Too little, too late...

We are warming up the opera singer even as Ose is advertising on behalf of Charlie Brown.

Aaron,

I think she sang late last week but we don't have the final counts in from the counties on the absentee ballots that have been returned.

john

My crystal ball has a split screen...an opera singer warming up...and two little boys whistling past the grave yard...

So, Republican voters should support Ose because he will increase pork barrel spending? And they should vote against McClintock because he is principled?

Doug Ose is an example of why we lost congress in the first place. Sending him back will only make things worse as he proliferates the "Spend Happy" reputaion Republicans earned during his tenure.

I think the average 4th CD voter will read this part of the editorial and vote McClintock!

"State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, Ose's main opponent, has been a key player among California conservatives for more than 20 years. He's respected as a strict constitutionalist, a hawk on government spending and waste, and a vehement opponent of congressional earmarks that have escalated the national debt."

John

I think the average CD4 voter (this isn't necessarily me, btw) might have these things to say:

What will my congressman do for me? My taxes are too high--is he going to reduce or eliminate the AMT? I wonder if he can reduce my taxes by increasing taxes on the very rich instead of making the middle class carry the load--that would be nice for a change because my income relative to inflation has been falling since 2000.

And what the heck is he going to do about the price of fuel? I attended the Auburn Home Show and saw booth after booth of energy saving products--shouldn't we be investing in some of these technologies instead of drilling for more oil and putting more CO2 into the air? Why is Exxon getting tax breaks when they are making record profits?

What will my representative do about this war that seems to be going on forever? Like the rest of the nation I don't believe the war makes any sense anymore--we need a change. And I certainly don't want to see us go to war with Iran. The price of oil is high enough already. I don't think the current strategy is working and I'm not willing to give it four more years to see if it can work. It's been over five years already.

I think government should spend less but my district still needs money. We need better freeway improvements in this district; I'm not sure but maybe some mass transit options could also make some sense now given how expensive fuel is, and it looks like it will get worse. What will my congressman do for our district? I certainly don't want someone to go to Washington and not come back with anything except a pledge against earmarks. Maybe we could get an energy research and manufacturing center built; we have a lot of companies in this area already. It could be a boon for local jobs and for the local economy. But I don't see any of the candidates talking about something like this.

I would sure like to see the Olympics come to Tahoe. But man, we need some infrastructure spending programmed soon to be a viable candidate.

There sure are a lot of e-mails about the horrors of illegal immigration but I don't really see the problems first hand in this district too much. Sure there is some graffiti in some areas and sometimes I see a lot of day laborers hanging around but it seems to me like the issue is somewhat overblown. I know a lot of nice, productive Mexican Americans--maybe some are illegal aliens (I'm not sure) but they really seem to care about our community and doing better for themselves. Still I am for a stronger border and better immigration control but the idea that our congressman wants to make immigration his top priority doesn't make any sense to me when compared to some other problems we have her in our district and in the country.

I worry a lot about our young men and women returning from the endless wars. I know a few who have had problems readjusting and a couple in my town have been killed and badly wounded. It seems we need to do more for our veterans. The Walter Reed scandal just makes me sick. It's shameful.

In 2000 and 2004 I voted for Bush but now I think I made a mistake. I scraped the W sticker off of my truck. The country is in terrible shape. I'm not sure I can vote for another Republican unless I really think that person is going to make some positive changes and stay out of trouble. I can't believe how many corrupt and immoral Republicans there have been in the last few years. What happened to our ethical compass? I'm also sick of people who focus on wedge issues like gay marriage and gun control when neither of these things has been real a problem for me in my life even though I support marriage between a man and a woman and the second amendment. I just don't think these are high priorities for the government. I do want to feel good about my country, though. We really need some change. I want my congressman doing positive things and not just voting no on everything.

Bob,

You really did not have to spend all that time convincing us that you are a liberal. I think you already told us you were voting for Charlie.

The problem that you and Charlie have is how lonely it is for you in the 4th CD :)

JOHN

What was liberal about what I said?

Bob,

OK, here is my top ten list of your liberal "leanings":

1) tax the rich, pretending they cannot avoid taxes

2) CO2 is now an evil pollutant rather than plant food

3) Price of oil is because of problems in the Middle East rather than are anti-oil domestic poliices

4) We need to look to Washington for freeway improvements

5) Government should subsidize mass-transit

6) Government should build manufacturer plants

7) Being in our country illegally is no big deal if they are nice people

8) Gay marriage is a wedge issue

9) Gun control is a wedge issue

10) I want my congressman doing "positive things" at a time when federal spending is bankrupting our nation.

I hope this list helps to put you on the road to recovery! :)

John

1) tax the rich, pretending they cannot avoid taxes
I'm not pretending anything. Any objective look at the impact of the Bush tax cuts shows that the very wealthiest are making out like bandits. The top .01% of Americans control 5.46% of all income (latest issue of Time). What I am saying, John is this: Lunch pail Republicans are getting the shaft and they have finally figured it out. Here's a quote from the same article: "In an April Gallup poll, 68% of respondents said wealth 'should be more evenly distributed' in the U.S. — the highest percentage saying so since Gallup started asking the question in 1984."

My whole point with this post is that if the Republican Party continues to push the policies you are pushing here you will continue to lose big, even in the most crimson counties.

2) CO2 is now an evil pollutant rather than plant food

You are smart enough to know better. Really.

3) Price of oil is because of problems in the Middle East rather than are anti-oil domestic poliices

Including ANWR, the U.S. has only three years of supply at current rates of consumption in our proven reserves. Just three years. The Montana and North Dakota oil--if it can be horizontally drilled--equals a seven-month supply. Oil shale reserves (which are not really oil but a compound called kerogen) while large are not commercially feasible.

Canada has huge reserves and supplies more oil to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia. At current prices its reserves are commercially feasible.

ANWR is not a silver bullet. It would take 3-5 years to have any impact if given the green light today. Renewable energy--ultimately--has to be the answer. Since I lived safely within 100 feet of a nuclear reactor for several years I am also a proponent of nuclear energy--hardly a liberal cause.

4) We need to look to Washington for freeway improvements

Where else are you going to look right now, John? You're living in some kind of fantasy world where Tom McClintock goes to Washington and rolls back the clock to the time before income taxes. Oh wait--there weren't any freeways then.

Expecting to change Washington and have an affect on our district in a reasonable amount of time is the kind of talk that drives practical people nuts.

5) Government should subsidize mass-transit

How were the freeways built? What would you estimate the economic benefit to the private sector has been from freeways? Now, think about $5 a gallon gas, and the cost of increasing the capacity of freeways in densely developed areas. What kind of economic drain will there be if we don't invest in mass transit? You know mass transit projects are enormously expensive. It's asinine to expect private companies to foot the bill.

All around the world there are examples of effective mass transit systems. We need to get a clue.

6) Government should build manufacturer plants

I didn't say that. I said we should encourage new industries to come to our area. We can use your favorite method, tax breaks, to entice them. This area has a good base (know-how, labor, existing base of related industry) for something like this. A large research and manufacturing campus in western Placer County would be a much better use of some of our precious land than another residential development.

7) Being in our country illegally is no big deal if they are nice people

All I'm saying is that some Republicans have made this issue into much more than it is through a constant drum beat of scare tactics and--to be frank--veiled rascism. I've read LTEs to the Auburn Journal where people are worried about MS13 roaming their neighborhood even though they have never seen them yet. Some people are afraid to flash their brights at an oncoming car that has its brights on because they will become the victims of a "gang initiation" and nonsense like that. The stupidity and pure hate out there about this issue is incredible.

People say that illegal aliens are a drain on the economy and on public services. These people ignore data that illegal aliens are a net positive factor in the economy and pay taxes, too. I'm not condoning illegal immigration--I'm just saying there is a lot of bad data out there about it.

And it's been a loser recently for Republicans such as one of your favorites, John Hayworth of Arizona. Hayworth lost 50 to 46 after winning by over twenty points in 2002 and 2004.

8) Gay marriage is a wedge issue

What else would you call it? How does gay marriage really affect people outside enclaves like Castro Street to any great extent? I mean really--answer that question. How does two people getting married harm anyone? Isn't this simply a religious issue? Can't we be honest here? Do you really believe your kids are going to grow up gay because they see two people of the same sex living together in a state of marriage? I don't understand what the impact of gay marriage is on the average socially conservative Republican family. They don't move in the same circles at all, usually.

Bill Clinton took welfare off the table and--coincidentally--that's when gay marriage started to become a "huge problem". The only purpose is to get people mad about something so that they go to the polls.

9) Gun control is a wedge issue

I didn't mention gun control in my original post. I don't think it's a real issue in this district or in either the Republican primary or the CD4 general election. Remember, my original post was not supposed to be from my viewpoint but from the "average CD4 voter's" viewpoint.

10) I want my congressman doing "positive things" at a time when federal spending is bankrupting our nation.

McClintock talks about building a fence along the border, increasing the Border Patrol, putting National Guard troops along the border, etc. How much will all that cost?

How much has the Iraq War cost? Let's see--how about more than the worst annual deficit in United States history? Here's a great chart on the history of U.S. deficits by administration since JFK--you tell me who has a better handle on the economy, liberals or conservatives: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm. This is the #1 Google hit for "U.S. deficits", btw.

Republican voters are starting to figure some of this stuff out, John. That's why you are losing election after election. But go ahead--blame it on the "liberals" or on "RINOs" after the so-called conservative wing of your party ran the country into the ground in only six years.

From my perspective, this is the best use of blog commenting electrons. Point-Counter Point at it's finest. Kudos to both John and Bob.

The worst use of blog posting and commenting electrons...the incessant worshiping** at the Altar of Black, Manafort, Stone & Atwater which goes on here.

** When this church service gets in full swing, maybe yet today, I will offer a liturical guide based on this church's version of the Bible of Winning Political Contests...

Bob,

I'm with John, no need to convince us that you are a liberal...

Bob,

A few questions:

On #1: Did you check to see what percentage of the taxes are paid by that same .01% that you say controls 5% of the income?

On #2: CO2 is plant food! The warming PLANETS in our SOLAR system seem to have one thing in common and it is not an increase in CO2

On #3: I bet you could make diesel with the North Dakota oil and we could put the refineries in Michigan and put all those auto workers back to work!

On #4: That is why liberal schemes never end!

On #5: The freeways were built with the gasoline tax! Transit riders should pay for transit. Also it does not work well in the west because we did not build our cities vertically.

On #6: I will give you a pass for the poor choice of words :)

On #7: We can agree to disagree

On #8: Two problems: Marriage is fundamental and should be encouraged by the civil government or at least not punished or belittled. Secondly, if a court can declare that the definition of marriage can be changed from its natural state to same-sex where do you draw the line?

On #9: Gun control was in your original post and it is important to folks in this district

On #10: I think we are in agreement here.

We are certainly having more fun than the candidates in this race. We should have organized one of the debates!

John

Craig,

My point wasn't to try to convince you that I am a conservative but to simply tell you that all is not hunky-dory for the Republican Party in CD4 (and, in fact, across the country) if your message does not significantly change.

You can choose to ignore my assistance in pointing out some of the problems you face with voters if you'd like but it's not going to change anything.

I have read posts here that claim McClintock is behind Brown five points in a recent poll and that the NRCC won't be able to spend a dime on the race while the DRCC is filling trucks with cash to spend here. Until 2006 nobody--and I mean NOBODY--in this district had ever heard of Charlie Brown and now he's apparently polling ahead of California's "Conservative Icon" who has run for governor, lieutenant governor and other statewide offices and has almost 100% name recognition.

Another "safe" Republican seat may go down the drain and I say "Good, you deserve it!". Few here want to listen--they just want to peddle the SOS, this time wrapped up in the Constitution and the flag instead of only the flag like Doolittle.

Cheers!

Bob

Bob,

Could not resist just one more post on #3 regarding global warning: Here is a piece from Walter Williams that should remind ALL of us to take what the alarmists say with a BIG grain of salt:

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

By Walter E. Williams

May 07, 2008

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Enjoy,

John

John, I have to chuckle when you post statements like the above from people like Walter E. Williams. Mr Williams would have us move to New Hampshire and then secede from the union. He's quite a piece of work.

Please post a reference to a peer-reviewed article that debunks the theory of human-caused global warming.

Citing some isolated predictions by environmentalists in the early 1970s that did not come true as evidence that AGW is false today is not science. Support for the theory of AGW is now overwhelming and is officially supported by virtually all major scientific organizations in the world--even the United States, and even the Bush Administration: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html)

I'm sorry you have trouble with facts and science. Failure by Republicans to own up to the facts and science of global warming and to engage in rational debate about solutions is one of the many reasons the Party is so far behind the Democratic Party in the polls.