Gilchrist Skips Forum

Constitution Party candidate for Congress, Jim Gilchrist, decided to skip the League of Women Voters forum because he objects to the positions of the group. Seems like this could actually work to his advantage by generating some nice free media, such as this article from the Daily Pilot:

Congressional candidate Jim Gilchrist, a member of the American Independent Party, on Monday said he will boycott a candidates’ forum tonight because the League of Women Voters is a cosponsor of the event. Gilchrist is one of five candidates who will vie for the 48th District House seat in a Dec. 6 general election.

In a statement, Gilchrist criticized the League of Women Voters for its “far-left agenda” and said the group was not an appropriate sponsor for the forum.

“The League of Women Voters supports taxpayer-funded abortion up to the day of delivery, new and expanded gun-control laws, higher taxes on working people, socialized medicine and unrestricted illegal immigration,” Gilchrist said in the statement.

He asked that the league be removed from involvement with the forum, and he asked Republican candidate John Campbell and Libertarian candidate Bruce Cohen to join his boycott.

“I can understand his sentiments, but I’m not going to skip the forum because they’re going to be there,” Cohen said, adding, “everything he says is basically true—they are really left-wing.”

Campbell was at a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., Monday and could not immediately be reached for comment.

Forum organizer UC Irvine responded with a statement saying the league’s participation is nonpartisan, and that its involvement was fully disclosed when the event was announced.

“While we regret any withdrawals from the forum, participation in the 48th Congressional District candidate forum is strictly voluntary,” the statement said.

Tonight’s event was to be the first since the Oct. 4 primary election with all the candidates present. Campbell didn’t attend a Monday forum in Irvine because he was out of town. The forum will be at 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers at Irvine City Hall, 1 Civic Center Plaza.

9 Responses to “Gilchrist Skips Forum”

  1. IndiPol Says:

    Interesting campaign tactic.

  2. NewFederalist Says:

    At least he has the huevos to stand by his convictions. It will be interesting to see if any other “principled” candidates follow suit.

  3. Chris Bennett Says:


    I have an idea? Why don’t you interview some former third party candidates for president or congress…someone who hasn’t ran in the last 10 years and see if they are still axtive within that party? Just A thought!

  4. Joey Dauben Says:

    When third party candidates gripe and complain about not getting into debates or in the papers, something like this doesn’t make sense.

    I totally see Gilchrist’s point, but not his logic.

    By that reasoning alone, we shouldn’t vote in this now-democracy.

    We shouldn’t bother to even work within the “beast system,” as the conspiracy folks like to say.

    We shouldn’t participate in anything - like annnnything - because all of that is the antithesis to what people like Gilchrist and I are opposed to.

    Doesn’t make sense to me.

    But then again, having an LP candidate for governor—with matching funds!—wind up in fourth place (rather than a regular-place finish of 3rd) is beyond me as well.

    I’d debate in that forum just to slam the League on their genocide views and AARP-bed-fellowed stances.

  5. Kyle B Says:

    I agree with Joey’s point. Gilchrist should have done forum

  6. Lex Says:

    Passing up a debate invitation because the sponsor isn’t perfect strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face, as the saying goes.

    Third party candidates generally beg, clamor, and sue to get into debates—when one is actually invited, he or she should jump at the chance and thank the hosts, regardless of any differences in political philosophy.

    Not to mention the fact that the League of Women Voters did a much better job of organizing non-partisan presidential debates when they were in charge, as compared to the bi-partisan (i.e. D and R only) debates held by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

  7. Jim 101 Says:

    Third party candidates are supposed to be more principled, and stronger in there convictions than the prostitutes in the major parties. Isn’t that why most of us are involved with third parties, because we’re tired of the sellouts in the Republican and Democratic parties? If he sold out, and did the forum, wouldn’t that make him no better or different than them?

    It’s a tough call either way, but I agree with Jim, don’t do the forum, stand by your convictions. People will notice…

  8. Kyle B Says:

    I don’t see how doing the forum can be seen as selling out. Just doesn’t make any sense to me.

  9. undercover_ararchist Says:

    Ridiculous. Gilchrist only wants to play to audiences that are mindless and xenophobic like him.

Leave a Reply