Thank you Mr. Doug Elmets for that shining example of insightful and not at all rehashed compendium of thoughts. Here's a suggestion for an alternate title: "Desperate Ravings of a Lunatic."

Actually American Bulldog is Mitch Zak, Doug Elmets just wrote it for Mitch.
It still remains Checkmate, Ose's final move is on Tuesday and it will be game over for Ose.

In that case, Doug Elmets is one heck of a writer. :-)

Mitch - I submit that it is squishing, not compromise that took the GOP into the 2006 abyss.

Doug Ose represents that - he told Egland "If you want to be part of the club, you have to make accomodations..."

The accomodations were opening out borders and spending like drunken sailors.

Anyone who thinks McC is going to leave the 4thCD in the lerch is out of their minds. McC will have no problem getting us taken care of...

What McC won't do is vote for the larded farm bill or override Bush' veto... like the Republican big spenders did when they teamed up with the Dems.

Mitch - when presented with a facsilimile (RINO) and the real thing... people chose the Democrats in 2006.

The solution to what ails the GOP is not re-instituting the failed leadership of the past, it is sending Congress a nightmare or two. I hope Rico Oller follows McC into Congress...

Four candidates: Jones, McClintock, Ose, Terbolizard.

Since when do I want a candidate that is honored by "party leadership"? And how does that distinguish between a leader and a "stubborn" partisan? So everyone else resents McClintock for not selling out with the rest of the "republicans" (not conservatives, republicans). I'm supposed to count that as a strike on McClintock's record? Leadership means standing up for what you believe in the face of political correctness and peer pressure, not compromising to vote in majorities... I think a better term to use instead of "leadership", since you defined "leadership" as a Pete Wilson tax-hike, would be "compromise" or "Sell-out"...

William T. Sherman was laughed out of the military for saying that the Civil War would be long and drawn out (what? no leadership posts? Guess he was just being "stubborn")...

Come on Aaron, as a resident of McClintock's senate district, I have to ask what on earth makes you think he will not ignore a new district like he does his current one?

Case in point: Mr. McClintock claims to have found a new love for America's service members. Yet just yesterday, where was he to commemorate Memorial Day at the largest yearly event honoring our war dead in the region? McClintock was Missing in Action. Worse yet, unlike many other local elected officials (Audra Strickland comes to mind), he didn't even bother to send a representative. I guess they were taking Memorial Day off.

I know he didn't use to be like that and it doesn't necessarily disqualify him from the 4th CD. But don't tell me he will have the best interests of his district in mind. He just is looking for a paycheck and a bully pulpit from which to pontificate.

To all you future McClintock supporters:

Where to start, well I guess yesterday would be good: Senator McClintock was at the Conejo Mountain Funeral Home Memorial Day service to honor the fallen in battle: It was their 43rd annual event, but I guess it was not big enough to count for some on this list!

When it comes to respect from his fellow Senators, give Senator Aanestad a call who was not only Tom's seat mate, but is one of the most respected elected officials in the 4th CD area. And yes, he has endorsed Tom!

As to the current budget, Senator McClintock began this battle last August as the Democrats and our Governor were patting each other on the back for SOLVING the budget problems: You can read Tom's comments here: http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=338

And Zak wasn't Pete the same Republican governor who told the conservative legislators they were "f...ing irrelevant" if they did not want to raise taxes? Pete did twist enough arms to raise taxes that year and turned a recession into a near depression LOWERING state revenues for the perhaps the first time in state history!

And he was also the one who masterminded the phony car tax reductions in a bill that actually contained tax increases which only Senator McClintock voted against to make that very point even though it was very popular at the time. That LEADERSHIP kept the issue alive, allowed there to be permanent cuts later on that now save every family in the 4th CD about $440 per year. That really helps when you have to pay over $4 per gallon for gasoline.

It was also Senator McClintock's LEADERSHIP on the issue of using our highway taxes for highways that now requires the state to use all of the sales tax collected on gasoline for roads and highways.

I could go on, but I think you can begin to see why Senator McClintock is pulling away in this race!

John

John,

Why are some of McClintock's own former and even current staff members, some of whom are vets, not supporting McClintock? That's the word in the district and most are not surprised.

This is kind of like nameless posts: You are not quite sure what to do! If you give specifics I would be happy to respond.

If I said, there are people in the agricultural community that do not like how Doug farms and they may not even be supporting him... What would that mean?

John

Speaking of really standing up for veterans...

Here are Senator McCllintock's comments from yesterday service:

Memorial Day Remarks May 26, 2008

"We gather today at cemeteries like this across America to give thanks for the sacrifices made by ten generations of Americans to defend our freedom on far off battlefields.

"We come to remind ourselves how much was asked of them – and how much they gave – to defend our constitution and the freedoms it enshrines and protects.

As Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this.”

"But he also warned us that mere words and ceremonies can do nothing to add to the honor already earned by those who “gave their lives that that nation might live.” Their deeds, Lincoln said, placed them “far beyond our poor power to add or detract.”

"So what is our role at ceremonies like this? Lincoln answered that question clearly. “It is for us, the living rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they…have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --- that from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion --- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God shall have a new birth of freedom.”

"How do we do justice to these honored dead? How do we truly honor the ultimate sacrifice that each made to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?

"Twenty-five years before he gave the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln answered that question directly.

"He said that our nation of free men and women would never be conquered from abroad precisely because of the valor and sacrifice of those we honor today.

"He asked, “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

"Put those two speeches together and you can see clearly what those we honor expect of us as we leave ceremonies like this one today. How tragic it would be if the freedoms successfully defended by the sacrifice of ten generations of Americans on far-off battlefields might be casually thrown away at home.

"The only true way that we can honor the heroes that we come to honor today is not by what we do or say ceremonies like this – but what we do and say once we leave ceremonies like this. The only true way to honor them is to make certain that freedom is preserved here at home.

"Whenever we allow our constitution to be violated; whenever we allow our freedoms to be eroded -- even by silence -- we dishonor the graves and the memories and the sacrifices of our honored dead.

"And whenever we stand firm upon our Constitution; whenever we speak up in defense of those principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence; whenever we raise our voices in defense of our freedom as Americans – we honor these heroes in the only way we can genuinely honor them – to assure, as Lincoln said, “That these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

"Only by this means can we do full justice to those we come to honor today."

John

All the words in the world can't hide the fact that:

1) Tom chose not to serve in the United States military and instead went to work directly into politics, and
2) He was the ONLY ONE in the State Senate to vote against five veterans bills in 2005 and he submitted NO alternative legislation or even stated the reasons for his opposition for the Senate record

He must have had other priorities...

Once again, nothing but words. He should put his money where his mouth is. His Ron Paul type views on the war are well known.

Lost... better get to work. Ose should have you out there walking precincts.

Each one you walk will narrow the margin by .1%!

Bob -

Your Comment is telling:

"1) Tom chose not to serve in the United States military and instead went to work directly into politics, and"

If you did not serve - you can't run for office. Charlie Brown for President!

Nice Try - BTW, ask Charlie when he is going to endorse McCain? You were listening to his radio appearance, right? Kinda hung himself in effigy...

Bob,

I know a couple of my Ose friends have struggled with the English language on this blog, but I did not realize you were illiterate. Have someone read the Senator's comments to you slowly, while they explain what all those big words like the Declaration of Independence and Constitution mean and then you will understand.

John

So let me get this straight...

Leadership is being popular with those to whom you promise to hand out goodies at the taxpayer's expense?

No... Leadership is doing what is right, even when it is unpopular; even if it means that you have to stand alone.

Doug Ose's definition of "getting things done" means increasing the size of the government handouts so that a handfull of 4th CD projects can get some funding. But what he does not tell the voters is that the amount of pork that comes back to the district pales in comparison to the cost of the projects they will be forced to fund in other parts of the country.

Imagine if the voters of the 4th were able to keep more of their tax dollars at home to fund the projects locally?

Aaron,

McClintock is the one trying to rectify years of inaction on veteran's issues during a short campaign for Congress with words alone. He did not serve (strike one); he voted against five veterans bills in a time of war and failed to offer any alternative legislation to remove the constitutional issues he supposedly had with the bills (strike two); and now he is sending out mailers with endorsements from people like Duncan Hunter's son (who is running for Congress as an arch-conservative himself) and calling that "support from veterans" (strike three).

McClintock didn't even swing at the pitches...in my scorebook he gets a "K" for standing there with the bat on his shoulders, a man of inaction...only words.

McCain has the credbility to speak on veteran's issues. Because of his service he can't "strike out" like Tom and nobody can say McCain let the bat rest on his shoulders. I may even vote for him because of it.

And keep up the lies on the effigy thing...your credibility shrinks with each reference.

Bob

And John...he only has words. If he took action then he would have done more than vote "no". He would have offered an alternative or put his objections in the record in writing.

Aaron,
I don't want to be rude, but I can't stand it when you talk about hanging people in effigy. Its something I'd expect from weirdos like Steven Pearcy, but not you.

This is the issue I commented on a couple of weeks ago. Leadership is more than having convictions. It is the ability to rally others to your cause and accomplish goals. DC Republicans have no leadership right now, losing race after race in districts that have been Republican for a generation or longer. Republicans need a principled leader, not someone who merely casts hero votes against legislation that will pass anyway. Has McClintock ever led the Republican Party anywhere? You can't have goals like abolishing the Dept. of Ed, ending the federal transportation tax, etc. and expect to accomplish them with no plan for how to do it. Has McClintock ever designed and implemented a comprehensive strategy on any issue or in any election?

Oh, and just an aside for those of you who think the 4th is a safe R district. I was around for the '94 takeover of Congress. This year is starting to have the hallmarks of a big year for Ds (special election losses in safe districts, national discontentment, etc.) if they can actually come together with a solid agenda. The GOP will have to work hard in the 4th regardless of the nominee.

Less than a week before the '94 election, there were still smart people who thought one or both houses would remain D and Bill Frist was behind or even in polls with Jim Sasser in TN. He won by 14 points.

Chas,

Guess you missed all those posts on the car tax battle, LED by Senator McClintock which now saves the average family $440 each year. Very handy savings when we are paying $4 plus for gas!

Here is the time-line of what happened and as you can see REAL leadership takes more than words, it takes patience and a lot of hard work!

John

Time line for the Car tax reduction

February 5, 1998—Assemblyman McClintock introduces AB 1776 which would, over a 5-year period, abolish the vehicle license fee on California vehicles. Democratic leaders announce shortly thereafter that this bill was “dead on arrival.”

February 18, 1998—LAO publishes report on the Vehicle License Fee examining its impact on state and local budgets. http://www.lao.ca.gov/p_and_i_1998/part_5c_vlf_pandi98.html

April 2, 1998—AB 1776 is referred to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. No hearing was given for this bill despite numerous amendments over the course of two months.

April 28, 1998—Assemblyman McClintock introduces ACA 45 which would, over a 5-year period, abolish the vehicle license fee on California vehicles, prevent the imposition of future fees with a two-thirds vote and provide Constitutional protections for local Government funding.

May 7, 1998—ACA 45 is doubled-referred to the Assembly Committees on Revenue and Taxation and Transportation. Neither committee gave a hearing for this bill.

May 8, 1998--Assembly Speaker Villaraigosa was asked if he was ready to give back the car tax to California’s taxpayers. He responded: "We do give it back when we spend it for them."

May 28, 1998—Governor Wilson proposes a substantial reduction of the car tax with a series of complex triggers and restrictions on other tax cuts.

May 28, 1998—Assemblyman McClintock proposes amendments to AB 1656 (Ducheny) which would secure the money necessary to hold local governments harmless for the loss of VLF revenue that comes with the abolition the hated Car Tax. The amendments were tabled on a vote of 37-33.

July 7, 1998—A motion to withdraw ACA 45 from committee fails on the Assembly floor by a vote of 33-21 (41 votes needed for withdrawal).

August 10, 1998—Assemblyman Cardoza amends a shell budget bill (AB 2797) to incorporate language regarding the Vehicle License Fee. As part of the 1998-99 budget agreement, the VLF was permanently reduced by 25 percent beginning in 1999, with the potential of greater reductions beginning in 2001 if General Fund revenues grew faster than projected. The maximum reduction was 67.5 percent, possibly beginning in 2003. Future reductions were to be offset by any alternative tax relief subsequently enacted. The vote on this bill was 75-1 in favor of passage (Assemblyman McClintock voted No).

May 14, 1999—Governor Davis releases May revise setting aside $248 million to help backfill money to local governments to further reduce the car tax. No provision is made for the VLF’s total abolition.

June 16, 1999—AB 1121 by Assemblymember Nakano passed off the Assembly floor by a vote of 70-6 (Assemblymembers Aroner, Bock, Calderon, Floyd, Longville and Migden voted No). As part of the FY 1999-00 budget agreement, the VLF was reduced by a cumulative 35 percent for calendar year 2000 on a one-time basis.

November 2, 1999—Washington state voters pass Initiative 695 calling for the virtual abolition of Washington’s car registration tax and require all future tax increases to be submitted for approval by the voters.

June 22, 2000—The Assembly passes AB 858 (Kuehl) by a vote of 77-1 (Assemblyman Floyd voted No). As part of the 2000-01 budget agreement, the VLF was reduced by a cumulative 67.5 percent beginning in 2001. It required that the additional reduction be sent to vehicle owners as a rebate check for 2001 and 2002. It also eliminated the VLF interaction with alternative tax relief.

June 29, 2000—The Assembly passes AB 511 (Alquist) on a vote of 71-3 (Assemblymen Ackerman, Strickland and McClintock voted No). It appropriated $2.052 billion to implement the rate reduction provided in the 2000-01 budget agreement, however, motorists were required to send in twice what they owed and wait for a rebate check from the DMV.

August 7, 2000—Assemblyman McClintock amends AB 2165 to include VLF offset language. The bill calls for an upfront reduction of the California Vehicle License Fee (VLF) rather than sending out rebate checks for VLF rebates. This bill was originally a bill dealing with textbook sales taxes. The vote in Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee was 6-0 in favor of passage. However, the bill was held in Assembly Appropriations Committee and no further action was taken.

December 4, 2000—Senator McClintock introduces SCA 1. This measure would have, on and after January 1, 2003, precluded the imposition upon a vehicle of any vehicle license fee or any other tax in lieu of a valorem property tax.

December 4, 2000—Senator McClintock introduces Senate Bill 22 with Senator Dunn as the joint author. The bill would amend the way the VLF was rebated to motorists by reducing their tax outright instead of paying the full tax and getting a rebate check later on. The bill saved $45 million in processing costs in issuing rebate checks.

January 4, 2001—SCA 1 was referred to the Senate Committees on Revenue and Taxation and Constitutional Amendments. Despite being amended two times, no action was taken by the committees.

February 26, 2001—SB 22 by Senators McClintock and Dunn passes off the Senate floor 28-0.

April 2, 2001—SB 22 passes Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee on a vote of 8-0.

April 16, 2001—Senator Chesbro replaces Senator Dunn as the joint author of SB 22.

April 19, 2001—The Senate concurs with Assembly Amendments on SB 22 with no opposition.

April 19, 2001—Governor Davis signs SB 22 the same day as it passed of the Senate floor.

May 14, 2002--Governor Davis in his May Revise proposed a doubling of the car tax by reducing the VLF offset from 67.5 percent to 25 percent for the 2003 calendar year. This proposal would have cost motorists $1.276 billion in FY 2002-03.

August 28, 2002—Assemblymember Oropeza amends AB 1105. This measure authorizes the Director of Finance to increase the effective Vehicle Licensing Fee that motorists pay. The Director would first have to determine that “insufficient moneys are available to be transferred from the General Fund to fully fund the offsets”. This measure would in effect triple the Vehicle License Fee. The bill passed off the Senate floor 24-13, but it was not taken up in the Assembly. If it had passed, it would had the effect of tripling the Vehicle License Fee.

January 13, 2003—Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson announces plans to triple the Vehicle License Fee as a means to balance the state budget.

February 4, 2003—Wesson’s VLF restoration vehicle AB 4 1X passes the Senate and is enrolled. As of May 28, the bill was being held at the Assembly desk.

February 18, 2003—Governor Davis’ Deputy Press Secretary, Byron Tucker, stated in the February 18 edition of the Sacramento Bee that “Raising the Vehicle License Fee without bipartisan support jeopardizes future actions that will be necessary to reach a budget compromise this summer.”

March 10, 2003—The Department of Finance and Controller Steve Westly issued a joint legal opinion that concluded that a shortage of state cash can trigger an automatic increase in the fees. The link to the Sacramento Bee story can be accessed at the following link: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6254454p-7208632c.html

March 25, 2003—Dan Walters reported in his column that “Davis threaten[ed] to veto a bill boosting the vehicle license fees but finally agreeing, in essence, to raise the unpopular levies by decree of lower-level state bureaucrats. Critics quickly dubbed it "immaculate taxation." The entire article can be reached at http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6338229p-7291451c.html

May 15, 2003—Governor Davis releases his May Revise of the budget which assumes the tripling of the Vehicle License Fee. The May budget revision counts the $4.2 billion raised by this action as a “reduction” in state spending.

June 19, 2003— Assemblyman Campbell releases a Legislative Counsel opinion confirming that current law would not allow an increase in the car tax unless the State Controller failed to do his job or the State of California was shut out of the credit markets for cash.

June 20, 2003— Governor Gray Davis takes the illegal action of tripling the car tax.

McClintock opposed the car tax. I get it. But where in that long timeline was McClintock able to lead the legislature to pass something he championed or lead them to defeat something he opposed? I see a lot of references to the fact he introduced legislation that repeatedly died.

Senator McClintock learned his leadership from President Reagan who said a lot can be accomplished if we don't worry about who got the credit!

Even the Democrats had to admit that Tom beat them on this one and it is California families that now benefit year after year.

John

John,

Gee, get beyond this VLF as the only leg for Tom to stand on! Please tell the audience one "other" thing that Tom as ever done for this state or his constituents? Still waiting? And so will you if you vote for Tom.

Wayne
Ventura County Republican

Wayne,

Again, you have probably missed most of the post from the last few months, but how about the current death penalty law for starters?

Not bad for a back-bench minority party member while Willie was Speaker!

John

Hard to believe someone who would passionately fight against abortion and who frequently posts about the importance of life would extol the virtues of legislation about a method for putting people to death. A method that is under attack across the country, by the way, for its many problems.

Maybe there are some better options, come to think of it. Why not just run over them with a steamroller? Or drop 'em into a vat of boiling acid? Who would ever survive those methods of execution? What was Tom thinking! He had his chance for a 100% effective method of execution and he blew it! A constitutional scholar like Tom could certainly have defended either of these methods as well within the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

John,

Great! And how successful has it been in our state of liberal judges? Two, I believe, in the last ten years?

Oh yes, and one of them was Clarence Allen, a 76-year-old man who was brought to the San Quentin execution chamber and put to death by a lethal mix of three chemicals. He was legally blind, suffering from diabetes and in a wheelchair. Before his death, hadn't he suffered a heart attack, and was revived by prison authorities. For murders committed in 1974.

Something to be proud of! Yes sir! Give Tom all of the credit he wants for this one. He sure is in front of this issue.

An effective leader - with as many years as Tom in the Ca govt - would have worked on developing a sustainable Republican majority in California rather than always saying no, no, no and being so marginalized that he is the joke of Sacramento. Sure, his leadership is the leadership of the lead lemming jumping into the ocean.....

Wayne

OK Wayne,

I have given you examples that impact major law with the death penalty and specifics that save an average family over $440 each year.

I am ready for someone to point to what Doug Ose has done with his time in Congress that comes even close... And voting for the Bush tax cuts does not count anymore then you would let me have Tom get credit for Prop 13 because he voted for it!

John

Bob,

Liberal have a problem seeing how we are consistent to oppose abortion and support the death penalty because they struggle with the issue of guilt... It goes all the way back to the garden of Eden, but that is another discussion.

A baby in the womb can only be charged with being inconvenient which should not be a death penalty crime.

Charles Manson is guilty of multiply murders and the only just penalty to extract from him is the taking of his life.

Hope that helps.

John

Lost... said:

"Why are some of McClintock's own former and even current staff members, some of whom are vets, not supporting McClintock? That's the word in the district and most are not surprised."

I am basking in the sunshine here in Phoenix and I am contemplating about who to support to take on Harry Mitchell in the Arizona 5th CD. At least we will have to September to decide so I can look over the candidates.

Lost, I was a navy veteran who served three years of service as an EM3. I worked in Senator McClintock's office and I can tell you that he supports veterans all the way. Two of my brothers were veterans (my oldest brother retired a Chief) and my father who passed away a few years ago was in the service during Korea and Vietnam and retired a Chief as well. They were and are pleased with Tom fighting for conservative values.

While my Dad was in Vietnam, we had a difficult time making ends meet with my father's Navy pay and my mother working as a maid in Monterey to earn extra money. We lived off biscuits, gravy and beans. By God's grace we made it through those tough times. Reflecting on that time I know that Tom's reasoning on these bills was sound and that the abuse hurled on him by Mr. Ose is flat out wrong.

I wish you a good night from starry Arizona

Efrem K. Sepulveda MLIS
Law Librarian
Arizona State Library Archives and Public Records

Efrem,

Nice try but it won't work on this list: My twenty-five plus years of leadership in the ProLife community could not convince Jeff that Senator McClintock was really ProLife, nor the endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee.

The fine service that you and your family have given this country does not count because you are obviously a McClintock supporter and thus you cannot see his opposition to veterans!

The bottom-line is that only folks who oppose Tom can tell us where he REALLY stands on the issues.

We do appreciate your trying to reach out to these future McClintock supporters and that you continue to enjoy those Arizona evenings.

John

PS: Are you still a Spurs fan??

We wuz robbed by Joey Crawford last night!! Go Spurs Go!!

Efrem - EM3? Better be careful when you talk rate and rank. Charlie Browns military anal examiners may have something to say abou that!

Good to hear from you again!

BTW - I was an EMFN then an MA3.

Take Care...