Aaron,

This list has been pretty quiet for the past few days, so I think everyone should check out Gary Bauer's voter's guide at this link and let the fireworks begins anew!

http://www.cwfpac.com/files/tom%20mcclintock.pdf

I cannot wait to hear what Bob can tell us about Gary, but it won't change the fact that "votes don't lie."

John

"the political deal maker" is what we should be most afraid of at this time, as our congress continues to steal our money to steal our freedoms.

I love how you blame Ose and the moderate group for the Contract With America not being fully implemented -- considering that he was elected in 1998, FOUR YEARS AFTER THOSE VOTES -- and that the Mainstream Partnership was also not founded until 1998.

The fat lady is warming up and in 22 days she will be singing for former Sacramento Congressman Doug Ose. The Sac Bee endorsement is just another nail in Ose's coffin.

The Bee must understand this is just another torpedo in the Ose ship, which is already taking on water and badly listing. Mean while Ose's supporters are rearranging the deck chairs.

Funny. I thought McClintock's ship was taking on water for rolling too far to starboard...

Bruce - can't argue the issues, can you?

They opposed school choice - evidenced by the fact that Ose voted against Vouchers for children with Disabilities and disadvanteged Children. They opposed tax cuts - Ose voted against the 2.3 trillion Tax cut in 2001 before he voted for it. They opposed energy development - Ose voted against drilling for oil - at least 4 times I have found. (Great Lakes, Gulf Coast, Southern CA Coast AND ANWR)

I nearly spit up my soda when the Bee cited Tip O''Neill as a man who advocated compromise to get things done. Oh, like lobbying for a pork program known as the Big Dig in Boston? This is one of the worst public projects programs put together in American history with $10 billion cost overruns and leaks all over the place not to mention falling ceilings. It is time to end the shenagigans and for Senator McClintock to advocate fiscal reality and responsibility in Washington.

Rock over London!! Rock on Chicago!! Peter Piper Pizza, the food's as good as the fun!!

Hey, you start small with "revenue sharing" programs and some day you can be speaker and build your own version of the "Boston Dig."

John

Speaking of principles vs. getting things done, what principle of Tom McClintock's is it that told him to vote no on a bill that would have helped advertise the "Safe Haven" laws that allow parents to abandon newborn babies at places like a fire station instead of aborting the baby or leaving the baby for dead somewhere.

Firefighters, nurses, policemen, etc. all said that the law was working; helping save many babies lives - BUT it could save many, many more if there was an advertising campaign to help educate the public about the law.

However, 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)]

Why would McClintock oppose such legislation? He must have a good reason - although not one other senator could also come up one. If it's one of these almighty conservative principles that Aaron, John, Ken and the rest of McClintock's disciples all site over and over again - well, I guess I'm not as principled as they are.

To the future McClintock Supporter:

The same principle that keeps him from voting to give some of your tax money to ProLife Crisis Pregnancy centers so they can continue their good work!

John

Well gee, John - that makes perfect sense. ??? Let me re-state the issue here (we all wanted to discuss issues didn't we?):

"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."

I'm assuming this is the same principle that allows Tom McClintock to vote YES on giving himself a tax-payer funded pay raise and to pay for a house he doesn't pay rent or mortgage on.

This type of "conservative" leadership loses more votes for the Republican Party than anything else.

To the future McClintock supporter:

You seem to struggle with the English language as Jeff does sometimes, so let me put it more carefully:

IF I introduced a bill that gave the California Right to Life a one million dollar grant to teach abstinence in schools, would they support it?

Yes, and Senator McClintock would not oppose it because he has changed his views on abortion or wants young girls to get pregnant, he would oppose it because that is a charitable activity that should be funded by private donations!

Is that better?

John

PS: Of course I just made this example up, BUT Planned Parenthood gets hundreds of millions of dollars to support free love and abortion: Cabana Boy was a big fan of all this.

John,

trust me I understand your point - it's just that it's about the dumbest logic I've seen in quite some time.

The fact is that you and your boss Tom McClintock don't want to discuss this or the veteran's issues because to do so would mean more and more Republicans in the 4th CD would realize the loose cannon principles that McClintock adheres to. Principles that amount to him sitting in a corner of the State Senate, pouting and voting against every common sense vote there is because Thomas Jefferson, John Adams or James Madison didn't write the bill.

Back to the real issue at hand here: Tom McClintock, once again and against the better judgement of every other senator, voted against a bill that no one else in their right mind would oppose. On principle. That is the most out-of-touch bunch of crap I have ever heard.

Auburn:

Those "loose cannon principles" might just save the GOP from the abyss. Another loss in Mississippi tonight and now the GOP is waking up and must realize that they must stand on some principle--ANY PRINCICPLE. If Ose is the nominee, it will be possible that Charlie Brown will win the 4th district race. The party's over for free wheeling spending. No more pork!!

Rock over London!! Rock on Chicago!! HEB, here everything's better!!

...and exactly the reason why I never want him to represent me in Congress.

To the future McClintock support:

Since you will have to defend the Senator's votes this fall against the likes of Charlie Brown, we should probably begin to cover some of the basics:

First is the principle of "unintended consequences." My favorite was a vote some years ago to levy a big tax on bunker fuel because they needed the money and found out ours was very low. After the increase bunker fuel sales at California ports dropped to almost zero because it turns out that those big ships can cross the Pacific about two and a half times on a tank of fuel, so they just bought bunker fuel somewhere else.

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 gets loans!

Think about it.

John

Anonymous correctly noted that the GOP lost its third-straight congressional special election last night, 54 to 46 in an open district in Mississippi.

The Cook Partisan Voter Index had that district at R+10.

California's Fourth District is R+11.

:)

And did we forget to mention that partisan labels were NOT included on the ballots in this election?

Thought so!

This one and a couple of others come home in the fall.

John

Here are some more details on the recent specials from Gary Bauer:

End of Day Report for 5-14-2007

Democrat Smear Machine

There was another disappointing special election loss last night for the Republican Party in a Southern House district that should have been safely Republican. Part of the reason has to be widespread demoralization of the conservative base. That alone should be a wake-up call to the leadership. But there is more, and we will tell you the story that Big Media will not.

While the Left wants to convince you that Rev. Wright is off limits and cries “race baiting” if you dare to raise his 20-year association with Barack Obama, the Left has put together a smear machine that is picking off conservative candidates one at time. Whether John McCain realizes it or not, the full force of this effort will be turned on him soon.

The Left has now picked off two conservative Republican House seats by attempting to link conservative candidates to the KKK. (Ironically, the KKK was started in the South as a reaction to Lincoln and Republicanism!) But that was only one prong of their attack.

In recent years, one of the most effective and generous supporters of the fight against Islamofascism has been Sheldon Adelson, a casino owner in Las Vegas. (I keep trying to explain to people that our coalition is made up of lots of different parts.) Adelson has spent millions of dollars to rally public support for the war effort, to support our soldiers and to take on the George Soros-funded Left, which wants us to retreat all over the world. He is also a staunch supporter of Israel. Groups supported by Adelson have run ads in Louisiana and Mississippi supporting conservative candidates.

But the Left went into these races and attacked the conservative candidates by attacking Adelson. They didn’t address the issues, including the Democrat Party’s obsession with defeat in Iraq or lack of serious plans to develop our own energy sources. Instead, they smeared Adelson as “the world’s No. 1 casino czar and one of atheist China’s top American business partners” or as a “casino billionaire heavily invested in a country notorious for forced abortions…” and tried to portray conservative candidates as his puppets, knowing it would turn off Christian conservatives.

Now, I hope you realize the gross hypocrisy here. The Democrat Party is rabidly committed to abortion-on-demand. Its likely presidential nominee, Barack Obama, actually opposed legislation as a state senator that would have protected babies who survived botched abortions. The federal version of this legislation passed the House in 2002 on a voice vote and passed the Senate unanimously – without opposition! Senate Democrats didn’t want to have that debate, and the pro-abortion groups in Washington didn’t care to expose their extremism. But Obama fought the bill in Illinois. That’s how radical Barack Obama is, my friends.

Yet with slick, under-the-radar campaigns, the liberal Democrats were able to defeat conservative candidates by raising the abortion issue and religious liberty. I don’t know what is more disturbing – that the Democrats are signaling how nasty they are willing to be this election year or that so many Christians and conservatives can be so confused by a deceptive negative campaign.

This is hilarious.

Here's Bauer's closing thought: "I don’t know what is more disturbing – that the Democrats are signaling how nasty they are willing to be this election year or that SO MANY CHRISTIANS AND CONSERVATIVES CAN BE SO CONFUSED by a deceptive negative campaign." [emphasis mine]

He sounds a lot like Obama at the San Francisco fundraiser talking about people who cling to guns and religion. Elitist.

He complains about hardball politics - where were the complaints from Gary Bauer during the Swift Boat campaign? And like it or not, because of the Southern Strategy there ARE a lot of people in the Republican Party who are affiliated with or sympathetic to the KKK. Does David Duke ring a bell? The guy who switched from Democrat to Republican and then ran for congress in Louisiana? I'm sure the Dem ads are just as "fair and balanced" as the SBVFT. What comes around goes around.

Were the ballots in the other congressional special elections not marked with party affiliation, either? I personally think that is the way it ought to be. Make people do a little research instead of just pulling the lever by letter one office after another.

All three republicans who have been defeated in these special elections were, like Tom McClintock, Club For Growth Candidates.

McClintock cannot beat Brown. Only Doug Ose can.

Bob,

As far as I know there is only one major elected official today who served as a Grand Dragon in the KKK and that is US Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. And yes, he is a Democrat!

By the way, Hillary Clinton just called him "a national treasure" so how look will it take for the national media to drive her out of the US Senate like they did Trent Lott?

John

John I can finally say it......YOU'RE RIGHT!!! (About Byrd, Hillary and Lott, I still disagree with you on McClintock, etc.)

Good thing I didn't vote for Hillary or Byrd.

John, another thing I disagree with you on:

You say that "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 gets loans!"

I think that it is quite telling that you refer to veterans who happen to support your boss as REAL veterans implying that the vets and soldiers who are supporting Ose are not real soldiers. This goes right in line with the strategy that you, Ken and Aaron and the other cult members have been bombarding the public with: if you don't kiss McClintock's ring you are not a true republican. If you dare question his impeccable credentials, you are a liberal.

But I digress. Let's shift gears for a moment and talk about another group of public servants who regularly put themselves in harm's way in order to keep us safe: firefighters and peace officers.

How do you explain the fact that your boss McClintock AGAIN was the only senator to oppose AB 753 which would have expanded the definition of a surviving spouse to include those married to a firefighter or peace officer less than a year at the time of their injury or disease resulting in death for the purpose of continuing health benefits.

It was supported by the State Public Employees' Retirement System, the California State Firefighters' Association, California Professional Firefighters and the Peace Officers Research Association of California.

What holy conservative principle did McClintock fabricate to justify this vote? He was the only one who voted this way so, as all the cult members seem to think, he must have had a really great reason to do so.

Why would Tom McClintock want to deny death benefits to spouses of firefighters and peace officers?

McClintock- No (Sen. Floor Vote, 8-5-2004); Ayes-30, Noes- 1; Signed- 9-10-2004 (Schwarzenegger)

To the future McClintock supporter:

You might want to call the City of Vallejo and discuss with them the dangers of giving even fine public servants like firefighters and police officers EVERYTHING they ask for!

And to you specific question of supporting those in need, when the Governor was trying to win reforms that were needed in the pension system, this was the attack that was used to defeat them. In the process Senator McClintock challenged the Democrats to give all firefighters and police officers the SAME insurance coverage that legislators had [which was much better by the way] and they turned it down in a flat second... Could not have these folks thinking their unions were not taking good care of them!

John

PS: Senator McClintock's proposal would have cost less for the taxpayers as well, so as he often says, good principles make for good politics. Now if ONLY we could get the liberal media to pay attention.

Are you serious? Seriously, John are you being serious here? You can't be serious.

Let's review: the bill would have expanded the definition of a surviving spouse to include those married to a firefighter or peace officer less than a year at the time of their injury or disease resulting in death for the purpose of continuing health benefits.

Your response: "You might want to call the City of Vallejo and discuss with them the dangers of giving even fine public servants like firefighters and police officers EVERYTHING they ask for..."

So the 'fine public servants' were asking for too much according to the gospel of Tom McClintock. They had the audacity to ask that their spouses be given health benefits in the event of their untimely death. So are newlyweds not REAL married couples, John? Is that it? Is Tom McClintock so omni(scient, potent, present) that he has the power to declare whether marriages are REAL or not?

You audacity is beyond belief.

To the future McClintock supporter:

As I said, since you will be defending Tom against these same attacks by Charlie Brown in the fall, PLEASE reread my post and in your own words tell me what Senator McClintock ACTUALLY proposed for the widows of those killed in the line of duty.

John

PS: Jeff, since you have not understood, or deliberately distorted most of my posts, the answer is MORE benefits!