Thank you Aaron

When may I expect personal delivery of that Jug?*
I will be in all afternoon.

Lee

*PS I am the official taster this Monty. So
Bob doesn't get any.

PPS Who has to pay for the etched engraving?

I only like grape kool aid.

1) McClintock's 4th of July schedule was not publicly available as late as July 3 when he announced it (subsequent to the Brown press release) so unless Brown's campaign performed a CREEP stunt and broke into McClintock's campaign office who was to know what McClintock had planned for the NEXT DAY?

2) At any time McClintock was welcome to close down his exploratory committee for statewide office. A time, like, oh, last winter when he announced he was running for CD4. But no, he kept the committee open. Why? We may never know. But as Tennyson said: "All the world wonder'd".

Bob,

That's completely untrue. You cannot close down an exploratory committee until you dispense of the cash in it.

If state campaign funds could be transferred to a federal campaign committee, I can guarantee you that McClintock would have done so. But he legally can't do that.

So now -- he will use those state campaign funds for other purposes. He can donate them to the party, or to other candidates he wants to support, or to charity.

Come back to me if you see hundreds of thousands flowing INTO his state campaign committee -- then your conspiracy theory might actually carry some weight. But all of McClintock's fundraising is focused on his campaign for Congress.

So, I know it's a bummer, but it looks like you guys will have to go back to talking about the issues.

Oh right. We never do that. It's not Lee's "thing".

At any time McClintock could have closed down his exploratory committee. How long does it take to figure out where to donate the funds to and write a few checks? He has had months to do that. It was in his best interest to shut it down if he had no intention of running for statewide office to avoid exactly what is happening now.

No, the only explanation is that he was planning to keep his committee on ice because--win or lose in CD4 in 2008--he may just run for statewide office in California in 2010 and was willing to take the heat if the committee became well known. Facts are facts.

He really doesn't care about you at all, Rocklin. It's all about Tom.

So let me get this straight: the basis for your silly partisan attack is that you believe Tom should have donated the money more quickly to avoid a silly partisan attack?

This circular logic thing isn't doing much for your reputation on this blog, Bob.

Have fun with your theory though -- the more the Charlie Brown folks think that Tom thinks he's about to lose, the easier this election will be for Tom to win.

RC,

The fact is that this is not a "silly partisan attack". The question of whether Tom McClintock takes office as our representative and then makes repeated runs at statewide office from his safe term-unlimited base (which obviously comes at the expense of representing his constituents) is extremely valid and important. McClintock has a long history of job-shopping. The fact that this exploratory committee still exists is an indication that he intends to continue to job shop even if elected to office in CD4 no matter how you spin it. Had he shut the committee down the week after announcing his candidacy for the Republican primary for CD4--or at least immediately after winning the primary--voters would be a lot more inclined to believe him when he says he will focus on his job in Congress if elected. Right now they should be justifiably suspicious.

Has Tom made a pledge to not run for office for X years? In a public speech or press release? That would be news. But right now the news is that his exploratory committee is STILL open even though it could have been closed quickly. He could have announced his intention to close it, even...that takes no time at all. He did neither.

Voters should wonder about this.

Bob

In my second-to-last paragraph I should have said he could have announced his intention to close the committee BEFORE the opposition made the existence of the committee public. He did so afterwards, which is much like shutting the barn door after the horse has galloped off.

Bob,

This should make you feel much better. That is impossible.

Unlike a State Senate seat, where you only have an election every four years and it's possible to run statewide in your "off year", congressional seats are up every TWO years.

If you file for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, BOE or anything else in a primary -- you INSTANTLY are barred from filing for the congressional primary as an incumbent.

You can't run for re-election to Congress and statewide office at the same time. You have to give up your congressional seat to file for any other office in the same primary.

George

Actually your legalistic contortions do not change perceptions of REAL PEOPLE.

My wife and I were out earlier this morning walking. I told her that Tom would not be able to vote for himself. She be no knee jerk leftie. She is a registered (I) who prides herself in being exactly that.

That said, she reacted at first thinking I was joking with her. "You're joking aren't you?" I assured her that I wasn't. She then transitioned into shock. “How can that be? This is a democracy! Why can’t he vote for himself?!”

I patiently explained that he was registered to vote down on Ventura County where his legal residence is. There he can’t vote here. She said, “Do people know about this?” I said, “Probably not.” She said, “Well, they ought to!”

eom

Wow! Dodge AND spin in one post. A little anecdote, but it was a fun one.

Not a legalistic contortion at all. Bob said his concern was that McClintock would get himself elected to Congress in a non-term limited seat and "run for statewide office every year on our dime."

I was simply responding that it is legally impossible for Bob's scenario to occur. If you want to be intellectually honest, you'll need to agree with me on that -- otherwise, you're just interested in making silly political attacks.

Now, in regards to the tired old carpetbagger attacks, and your quote. You wrote: "She said, 'Do people know about this?' I said, 'Probably not.'"

Lee, are you serious? Doug Ose just spent $6.2 million telling people about it. I thought you said you guys watch TV and read?

Signed,
A Real Person

RC,

OK, the restriction on running for federal and state office simultaneously is good to know. I'm not a professional pol so many fine points like this are new to me.

Or I should say your information is bad to know. Because if McClintock wins election to CD4 then we will be stuck with him forever.

46% of primary-voting Republicans did not vote for McClintock in June. Most Dems don't want him and I would argue a majority of Independents--like Lee's wife--would find it hard to fill in the little oval next to his name, too. Yet if he squeaks by in November on name recognition, party registration and maybe the coattails of Prop 8 he will be like an albatross around our neck unless he "does the Doolittle" or gets hit by a bus.

McClintock cemented into office as our Rep doesn't sound good for CD4. Your information is bad news for this district should he win. But you highlight another good reason for voting against him so that he doesn't.

Of course if McClintock loses in November I don't think we'll have to worry about seeing him again in any election. He may run in some primaries but if he loses this race he will be finished in California politics as an elected official. I'll add that happy outcome to my "another good reason" list.

Note: Had the Republican Party nominated a middle-of-the-road, local candidate who spoke about what the district and our country really needs and displayed the leadership qualities that Congress needs I would not be here working so hard to see a Democrat elected or McClintock defeated. Brown is much closer to the fiscally-conservative socially-moderate Republicans that I have preferred to vote for in the past. McClintock--he scares the hell out of me with his endoresments by fringe anti-immigration extremists and other far-right groups, and his robotic ideology so disconnected from real people and the average voter.

Bob

Bob:

What issue is Charlie Brown fiscally conservative on? I don't see any...

Jeff

Jeff,

Brown's fiscal views are moderate. You tend to think in terms of the Republican electorate where he would be in the left half. But in terms of the overall electorate he is pretty much square in the middle.

McClintock's fiscal conservatism has some good qualities but is also extreme in many ways. It is unfortunately paired with a strange fixation on draconian immigration policy and on pushing a wide range of conservative social issues that I don't personally agree with. Further, McClintock is untrustworthy as a fiscal conservative given his willingness to violate his own philosophy as shown by the large government payments he has accepted for no valid reason.

As I said, had you guys put a strong, ethically upright, fiscally conservative, socially moderate and deep thinking individual with bi-partisan leadership skills on the ballot things could be a lot different. Unfortunately, almost two decades of John Doolittle and his followers has purged CD4 of such Republican leaders.

Brown is much closer to my views than McClintock by leagues and better for the district so I will continue to strongly support him in this election.

Bob