Let's not forget that, in addition to opposing common sense bills that support veterans and enlisted men and women, McClintock was the only senator opposed to SB 101 (Brulte), legislation that would have appropriated $1,000,000 from the General Fund to develop a marketing campaign for public-awareness of the Safe Haven laws. This legislation was supported by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the California Right to Life, Committee, Inc.

[McClintock- No (Sen. Floor Vote, 6-5-2001); Ayes- 33, Noes- 1; Vetoed- (Davis)]

McClintock's infamous, principled stands against common sense will only spell defeat in the fall. Luckily for us, Ose can beat Brown.

Jeff,

All your spinning must make you dizzy.

I seriously doubt 4th district veterans sell their votes like inner city welfare recipients.

Call me an old fashioned, but I have this picture in my head of an average soldier: He loves his god, his country, his family, and his freedom. That's hardly a group that could be duped into voting for big-government tax and spender.

Auburnymous,

That's a pretty serious charge, accusing McClintock of opposing a massive amount of government spending.

We are missing some of the other singular NO votes that Senator McClintock has cast down through the years: Like the one against the massive pay raises and management rules in the latest contract for the Correctional Peace Officers that has skyrocketed the costs of our prisons and contributed a BIG chunk of the current budget deficit.

No one else would vote no because they have an emotional slogan, "walking the toughest beat in California" and a TON of money in their PAC that they are willing to spend against any member that does not toe the line.

I know Jeff knows about these votes, but they must have skipped his mind while he was looking for ones that could better damage Senator McClintock.

John

Jeff - you WANT the attacks to be effective.

It is amazing that the establishment continues their old pattern. Ose will lose because he has not told voters why to vote for him in other than generic terms.

While I appreciate conservative positions, I must say I think we elect people to use their judgment and think, not to say no to everything.

I think the Ose mailer today on veterans was his best so far in the campaign. Tom has some 'splainin to do.

You know Ben, you're right. I'm glad that Tom McClintock stood on a moral high ground with this vote and told the voters of California that no, a million dollars is just too much to educate the public that there is a safe option other than abortion or murder or abandonment.

In fact, I am ready to stand with Tom McClintock and help overturn Megan's law. I also think it's time we did away with that stupid waste of money, the Amber Alert!

What a misuse of government funds to tell the voters what these terrible public services are and how they can be used to keep our children safe. In fact, the government should never, under any circumstances, ever, ever spend any money whatsoever. Period.

Yep, I'm right there with you Ben.

If all Ose has is to attack McClintock - he will lose.

The person with the explaining to do is Ose - and the Mainstreet partnership whose mission it is to stop Conservatives at all costs.

Voting against non-binding resolutions and bond (tax increase) measures is hardly anti-military.

Of course, Veterans like myself and others who support McClintock don't count as it is all about Ose. (Who has yet to tell voters why to vote for himself)

Another thought...

Senator McClintock's office has been contacted by REAL soldiers who are serving who were shocked that bills which tell banks they cannot
collect from servicemen or their spouses: They understood the law of
unintended consequences and said it would mean that it just becomes
more difficult for ALL members of the military to get loans!

In addition to more bonds for a state whose credit rating is one step above junk bond status.

Ose might as well get a job as Brown's consultant.

Aaron:

Nice work, you and John both posted nearly word for word the bogus McClintock talking points you were sent...making it look like no such calls ever happened.

Based on your commentary above, we all know you are a campaign expert, but I have to tell you, in well-run campaigns, when surrogates are sent out to spout the talking points, they are usually better coordinated.

Nice work undercutting your guy!

MIDDLE-CLASS STUDENTS GET MONEY, MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY GET NOTHING

thought I would re-post this again as it's interesting to see what Tom will vote for. I was surprised he fell for this one:

I've often thought that the day California's legislature set us on a course for disaster was Sept. 12, 2000, when the legislature created an entitlement for students to go to college. The state was awash in cash and didn't know how to spend it fast enough, so they established an entitlement we couldn't afford.

Never mind that public college is so heavily subsidized. Senate Bill 1644 made it a complete giveaway.

After seeing all the 'No' votes from Tom McClintock, I was surprised to see he was a yes on this bill. See link below.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_1601-1650/sb_1644_vote_20000828_0749PM_asm_floor.html

The conservative Manhattan Institute, a "real conservative think tank," had this to say in a Sept. 26 op-ed in the NY Times:

"California's legislature has created a new educational entitlement: lots of kids will be going to college free of charge. Sound good? It isn't. It's likely to harm the great public universities of the state, as well as undermine California's drive for standards in elementary and secondary education. And it won't address the real problem: the inadequate academic preparation of too many high school graduates, particularly those from low-income families.

Here's how the program works. Students who maintain a B average in high school are guaranteed a grant (called a Cal Grant) sufficient to cover the costs of attending a state college or university. Even those who plan to go to private institutions like Stanford University will receive impressive help in the form of vouchers worth up to $9,708 a year. Children of the rich won't qualify, but students don't have to be poor. The annual income ceiling for a family of four is $64,100; for a family of six, it's $74,100.

There's help as well for students whose high school grades average only a C, but who are from families earning less than $33,700 a year. If they go to a community college, the state will provide roughly $1,500 for books and living expenses. If that student later transfers to a four-year school, he or she will receive full tuition plus the same stipend for additional expenses.

It's the "most ambitious financial aid program in America," Gov. Gray Davis has noted. All of California seems to be in a swoon. Every legislator voted for it. Newspapers are lavishing praise. College administrators are ecstatic. "This reinstates the California dream," one state college chancellor said.

Promoting mediocrity on behalf of middle-class kids would be a more accurate description. The program is advertised as helping the "needy," but community colleges are free, California state colleges only charge student fees, and even the elite University of California schools are inexpensive compared with private schools. Low-income students are already served by federal, state, private and university programs, and California offered no evidence that financial need was a barrier to college attendance. More low-income students will attend college only when they have the skills to do the work demanded.

The main beneficiaries of the new policy are thus likely to be middle-class students who have traditionally had limited access to scholarships. This will especially be the case if colleges use funds typically reserved for low-income applicants to help the financially unchallenged. The academically accomplished kid from a family earning, say, $85,000 a year may now have a good shot at financial aid."

The op-ed goes on ... the question though is why is this worthy of a yes and so many other spending plans a no?

We do plenty for our public colleges and universities. They are a bargain. Do we really have to pay the bargain price for people, too?

No Jeff, you're wrong. John and Aaron have all the REAL veterans working with them. No other veterans count. Only the REAL veterans Aaron and John and their boss Tom know. The REAL veterans - funny, I'll let all my vet friends know they aren't REAL.

You guys might want to call each other first next time. It's kind of embarrassing when you both wear the same skirt to the dance.

It was Karen England's son, maybe, who called the McClintock Campaign to say he is *shocked* that Ose would attack Tom's votes on the five veteran's bills in 2005. And perhaps the sons or daughters of a couple of people who work for the campaign called in, too, after getting a gentle e-mail from their parents.

Tell me how a veteran would be refused a loan based on any of these laws. The companies would open themselves up to lawsuits--just the kind of lawsuits they would dearly hate to see hit the press.

Get real. Gimme a break.

Jeff,

Sorry the truth hurts, but when you are sharing facts instead of "spin" it is not uncommon to see similar things in the various accounts that might be given. Try reading the four Gospels for the best example of this and it will help you sleep better at night... IF you are willing to repent.

Others on this list may not know Senator McClintock the way you and I do having the privilege or challenge of working with him for many years. You and I BOTH know that these attacks against Tom have no more merit than the usual liberal union attacks that he hates school children and old people and certainly does NOT want anyone to have affordable healthcare.

Of course now that you are hanging out with Cabana Boys consultants who also handle such conservative clients as the CTA and CCPOA I guess I should not be surprised that you would spread the company line.

John

PS: Also, as one "policy wonks" who often led the Republicans down some slippery slops so they could be "popular," let me ask you a policy question: IF word got out that soldiers or their families did not have to pay some or all of their bills and lenders would have no recourse, would that have any impact on the types of credit they would be extended? How about to military ages young people that could enter the military?

John:

Give me a break. See my new post. You and Aaron didn't say similar things, you said the EXACT same thing. Word for word, down to capitalizing the "ALL" in the end.

And for the record, you might not want to compare your cut and paste campaign spin to the Four Gospels next time. Just another little suggestion.

Finally, yes I did get to work with Tom in the Legislature...which explains in part why I am supporting Doug Ose.

Jeff

Jeff,

Please note carefully, since as I have said in the past you seem to struggle with English, that I did not say that you should support Tom because you worked for him, some folks don't like consistent conservatives, which I understand.

What I DID say was that you know Tom well enough as a person that these charges cannot be valid.

John

PS: I compare everything to the Gospels and the rest of Scripture: There is no better way to check what I am doing and to rightly judge what others are doing, so if it is OK with you I will continue to do so.

PPS: How would you define "campaign spin?"

If I may interject here:

John I really don't think you can accuse Jeff of not understanding the English language.

1)It is clear that you imply that Jeff is somehow doing the unthinkable and betraying Tom McClintock whom he used to work with.
2)Jeff did not say that you told him he should support McClintock because he worked with him in the legislature. He simply said that because of his experience working with McClintock, he is now supporting Doug Ose.

For someone who has resorted, in desperation, to parsing the words of others because your arguments are exceedingly ineffective, you are not doing a very good job of it.

Maybe you should just stick to cutting and pasting what Aaron writes.

To the future McClintock supporter:

While Aaron might well write some wise things that I would think about copying, that takes us far afield:

Let us get back to the issue at hand and put all of you 'so-called' conservatives to the test:

As I have suggested in the past do a Google search for "Not Yours to Give," read the article and then answer two simple questions:

1) Had you been a member of congress after Mr. Crockett gave his speech, would you have voted to give that widow the money?

2) Would a "NO" vote on that bill have been more or less "heartless" than what you are accusing Senator McClintock of doing?

That will require only two words to answer and if you are not willing to answer those questions honestly then what good does any further discussion do?

John

Jeff,

First, I have not received any talking points from the McClintock campaign.

Second, I have a son, 1st Lieutenant Joshua England who is flying missions daily in Iraq. I have 2 nephews who have been to Iraq, one of them is over there right now on his third tour. I support Tom McClintock and his vote. It is NOT the role of government to tell business they must provide for the military. It’s the responsibility of the government to provide for our brave men and women.

You can read more about our home grown hero here http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2008/02/cwo-william-mckenna-and-1st-lt-joshua-england

He graduated from Granite Bay High School and Biola……yes, I am a proud mom.

Tom McClintock - 21st century Davy Crokett: "as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

The government should never, ever interfere in any aspect of our lives - under any circumstances...............

..........unless it means they are going to pay me a tax-free per diem cor a house I don't live in, own or pay rent on - and they have to pay me on holidays, weekends, recesses, etc. Did I mention it has to be tax-free?

But other than that, the government has no place in our lives.

That's who we need representing us in Congress? Someone who wishes to turn back the clock to 19th century America? Yep, that's realistic.

Karen,

Sorry we left you off the talking points list!

Seriously, we all appreciate what your family is dong for our nation!

John

I have posted before on the "Not Yours to Give" story that John finds so endearing. The story was part of a book written about fifty years after Davy Crockett died and whether it is true or not is unclear. Some parts of it may be but there are no contemporaneous accounts to validate the story.

The story goes like this:

Crockett, then in Congress, voted yes to a bill authorizing a payment to victims of a D.C. fire. Back in his district he came upon a local man who chastised him for spending his tax money on such a purpose. Surely the D.C. wealthy could have come up with $20,000 through charitable donations instead? The man was influential in his community. Crockett agreed with him on the principle that the money was not Crockett's to give and proposed a deal: If he (Crockett) re-told the story throughout the district and said how he had been wrong but had learned and will not do it again would the man support him for re-election? The man agreed and Crockett was re-elected. Later in Congress a vote came to the floor to provide a pension or a payment to the widow of a general who had died, apparently from a disease or illness he contracted while on active duty. Crockett voted no following an impassioned speech regarding the proper use of taxpayer's money.

During his MANY years in the state legislature Tom McClintock has been taking taxpayer money not required to maintain a second home to the tune of something over $300,000. This is more than fifteen times as much as Crockett voted to give the victims of the D.C. fire.

Mr. McClintock, that money was not yours to take.

A couple of thoughts for Bob and the other future McClintock supporter:

So no one will get confused the second line, "The government should never, ever interfere in any aspect of our lives - under any circumstances..............." was not part of the article!

Congressman Crockett was was just pointing out that they did not have the constitutional authority to spend that money, just as they lack the same authority today for most of what is in the new farm bill. There have been expansion in the last hundred years for sure, but most came as the result of court decisions and NOT changes in our Constitution [I did an article on this years ago that needs to be updated, but I make my case for electing more "Hobbits" to congress here: http://politicalvanguard.com/index.php?id=stoos ]

My final comment is that IF we need to expand the authority and power of the federal government than the constitution can be changed through the Amendment process. The problem is that liberals cannot get enough public support to make those kind of changes: That is why there has never even been an attempt, that I am aware of, to change the 2nd Amendment and I would argue that even an amendment to create the Department of Education would have failed to be ratified.

We are not living in the 18th Century and no one on the McClintock team wants to [we all LIKE indoor plumbing and the Internet] BUT we have not problem living under a Constitution that has brought the greatest amount of freedom and liberty to any nation in the history of the world.

It is worth defending and I again thank Karen and all the other military moms for raising those who do so at great risk!

John

PS: Those who actually read the article will see that Crockett was willing to give out of HIS congressional salary, so he did not think accepting the compensation offered for serving was wrong!

John,

You can leave me off the list. You know me well enough to know I am pretty opinionated and probably wouldn’t follow talking points. On that note – Jeff - I am aware McClintock isn’t perfect, I don’t like everything he does (or doesn’t) do. He’s still the best man to represent me and my family in congress.