Gilchrist Explains Huckabee Endorsement

At Land of the Free, Jim Gilchrist tells why he endorsed Mike Huckabee for president, and why he did so when there are other canidates with far more solid records on immigration and border control:

There have been very few voices in Washington DC who have echoed our call to secure the borders and enforce our immigration laws. One of those lone voices, and a great leader for America as well, is Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. Congressman Tancredo is a personal hero of mine who gave me the inspiration to create the Minuteman Project over three years ago.

And Duncan Hunter, Congressman from California, actually wrote the bill to get the fence built on the border between the San Diego, California and Mexico.

Both of these men have been more instrumental in moving the debate of border security and illegal immigration to where it is today than any one else. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are the quintessential political pioneers in the quest to maintain a respectable and responsible immigration system.

But as we go forward in our movement with a national stage to implement a new policy with new leaders, we have to recognize that the American people have decided there are only three viable candidates for a Republican Party presidential nominee: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

I understand Gilchrist's point, but I have to disagree with him technically and in essence on one important point: with not a single vote cast yet, the American people have NOT "decided there are only three viable candidate."

At this point, the media and party elites have told us who they consider viable candidates. They have done so with their coverage and lack thereof. They have done so with their endorsements and big contributions. And as the general public is wont to do, the people have dutifully followed with little question.

One of the sad realities of our political process, and our society in general, is that most voters stay asleep until right before the primary election, and many still do not wake up then, taking note of the political landscape about 6 weeks before the general election in November. By this time, the choice has already been narrowed for them by the media and other elites, and by those few who woke up enough to take a cursory glance at the field of choices available during the primary election.

I won't have the media and party elites dictate to me who is a viable candidate and who is not. I'm just silly like that. But apparently Gilchrist and many other Americans are willing to follow their dictates like sheep and go along with whatever they're told.

Meanwhile, our choices come down to a bunch of outright socialists in the Democrat Party, and those that dabble with it in the Republican Party.

Some disagree with the sentiment, "We get the government we deserve." Me? I think if we stay asleep during the opportunity to support and select a good candidate, then we deserve the lousy choice we get in the general election, and have no justification to bellyache that "they're all the same."