initial thread into the California subforum, so be it.




> Lets not clutter his thread with this.  We beg to differ.  I dont want no authorities going door to door.  But i'm tired of the law being ignored just because someone looks or acts harmless.  Thats basically saying its ok to steal food from a grocery store because you needed to feed kids.  Or a pregnant woman to hail a taxi for a ride across town, gets the ride and turns out she has no money and cant pay. The law is the law. If your status is illegal and you have a run in with any law enforcement you should be processed and setup for deportation in a respectful way.


Opposing massive surveillance measures and supporting voluntary, peaceful interaction is not in any way comparable to suggesting that it is okay to steal from another person. I understand your frustration, and propose a way to move forward while achieving both of our objectives:

Remove the welfare state, which would eliminate SS fraud, section 8 fraud, etc.

----------


## truthsaga

Who cares if it is a 20 page thread.  Feeding and I both live in CA and I have first hand experience on the immigration issue.  We are just trying to get a clearer picture of Williams position, but everyone assumes just because someone say's they are a RP Republican we need to give blind support or be banned?   

Your tired of the law being ignored?  I am tired of people ignoring what causes the problem and the economic arguments.  You don't want troops in Iran, but your tired of international law being ignored as well?

----------


## truthsaga

> So it should become a 20 page mess because you can't support him?


Calm down, we are discussing an issue on immigration.

----------


## Rick Williams

I appreciate the comments about immigration issues. Certainly something I'll be dealing with in the campaign-- so getting some views from RP supporters is helpful. I continue to believe that illegal immigration is something that must be stopped and (over time) reversed if we are to have a nation that genuinely operates by rule of law, not rule of man. The presence of illegal immigrants in our country reflects a denigration of rule of law; as a lawyer, that's not something I can support.

----------


## bluesc

> Why not?


Because if others have questions, they will be drowned out by your noise.




> The grassroots forum is so we can exchange ideas and find ways to rally support around Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporting candidates, is it not? If the mods want to split this discussion and put it in Hot Topics or the Philosophy subforums while moving the initial thread into the California subforum, so be it.


If you have decided that you're not going to support this candidate based on his views on immigration, why are you still trying to debate it?

My post was mostly a knock at the mods anyway, since if this was a Thomas Massie thread and a debate was started over his foreign policy views (or lack of, apparently), that $#@! would be shut down immediately. Apparently in threads for other candidates (you know, for ones who have the balls to post here and not avoid it, unlike others) we have to self moderate.

----------


## bluesc

> but everyone assumes just because someone say's they are a RP Republican we need to give blind support or be banned?


No one said that.

Frankly, I'm sick of the blind support for other candidates who call themselves "one of our own forum members" even though he avoids posting here to keep a distance, and tries to distance himself from being a Ron Paul supporter while his surrogates here claim he is a strong supporter of liberty.

The OP here isn't running away from the forums unlike others, which immediately makes him a more attractive candidate to me.

----------


## doctorfunk

I think that there needs to be a quick path to citizenship for those already here, but I think after a short grace period that the law needs to be upheld.  Not by caravans of police or ICE officers though.  If you take away government benefits and stricter laws on work eligibility, I think you would drive out most that choose not to become citizens.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

No amnesty, don't reward lawbreakers, rule of law. I can support that platform. 




> A nation without borders is no nation at all.
> 
> It just doesnt make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.
> 
> Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.
> 
> Instead, were presented with so-called solutions that involve amnesty proposals or further restricting Americans civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.
> 
> Ron Paul opposes both of these schemes and believes they will only make illegal immigration and the problems associated with it worse.* He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.
> ...

----------


## singe22

> Who cares if it is a 20 page thread.  Feeding and I both live in CA and I have first hand experience on the immigration issue.  We are just trying to get a clearer picture of Williams position, but everyone assumes just because someone say's they are a RP Republican we need to give blind support or be banned?   
> 
> Your tired of the law being ignored?  I am tired of people ignoring what causes the problem and the economic arguments.  You don't want troops in Iran, but your tired of international law being ignored as well?


I live in California also.  But try this Argument to someone who lives in the southern parts of the states that share the border with Mexico.  What you see and deal with in San Jose is nothing compared to what goes on in those places.

See this is the problem, your trying to shift this into saying that Mr. Williams is blaming a bad economy on illegal immigration.  From what i seen from his website is he writes about a short paragraph on various issues.  Then then you both start posting how he wants to support a Army of Federal officers kicking down doors looking for illegals, and mass survaliance equipment to monitor for illegals.  Which is why i keep asking quote or show me a link or a video which shows he said this.

There are probably thousands of people who are waiting in line and doing things the proper way no matter how screwed up it is to come here legally. Nobody should get a free pass just because.  They started their stay here breaking the law and thats how it should be treated.  As a American you cannot go to other civilized countries and just start there withought properly attaining a citizenship status. They will deport you.

Its like what Ron Paul says, why should future generations of Americans suffer or be bound to the promises that past generations made.

----------


## truthsaga

> Because if others have questions, they will be drowned out by your noise.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have decided that you're not going to support this candidate based on his views on immigration, why are you still trying to debate it?
> 
> My post was mostly a knock at the mods anyway, since if this was a Thomas Massie thread and a debate was started over his foreign policy views (or lack of, apparently), that $#@! would be shut down immediately. Apparently in threads for other candidates (you know, for ones who have the balls to post here and not avoid it, unlike others) we have to self moderate.


There is no noise.. I dropped Mr. Williams an e-mail with my support and offered discounts for lodging and meeting spaces if he needs them while he is traveling the state.  We are discussing a legitimate concern we have with policy coming from the view point of grabbing the independent and Latino votes.  What I see from the illegal immigration issue is a mis-understaning of the economic argument and an opportunity to reverse the problem in a positive manner.  Social Security and other welfare programs are all the laws, but we offer a good solution of phasing it out and not just cutting people off at the knees.  When applied to the illegal immigration issue I see cutting all benefits need to be done immediately, but allow working non-violent individuals to continue living their lives.  It was these policies that encouraged it and we should offer the economic fix immediately(cutting all benefits to illegals), but we can take a more moral approach to handling people who are part of our communities.  It is the policy of everybody get out and start at the back of the line (no matter how well intended) makes us come off as not liking dark people.  We are not sacrificing our principles for dealing morally and logically with a problem we were giving from decades of bad policy.  I feel we will win more allies, support, and elections for the cause of liberty by not sacrificing what we believe in, but when it comes to domestic issues like immigration offer the economic fix that infuriates many Americans, but give working non-violent individuals to stay and not be forced out by the same system that encouraged them to come in the first place.  

If the economic policies is what encouraged them to come, reversing the economic policies will end the incentives and level out the labor levels.  At the end of the day, I would be happy to work for Rick Williams, but this is something I and other Californians feel we can win the argument for a moral change in immigration policy while winning crossover support in the cause of liberty.  

Or... we could just take the misdemeanor charge for smacking someone to get them papers..

----------


## truthsaga

> I live in California also.  But try this Argument to someone who lives in the southern parts of the states that share the border with Mexico.  What you see and deal with in San Jose is nothing compared to what goes on in those places.
> 
> See this is the problem, your trying to shift this into saying that Mr. Williams is blaming a bad economy on illegal immigration.  From what i seen from his website is he writes about a short paragraph on various issues.  Then then you both start posting how he wants to support a Army of Federal officers kicking down doors looking for illegals, and mass survaliance equipment to monitor for illegals.  Which is why i keep asking quote or show me a link or a video which shows he said this.
> 
> There are probably thousands of people who are waiting in line and doing things the proper way no matter how screwed up it is to come here legally. Nobody should get a free pass just because.  They started their stay here breaking the law and thats how it should be treated.  As a American you cannot go to other civilized countries and just start there withought properly attaining a citizenship status. They will deport you.
> 
> Its like what Ron Paul says, why should future generations of Americans suffer or be bound to the promises that past generations made.


Our immigration process is difficult and those connected with major tech companies get free passes to the front of line, plus the with the sanctuary status, free healthcare, education, welfare programs, and student loan legislation encourages more illegal immigration.  We are looking at what our government will use legislation like this for and see it as a threat to us when implementing such a plan.  The e-verify and other employment verification systems are a joke and everyone here knows how to get around it.  Plus, the employers should not be giving the task of policing the labor force.  If you get rid of the economic incentives you immediately curve the illegal immigration process and would force others to find employment or return home.

----------


## singe22

So you want to spout about having a "moral" stance on things and basically want to starve them out?  I would rather have a agency available which is already on the books ICE/Border Patrol that can at least help in safely getting people back to their country by just enforcing the law when someone comes up on the radar.

Dont get me wrong i'm all for turning off the incentives.  But to not have the resources available on the border and to investigate cases not just in border states is wrong.

So as a legal American Citizen how is this a threat to you? IMO it seems its a threat because of the "nice" illegals you know and would be sad to see leave.

----------


## truthsaga

Giving more power to the police to enter houses and search private information seems a likely power giving to remove "people" or "illegals," that could be used for other purposes other then the purging.

----------


## singe22

Oh i see , your one of those type of Ron Paul supporters...enough said.

----------


## twomp

> this is something I and other Californians feel we can win the argument for a moral change in immigration policy while winning crossover support in the cause of liberty.


Speak for yourself, I'm from California and I don't agree with you at all. I live in Morgan Hill (15 min from San Jose). Stay strong Mr. Williams and if Diane Feinstein gets re-elected because of folks like this then we just have to deal with the consequences. Don't bend!

----------


## truthsaga

> Speak for yourself, I'm from California and I don't agree with you at all. I live in Morgan Hill (15 min from San Jose). Stay strong Mr. Williams and if Diane Feinstein gets re-elected because of folks like this then we just have to deal with the consequences. Don't bend!


Folks like what?  That have a decent debate on things they believe in?  I believe the good Dr. leans more to our position on some of these issues.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Personally I would deport criminal illegals immediately. Non-violent one's would be deported after I ended the drug war so they wouldn't go back to that situation in Mexico. However I favor vibrant legal immigration.

----------


## Christopher David

I am excited to run my U.S. House campaign parallel to Rick's Senate campaign.

Rick and I are building a slate of liberty candidates here for local and federal offices, with our grand rollout in a few weeks.

In the meantime, read about all the awesome stuff we have going on in California in my big strategy thread I just posted, "Grand Strategy: How Ron Paul Can (Still) Win the Nomination".

Exciting times!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

California Bump.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You can't move away from it until you understand what causes it.  You have one law saying no to illegal immigration, but on the other hand you have other laws and incentives encouraging it.  We can apply the rule of law to Social Security and just end it, but many of us champion the phasing out of social security while taking care of those who have become dependent.  I understand these are U.S citizens, but if it is government incentives and laws that encouraged the problem why can't we end all of the incentives, remove violent criminals, secure our border, and let the market for labor level out.  If there is no work, no handouts, and no ability to sustain themselves here they will return to Mexico and others will have no incentive to come across.  We need to get our house in order, but the money saved from these support programs will save money and avoid having National Guard Units patrolling our streets and invading our property in the search for "illegals."


As a long-time RP supporter, I'm sure he knows that.  But, we cannot just ignore the illegal alien invasion of our country until all the handouts are stopped.   Not if we want any chance of turning everything around.

----------


## BrooklynZoo

As a longtime lawyer, Mr. Williams should be aware of how often the police abuse the law and the privileges provided them as law enforcement officers.  Providing cops with greater police powers inevitably leads to tyranny.  What starts as a well-intentioned idea to send illegal immigrants home will lead to major increases in violent incidents and place a great social and financial strain on the system.  This will then be used to justify further crackdowns and the escalation of force.  It also allows statists to justify a national ID card, something no liberty-minded person should want.  As Dr. Paul has stated, those walls used to keep others out can also be used to keep us in.  Yes, we should secure our borders and immediately deport violent criminals to their countries of origin.  However, it has been shown that a poor economy here greatly decreases illicit border crossings.  This means that the desire to come here is based primarily on financial incentives, which can be eliminated by ending the free ride of social programs provided for those not here legally.  I won't use the silly argument that these people need to pay their taxes, since the income tax should be eliminated and illegals are already paying sales taxes and other fees.  However, they are gaming the system as it is, costing those who are paying their way billions of dollars and this should be stopped.  That's where the primary focus should be, not mass deportation, which coincidentally would be prohibitively expensive as well as a gateway to tyranny here.  Please consider these arguments.

----------


## Nathan Hale

Thank you all for announcing your candidacy.  We should take this discussion to the "2012 Candidates" section of these forums so that we can properly organize to support your campaigns.  Keeping the discussion here will cause it to get lost in the "Grassroots Central" soup.  I know Grassroots Central is where the best traffic is, but these discussions need to take place in the appropriate section where the lower traffic HELPS us discuss your campaigns and plan for things like money bombs, activist time, etc because there is less topic clutter and less refresh demotions.

----------


## doctorfunk

> As a longtime lawyer, Mr. Williams should be aware of how often the police abuse the law and the privileges provided them as law enforcement officers.  Providing cops with greater police powers inevitably leads to tyranny.  What starts as a well-intentioned idea to send illegal immigrants home will lead to major increases in violent incidents and place a great social and financial strain on the system.  This will then be used to justify further crackdowns and the escalation of force.  It also allows statists to justify a national ID card, something no liberty-minded person should want.  As Dr. Paul has stated, those walls used to keep others out can also be used to keep us in.  Yes, we should secure our borders and immediately deport violent criminals to their countries of origin.  However, it has been shown that a poor economy here greatly decreases illicit border crossings.  This means that the desire to come here is based primarily on financial incentives, which can be eliminated by ending the free ride of social programs provided for those not here legally.  I won't use the silly argument that these people need to pay their taxes, since the income tax should be eliminated and illegals are already paying sales taxes and other fees.  However, they are gaming the system as it is, costing those who are paying their way billions of dollars and this should be stopped.  That's where the primary focus should be, not mass deportation, which coincidentally would be prohibitively expensive as well as a gateway to tyranny here.  Please consider these arguments.


What's so wrong with a national ID card?  It seems like it would just be a cross between a SS card and a driver's liscense.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Thank you all for announcing your candidacy.  We should take this discussion to the "2012 Candidates" section of these forums so that we can properly organize to support your campaigns.  Keeping the discussion here will cause it to get lost in the "Grassroots Central" soup.  I know Grassroots Central is where the best traffic is, but these discussions need to take place in the appropriate section where the lower traffic HELPS us discuss your campaigns and plan for things like money bombs, activist time, etc because there is less topic clutter and less refresh demotions.


The new Rick Williams thread in the 2012 Candidates sub-forum:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-in-California!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Rick, you may want to make sure that you get added as a candidate on the Senate Conservatives Fund website. Their endorsement helped Rand and Mike Lee.

http://senateconservatives.com/site/races/2012/ca

----------


## tsetsefly

Hey rick, do you have a facebook page? IF you do put it in the first post and in your sig along with your site... If you dont hae an fb page make sure to make one asap!


As for this thread being derailed, I love how some here are acting just like a lot of libertarians/objectivist/liberty minded act with pro liberty candidates the closer they get to your position the more you find that one thing that makes you absolutely  not support them...
Fact is Rick Williams is way better than the current senator and I am sure he is 10x than the other neocons running in the primary...

----------


## ForLibertyFight

I live in Burbank. If you need any help, contact me:

misterhan49@gmail.com

----------


## Rick Williams

I appreciate the interest in my campaign; and the various suggestions here and in the subforum thread. We are early stage in the campaign here in California-- March 9 is the final day for candidates to submit papers, so there still may be additional Republican entrants in the race. I'm anticipating quite a spirited campaign. Many, many freedom people are coming forward as candidates in California-- particularly for Central Committee seats in Los Angeles County and elsewhere. California has become a state that is ripe for new blood; keep your eye on developments here. Change is coming.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> March 9 is the final day for candidates to submit papers, so there still may be additional Republican entrants in the race.


Lol! Tom Campbell again?

----------


## tsetsefly

> I appreciate the interest in my campaign; and the various suggestions here and in the subforum thread. We are early stage in the campaign here in California-- March 9 is the final day for candidates to submit papers, so there still may be additional Republican entrants in the race. I'm anticipating quite a spirited campaign. Many, many freedom people are coming forward as candidates in California-- particularly for Central Committee seats in Los Angeles County and elsewhere. California has become a state that is ripe for new blood; keep your eye on developments here. Change is coming.


2 things you must do!!!

1. Have you been in contact with John Dennis?  He is running again against pelosi and is an RP republican http://www.johndennis2012.com/. I didnt see him mentioned in your liberty candidates coalition.
2. L.A. native Adam Carolla has the most listened podcast in the US and a large part of that comes from an L.A. audience he has talked favorably about RP before and constantly rants against insane L.A. and California laws, it would be a good idea to get on his show. (Dr. Drew who reuglarly appears ont he show endorsed RP I am sure you could get a bit of publicity from an endorsement from him).

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Lol! Tom Campbell again?


I thought Campbell was a decent guy.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> This presents a problem for me... 
> 
> I spent three years living in the downtown area that could be considered San Jose's Lil Mexico and in this area is more "illegals" than legal U.S. Citizens.  The government policies is what created the immigration problem; remember when we subsidize something we get more of it!  Free Healthcare, Food Stamps, Education, and Healthcare is what driving people into our state, but it doesn't make all of them dead beats.  There is power and support in the message of getting rid of the welfare policies, new immigration policy, no amnesty, but allow people who are here to continue to live their lives.  If Republicans offer up a policy of removing all illegal immigrants it will move the support right into the hands of the democrats and condemn us to 6 more years of DF or BB.
> 
> From my point of view, coming off straight with the people on the financial crises from the welfare / warfare state and addressing the problems / solutions.  Offering up no amnesty, but deporting violent offenders and allowing working families to live their lives without the fear of the ICE hauling them off everywhere they go.  Perhaps, be bold and call out other politicians for using illegals as scape goats for a larger problem they created and call out the democrats for just trying to buy votes.  Bring the troops home to secure our border and end the welfare programs to illegals, I don't see why we need to round all of them up..





> You can't move away from it until you understand what causes it.  You have one law saying no to illegal immigration, but on the other hand you have other laws and incentives encouraging it.  We can apply the rule of law to Social Security and just end it, but many of us champion the phasing out of social security while taking care of those who have become dependent.  I understand these are U.S citizens, but if it is government incentives and laws that encouraged the problem why can't we end all of the incentives, remove violent criminals, secure our border, and let the market for labor level out.  If there is no work, no handouts, and no ability to sustain themselves here they will return to Mexico and others will have no incentive to come across.  We need to get our house in order, but the money saved from these support programs will save money and avoid having National Guard Units patrolling our streets and invading our property in the search for "illegals."


+1

Thanks for supporting Rick despite disagreements  What kills libertarianism is that most people agree on 95% but won't support each other because of the 5% they disagree on, I'm glad you've chosen not to go that way with Rick  unlike some others 




> To commenters who think my immigration policy is too harsh-- I understand your view. But I'm a lawyer, and I believe rule of law (not rule of man) is the single most significant aspect of a free society. When I say "rule of law" I mean principles that will apply with equal force to our highest elected officials and bankers; just as it does to "ordinary" citizens. I don't see how we can then turn around and say we won't apply rule of law to illegal immigrants. Rule of law means nothing if it doesn't apply to all. Guest workers-- for sure; legal immigration-- yes. But defacto amnesty for illegal immigrants? I simply can't support that concept. Over time, we need to move away from the illegal immigration culture that has gained so much prominence in the last few decades.


+1

I'm one of the people described on this forum as anti-immigration but I agree with "truthsaga", firstly, you're not going to dethrone an incumbent Democrat with that policy on immigration, secondly, even I, with my views opposed to immigration, don't think it's feasible to deport ALL of them without invading everyone's privacy & here's the thing, your State is broke, the country is broke & just on that count alone, it'd be stupid of us to waste resources on that

Our goals should be on securing the borders so no more of them come in, don't allow illegals to get welfare, get rid of Federal mandates on schools & hospitals to serve illegals & end birthright citizenship which rewards law-breakers & install Right To Work; the reason there's a market for illegals is because of Minimum Wage prevents Americans from taking up those jobs & then they go on welfare & end up on taxpayers' tit & drive up the debt-problem so if Americans could take up those jobs legally & not go on welfare easily & illegals can't get easy welfare either then they'll just leave, if birthright citizenship is repealed because they can't get anything out of remaining here but finding & deporting each & every one of them will be an impossible & wasteful task that even Ron Paul doesn't approve of




> Think thats where your getting it wrong.  Its more of we should ENFORCE the law. If someone gets arrested, goes to apply for some Federal or state programs and they come up on the radar as a illegal or unknown status then a investigation with ICE should be done.
> 
> *Nowhere does he state wanting to have governement assest actively knocking on doors and patrolling streets to deport people.  Part of fixing the problem is showing illegals that we will enforce laws on our books.*
> 
> We need to apply the rule on how we support Ron Pauls foreign policy of what would we feel like if others did that to us.   Go overstay time in a another country, they will have no problem rounding you up and escorting you to the airport.


+1

This is a more balanced view, in my opinion

If someone is identified as illegal then the matter should be notified to authorities & then it should be taken to its rightful conclusion but as much as I'm against illegals, an "operation wetback" wouldn't be appropriate or even fruitful, for the most part; more importantly, as Paul says - get those troops patrolling Afghanistan-Pakistan border here on our borders & prevent more of them from coming in & get Right To Work for Americans, make it harder to get welfare, end Federal mandates & end birthright-citizenship

----------


## craezie

I am so grateful to have another liberty-loving candidate to support in this California primary election!  We are in the uber-wealthy and uber-Republican District 48, and I don't have a lot of hope for Ron's chances down here.  My husband and I have been supporting Ron Paul since 2007, and he is an attorney as well.

I completely agree with your policy on immigration--it is both right to protect the rule of law and national sovereignty, and necessary for winning a Republican nomination.  I don't think that the other people understand how big of an issue this is among California Republicans (and even an increasing amount of Democrats and Independents) -- if you are not tough on illegal immigration you have no chance.  I think that as long as you avoid making extremist statements that can be used against you in the general -- and don't fire any illegal alien housekeepers before then-- this is a nonissue.

I am sure that you have done your research on demographics, but you cannot win any Republican statewide office without a large percentage of South Orange County and North San Diego.  We have the most Republicans by far, and over 85% voter registration rate.  Unfortunately this is very much "establishment" country, and there is no great love for Ron Paul, despite a couple of great meet-up groups and local grassroots.  His extremely poor 2008 California results were primarily due to only getting a couple of percent in these districts.  That being the case, I'm not sure I agree with your prominent billing as a "Ron Paul Republican".  Like most places, many will agree with the message but the name "Ron Paul" will cause immediate dismissal without consideration of your positions.  I would prefer a little more under the radar and sticking to the issues.  Just my 2 cents.

Anyway, you can count on 2 more votes here!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Has the GOP candidate already been selected?




> http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci...ken-u-s-senate
> 
> The California Republican Party on Monday endorsed Elizabeth Emken of Danville over several other GOP contenders to unseat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I thought Campbell was a decent guy.


He was decent, but he switched races very late in the game. It reeked of an insider political deal...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

More on this story:




> California GOP Endorses Emken for U.S. Senate
> 
> First CA Republican Candidate to Earn Statewide Nod
> Under New Open Primary Rules
> Published: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:01 PM PDT
> (BURBANK, CA) - Republican U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Emken, an accomplished businesswoman specializing in efficiency and cost-cutting, and nationally recognized advocate for autism research and treatment, has received the unanimous endorsement of the California Republican Party in her bid to unseat Dianne Feinstein from the U.S. Senate.
> 
> “This is the equivalent of winning the primary under the old system,” said California Republican Party Executive Director Brent Lowder.
> 
> ...

----------


## bluesc

> Has the GOP candidate already been selected?


I don't think so. That was just an endorsement from the state GOP. 

The election system in California is all messed up. I don't think there is a primary anymore, at least in the traditional sense.




> Chris Mann, Ramirez' campaign manager, said his camp is "disappointed that the Board of the California Republican Party voted to support a candidate we believe cannot be successful against Feinstein. Fortunately this race will be decided by the voters, not the GOP establishment." He said Ramirez is best-positioned to appeal to Latinos and independents, which will be crucial blocs in order to beat Feinstein.
> 
> *The party in the past hasn't made primary election endorsements, but state's new "top-two" primary system necessitated a change. In this system, all voters choose from among all candidates regardless of party, and the top two vote getters advance to November's general election -- even if they're of the same party.*

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I don't think so. That was just an endorsement from the state GOP. 
> 
> The election system in California is all messed up. I don't think there is a primary anymore, at least in the traditional sense.





> The party in the past hasn't made primary election endorsements, but state's new "top-two" primary system necessitated a change. In this system, all voters choose from among all candidates regardless of party, and the top two vote getters advance to November's general election -- even if they're of the same party.


From this, it looks entirely possible that after the Primary, there could be two Democrats running for US Senate with no GOP choice at all. So the GOP Party has instituted a smoky backroom deal process where they will choose a GOP candidate and "tell" all Californians who they should vote for in the Primary. Nice.

----------


## Rick Williams

The endorsement of one Republican candidate by the GOP Insiders at the start of the primary process is yet another effort by fading Party "leaders" to hang onto some relevance. The new "open" primary model in California means that Democrats and Independents can vote along with Republicans to decide who the second "slot" will go to on the general election ballot. The Republican insiders fear that Ds and Is will swamp the Republican Party voters, and choose either Orly Taitz or me for that second slot. Neither Orly nor I are beholden to the Party insiders; and the insiders want one of their own. The candidates that are hurt by this endorsement are the other Republican insider types (there are 5 insiders running). The Party is eating its own by choosing one insider against the others; and the net effect is that the Party itself is weakened by this sort of action. They simply don't trust their own voters-- quite a viewpoint for a political party to have, when you think about it.

----------


## sailingaway

> The endorsement of one Republican candidate by the GOP Insiders at the start of the primary process is yet another effort by fading Party "leaders" to hang onto some relevance. The new "open" primary model in California means that Democrats and Independents can vote along with Republicans to decide who the second "slot" will go to on the general election ballot. The Republican insiders fear that Ds and Is will swamp the Republican Party voters, and choose either Orly Taitz or me for that second slot. Neither Orly nor I are beholden to the Party insiders; and the insiders want one of their own. The candidates that are hurt by this endorsement are the other Republican insider types (there are 5 insiders running). The Party is eating its own by choosing one insider against the others; and the net effect is that the Party itself is weakened by this sort of action. They simply don't trust their own voters-- quite a viewpoint for a political party to have, when you think about it.


They were very unhappy with us when we went to the state GOP convention and voted for Ron in the state straw poll, I do remember that.  Very prunish looks.  And I was nothing but nice, honest!

----------


## PolicyReader

bump for supporting our own and liberty

----------


## Vet_from_cali

wish you well on your campaign

----------


## Brian4Liberty

This could be an interesting Primary. With so many Democrats in California, and so many GOP candidates splitting up the GOP vote, it would be entirely possible to end up with two Democrats in the General. On the other hand, if enough Democrats went with a non-incumbent Democrat in order to make the two Democrat General election a reality, there would be the long shot possibility that not enough Dems would vote for Feinstein, and she might not make the General. Now that would be ironic.

----------

