Michael Crimmins’ Statement on CA-53

Guest Column Guest Column 33 Comments


The second of three parts.  To see the other CA-53 candidate statements provided to SD Rostra in the last couple of days, as well as the several comments posted, click here.

By Michael Crimmins

I have spent my entire career as a dedicated public servant. Having retired as a Major in the Marine Corps, I served over 20 years from Vietnam though Desert Storm. Later, I invested over a decade in the future of our children, earning two Masters Degrees in Education and serving as both a teacher and a high school principal. I was honored to be the 2008 Republican nominee, which means that I have learned a lot about what works and what I ought to be doing, in order to be successful in 2010. It also means that I have established name recognition amongst the constituency, so I can focus much of my efforts on reaching out and meeting with the voters that I need to win over, rather than investing time in the primary on just the registered republican voters I can count on.

I have been vetted by the voters, the media and Susan Davis, as well as endorsed by national figures and elected officials ranging from Congressmen Duncan Hunter Sr., Barry Goldwater Jr., Tom Tancredo, State Senator Mark Wyland, Assemblymen Joel Anderson, Nathan Fletcher and Former Assembly Republican Leader George Plescia. I also have the support of many other national figures, members of Congress, local and national business leaders.

To increase my relationships within the district, I have also recruited Chairs and Co-Chairs amongst the many minority communities represented in San Diego including the Chaldeans, Hispanics, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese and others, to support the campaign by reaching out to these important voters that are often ignored and left behind by both parties. Through hard work, we can gain the support and votes to compete against Susan Davis. Additionally, my experience as a teacher resonates and connects with many San Diegans, regardless of party. It has been a key factor in getting many democrats and independents to support my campaign, because they share my passion for education and other issues ranging from energy independence, to economic growth and fiscal responsibility. No member of Congress will find a constituent that agrees with them 100% of the time, but they do want to elect a Representative they can respect and honor with moral clarity.

When running for President, Ross Perot often said that “Talk is cheap. Words are plentiful. Deeds are precious.” Unlike many who run for office, my experience isn’t just a handful of words, empty rhetoric and an exaggerated resume. I am an experienced leader with decades of proven accomplishments. I am running for Congress because I saw a need to provide leadership and representation for San Diego and know that in 2010 we can defeat Susan Davis. I’m not running to boost my ego, nor because I need a job and definitely not to sell books. You can have full faith in knowing that I stand firm in my values and that I will serve and represent you as a public servant. I am an American first, a Conservative second and Republican third.

I’m going to be honest about this race. The manner in which this district has been gerrymandered and carved out still gives Susan Davis a 75% chance of winning in the General Election. The only way we yank this seat back into Conservative hands, is by waging a year long national campaign against Susan Davis and capturing the tremendous dissatisfaction being expressed by the voters in many forums. I have been doing that for the past two months. I can raise the money to compete with the Susan Davis half a million dollar war chest. I am on the phone daily with national leaders, members of Congress, former ambassadors, economic experts and business leaders.  I have a finance agenda in place to reach this goal and I am the only candidate that stands a chance to compete in getting the votes to narrowly defeat her. I have done the hard work and with your support, we can and we will win by electing a new representative to Congress who actually listens to San Diegans.




Comments 33

  1. Well Mike there is your biggest problem to over come. You did not mention Rich. What makes Americans think that by voting the Rich guy, is going to change your life for the better. Americans don’t truly research who they vote for, they do what there buddy votes, in most cases its the Rich guy. History should have taught us by now, the RICH guy only cares about the Rich guy. I hope someday we lazy Americans really take the time to learn their political people and use their brains, for something other then being told what to do by the Rich guy

  2. I’m endorsing Michael Crimmins, having watched last night’s debate, he is the only credible candidate.

    Matt Friedman proved himself to be at worst, a bad libertarian candidate. When asked directly by Rick Amato to explain his position of being pro gay marriage, he stumbled and never really understood or wanted to defend his position on why he’s pandering to the Homosexual Community.

    Mason Weaver was the same old passionate guy he always has been, and while he’s great at speaking passionately and can generate a buzz amongst the crowd, he never really says much. When he does get into it, it’s the same old story of rise up against the slave master talk.

    None of them get close to understand the responsibilities of a Congressman, nor the intricate nature of policy making.

    Michael Crimmins has the experience, leadership and ability to win, or so I think and that’s why I’m endorsing his campaign.

  3. So Michael Crimmins admits that he doesn’t actually want to represent this district, he wants to make sure everyone in this district thinks and acts like he does? That is how he has learned how to win during his various failures while running in this district?

    He has spent his life as a public servant. Thanks for your service, but in these hard economic times don’t we need someone who has proven they know how to do things like run a business and be successful in the private sector?

    And that is what qualifies him to run? He goes on to say he’s failed before so now he knows what he is doing? Is anyone buying that?
    And he has been vetted by the voters, the media, and Susan Davis. Well…didn’t they all vote for Susan Davis after vetting him last time?

    Then he goes on to say that the party he is running in (Republican) ignores minorities. If you are a Republican is this someone you want to vote for to represent you? Someone who thinks you are a racist?

    And people in the 53rd want someone they can “respect” and “honor”? Or do they want someone who will represent them? You are not running to rule over a fiefdom. It’s a congressional district.

    Then he talks about how he can raise money. Wasn’t the last election during good economic conditions and he still only raised like $26,000? Is his campaign reporting any better now? I mean I don’t think you need a ton of money to win in this district, but how do you vote for a guy who says he can win because of his skill in fund raising when he has proven he can raise $26k?

    And some guy named “Perry” is mad at Matt Friedman for not bashing on homosexuals in a district that contains Hillcrest? I guess he is endorsing Crimmins because he does like to bash homosexuals? You know it is the House of REPRESENTATIVES and not the house of TYRANTS. Again, this is a congressional district and not a fiefdom.

    Also, has anyone seen Crimmins’ stance on the Second Amendment from his website? What a joke. He is totally against automatic assault rifles. OK, well…didn’t we get that issue settled back in the ‘30s when Babyface Nelson was running around? And “cop killer” bullets? There is no such thing. The armor piercing bullets he is confused about have been regulated since the ’80s. Then he goes on to talk about how only guns used for hunting should be legal? This tells me that he is so behind on the gun debate that he would basically turn into a dangerous gun grabber if elected and has NO historic knowledge of the Constitution.

    This is perhaps the worst candidate I can think of to run in this district. Perhaps this is part of the reason this district has overwhelmingly supported Susan Davis. This is the silliest response I have ever read by a candidate

  4. Actually, the winner will absolutely need a ton of money to win in this district against an incumbent. Boatloads. And, yes, that’s even with a swing to the GOP in 2010…the district is correctly considered a relatively safe D seat. Sentiment and movements can change that, but not without big dollars to put it over the top. You don’t beat an incumbent that has $500k to $1 million in the bank with even $250k. The NRCC will only play in a district like this using the REAL resources it will take to compete after 1) the challenger has raised significant money, and 2) tracking shows the race to be within reach in the final weeks of the general. So, for the time being, number 1 is essential for any viable candidate.

  5. According to Gerry here… http://sdrostra.com/?p=1874#comments …Mason said he’s the “highest ranking black Republican.” In San Diego? It’s the Central Committee he serves on. The CENTRAL COMMITTEE. If he said it, that’s a JOKE! A little full of himself, just like always, huh Mason? Just like when he ran for Assembly and couldn’t take any advice but his own, finishing poorly? Yeah, I always follow a losing Assembly effort with a run for Congress.

  6. Barry, I think you are being far too pessimistic. I bet the Republican Party would love to support a candidate like Crimmins who has nothing common with the district he thinks should be honoring him after he is elected, doesn’t understand the Second Amendment, thinks Republicans ignore minorities, has no experience in the private sector at all, and has shown he has the ability to raise twenty-six thousand American dollars.

  7. Yikes, I just looked at some of the comments here as well as those posted under Mason Weaver’s statement. I met Mason once or twice years ago and barely know him. I don’t know Crimmins or Friedman at all.

    After seeing some of the responses to their statements, my question is why the heck would anyone subject themselves to running for office. SD Rostra is a Republican site, and this is the type of stuff they endure from members of their own party?

    Beating incumbent Susan Davis is going to be an uphill battle, primarily because of the reasons stated by Barry Jantz. And if the bickering/party infighting continues now and escalates through the primary that hill will become even steeper.

  8. Having spoken to Crimmins on several occasions, he is not out of touch with the district. He is very knowledgeable on economic policy and has a very strong team of business leaders advising him as well.

    Anyone who has been around the San Diego Republican Party knows that they have written off minority outreach. Just look at how Tony Krvaric ensured the endorsement of Laurie Zapf over Vietnamese Central Committee member and prior council candidate, Kim Tran. You can also look at the efforts the McCain Campaign did in 2008 with different “Insert Minority Group Name for McCain”. They were lots of hype, and very little outreach and basically no results. It’s not racist to say that neither party invests in minority outreach, its just a legitimate observation of the failures of local, state and national political parties.

    No member of Congress can be an expert on every issue, but they can be wise enough to investing time in understanding what they can, and then surround themselves with experts who can give them insight.

    I think most other readers would agree with me, that it looks like people are grasping at straws to criticize Michael Crimmins, without many strong warrants to support their claims.

    Michael has also said that he ignored the finance side of campaigning in 2008, but expects to raise at least 100k between January 1 and March 31st, 2010. But he has a goal of 250k by April first. That’s the type of money it will take for the NRCC to jump in, but it is possible. I don’t think Michael has begun fundraising yet, but he has lined up an impressive Finance Committee from what I have heard.

  9. $100K by April 30 is a good number to strive for…in an Assembly race. I worked for Bob Trettin back 1994 when he was the Republican nominee in the open 76th assembly district in which Susan Davis sqeaked by wnning by about 4%. If the state party would have targeted that seat and pumped some money in at the end, he might have won and we wouldn’t have Susan Davis to kick around anymore. I would like to see Susan Davis booted as much as anyone and I hate to say this but I think our money is probably better spent in other targeted races around the country.

    None of these candidates appear to have the ability to raise the money it will take to win. The only hope they have is to mount enough of a campaign to cause Democrats to spend a little more money in the 53rd, keeping them from spending it elsewhere. IMHO, this is shaping up to be a good “take one for the team” race.

  10. D7 voter,
    I do not think that the criticisms on this site have been unfair or inappropriate. They are all direct and to the point. None of them are personal and they are all about statements made by the candidates regarding policy, etc.

    It is very important we debate these issues thoroughly going in to a campaign. Too many people voted for too many candidates simply because they had an “R” by their name. Over the last 10 years we have started to see that these candidates are different from who we thought they were.

    For example: Mr. Crimmins’ claim that Mr. Duncan Hunter is endorsing him. Is that recent or is that from a past election when Mr. Crimmins was the only Repub running? Is Mr. Crimmins simply assuming? Mr. Hunter once told me the story of a conversation he had with then President Clinton trying to dissuade him from his Assault Weapons Ban. Knowing what a huge supporter Mr. Hunter is of the Second Amendment, I cannot imagine he would support an anti-gun Republican like Crimmins. I cannot imagine he would support a congressman who thinks it is OK to ban guns not intended for hunting sports. His lack of understanding of the Second Amendment and the fact that it has nothing to do with hunting is an important point to make here. As your views on the Second Amendment go, so go your views on all individual rights.

  11. Crimmins has Duncan Hunter Sr. listed as endorsement on his website:


    The elder Duncan Hunter is not a Senior with a capital s by the way, although he is the current Congressman’s senior (lower case).

    So, which Hunter is it that Mr. Schwartz is saying Crimmins does not have as an endorsement, while saying he does? Let’s be clear if we’re going to call people out. It appears that Crimmins has been endorsed by the dad, but not the son. Is someone suggesting he is lying about either one?

  12. I was referring to the dad. I am suggesting that Mr. Crimmins is using endorsements from the 2008 election in this race. I am suggesting that because Mr. Crimmins had an “R” by his name in 2006, he got a lot of endorsements from others who had an “R” by their name. I am suggesting that because I know first hand that Mr. Hunter (the dad) is very pro gun that it would surprise me that he would continue to support Mr. Crimmins in a congressional race when Mr. Crimmins is clearly anti gun. Especially with other candidates in the race who are pro gun. Perhaps he still does, but geeze…I hope not considering his passion for guns.

    I am also strongly suggesting that after the beating Republicans received in 2006 and 2008, we should dig deeper in the issues when someone claims to be a Republican. It will certainly help us make a stronger, better party. The Second Amendment is a huge issue these days. Can we afford to elect a Republican who doesn’t understand the Second Amendment or the issues facing gun owners today?

  13. Gerry,

    “Just look at how Tony Krvaric ensured the endorsement of Laurie Zapf over Vietnamese Central Committee member and prior council candidate, Kim Tran.”

    I think that winning that endorsement around 10-1 shows that very little “ensuring” was done, and I say that as a minority in our party. Just because someone is a minority doesn’t qualify them over another candidate. Everything, including race/gender/age/religion/etc, contributes slightly to electability (which is something an endorsing political body should consider), but no one small thing should be the deciding factor.

    You make it sound like her minority status was the reason she was not endorsed, but in reality her other “qualifications” made her a vastly inferior candidate.

  14. Let me just say after reading all of your sniping comments, and your old school politics as usual concepts. You do not realize what is coming with the People getting involved. I put on the debate this week, and I am so glad that I am stepping up and getting involved. I can see why the Republican Party has so disinfranchised itself from the People, with attitudes like the ones I read here! This election in 2010 will be the one that the People win. The old Party big money concepts are not what we want anymore. My Organization has proven that you can win a district with Principles PROVEN!! As I said My Organization Independence Caucus along with Eagle Forum all volunteers put together a debate of three Candidates with no money support or Big Money sponsors, the Monday before Christmas and the People showed up because they are ready to be engaged and we are coming for Ms. Davis and it time that the Old School Political Organization took notice. Either join the movement and support it or sit back and look on, but we’re coming.

  15. Anonymous: I agree she was a much less qualified than Zapf and am glad that she was endorsed. My point is only that the republican candidates should’ve been allowed to be considered on their merits, rather than being blatantly ignored. The results would’ve been the same no doubt, but it would’ve been slightly more democratic than permitting the choices to be limited to just those chosen by a select few.

  16. Stephanie Jahn, thank you to you and your org for putting this together. The best part of the 2008 election disaster is seeing people like you get more active.

    If you could, can you clarify your comments? I think they are valuable, but specifically, which sniping are you talking about? There are a lot of issues being discussed in these various comments under the statements by Crimmins, Weaver, and Friedman. We would all love to hear your specific thoughts on all.

  17. I’m concerned about this issue of endorsements. Can an official representative of the Crimmin’s campaign confirm that all of the listed endorsements have been SIGNED and are for the 2010 CA-53 Congressional Primary Election?

    That shouldn’t be a big deal; just a quick statement would be great. You could even scan the endorsement cards and post them, just to prove the point.

    Because, if you don’t have a signature, you don’t have the endorsement.

    And if you are representing an endorsement that you have not actually received, that is a serious crime in the minds of politicos, donors, grassroots campaigners and voters. I can think of a few campaigns who have suffered from these types of allegations.

    At best, it is a telltale sign of serious ineptitude from the campaign’s leadership, at worst it is a deliberate lie.

    But, like I said, a simple confirmation will put the entire issue to rest.

  18. I would strongly suggest that this line of innuendo stop. If you think it’s okay to come on here and throw out any allegation you want, based on what you “think,” then hope it sticks enough to undermine a candidate you don’t support, you might best be served by going somewhere else. The burden of proof, when it comes to innuendo, should not be on the candidate. How about the burden of proof being on those doing the implying? Please prove that Mr. Crimmins does not have the elder Hunter’s endorsement. Otherwise, pound sand. To suggest that any candidate be forced by way of a whispering campaign to post copies of his signed endorsement cards to a blog is absurd. All that said, I have been assured by people that would know firsthand, that former Congressman Duncan Hunter has indeed endorsed Crimmins for Congress in 2010. If anyone has actual information proving me wrong, please send it to info@sdrostra.com and I will post it if legitimate. Otherwise, this line of discussion is over. Now, anyone care to debate some real issues?

  19. That’s all I wanted, somebody to confirm the endorsements are legit. Issue settled.

    But, why can’t we questions the credentials or assertations of candidates? I would like to call all of those who endorsed Crimmons to verify, but frankly, I don’t think they know me or would take my call.

    The whisper campaign is what I have heard around San Diego, what I wrote is a request for a statement of truth. Which shouldn’t be an issue. I mentioned the endorsement cards as a way to prove beyond doubt, but I would have been just fine with Michael Crimmons posting that they are all indeed for this campaign.

    But, per Thor’s suggestion, I’ll drop it.

  20. BTW, Merry Christmas, everyone!! Go Chargers. At 35 points now, so let me take a break…

    Fair enough on the last exchange above. Fair question as well. Let me amplify.

    Say Candidate Jones claims he graduated from Insane Diego University. Futher say that “someone,” seeing it on Jones’ website and not liking it, decides on a whim to publicly suggest that he “thinks” Jones did not actually graduate from IDU, even though there is nothing to suggest that the candidate is lying. Then “someone” publicly insists that Jones prove that he graduated.

    This is what is commonly called a whispering campaign.

    In truth, it may not be a real big deal for Jones to prove he graduated, but he would need to take the time to do so, of course. Maybe worth it for him to do so…but he is still responding to something made up out of thin air.

    On the other hand, if “someone” actually has proof that Jones hasn’t graduated, that would be completely different. All’s fair, it would seem in that case.

    Just like if someone actually knew that a former Congressman hadn’t endorsed a candidate.

    (Chargers just went up 42-10!!!!)

    Back for a sec to the “no big deal” for Jones to prove he has a diploma from IDU. Where would that end, taking it to the extreme? What if “someone” challenges a whole host of assertions in Jones’ bio, but without any proof…not just graduation, but also business background, military record, awards, service clubs, voting record if applicable, etc?? What about the “claim” that Jones is a tax cheat and messes around on his/her spouse? Whispering campaigns, all.

    (Even a high profile challenge of a well known politician’s birthplace was based in enough seemingly good information to call it into question…but presidential politics is also a far cry different.)

    Call me quaint, but on SD Rostra let’s start with the assumption that most candidates are smart enough to tell the truth on their websites, because at the very least they know “someone” will be able to prove otherwise in the case of a lie.

    So, again, if something is a lie…a candidate should be called out. If someone has proof of the lie, we would also be pleased to have it here first! Otherwise, I’d hope we can stay away from claims that a candidate is doing something wrong simply because someone would like it to be true.

    Thanks for the indulgence.

    Back to the game…which is now a blow-out.

  21. Re: “…if you don’t have a signature, you don’t have the endorsement.”

    Typically true — smart consultants and campaign managers make that clear to their clients. Smart candidates also live by it, to the extent necessary, which is nearly always. But, this is not something regulated by the FPPC!

    For the record, I had then-Congressman Duncan Hunter’s endorsement three times and in none of the cases did I have it in writing. Why not? Because I asked for it and he gave it to me, verbally. He likely knew I would use it and I knew he would stand by it if anyone asked him. That was good enough for me. Not the norm; not standard operating procedure; but in the case of Hunter there was no question in my mind that his word was good as gold.

    If anyone would like to question my integrity or say that because I didn’t have it in writing that I didn’t actually have it, please let me know.

  22. I cannot believe some of his endorsements know about his anti-gun stance. There are some people on his list who are seriously passionate about the Second Amendment.

    This is the important point: Mr. Crimmins is anti-Second Amendment and has no understanding of the Constitution.

    It is time to drum these people out of the Republican Party. The Party was built on the foundation of individual rights. As your view on the Second Amendment goes, so go your views on all individual rights.

    Here is a link to his stance on the Second Amendment:


    It is full of anti-gun buzz words. So much so, I think it reads like a Brady Org pamphlet.

    The three things that stand out:
    1) full automatic assault rifles
    2) “cop killer” ammunition
    3) hunting

    His stance in 2008 did not mention “fully automatic”. Now he has changed it which leads me to believe that someone with a pro Second Amendment stance got him to budge a little. In any case, fully automatic weapons have been federally regulated since the 1930s. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. This is a made up term that the state of California and the Clinton administration used to describe the aesthetics of commonly owned firearms. The kind of firearms I am willing to bet a lot of people reading this own and would like to keep.

    “Cop Killer” ammunition is a term right out of the anti-gun handbook. Originally the anti-gun crowd tried to paint bullets that have a Teflon coating as bullets designed to defeat the body armor law enforcement uses. This is not true. It was simply a design to replace lead with brass and here is where you can read more about it:

    As you can see, this is also already regulated.

    The hunting reference not only shows his connection to the anti-gun crowd, but also shows his lack of knowledge when it comes to the Constitution. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It never did. Arms are not used to hunt…they are used to defend your country, your family, and your self.

    Mr. Crimmins is basically telling us all that if our guns aren’t designed for hunting, they are OK to ban. We have to get our party back from people like this. We have to start electing and supporting people who understand liberty, rights, and the Constitution. Do not stand for this ridiculousness any longer.

    To further show his arrogance and ignorance, I am posting a link to a website showing an e-mail exchange I had with Mr. Crimmins after he requested my friendship on Facebook. Read and judge for yourself if this man will make good decisions regarding law and represent you.

    Let’s turn the Republican Party back to the party of Lincoln, Goldwater, and Reagan. Tell these kinds of candidates to pound sand! (Thank you Thor’s Assistant)

  23. Thanks, Mr. Schwartz. The question of whether a candidate is pro 2nd Amendment, and to what degree, especially based on his/her own statements, is certainly an example of a “real issue.” I hope each of the candidates uses this opportunity to state or clarify their positions on this issue, so all of the “frustrated bloggers” and blog users can read it here.

  24. Regarding the endorsement issue…I brought it up because one of the names Mr. Crimmins’ has for endorsements is a friend of mine. Orrin Kole. Orrin told me that he met Mr. Crimmins at a function and then found his name on his website as an endorsement. Orrin did not ask to show as an endorsement nor has he ever endorsed Mr. Crimmins. Orrin has asked repeatedly for his name to be removed from the website. I know Orrin is telling me the truth because Orrin volunteers for Second Amendment events and would never support someone with such an anti gun stance and Orrin volunteers for Matt Friedman’s campaign.

    Mr. Crimmins, if you have any evidence showing that Orrin endorses you, by all means take this as an opportunity to clear your name.

    If Mr. Crimmins will lie about a local endorsement like Orrin…why would anyone think he wouldn’t like about other bigger endorsements? Combine this lack of integrity with such a negative stance on the Second Amendment…hence my suspicion with other pro Second Amendment endorsements like Duncan Hunter.

  25. Did you mean Orlean Koehle, President of Eagle Forum California? As of 3:45 p.m. on Dec. 30, he is listed as a community leader endorsement on Mr. Crimmins Web site.

    I just noticed something on the Web site…it now is titled “Endorsed By San Diego in ’08, Winning in 2010.”

    I’m asking a question, not whispering, no innuendo, no accusing. What election did Mr. Crimmins receive these endorsements for?

  26. Unbelievable. He took Orrin Kole’s name down because he cannot prove the endorsement and now he has some word-game going on about being endorsed in 2008 and winning 2010.

    I wonder if he’ll change his Second Amendment stance now to try and fool people into believing he has any respect for individual rights.

    It is time…truly time to elect a different kind of person. More integrity…less arrogance and ignorance.

  27. For purposes of clarification:

    Mr. Orrin Kole spoke directly with Mr. Crimmins at his December 10th event, where he verbally agreed to be being listed as an endorsement on the website and additionally to be specifically listed as a Correctional Officer. Several others have confirmed that they heard this dialogue.

    Since December 10th, Mr. Kole has never contacted Mr. Crimmins or the Campaign to rescind his endorsement. This issue was also not brought up by Mr Kole when meeting Mr. Crimmins again at the recent December 21st iCaucus debate, held at the Veteran’s Museum. Mr. Crimmins has contacted Mr. Kole and I have removed Mr. Kole’s name until we hear back from him.

    Based upon a review of Mr. Schwartz’s statements, they tend to be generated out of thin air, contain gross exaggerations, baseless assumptions and lack any concrete warrants.

    Michael Crimmins’ candidacy is anchored in the basic tenets of honor, integrity and respect. Having served a full career in service to America as a Marine Corps naval flight officer and later as a teacher and a high school principal, you can have full faith in knowing that Michael Crimmins is a man of his word who also stands behind it.

    Crimmins For Congress

  28. Wow, so willing to call into question one candidate’s conservative credentials and not give him the benefit of the doubt because of one issue, but so willing to ignore that the candidate Mr. Schwartz is apparently supporting (since he’s only trashing Crimmins and Weaver) is in support of gay marriage. Careful, or this site can certainly be a constant mouthpiece, the way Schwartz is using it, to call into question Matt Friedman’s conservative credentials.

  29. Mr. Garner,

    Not willing, but eager. I wish more out there were as eager to defend the Constitution as I am. Rest assured I attack any anti-gun candidate weather Republican or Democrat. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say “conservative credentials”. That is nothing I came up with or mentioned. If you mean candidates who don’t lie about endorsements and aren’t anti Second Amendment? I think Matt’s “conservative credentials” will be OK. Matt has no endorsements listed on his site to lie about and when I asked him his stance on the Second Amendment via e-mail he sent back:

    “I support the 2nd amendment as the founders originally wrote it. For citizens to protect themselves against an oppressive government.
    This is a non-negotiable amendment.
    We have more than enough laws on the books and we need to enforce them. If more laws were put on the books to oppress the amendment’s true purpose, this is Unconstitutional.


    I haven’t attacked Matt Friedman because there is nothing to attack. He sticks to the Constitution, he understands and supports the Second Amendment, I haven’t had any friends complain that he is lying about their endorsement, and he hasn’t made any racist comments that he still needs to explain. All seems to check out so far. Again, rest assured that if he does change his views on any of these, I will attack.

    But let’s review some facts here:
    1. Mr. Crimmins has stated it is OK to ban ammunition that the Brady Org doesn’t like and ban guns that aren’t specifically designed for hunting despite the fact that keeping and bearing arms has nothing to do with hunting.
    2. Mr. Crimmins did have to take down an endorsement because he couldn’t prove it was legitimate.
    3. Mr. Crimmins claims that I have no basis for my claim when my basis (the word of Orrin Kole) is the same basis he is claiming to use to post the endorsement in the first place.
    4. Mr. Crimmins does have passionate Second Amendment supporters listed as endorsements despite the fact that he is anti Second Amendment. But now has a vague statement above the endorsements about being endorsed in 2008 to win in 2010? (Or some nonsense)
    5. Mr. Crimmins has shown, through an e-mail exchange with me that he thinks he has similar Second Amendment views as Jay LaSuer and that he cannot properly spell Jay’s last name.

    I am not sure what was generated out of thin air, grossly exaggerated, or baseless. Everything was pretty solidly concreted in statements made from Mr. Crimmins.

  30. Speaking to the gay marriage comment, in the debate I did not hear Matt say he was for gay marriage or against gay marriage as both sides have attempted to craft the argument. His position, which he could have more clearly stated in the debate and not be as technical, has stated over and over again his stand is clearly defined by the Constitution.

    In a district like the 53rd that is mostly Democrats and independents/not-declared, which overwhelmingly opposed Prop 8 and has the largest gay population in San Diego (approximately 10-12% of the voters), how is a Republican or conservative candidate going to win? Shall we all put on our thinking caps – this is not Duncan’s district. Look how well far right, social conservatives have fared in this district in the past 4 elections – miserably, actually losing republican votes. Should we rehash the same mistake and go for defeat number 5 or support a candidate that loves and cherishes the Constitution and can actually earn votes across the aisle?

    In the debate I heard Matt use a conservative, limited government, Constitutional stance to come to a CONSENSUS when it comes to gay marriage. Not a compromise…a consensus. It sounded to me like he believes that it is a 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, and Article 4 (Full Faith and Credit Clause) issue. It protects churches. It also protects ALL citizens at city halls or county offices. A very Constitutional stance. Marriage is an institution ordained by God so what authority does the government have to regulate it? This gives the power back to the back to the churches! It also gives power back to the PEOPLE at City Hall. There are two distinct issues and they are being merged together and that is where we have encountering Constitutional problems. If you have more questions, give Matt Friedman a call or email him.

    This is a great example of a Republican and a conservative listening to the voters and using his ideals and convictions to come to a consensus that can work for all. Remember he is running to be a REPRESENTATIVE. This is someone who can win in a district that is historically Democrat/independent/not-declared.

    Mr. Crimmins seems to love the Constitution and limited government….well, ‘cept when he wants to ban guns, limit free trade as by his statement with NAFTA, his approval of earmarks and his soft stand on immigration – undocumented workers, I could not believe my ears.

    During the debate Mr. Weaver had a fantastic idea of educating those in the district to bring them over to our way of thinking. Unfortunately we are way too close to the election to rely on this and after his comments on race…I see it being an uphill battle. I do hope he continues his quest after he is done campaigning in June.

  31. It’s La Suer, with a space, although many people including the media often get that wrong too, not just the spelling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.