Jeff,

IF a one year moratorium is good, then why is a permanent halt not better?

Cabana Boy was not acting liberal when he agreed to this "compromise" he showed his liberal colors when he said that the Citizens Against Government Waste Committee's "NO Earmarks pledge" was "silly."

Did Speaker Gingrich say that pledge was silly?

John

John:

As a certified member of the Cult of McClintock (COM), I already know that you think Tom can do no wrong.

There was an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

The COM definition of a "liberal" is "disagrees with Tom on any issue."

As I said, Newt will be glad to know he has been so labeled.

Jeff

By the way, John, I read the CAGW earmark pledge, and it does not look like what you have repeatedly characterized it. It is clearly NOT a permanent ban on earmarks.

So since Tom supports continuing earmarks as long as they meet the CAGW criteria, and Doug supports a complete, one year moratorium (like Newt Gingirch), I guess Tom is the new liberal.

Check it out:

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Earmark_Reform_Pledge_House_FINAL_10-31-07.pdf?docID=2781

Jeff,

I am beginning to think that you have trouble with the English language:

I explained in my post why Cabana Boy is a liberal and Newt is not... Read it again!

The CAGW pledge has no time limit and does ban the scandalous earmarks that have brought ruin to the Republican majority: What does Cabana Boy think is "silly" about this pledge. [his word]

And finally, you know I have never said that Tom can do no wrong and in fact have posted that I know that better than most having worked with him for over ten years. So chalk up another cheap shot for your side.

John

PS: I am glad we are at least almost talking about issues!

Nice try at being clever, John. Unfortunately for you, my command of the English language is just fine.

Note, RCP readers, that for the first time on this topic, John sneaks in the word "scandalous" in front of "earmarks" when characterizing the McClintock position.

From all of McClintock's prior positioning on the earmark issue, we have all been led to believe that Tom supports a permanent ban of all earmarks. Now we discover that Tom is opposed to "scandalous" earmarks.

For example, item 8 of the CAGW pledge, to end linking earmarks to campaign contributions. Memo to Tom McClintock, in case you did not know, linking campaign contributions to any vote or government action is already illegal. Prior to signing the CAGW pledge, did you think that linking votes to campaign contributions was OK?

I do appreciate this debate on the earmark issue, it has been quite revealing. We now know that Doug Ose is to the right of Tom McClintock on earmarks, just as we previously discovered that Doug is to the right of Tom on banning cloning.

By all means, let's keep talking issues!

"Unfortunately for you, my commend of the English language is just fine."

Dag Nab it, I tripped over my confounded kool-aid!

LOL, my COMMAND of the English language is still fine, my command of the keyboard has never been fine.

Jeff,

AND don't forget that Cabana Boy is to the "right" of McClintock on the car tax because Tom voted against it, remember?

If this trend continues, Doug may lose the Mainstream Republican endorsement!

John

"I do appreciate this debate on the earmark issue, it has been quite revealing. We now know that Doug Ose is to the right of Tom McClintock on earmarks, just as we previously discovered that Doug is to the right of Tom on banning cloning."

"By all means, let's keep talking issues!"

Ose - 32% from National Right to Life

McClintock - Lifetime 100% from CA Right to Life / National Right to Life Endorsement.

Shoulda stuck to the Earmark thing... that is Ose's number one appeal to his supporters.

Aaron, there you go again, trying to make logical leaps past what I actually said.

I would never claim Ose is to McClintock's right on abortion. But on cloning, he is. I am still waiting for someone to explain the conservative philosophical justification for Tom's position on this issue however.

Isn't one Tom McClintock in the world enough, do we really want to clone him?

Aaron,

How silly of you to think that Jeff was throwing in the ProLife issue when he brought up cloning during an earmarks discussion!

If you had his grasp of the English language that would not happen to you.

John

arrgh! caught by that dag blame kool-aid again!!!

Jeff,

I know that Aaron tried to take us off track with the abortion issue, but I want to come back to your point on earmarks.

Do you now agree with Mr. Ose that the CAGW pledge is silly?

John

How about a discussion of McClintock's horrific record of not supporting our veterans? Let's talk about that issue.

Whoever you are [and for Mark's sake]:

Did you mean a "horrific record" made up of things like this case that Senator McClintock has handled down through the years?

April 3, 2003
Mr. Jeff Morales
Director, California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Mr. Morales:

Last week, Mrs. Penny Young, the mother of a young marine who is awaiting orders for deployment to the Middle East, posted handmade, patriotic signs on a fence on the public's right-of-way facing the Golden State Freeway in Castaic.
Yesterday, CalTrans workers were sent to remove the display. According to the Los Angeles Daily News, "When a (CalTrans) worker headed for one of her son's bedsheets she had painted with stars and stripes, Young spread her arms wide and tried to stop him. The worker persisted, pushing Young into the fence."
No words of mine can adequately express my disgust and outrage - and that of our community - over this incident.
To add insult to injury, your department is hiding behind a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which in fact clearly outlines your authority to grant permits for such displays. Specifically, that ruling only provides that if a permit is required for a banner that a permit must also be required for a flag.
An appropriate response of your department would have been for your worker to approach this patriotic and concerned mother and hand her such a permit. Instead, your department chose physically to accost her and to confiscate her heartfelt expressions of patriotism.
At a time when our troops are in harm's way, I wonder if it is too much to ask that you instruct your workers to grant permits to every member of the public who seeks to express patriotic sentiments - unmolested by the state - on the public's rights of way.

Sincerely,

Tom McClintock

Cc: Gov. Gray Davis

Here is the news story for background: I only wish I could post the picture of the 250+ pound Caltrans worker pushing Penney aside!

Los Angeles Daily News
State worker's treatment of Army mother probed

By Carol Rock
Staff Writer
Thursday, April 03, 2003 - CASTAIC --

As Castaic residents rallied Thursday to reinstate a tribute to the military along a freeway fence, the California Highway Patrol investigated one Army mother's complaint that she was assaulted by a state Department of Transportation worker who was tearing down the flags, photographs and yellow ribbons.

Showing cuts on her hands from the fence to people gathered at the corner of Hillcrest Drive and The Old Road for an impromptu rally, Penny Young fielded questions from reporters while passing motorists honked their support.

About 35 people waved flags and banners in support of American troops, prompting truckers to blare their horns in 18-wheelers on the Golden State Freeway, drowning out conversation.

Midway through the impromptu rally, Young's cell phone rang. The caller was her son, Army Pfc. Sean Young, who is training in Maryland and awaiting deployment to the Middle East.

"I told him to listen to this (the cheers and honking horns) and held up my phone," she said. "He was amazed. He said that's what they need to see."

State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, contacted Young earlier in the day and advised her that he would help her group obtain permission to post the signs. He then contacted CHP Commissioner Spike Helmick and expressed his disapproval of the California Department of Transportation action.

"This is a deliberate decision by Caltrans not to grant these people a permit to display their banners. It is outrageous and unconscionable," said McClintock. "It is entirely within the (authority) of Caltrans to give them a permit; I find their conduct un-American."

Acting on a federal court decision, Caltrans workers removed the display of flags and other patriotic symbols Wednesday. As Young tried to protect a large flag she had crafted, a Caltrans employee scuffled with and hurt her, she said.

Caltrans spokesman Dennis Trujillo wouldn't comment on the specifics of that incident while it is being investigated, but said policy calls for workers to back off rather than become involved in confrontations.

"It's premature to draw conclusions regarding yesterday's action," Trujillo said Thursday. Regarding the court decision, "unfortunately there's no leeway," he said. "We're between the proverbial rock and hard place and must comply with the court order, and because of safety reasons will continue to respond by removing banners.

"Our employees are unfortunately forced to do a thankless job, which is to remove the displays that were energized by emotion and support," Trujillo said.

Displays of any type along freeways, he said, can cause distractions and are thus dangerous.

But in a letter to Department of Transportation Director Jeff Morales, McClintock wrote: "No words of mine can adequately express my disgust and outrage -- and that of our community -- over this incident. ... At a time when our troops are in harm's way, I wonder if it is too much to ask that you instruct your workers to grant permits to every member of the public who seeks to express patriotic statements -- unmolested by the state -- on the public's right of way.

McClintock's local representative, Joe Giordella, brought his own flag to wave when he joined the crowd. "This is an absurd action for Caltrans to take. These people have the right to support our troops," Giordella said. "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Caltrans is citing is the same court that told schoolchildren they couldn't say 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. This action is reprehensible and is going to be overturned."

Roberta Bain, the mother of two Marines deployed in Iraq, came with her husband, Robert, a retired Marine, and her daughter-in-law, Kim, who was wearing a Marine Corps sweat shirt. Bain, who has primary pulmonary hypertension, pulled a portable oxygen tank with her as she made her way to the corner. She said the removal of a sign painted to honor her sons, Lance Cpl. Joseph Bain, 23, and Lance Cpl. John Bain, 20, has raised her stress level, but that she felt compelled to come and support her fellow military parents.
"My sons didn't join for the college money or because they didn't know what they wanted to do," she said. "They joined because it is a family tradition and they are proud to be Americans."

John:

To answer you 4:48 PM question, what is "silly" is Tom McClintock trying to sell the CAGW pledge as a permanent ban on earmarks. And even sillier is you then inserting the modifier, "scandalous", in front of the claim of a permanent ban when I called you on it.

So yes, how you have misled the public on this issue is silly, cause you thought you'd get away with it.

Jeff

Wow John,

That is a wonderful, anecdotal story of McCarpetbagger opportunistically jumping on a story that no politician (especially one as adept at holding onto his office at all costs as Mr. McClintock) in his right mind would dare be on the wrong side of. Good for him for coming to the aid of this woman and I truly hope that it did some good in helping support our troops. However I am really more interested in McClintock's voting record as it pertains to actually supporting our troops with votes and not just paying them lip service in an obvious attempt to score some easy, good press.

Votes such as the time McClintock was one of just two senators who opposed AB 306 (Baca). This legislation allows active duty military members to defer specific financial obligations upon deployment for 180 days, the duration of their deployment plus 60 days or whichever is the lesser period of time.
• [McClintock- No (Sen. Floor Vote, 9-6-2005); Ayes- 35, Noes- 2; Signed- 9-22-2005; (Schwarzenegger)]

Where was Lone Wolf McClintock on this one? He was voting no along with one other person. I bet if you asked most enlisted men and women, they'd prefer this legislation to the well-intentioned tribute that Penny created.

Jeff,

I know your English classes are tough, but the question was "do you agree with Cabana Boy's statement that the pledge is silly?"

Whoever you are:

Already explained those votes.

Yes, everyone would be on the side of this woman, but Tom took the leadership a Vice Chairman of transportation to call the director on the carpet and get the regulations changed. That is leadership and not just going along with votes because it is for "veterans."

John

So those 35 (out of 37 votes!) other legislators were "just going along with votes because it [was] for "veterans." I'm sure they would love to know that they were "just going along with votes" and not really supporting our heros in uniform. I'm sure vets would like to know that's what Tom McClintock thinks about this legislation that helps them financially afford to deploy and serve our country. Good answer.