Although this past Tuesday evening’s session was the second of the Candidate Vetting sessions being conducted by We The People – Southwest Washington, it was the first session that included the vetting of a candidate for U.S. Congress. The candidate scheduled in this slot was David Castillo..jpg)
In order to strive for fairness and consistency with my reports on these sessions, I’ve decided to continue using the same “gauges”, as I have up to now, for making my observations. Since each of the candidates are unique and there are three levels of candidacy involved (U.S. Senate, U.S. Congress and State Legislature), there’s sure to be plenty of variety to the reports but I think the “gauges” I’ve been using are fair, regardless of an individual’s personality or the office they are seeking. These “gauges” are:
- Ability to connect with the “grassroots”? As I’ve said before, since We The People is a “grassroots” organization, it’s very important for a candidate to connect with the people who make up the group.
- Candidate’s motives for running?
- How well equipped is the candidate to serve?
Although I think David Castillo deserves credit for participating in the vetting, as well as in the We The People rally earlier in the day, connecting with the “grassroots” is an area where he seems to struggle. It’s not so much that he isn’t trying to connect nor that he doesn’t see where the connections are, it’s more that his attempts just don’t come across as being genuine. Of course, I can’t say that this is due to a lack of sincerity or if it’s just a missing personality dimension but I know I’m not alone in having this sense. During breaks in both events, several others, most of whom I’m not well acquainted with, made unsolicited comments on this aspect to me. And, it seemed annoyingly obvious that the vaunted “Senior Campaign Staff” that Castillo has hired were just aggravating the matter. These are the guys behind the Castillo campaign’s recent ill-conceived robocall attack on fellow-Republican Candidate, Jaime Herrera. I will say that Castillo was using some decent new scripting at both events so I felt like his campaign was getting more bang for their buck with the new scripting but, unfortunately, most of it did come across as being scripted. Further accentuating all this was the bothersome distraction of Castillo getting stage direction from his staff, at the back of the room, throughout the vetting session.
With each of the Candidate Vettings that I’ve reported on up to now, I’ve been able to offer affirmative summary answers regarding “Candidates motives for running?” and “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?” With David Castillo, I don’t feel comfortable doing that. My misgivings here are based on confusing information that Castillo provided during the vetting session and in some cases, the fact that he failed to provide any helpful information. Specifics on this include:
- The candidate was presented with the circumstance of deciding how to vote when his constituency wants him to vote one way and his party wants him to vote the other way. Then, he was asked what experience he has had that would prepare him to deal with that sort of pressure. While Castillo spent some time acknowledging that this is an important question and he seemed to understand its ramifications, he couldn’t name any experience that he’s had that would help prepare him for this sort of situation.
- There had been an earlier acknowledgement in the meeting that an audit of the Federal Reserve is desirable. When asked what steps he would take to get this done, Castillo’s only response was “to rally the American people.”
- In discussion regarding National Security, Border Security and Illegal Immigration; Castillo stated his support for E-Verify. I found this to be surprising because I’d never heard him espouse this approach before. I do know that this was a strong position taken by Jon Russell, a former rival of Castillo’s. Just for clarification, I later re-checked the Castillo campaign Website and found no mention of E-Verify.
- When the subjects of Income Tax and Fair Tax were raised, Castillo said that he would first support a Flat Tax and then support the repeal of Income Tax. However, he went on to say that this is a position he has just come to within the last six months. This left me wondering where he would end up on this topic and whether his positions on other major issues are still evolving.
- The final question Castillo was asked to respond to had to do with term limits. Although this question was asked differently than I would have asked it, it was the topic I wanted to ask about, if my raffle ticket had been drawn. Of course, I was interested to hear Castillo’s response. I have to say that I was stunned to hear the answer he actually gave. He said that he is going to term-limit himself … to seven (7) terms?! My first reason for being stunned by this was that, previously in this campaign, Castillo stated that he didn’t support term limits. Again, this involved Castillo’s former rival, Jon Russell. Russell remains a strong proponent of term limits. When confronted with Russell’s position on this at a Pacific County GOP Picnic last summer, Castillo clearly stated that he does not support term limits. I guess now he does. But he thinks seven (7) terms is an appropriate limit?! For heaven’s sake, Brian Baird is only in his sixth term and we couldn’t be more fed up with him!
- In his closing statement, Castillo attempted to set himself apart from other candidates with his business experience. Unfortunately, he noted that the one business he was involved in had failed. I’m told that it was a business he started during the Dot Com boom and that it went bankrupt. Regardless of the details, I can’t see this as a positive set-apart. Maybe some “Senior Campaign Staff” advised him to broach this before a competitor did but I’m certainly not persuaded to vote for a guy whose only business experience was a failure and otherwise, he’s been a bureaucrat.
As I have done with each of the candidates who have gone through this vetting process, I want to encourage you to examine them on your own. Obviously, I have some very serious concerns about David Castillo’s candidacy and I hope you’ll take my concerns into consideration but I don’t mean to tell you that my concerns should be your concerns. You should give this candidate your scrutiny and arrive at your own conclusions.
PG DeFreese
Moe Lane
Caleb Howe
Dan Spencer
James Richardson
