Ken,
That is HUGE...

Just clicked through to review the votes and text of the bill and votes. I cannot believe he opposed the Marriage Protection Act of 2003/04. I knew his was a squish- but this goes above and beyond the typical RINO big government nanny state principles-this is full on Liberal.

There you go again, distorting Doug's record.

And so what if he is pushing for gay marriage. We all know he is pushing gay marriage, he always has and good for him! Doug has also been a strong supporter of the Log Cabin Republicans. Get over it!

This is why California Republicans always seem to lose; they bring up divisive issues like this. When Doug Ose becomes our Congressman this is just one of the issues we will be removing from the CRP platform.

Wow, what an interesting turn of events. After bitching and moaning for months about "anonymous" posts, the Anyone but Ose crowd has begun using anonymous posts. However, since their collective candlepower couldn't brighten a small closet, they are not able to think of their own names under which to post... so they steal those used by others.

Take, for example, the post above attributed to me, Baffled by Ken’s BS! Ken, or someone with his integrity, actually responded to his own post by using my moniker, trying to make us believe that Doug actually supports gay marriage (which he does) and that his supporters are all for it (which they are). As if that isn’t outlandish enough, they actually expect us to believe that the next “Anonymous” post was also from an Ose supporter (which it was).

Ken and your cohorts, I always suspected that you were low-brow, underhanded, hypocritical and deceitful (like us). Thanks for the confirmation.

If that is how you want to play… let’s play.

Yes Steven, it is amazing how out of touch Ose is with the 4th CD. It is like a square peg in a round hole. We need to make sure everyone completely understands Ose's voting record.... be assured Ose will try to hide his voting record. And yes, Ose is so far left that if by chance it turns out to be Ose and Charlie Brown in the General, Brown will be the conservative candidate. Brown will not take away our guns, Ose will.

Oh, and by the way Steven, I molest Collies.

By the way, Ken, the reason I am playing with you like this is because I am gay, just like Doug, and we look forward to gay marriage.

This is soooo interesting. Soooo mature. Wasn't Ose seen heading up the Gay Pride parade on Castro Street wearing a Pro Choice T-shirt and Flip Flops while shouting out "Raise taxes! Raise taxes!"? Yeah, I heard he was there and did that. Uh huh. Sheesh!

Bob,

Sadly we should wish you picture of Doug was the truth.

Instead he was in Washington DC voting to tax the Internet, voting to give social security benefits to illegal aliens, voting against protecting Prop 22 AND doing everything he could to undermine even the modest ban on partial birth abortions.

I wish he had only been leading a march or something like that. Real liberals are much more dangerous.

John

John, what I'd really like to see--like Jeff--is where these candidates stand on the war. Also, I'd like to see where they stand on the economy and on the Constitution.

At this stage of the game you have to be a "dead ender" to think that the Iraq War is working even with the surge. What strategy will McClintock support in congress? More of the same? What is Ose's position? This blog is completely silent on this critical topic.

The economy is hurting. Most sober economic experts chalk it up largely to a combination of excessive deregulation (of fancy financial instruments) and lack of effective regulation (of the mortgage industry). Incredibly, the Bush Administration is pushing a financial reform bill that seeks to reduce regulatory oversight of financial institutions further! It is already DOA in Congress. What do McClintock and Ose think about this? Managing the economy well requires much more than simply reducing taxes. I haven't heard a word on that here...maybe because people like Campbell, Park and yourself don't have any personal concern about losing your home or maybe you didn't have a chunk of change tied up in Bear Stearns equity that evaporated last month. Or maybe you're not "average Americans" who have not seen a pay raise since 1999. That's right, median salaries have not increased in real dollars since 1999. This is the first time ever that an economic boom cycle has not resulted in increased purchasing power for the average Jane and Joe.

I just simply don't understand why this blog is so singularly focused on where the candidates stand on social issues and on the narrow topic of taxes. Though these are important to people they are not the only things that matter and I would personally argue that our foreign policy, the economy as a whole and our constitutional framework (including an effective balance of powers and protection of our essential liberties) are much more important to preserve a strong America.

Taxing the internet...I don't want to see it but it's a peripheral issue. Illegal aliens...I'm sorry, but this is really a wedge issue dressed up as a security and economic problem. Abortions...R v. W can be overturned and there will still be abortions just like there were before. Only young women will once again be at risk of the neighborhood quack in his basement with the proverbial coat hanger. I hate abortions, but believe the only rational policy is to reduce the pregnancy rate and that requires birth control and a much more open dialogue with our children and with young people about sex. You will not legislate away abortions. God, gays and guns...wedge issues when you get right down to it. In the end very few "RINOs" or moderate Democrats are going to shift the legislative ground under these issues very far from where died-in-the-wool conservatives would be comfortable. But trumpeting someone's vote can sure make a nice bullet point in a campaign mailer, can't it?

Let's talk about some stuff that really matters here. That's what people outside of the blog want. You focus on social stuff alone in this election...you will lose. Even people in this conservative district are sick of it. I can't tell you how many Republicans I know in Placer County who are not sure they will vote or who have said they are either switching parties or thinking about voting for a Democrat for President (and this was before McCain tied down the nomination...these are not just frustrated Romney or Huckabee people). I'm talking about business people who live on golf courses and make strong six-figure salaries.

Where's the beef?

Hey Bob, congratulations, you are the first to even mention the social security issue with illegals [almost]

If you want "beef" go to the McClintock web site and also review his many speeches and columns on the state site.

John

Bob...
You bring up a few good points. Ose's record is so rich that it takes time to tell all of Ose's positions he has established by his voting record. After I get done with "Ose's World", next week I will deal with "Ose Votes to Screw Small Business". And of particular interest to me, since I am managing partner of a global hedge fund, "Ose the Globalist". So be patient, Ose's well-established positions will be talked about.

OK, I went to the McClintock web site (I have been there before) and I found--again--that McClintock makes only the vaguest of statements about national defense and that his economic solution consists--simply--of making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

I dug further and found a letter Tom wrote to (I presume) the President of the California Senate on Iraq last year. This letter simply says it would be wrong to cut funding of troops in the field but takes pains to disassociate the autor, McClintock, from the decision to go to war or the war strategy itself. That to me is a total cop out. What? Keep spending money on something you don't really support? Because nobody was ever proposing to put the troops in danger. Just the opposite. The purpose of the spending limitation proposed in Congress last year was to force the administration to remove troops from danger by cutting the funding for the mission in Iraq. Instead we got the surge, and, well, recently renewed violence and not even a hint that the Iraqis are making political progress.

So I'll expand my point, Ken, to say that not only does this blog fail to address the real issues of concern to Americans and to CD-4 voters, Tom McClintock himself has failed to say anything of substance on these matters, also. I'm not saying Ose is any better...I didn't go through his website and archives. But these are important issues and there isn't much beef to be seen from Tom McClintock despite all his years in government, or from any of the "political veterans" posting on this blog.

Here it is in Tom's own words:

From the campaign website...

Improving our national defense

We need to fully fund our nation’s military in order to protect our nation from any threat in the world. Reagan’s idea of “peace through strength” is an idea we need to return to.

-and-

Reducing the burden of taxes on our families and business is the way to spur growth in our economy

We need to make permanent the Bush tax cuts of 2003 so that our families and businesses are not faced with the prospect of a tax increase in the near future. We need to restore the freedom to our businesses to grow and expand their own companies; a strong economy is built on freedom.

Tom's letter to the President of the California Senate (I presume) on Iraq:

SJR 1 - Midgen Resolution on Iraq
Published on February 14, 2007

Mr. President:

I have very serious objections to the decisions that have been made regarding Iraq. If you would be kind enough to give me a few hours of the Senate’s time, I could provide a brief summary.

But as Winston Churchill said, “If the present sits in judgment of the past, it shall lose the future.”

The issue before us today is not the past decisions that have brought us to this point. It is the issue of whether to send reinforcements to our troops in Iraq.

I was taken by the House Democrats’ resolution on the matter: The resolution promises first that the Congress will – quote – “continue to support and protect members of the United States Armed Forces” in Iraq. And then, in the next breath, it disapproves of supporting and protecting those soldiers by sending them reinforcements. That takes the art of doublespeak to whole new levels.

Our military has been placed in an untenable position because of the political tug-of-war between the Congress and the President – and our troops are in the middle – in harm’s way, surrounded by hostile forces, and lacking both the material resources and the national resolve necessary for victory.

Now comes this resolution. In effect, it asks us to continue the stalemate; to continue the irresolution and indecisiveness and drift. Specifically, it asks Congress to deny our soldiers the reinforcements that they desperately need in this dangerous predicament.

That is absolutely the worst thing that we could do.

Opposing this resolution is not to endorse the decisions of the President or of Congress that have brought us to this point. It is simply to say that once we have committed our troops – rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely – and placed them in danger, to deny them reinforcements when they are in desperate need of reinforcements is nothing short of betrayal.

And Ken, if you are a managing partner in a global hedge fund I guess I can see why you would personally push for deregulation. Maybe you have been lucky enough to avoid the disaster that has befallen others who cheered (or wrote, is a better word) Phil Gramm's legislation removing many of the more complex financial instruments from any kind of regulation at all. Maybe you have personally made the right bets on mortgage-backed securities and the like and avoided huge losses for you or for your clients. I don't know. I do know that over a million homeowners are at risk of losing their homes, billions in stock equity in blue-chip financial institutions has disappeared, and billions more in the value of financial assets have evaporated due to mismanagement and lack of structure and oversight. Yet we have Paulson pushing for less deregulation!

Where does Tom stand on the mortgage crisis and the fragile nature of the American financial system? There is nothing on his web site about that though plenty on wildfires which, last few years, have not been a big problem at all in CD-4 but are a huge issue in places like, oh, Ventura County. Meanwhile, drive around. You'll see plenty of "For Sale - Foreclosure" signs right here in our local Placer County neighborhoods.

Folks - for purposes of prespective, "Bob" has indicated in the past that he is a Charlie Brown Supporter.

Is that true, Bob? I wanted to remind myself for perspective on your comments.

Yes, that's true. I haven't tried to hide that. I have also said (maybe several months ago) that I was a Republican for 24 years. Why did I leave? Doolittle's corruption and Bush's mismanagement in conjunction with the party's pursuit of campaign successes through practicing wedge politics.

Why do you think you lost the House and Senate in 2006?

But I'm here to listen and learn. Do you have any new ideas--something that would attract this Reagan Demopublican back?

And what's the purpose of this blog anyway? To convert the converted? I am here to have a dialogue about stuff that really matters. I'm not here to talk about wedge social issues or to attack anyone.

Bob - the race between McClintock and Ose is about a Big Spending Liberal Millionaire Former Congressman versus a Conservative Icon.

Ose represents why you left the GOP - McClintock represents why the GOP is still the party for you.

Hey Bob, welcome back!

On Iraq, Senator McClintock is a constitutionalist and he would have fought for a declaration of war which he thinks should have been passed so that we could then go in and wage war against our enemies as we did against Japan and Germany.

ON the housing crisis I think you will see his philosophy best if you review what he said during the "electricity crisis." As with the housing bubble it was a government caused problem that then cost us BILLIONS more as the government try to FIX the very problem which they caused.

If you remember, the price of natural gas spiked during this period and since the government was not at the ready to prevent the price spikes they quickly righted themselves which is what market forces do much better than government regulators.

I am not sure if you are saying that Tom's position of funding a strong military and making the tax cuts permanent is inconsistent, but he knows that just like the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's there will be MORE tax money if the economy is allowed to thrive... The problem is keeping congressmen, Democrats and Republicans alike, from spending that and so much more on those ear-marks.

Hope this helps and we would love to have you on "Team McClintock!"

JOHN

John - Can I assume you are speaking for Tom on this quote: "On Iraq, Senator McClintock is a constitutionalist and he would have fought for a declaration of war which he thinks should have been passed so that we could then go in and wage war against our enemies as we did against Japan and Germany."

Like others have said, I'd prefer to discuss issues than who had to move farther into the district...and the issue raised here is a very important one to me.

Better than have me speak for him, I can give you a direct quote from Senator McClintock:

The House Conservatives Fund had this question; Do you believe the United States was right to liberate Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein?

Here is how the Senator answered: “I believe that a congressional declaration of war is necessary prerequisite to the uses of military force (except for defense and hot pursuit) to assure that when we commit US troops, the full might and fury of our nation is behind them.”

Hope that helps.

John

John, that does help. I appreciate Tom's position on the need for a declaration of war to start a war. I only hope that in considering such a declaration the congress requires full disclosure of all of the intelligence available--and the internal arguments for and against going to war, if the situation is in any way uncertain (as in 2003)--before voting.

How does Tom think we should manage the war now? Let's say McCain is elected and the Administration's war policy essentially remains the same as it is today. Would Tom call for a declaration of war (to authorize continuation of combat operations) and if one is not approved call for the president to withdraw the troops? Would he refuse to vote for funding an undeclared war?

And if he is a strict constitutionalist, what is his position on the warantless surveillance program?

Does Tom have any position on what to do with the economy besides simply cutting taxes and voting down spending bills? Will he make a promise to not tag any earmarks to any legislation? Will he push for better regulation of the financial industry or let it continue to run with limited oversight and regulation? What will he do for those homeowners who are defaulting on loans where the terms were not fully or accurately disclosed to them and for other lender improprieties?

If Tom's position is to "enforce existing immigration laws" what would he do, push for deportation of the 12 million who are here illegally (IAW the law) or what? Some say that simply refusing illegals loans, rental housing, etc., will force them all to leave the country on their own--12 million of them. Does Tom believe that? If not then what would he propose? Funny--illegal Brazilians in the U.S. are leaving in droves on their own not because we are forcing them out but because there are now better jobs available back in Brazil where there is 5%+ GDP growth.

I appreciate the real dialogue. This is refreshing!

So there you have it. Since the last time the United States declared war was World War Two, Tom McClintock thinks that every American use of military force since then was unconstitutional.

Korean War...unconstitutional.
Vietnam War...unconstitutional.
Grenada...unconstitutional.
Lebanon...unconstitutional.
Panama...unconstitutional.
Gulf War One...unconstitutional.
Balkans...unconstitutional.
Afghanistan (post-9/11)...unconstitutional.
Global War on Terrorism...unconstitutional.
Iraq...unconstitutional.

Interesting. Sounds a lot like Ron Paul's foreign policy.

That is very good to know that Tom goes that way.

Now you are making a solid constitutional position that was respected for over two hundred years of United States history sound strange.

Does not our US Constitution require a declaration of war before war can be waged? If it does, then yes all of the actions you listed above were carried out in an unconstitutional manner, which does not mean the action itself was unnecessary or wrong.

When you compare the effectiveness of our actions against Japan and Germany with how many of these other actions have turned out, perhaps our founding fathers were much wiser than our current leaders after all.

JOHN

Bob,

I hope you are not implying that reducing taxes and the level of expenditures at the Federal level is a bad thing.

I remember when I was in school they taught us about the "evil Feudal Lords" who had serfs work their land and took 25% of everything that they produced! The take from government in this country today is somewhere between 40% and 50% and that does not include most of the cost of regulations!

Make you long for the good old days of those Feudal Lords!

On immigration, I think that even as a state representative, Senator McClintock has outlined solutions to the problem of illegal immigration that is as good as most of what we see coming out of Washington DC and certainly from Doug Ose.

John

John, what I am saying is that those positions on tax and spend are insufficient to form a complete economic policy. The economy is only moderately affected by taxes, federal spending and deficits. Other policies and actions--such as trade policy, the money supply powers of the fed and how our major financial institutions are regulated and managed--also play an important overall role.

In the last five years after the dot.com bubble burst two issues have caused significant economic thrash. These are the accounting corruption due to poor oversight that led to debacles like Worldcom and Enron (which wiped out billions upon billions in equity value for shareholders and employees) and the more recent and more significant subprime meltdown which can be directly traced to poor mortgage industry oversight combined with deregulation and blurring of the lines between commercial and investment banks and their increasingly complex financial instruments. Republican Senators are calling Paulson's new financial proposal DOA. I'd like to know how Tom stands on these issues which are as important to the economy as tax and spend policy.

I pay high taxes so reducing them is interesting. The other half of the equation is what happens to people when taxes are reduced and (if things work they way they should) spending is cut in proportion? Many would argue that the growing economic disparity in the U.S. between the very wealthy (like the Clintons :) ) and the rest of us is fine; it's capitalism and the benefits accruing to the rich will trickle down. But I just read an article in Time about the exploding yacht industry and am having trouble understanding what is really "trickling down" when the luxury spending on homes, automobiles and toys is still running at an unprecedented level. I just don't think that is healthy in the long run for the country.

OK, now you can see where my principles may not align 100% to the conservative wing of the Republican Party but I don't think I am alone as a moderate in thinking this is a problem.

Bottom line: If you want to continue to win elections as a Republican you need to get onboard with the fact that the mood of the country has shifted to the left following a long run of shifting to the right. The SOS will not work.

I guess I missed that "shift to the right."

When you consider the political history of America in the 20th Century it was the Progressives that came out the BIG winners with almost of their proposals, which were thought to be VERY extreme in the early 1900's,have been fully implemented!

Senator McClintock has always stressed that government has two things to enforce when it comes to markets or the economy. They are to make sure that contracts are enforced and to ensure that representations made are honest: In other words, people must tell the truth and keep their promises.

With government keeping this type of order and private property respected, the economy would not only grow, but would thrive.

John

John, with all due respect, that is naive. And it is very dangerous.

Capital markets have time and again proven they are incapable of self-regulation. Remember the Great Depression? An unregulated stock market resulted in a crash which in turn caused a run on banks. When Roosevelt took office 1/3 of U.S. banks had already failed. He shut the doors on the rest and established the FDIC among other things.

Now, in 2008, we are reaping the harvest from another round of deregultation, this one in 2000 by Phil Gramm in a bill submitted just before Christmas that didn't even get any debate before passing. The 1998 act that allowed investment and commercial banks to comingle also played a part in the mess we have now. Th 2000 bill reduced regulations on many financial instruments that were becoming more important to the new comingled monster financial institutions. These are the same financial instruments that were behind the fall of Bear Stearns. The subprime meltdown is the result of a lack of oversight and under- or de-regulation.

Tell me how deregulation works in complex financial markets where nothing is as simple as enforcing an honest contract. Were it only so simple.

Keeping your promises and telling the truth are good principles. What else to you want the government enforcing and regulating?

The Great Depression WAS the GREAT depression because you had the government rather than the markets sorting things out and mostly making them worse. The only reason that you have bank runs is the use of fractional reserve banking. I have no problem with a bank operating that way if they are honest about what they are doing and can find customers who want to play, understand how the game works.

Let me be a good "Democrat" for a moment and put a face on the housing problem using the woman featured in the Sacramento Bee this week as someone who could NOT get help from what President Bush and others were offering. She bought a home in 2003 or 2004, refinanced in 2006 at something like $460,000 and now the home is worth $270,000. Who is at fault here and what is the governments role? I am sure that someone told her in 2006 that based on recent history the value of her home was going to continue to increase which it did not. Was this a false presentation or just a usual sales pitch? Should the woman have been responsible enough to know that there was risk involved? Now she is almost $200K upside down so what should be done: Should the government force the bank to accept the value of the home as the actual mortgage and eat the difference? Should the taxpayers cover that loss? Those are the two suggestions that are being made in Washington DC right now.

The fact is that just like the electricity crisis or the Savings & Loan crisis there is no easy solution and someone has to pay for the massive losses incurred by irresponsible people.

I could go on, but I think you see the point, and that brings us back to the basics: Protect private property and make sure the government tells people they have to tell the truth and keep their promises. With that in place, responsible people can prosper. Those who want to take risks will understand those risks and must to told they face the losses if they come.

So there would be 'regulation' in the good sense of the word because banks and financial institutions would have to tell the truth and keep their promises, which the government should enforce with a vengeance. If I buy Enron stock because their accountants report that the company is sound when it is not, then they should be responsible for the loss. If I buy a house believing that 25% annual increases in property values are going to continue year after year, then I must eat any losses that I might incur because of my poor judgment.

Make sense??

John

John

Jeff,

You're twisitng McClintocks position. I heard Tom address the issue of a declaration of war. He did not say it was unconstitutional for the president to go to war without a declaration. He simply insists it is a terrible idea for a president to make war without having a declaration. Agree or not, it is a reasonable point.

Ben:

While I have not spoken to Tom about this, I was basing my remark on John's direct quote of Tom:

“I believe that a congressional declaration of war is necessary prerequisite to the uses of military force (except for defense and hot pursuit) to assure that when we commit US troops, the full might and fury of our nation is behind them.”

Let me pull out this quote - "NECESSARY PREREQUISITE".

How again did I twist his position?

Jeff

John,

I would never suggest that the government bail out people who took out a loan they could not afford assuming the lender disclosed the terms as required by law. The woman in your example made a bad mistake and is now paying for it. I would not expect the government to bail her out nor have I argued anywhere here for government bailouts...of individual homeowners OR Wall Street giants like Bear Stearns.

You said: "The Great Depression WAS the GREAT depression because you had the government rather than the markets sorting things out and mostly making them worse." I beg to differ. The Depression was caused by an unregulated stock market and poorly managed and regulated banks. The bubble burst on stocks and there were no automatic trading halts in those days. Though the stock market recovered for a bit after October 29 it never reached the previous high and then the bank crisis kicked in. A run on banks caused about 1/3 of them to go out of business (because, as you note, they had more money out than they had in and couldn't make good on their short-term obligations) and without even further government action even more would have failed. The combination of the drop in equity and the failure of banks meant millions of Americans lost their life savings. Spending stopped; people hoarded money; and the vicious cycle continued.

You said: "If I buy Enron stock because their accountants report that the company is sound when it is not, then they should be responsible for the loss." Well, nice theory but Enron's shareholders will never get more than a few pennies on the dollar back. As of today, ALL Enron creditors are expected to recover 37 cents on the dollar. Common stock shareholders are at the back of the line.

I think we both want the same thing from government. Protection of honest people from dishonest people and effective economic management action whether through Congress or the Fed or both. Where we depart, I suspect, is in how far the government should go to do that job.

What I am interested in, though, is Tom McClintock's position on the current economic crisis, not yours or mine. Does he have more to say than the old mantra of cut taxes and spending? Please don't point me to his old stuff because he is now, for the first time, running for federal office. The issues aren't exactly the same at the federal level. Neither are the levers.