The Ose camp should never had consented to this rebroadcast... Word might get out about his liberal voting record!

John

Word might get out about McClintock's per diem scandal, carpetbagging, poor voting record on veteran's affairs, support of cloning, position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

Hey Auburnymous, you forgot to mention Doug Ose's farm subsidies...

Just got back from the debate, it literally was a mirror of how others described the first debate. Tom talking issues, Doug Ose stuck in a rut on carpet bagging (oh yeah, Ose has yet to buy a house in MY district...), and per Diems.

Tom talked about getting the government out of our lives, Doug Ose discussed the reasons that the federal government needs to get involved in areas of Real Estate, Education, etc...

While there was scattered boo's directed at Ose, there were also few clapping for the former congressman (I counted 5 all together...). Meanwhile, the room was almost unanimous in cheering on Tom as he articulated conservative positions on issues such as taxes, immigration reform, education, limiting government, etc...

Michael,

I really loved Tom's conservative answer regarding veterans. I think it was "tough luck, pound sand, and screw you." Thanks for your service while I sit on my ass, collect tax free money and tell you how to suck it up and pay your bills while you're living in a sand storm under mortar fire.

Tom is a DISASTER for Vets and could care less about the men and women who give him his freedoms. To him, it's a "constitutional issue" about denying pay and benefits to those who sacrifice their lives for US!

Enjoy your sleep tonight Tom. Some are keeping watch to maintain your safety and dying in the process. Piece of garbage!

It takes a REAL man to say those kinds of things when no one can know who you are!

John

Sometimes the truth hurts...

Sorry, I did not mean to "hurt" you, I simply think that if you want to make personal attacks you should do so with your name attached: It is one of those old American traditions of being able to face your accusers.

John

Just back from the debate and here is how I saw it:

--McClintock won on style.
--Ose won on substance.
--Neither will get my vote.

Ose was borderline rude and was definitely arrogant. He dwelled too much on the per diem issue--make the point once and let it go. I agreed when the crowd groaned the third time he brought it up (or was it the fourth time?). He's the kind of guy I can picture as a bully in school.

His endorsements are much more relevant than McClintock's, though. And despite the arrogance I can see him getting things done for this district. I suspect he would be pretty good at arm twisting.

McClintock likes plaid. I thought his FDR (FDR!!!) chameleon story was pretty good but let's face it--McClintock is a red chameleon and would die if placed on a green cloth OR a plaid cloth. He is an obvious idealogue and his many supporters (including this guy next to me who couldn't clap hard enough for his idol) lapped it up. The McClintock crowd (including Ken in his WJU t-shirt) loved the talk about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If McClintock was trying to get appointed to the federal courts this might be interesting but as a legislator he can't and won't get anything done. He kept saying Republicans were in the minority for his twenty-two years in the legislature. I think he is one of the big reasons why. No leadership--just ideology. Stuck in the minority. He would do nothing to change the balance of power in the U.S. Congress. He will be marginalized--like Tancredo--cordoned off into the small section they have for the fanatically right wing somewhere in the Capitol's basement.

Neither candidate did a particularly good job answering any of the questions. There were definitely some good questions, especially from the Jessup students. The three media guys should have read the rules before they came. None of them seemed able to figure out the format. But they, too, had a few good questions. Too bad a couple of them were more interested in hearing themselves ask the questions than they were about actually asking the questions.

Ose did a good job deflating the fake social security for illegals charge and turned it on McClintock using the same logic I have presented here--that a vote for the Hayworth Amendment was a vote for a tax increase.

Ose cracked me up when he cited a Bee article--and then realized the Bee was not well liked by people in the room and so he trash talked it. When their reporter was on the panel. Pretty low class. I can't wait to see what the Bee says about this debate tomorrow. Ose isn't a very good speaker. He kept saying "that's a GREAT question" over and over--his lack of sincerity was obvious. He treated the college students like they were in elementary school.

McClintock had no answer for the per diem charge and failed to press the issue regarding Ose's subsidies. McClintock's answer to the charge that he does not support veterans and his votes prove it was completely anemic. Ose scored some major points by noting that McClintock--who ticked off his endorsements over and over again--never mentioned Ken's favorite, the Club for Growth. Ose followed that point by reading a quote by the Club for Growth's president(?) in which he totally belittled senior citizens.

That McClintock thinks the border is the biggest issue for Congress is ludicrous. It's almost surreal. There are so many other more important issues. I guess it's par for the course for a guy who is proud to be endorsed by an extremist like Tom Tancredo and fancies himself as Tancredo's replacement on the front lines of the immigration fight. The last thing our district needs is another national embarassment for a congressman.

Ose seemed much more knowledgeable about this district and what it needs. McClintock had no answer to the charge that he voted no on the Roseville I-80 work and went on and on about forest management which may be an issue in this district but not a very big one. He had very few practical ideas. It was mostly empty rhetoric. His claims to be a true conservative patriot sound especially hollow given the $306K in per diem he has pocketed.

Nobody asked any questions about the war and the candidates didn't mention it. I guess the Iraq War is on the list of topics Republicans now avoid like the plague. I wonder why? But what would these two guys do about the war if elected? I learned nothing about that in this debate. They didn't even talk much about national defense except harping on the border incessantly. And they said very little about what they would do about the economy, too, though Ose had more substance on this than McClintock.

CD4 doesn't need either of these guys. I was disappointed that the other Republican candidates didn't get a chance to participate. Both of them were there.

All in all the debate was mildly entertaining but no one convinced this Democrat who switched from the Republican Party after 24 years to come back. In that respect it was a pretty sad show and reflected what is happening to the Republican Party at a national level.

I'm looking forward to the debate between whoever wins this sloppy food fight and Charlie Brown. Now there's a guy who knows what this district wants and needs. You just have to get past all the attack ads to find out who he really is.

Going past the personal attacks and getting back to Michael's post: He did bring up a good point about the farm subsidies.

EVERYONE knows about the fact that Senator McClintock takes per diem, thanks to Cabana Boy spending a couple of his millions for all those commercials. Despite all those attacks, Senator McClintock has made no apologies for what he has legally and morally done.

On the other hand, the fact that Cabana Boy took over $600,000 in farm subsidies while serving on the AG committee in Congress has only been mentioned at a couple of debates and that little bit of pressure caused Mr. Ose to tell Channel 40 news: "I knew it wasn't right for me to continue taking those payments and I stopped." [that is an exact quote]

So which candidate do you think has the problem here?

John

My wife and I went to the debate tonight. We have been trying to find out more about this race, so I Googled it and found this site along with an announcement about the debate. We are both undecided voters (we might have been the only ones there). Here are some quick thoughts. First, William Jessup is a nice looking school. First time I have heard about it, and the debate was worth it just to talk to some of the quality people who represent the university. We thought McClintock was the better speaker, but like Obama, he talks pretty, but doesn't say much.

Ose seemed like a guy that could get stuff done. He seems more pragmatic than McClintock, which we liked. He also seemed to know a lot more about local issues than McClintock. I guess that is to be expected considering that McClintock is from LA. Both seemed to hold their own and effectively defend against the other's attacks. However, the one issue that really stood out to us was the issue of McClintock voting against our troops. Frankly, I didn't understand his "The Constitution made me do it" defense. Both of us have family who have served or are serving in Iraq and we know how hard it is for these families to make ends meet. When Ose brought up the issue of McClintock taking money from the taxpayers for a home he doesn't live in while voting against helping out our troops, I have to say, I immediately became a lean Ose voter.

We like some of the things McClintock said tonight, but I am going to have a hard time voting for someone who has shown our troops such contempt. For what it is worth -- just one man's opinion who was actually there to learn something about the candidates.

I am shocked, simply shocked that you could present such a fair and unbiased report from the debate... A report you should have been proud to attach your name to!

John

PS: On second thought maybe you should not because I might be tempted to send Penny by your house to give you a piece of her mind since you treat military folks with the same contempt that Caltrans worker did when you shove their real needs aside in order to score political points!

John you forgot to challenge the manhood of our anonymous commenter!!! Call him a coward! Call him weak! Tell him he is afraid to stand up to REAL men like you! Remind us again that you are strong because you worked for McClintock, now work at a church and use your full name on the internet. Tell me again. It really impresses me.

Come by for coffee this morning and we can discuss it!

John

Uh, John...from the voice of the Anonymous comments I think there are two different people posting. One person with a definite ax to grind near the top of the string and the other who just posted at 11:04 p.m.

I completely agree with his characterization of the debate.

Another sorry performance by Ose...he could stop his admitted "broken record". The sad thing is he is making a fool of himself and his staff. Especially on the per diem issue. No one accepted more money on per diem than Tom McClintock his ad says... uhhh duh its the same amount for all but the representatives for the Capitol region. I am certainly no expert on the issue. But Ose sounds ignorant on this.

Back to the debate... I wasn't as close to the stage as i was last time so i couldn't see all the facial expressions BUT i could still see Ose making childish faces and smirks while Tom spoke. Hands down Tom McClintock has more class and integrity than Ose has in his little finger!

McClintock-winner

Voter in the 4th chooses a debate winner on facial expressions and long pauses.

He would probably have been against Lincoln because he was ungainly and ugly. He would have chosen Kerry over Bush because Bush lacked restraint in the second debate...he looked peevish and irritated.

I'm not supporting Ose but pauses and facial expressions are poor criteria for evaluating a debate.

---

The main problem I had with McClintock was that he didn't have any plans or even any good idea about how to get things done in Washington that he said he wanted to do. If he won't work with people how can he expect to advance what you have to admit is a minority position on many, many issues? I don't necessarily disagree with many of his ideas in principle but he neither has a track record of implementing them in California (beyond a slam-dunk popular issue like the car tax) nor did he say a word about how we would do it in the Congress.

His intention to replace Tancredo as the national immigration nut is especially disheartening. If he thinks immigration is the number one issue in our district then he is not very well informed. It sounds like a pet project he wants to foist on us at our expense.

And if McClintock were elected we can say bye-bye to all of the things we need in CD4 from the federal government. Instead of focusing on the needs of his district Tom will be tilting at windmills, trying to get the federal government back to its 1820 size relative to the rest of the country.

Actually, the per diem payments are based on days worked, so Tom has gotten more than most because he rarely misses a legislative session!

John

Ose’s condescension was oozing through the radio.

Ose answered no questions on issues.

He instead re-directed the questions into an attack on Tom or hiding behind his club.

(Remember Ose said if you want to be part of the club, you have to make accomodations)

McClintock hammered issue after issue and eschewed personal attacks.

"Actually, the per diem payments are based on days worked, so Tom has gotten more than most because he rarely misses a legislative session!"

John, actually, it is because Tom is a career politician who has served in the state legislature too long and has been on the public payroll for virtually his whole adult life. Some private sector time would do him some good.

I am trying to remember...did Tom ever answer the question of why he did not oppose Proposition 93, the Perata-Nunez term limits scheme? Was eight more years of tax-free per diem worth that deal with the devil?

Jeff - I am trying to remember if Doug Ose has ever answered questions about his record on:

Gay Marriage
Guns
Abortion
Spending / Taxes
Illegal Immigration

Ose did answer the question about his support for the federal government’s involvement with education. He's a big government liberal.

Jeff,

Don't forget, Senator McClintock has THREE YEARS more private sector experience in the 4th Congressional district than Cabana boy has because he only moved poolside a couple of weeks ago [note to Bob: Have you figured out if Doug and Aaron are properly registered to vote?]

Tom put his position on Prop 93 on his web site for all to see!

John

Wow, I sure hope the response on here isn't characteristic of voters in my district. Tom not willing to compromise is a negative? Tom had no substance? Tom had no solutions? Tom hates veterans and probably is a fascist just waiting to seize power because he's a career politician (for those who are a bit dim, this is known as satire and sarcasm) WOW! I must have been at a different debate...

Tom was CONSTANTLY trying to turn the debate to issues of substance and policy, Ose turned every question into a rant on per Diem and carpet bagging. Ose had substance? Please...

Tom also has been fighting FOR solutions (like his skillful leading of the republicans in state congress against a free-spending budget) and articulated those solutions THROUGHOUT the debate...

and auburnymous, how can you NOT understand that interference in contracts is SPECIFICALLY addressed in the constitution. There are other ways to help the troops than turning to communistic policies. Raise their pay, give them special loan rates, but don't unilaterally tell a consenting party in a contract that they are obligated to follow through with their part of the deal, but the other party is exempted from doing their part. If business was really as "eager" for the bill as Ose said they were, they would be doing this without legislation telling them they HAD to. Being in favor of the constitution is not anti-troop.

I'm not expecting you to understand this, you'll probably fire back with your usual drivel and venom (A lot like your man Ose by the way), probably accuse me of being a veteran hating neo-con who wants to exploit troops for war and then steal their benefits when they get back. Please... Don't be ridiculous...

John, I have not posted anything about either Park or Ose's residency status that I can recall. As far as I'm concerned, you, Aaron, Doug and Tom all live outside the district.

Michael,

McClintock quoted Lincoln and FDR and made a great case for conservative principles and how he has lived by them (except the per diem) over his long career. His votes on veterans issues are completly consistent with his political philosophy but are often inconsisent with what constituents really care about.

The average guy doesn't spend a lot of time wondering if something is strictly constitutional or not (witness the lack of public interest in the domestic surveillance program, for example) but does care about lawmakers getting things done and using some common sense. To administer the veteran's programs Tom voted against through the government would have required more government spending, more government control and would have still cost the private companies money because they would have another bureaucratic government program to administer.

How were the veteran's benefits Tom voted against any different than the laws that require employers to rehire returning reservists? These laws cost companies money, too.

Tom is a purist and purists make poor legislators. It's just that simple.

Bob,

Sorry about the residency link: Got you confused with one of the other posters.

On the poor legislator front I must again point to a $1.1 BILLION tax rebate in the 1980's [the biggest in state history], the current death penalty law that has just been held up by the US Supreme Court, the car tax reductions that save the average family over $440 per year, highway taxes for highways which is now part of the state constitution and means that ALL of the sales tax collected on gasoline goes to our roads, the refunds for the smog impact fee that was illegally collected and a current group of state senators holding firm on the NO new taxes pledge.

That list does not include the impact that Senator McClintock had on the worker's comp reforms and a number of other budget battles where fruit may yet be born in the future.

THIS while serving in the minority party in a state with overwhelming democrat majorities and fighting a Republican establishment and business interests that were against most of these benefits for average families.

I think the 4th District will be well served by Senator McClintock if they choose to have him as their congressman.

John

"except the per diem"

I think his opt-out of the legislative retirement plan more than makes up for the per Diem (setting aside the debate over whether he was exploiting it or not, I don't think he did)

"but are often inconsisent with what constituents really care about."

Then why is McClintock CREAMING everyone in fundraising for this district race? I wouldn't think this would be the case if Ose's and Brown's platforms were more "cared about" by constituents.

"The average guy doesn't spend a lot of time wondering if something is strictly constitutional or not"

then the average guy takes his freedom and prosperity for granted and doesn't apreciate it...

"lack of public interest"

I don't know, I'm fairly interested in the SUCCESS of this program, keeps me safer...

"domestic surveillance program"

FDR did it, Abraham Lincoln did it, John Adams did it with his sedicious persons act. I'm sorry, how is this unconstitutional again? Oh, and get your terminology straight, its a "terrorist" surveillance program.

"To administer the veteran's programs Tom voted against through the government would have required more government spending, more government control and would have still cost the private companies money because they would have another bureaucratic government program to administer."

Yeah, thats partially why he voted against it (that and the fact that its unconstitutional...)

"Tom is a purist and purists make poor legislators. It's just that simple."

Tell that to Regan, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and every other great conservative leader, I don't think they'd agree that its "just that simple".

Tom is the person that we need in congress to whiplash liberals like Pelosi (not someone like Doug who was busy voting with Pelosi...), its "just that simple"

Michael,

You have your opinions and I have mine.

How do you know it's just a terrorist program? Are you involved in it? The process is secret. Why was it changed significantly in 2004 if it wasn't, in fact, unconstitutional before that? Ashcroft threatened to resign over this issue. Maybe you should read some more about it.

I did an in depth look at contributions over $200 made to McClintock and Ose from 2/1/2008 through the end of March and published the results on this blog. Ose received a lot more money than McClintock from these donors--even excluding contributions from Ose and his family. No detail is available on contributions made for less than $200 but there is no reason the demographics and distribution would be much different. Thisis a telling statistic because people know Ose is pouring his own money into this campaign yet they STILL are contributing to his campaign. Brown received almost as much as McClintock during this period and he has been fundraising for three years. Also, I was there last night and saw Tom's disciples. They oohed and ahhed at every mention of small government or the Constitution. These folks are just the type to send their money to a guy like Tom. They are purists, too. That's OK but don't tell me contributions coming from a lot of people who represent a passionate narrow slice of the electorate is a sign that your candidate has widespread appeal.

You missed my point on the veteran's bills. Had those bills been constructed such that the government would have paid for them and administered them (to make them Constitutional by Tom's definition) then they would have cost EVERYBODY a lot more. That's not how they were designed, though. Tell me again why there was no opposition to these bills from business? Could it be that they thought they were sensible, too, like all of the State Senators except McClintock and Aanestad? How come there has been no suit brought to attack these bills for being unconstitutional?

So Tom opted out of the California pension program. Do you know how anemic that plan is? It's weak. He's made a lot more on the tax-free per diem. Not much of a sacrifice (and he hasn't made a sacrifice yet because he hasn't retired) and look--if he gets elected, tell me that he will opt out of the federal retirement plan. He will be eligible for benefits if he completes three terms, I believe. That plan is MUCH more lucrative than the state pension. Seems to me the reason McClintock is running for Congress is for the money. A pay increase and a pension. He'll always be able to make a good living writing and speaking after leaving public office. He could have a radio show or be a TV commentator. Giving up the pension was for show.

Tom took the per diem. He didn't need the money for the purpose it was given to him for. He never submitted a bill requiring more control over per diem to prohibit payments to members who don't need it. No matter what you say that is complete hypocrisy coming from someone who must have mentioned his endorsement by the Citizens Against Government Waste five times last night in the debate.

These are a few of the reasons why I think McClintock lost the debate on substance and why I don't want him to be my representative. Yes--I live in the district.

This debate may be better than the live one!

Bob, if you have read much in the past few years you know that the pension crisis is real and it is because public pensions are FAR from "anemic:" Just ask the city of Vallejo that just filed for bankruptcy. I cannot give exact numbers because Senator McClintock refused the pension, but as a retiring legislator with almost 25 years of service he would have had something near a six figure pension AND a great health plan for life! It would be a fixed payment that would be adjusted for inflation. Giving that up was no small sacrifice.

On the per diem front, why not give up the car or gasoline card and maybe the health plan as well. Why not work for less than the full salary as some of the members do: Or for free as the Governor does? These are choices each member must make but I don't see how anyone can say it is "wrong" to accept the complete package once elected.

Finally, let me use your example of getting veterans jobs upon their return: IF employment is a problem, as it may very well be for the next few years, there is a right way and a wrong way to help the veterans.

The right way would be to grant employers a nice tax credit for hiring a veteran returning from active duty. ALL taxpayers then carry the burden of the cost.

The wrong way would be to force employers to hire veterans because then the cost is born by the employers alone. It is not fair, and as Michael rightly points out is unconstitutional.

John

The real question is what Bob means by "getting things done."

I think the most important thing that we need to get done in our federal government are some serious reductions in our spending. Our government is spending -- and wasting -- more of our money than ever before, and it's simply unsustainable.

John McCain said it best when he talked about Congress spending money like drunken sailors, and that "as a former drunken sailor, I have to tell you how mad it makes me to be compared to all the members of Congress."

(If you haven't read about the looming federal budget crisis created by our overspending, I'd encourage you to read a six month old Newsweek article entitled "A Fiscal Tsunami", carrying the warning from the nonpartisan head of the GAO, David Walker. You can find it here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/70378)

Reading this blog, some people might get the perception that all Ose supporters hate McClintock, and all McClintock supporters hate Ose. I'm going to venture a guess that it's not correct.

I've met Doug a couple of times now, and he's a genuinely nice guy. (Of course, I haven't been his political opponent before, so there may be a few people I know who disagree with me on that!)

But ultimately, I do want my next congressman to get something DONE in a big way about runaway federal spending. I don't want bad votes because the Republican leadership decreed it to be so. I want to stop mailing our dollars to Washington and having them mail back the change with strings attached. We need serious, real change in Washington.

And having known Tom McClintock for ten years, I just think there is no one in this race who can better articulate and fight for the fundamental changes we need in our federal government. Doug seems to be talking more about bringing home the bacon, and less about not confiscating our livestock in the first place! That doesn't make him a bad person -- but it just doesn't earn my vote.

So when I vote my ballot, I'm not going to be voting against Doug Ose. But I am going to be voting for Tom McClintock. I just think he's far and away the best choice for our district.

Aaron Klein

(And yes, articulating and fighting for change in Washington can and will involve mentioning the principles embedded in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They certainly got this country going on the right foot, and they're worth thinking and talking about as we try to get it back on track.)

John and Aaron,

Thanks for the thoughtful posts. I appreciate a dialogue without attacks or name calling.

Aaron what I don't see is the "how" from McClintock. How will he transform Washington D.C. as one Congressman in the minority party? He has been unsuccessful in California even as a State senator. Sure you can cite some instances where he has one a tactical battle here or there but he lost the war. The budget is in worse shape now than ever before. So tell me why would he be successful in Washington? That's a big part of why I don't want him to represent me. No path forward and no track record.

State pensions for legislators are anemic, John. They are, in fact, zero. There is no pension plan for anyone elected to office since 1992. And the plan McClintock (who was an Assemlyman since before 1992) apparently turned down provided about $26,000 per year. Hardly six figure stuff. The City of Vallejo is not the California State Legislature. And Orange County, which is hardly a bastion of liberal values, had to declare bankruptcy, too.

I didn't see McClintock offering alternative legislation for veterans to address the problems the Cal Guard Association raised in submitting the proposals to the legislature, John. No, he just voted against the bills.

Aaron Klein is probably right that there is not as much distance between the Ose and McClintock camps as it appears here. If Ose wins, Aaron Park, for one, can be counted on to move to his side in a nanosecond to oppose Brown, much like he supported Doolittle and then Oller and then McClintock in turn. I can't imagine he will drop out of sight or attack Ose in a fight against a Democrat.

Bob, I hate to do this but I have to quote Barack Obama: "don't tell me that words don't matter!"

I'm voting for Tom because I truly believe he will be an articulate star in Congress on the issue of federal spending. The more voices we have advocating for fiscal sanity -- and there are others, like Jeff Flake from Arizona, Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, and Jim DeMint from South Carolina -- the sooner it will become "cool" to get our federal government lean, mean and focused on its true mission: ensuring a level playing field for economic growth at home, and protecting our freedoms from threats abroad.

And just remember, Tom McClintock was for cutting car taxes before cutting car taxes was cool, too. And he got a lot done in that department!

Aaron

This was an extremely well-produced event with some very boring headliners engaged in meaningless character attacks. We deserve much better in CA-04 than the two options presented, and the options are already on the ballot.

Aaron, you may be right. But his record in California doesn't justify a lot of optimism.

Bob,

Just because Bush rolled over and gave up on the issue doesn't mean that there was a problem with it. Bush has shown an irritating tendency to compromise with democrats (kinda reminds me of the way Doug Ose acted in congress...), and has been able to turn non-issues (like Valerie Plame-Gate) into scandals.

I have to disagree that Tom hasn't got anything done just because he's in the minority. Everyone gets confused over the difference between motion and progress. Motion is what Doug Ose did, he compromised to get bills passed, but didn't really help us any (No Child Left Behind, prescription drug plan, votes for democrat budgets with outlandish spending, etc). Tom may not have a mountain load of bills that he was able to pass (in fact, probably his biggest achievements have been in killing VERY BAD ideas), but he was constantly in the senate speaking out against bad bills, educating other legislators, etc. In addition, he has gotten a LOT done just considering what he has been able to accomplish in a puny minority. Especially when compared to what the republicans (Doug Ose included) were able to do with an unprecedented majority in both houses and the presidency.

Also, I didn't have a real great animosity for Ose to start out this race (only the dislike that I had for him knowing that he was a John McCain moderate). However, the way he has treated Tom (such as in the debate), the condescension, the snide remarks, the rolling of the eyes, the turning every question into an opportunity to return to per Diem (frankly I'm getting tired of this non issue...) and carpetbagging (a charge that I am flabbergasted that Ose would make considering his INCREDIBLY WEAK positioning on that one), the distortions of Tom's votes, the attempts to make Tom's solitary principled votes a smear (go figure how that works??? The guy is showing he's not a politician...), and on, and on, and on, have made me really, really dislike Ose. I keep being struck by how arrogant and mean spirited he is, and it really stood out in the debate last night.

"Also, I was there last night and saw Tom's disciples. They oohed and ahhed at every mention of small government or the Constitution. These folks are just the type to send their money to a guy like Tom. They are purists, too. That's OK but don't tell me contributions coming from a lot of people who represent a passionate narrow slice of the electorate is a sign that your candidate has widespread appeal."

If thats the case, and guys like me (who lives in this district and was at the debate as well) are disciples who give outlandish amounts of money ($25) because we are a passionate narrow slice of the electorate, why was Ron Paul not able to outraise guys like Giuliani, and Fred Thompson (my personal pick)? Fund-raising does indicate, to a degree, a candidates appeal and his supporters enthusiasm (and yes, Tom has out raised Ose overall last I checked). Also, who says that you are "normal" on this one, and that guys like me are "purists"?

They oohed and aahed over the notion of limited government? I thought that was what Ose was for too? Or did you just slip up there in attacking conservatives for supporting something that Ose claims to support?

Terbolizard,

don't make me laugh, a guy who gets pulled over on a DUI right about the time he announces he's running for congress doesn't exhude competence, nor does it make me think "boy, we deserve that kind of better..."

Speaking as a veteran, I want to respond to Auburnymous:

All the veterans I know strongly agree with Tom McClintock's principled stand that our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen deserve adequate compensation. Our servicemen and women are NOT crying out for the write to defraud their creditors or punish their landlords; they are not risking their lives for the right to cheat their fellow man and dishonor their noble profession.

I am thankful that Tom McClintock understands that you cannot help veterans and servicemen by telling their creditors (and potential creditors) that they need not pay their debts or honor their contracts. If word got out that they don't need to pay their bills, no one would lend them any money or do business with them -- no matter how many federal laws we wrote to try to stop that sort of discrimination.

We need someone like Tom McClintock in Congress to fight for reasonable salaries for our troops. It is outrageous that postal workers and federal bureaucrats earn twice what soldiers and sailors earn. No one should have to take a vow of poverty to serve his country in time of war!

Tom Hudson
Proud Veteran - U.S. Naval Reserve

So Tom, speaking as a veteran, would you support legislation that allowed state employees called up to active duty to receive special pay connected to their service and still collect the state compensation they receive to offset their salary? This legislation I speak of was supported by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Armed Forces Retirees Association and the California State Employees Association. It was also supported by 33 state senators. It was opposed by 2, one of whom was Tom McClintock. AB 276 (Baca) [McClintock- No (Sen. Floor Vote, 9-6-2005); Ayes- 33, Noes- 2; Signed- 9-22-2005 (Schwarzenegger)]

You say that no one should have to take a vow of poverty to serve their country - why would Tom McClintock vote against legislation like this? Let me guess, because of some antiquated principle he holds based on his pure and true interpretation of the constitution or some other b.s.? Or maybe it's because, as John Stoos believes, he jumped on the bandwagon and wrote a letter to the head of Cal Trans when a Cal Trans worker pushed a mom of a Marine which now means he doesn't have to just "go along with votes simply because their for veterans"?

Tom McClintock has a lot of explaining to do about his voting record on veteran's issues.

Tom,

I am a retired Commander, United States Naval Reserve. The veteran's bills in question gave returning reservists the chance to get caught up on mortgages and other obligations after serving their country at maybe half the pay they had in their civilian profession. Maybe you haven't been recalled to active duty. I don't know. But I have and I have seen people lose their businesses, their houses and their credit rating due to their service. You say "they are not risking their lives for the right to cheat their fellow man and dishonor their noble profession" and I say you are full of baloney because some of them desperately need that help to keep their homes. These bills provided deferments; they were not give-aways. Have you read them? How far are you going to let partisan politics get in the way of your compassion for your fellow veterans. I am appalled. Maybe you spent a little too much time in the Pentagon.

Bob

It is amazing to me how unpopular the Constitution that these soldiers are putting their lives on the line to protect is on this list!

Go back and read Tom's post: I don't think it could be said better.

John

Like I said, "some antiquated principle he holds based on his pure and true interpretation of the constitution or some other b.s."

Tell it to the vets who are wondering why Tom McClintock has been one of only a couple law makers to consistently oppose legistlation that would have made it more financially possible for them to fight for their country.

Whoever you are:

Perhaps we should have Karen, whose son is serving in Iraq as we speak run that first line by her son and some of his buddies to see what they think!

John

Well, John, why don't you do that? But if Karen's son is not a Reservist or a Guardsman then he probably won't understand this issue very well nor will his friends. You see, these bills, had you read them in detail, are primarily about military Reservists and Guardsmen recalled to active duty to serve their country.

I've heard a lot about how these bills are unconstitutional but have yet to hear a detailed explanation as to why Tom believes that is so. Please cite an Article and Section and applicable case precedents as reference. Otherwise I have to believe these laws are fully constitutional under the authority of the states to enact laws not specifically restricted to them by the Constitution.

Maybe the fact that they really are constitutional (and as yet no one has brought suit to challenge their constitutionality, either) is well known to Tom but what he really doesn't care for is the military or maybe military reservists unless they are patrolling the borders. See, Tom has said the borders are more important than the Iraq War or the economy or anything else. There are alternative explanations for his votes and they are worse than just being a rigid and self-described constitutionalist. And one interaction with a citizen regarding flags and banners does not a veteran's supporter make. That issue could very well have been safety related had the banners been in an area that was distracting to drivers.

These votes by Tom on the veteran's bills could be even worse than they look.

John, you can keep trumpeting the fact that you know some people that know some people that know someone serving in Iraq, but that doesn't change McClintock's horrible voting record on these bills. So please, by all means, let's get some vets, soldiers, reservists, guardsmen together and see what they have to say.

Whoever you are:

We have and we do, so go ahead and read Tom's post again... You won't like it, but it is the truth.

John

Auburn Veteran Anonymous - 1. No veteran I know would HIDE behind an anon screen and fire insults at people.

Veterans are honorable and out front.

2.) There are at least 5 veterans on the Central Committee that I know of, McClintock could start there.

3.) Tell me what is Republican about supporting Bonds (tax increases) and Welfare.

OOPS - you vote to raise taxes and fees all the time, I digress.

Aaron, could you please point me to your evidence that I vote to raise taxes and fees "all the time" as you say?

That would cause you to have to reveal your ID!

Aaron,

You don't understand how these lists work in the primaries: The Ose supporters stay hidden behind clever made-up names until they see if by some miracle a liberal wins in this conservative district.

After Tom wins by double digits they will come out of hiding as STRONG McClintock supporters using their real names to rail against the democrat in November and no one will be the wiser!

John

Actually Aaron, it would require you to provide evidence of the assumptions you continuously make on this site. But we all know that won't happen because in reality, you have no idea what you're talking about.