Ken - while you have called me a flip-flopper for defending Doolittle, then using Earmarks in criticism of Doug Ose... this article shows that if the Country-Clubbers like the Orange County Lincoln Club are awake to the issue... then people like myself are not the only late commers to the game.

I have said it before and I will say it again - Doolittle was basically wrong on this one issue... his 100% ACU score in 2007 proves that.

However, I will give you credit - it has become the main issue and these IDIOTS in Congress are going to need to get their asses beaten again and again by the voters before they will finally heed the call to put their kool-aid down. You were right, earmarks and spending look to be number one or two issue in 2008.

(I still have issue with what your real motivation for turning on Doolittle like you did was.)

"Unfortunately, say Republican reformers, it looked like a case where the operation was a great success but the patient died. Popular though expanded drilling may be, Republicans are blamed for $4 gasoline. Away from the party leadership table, members blame a negative Republican image created by the leaders..."

How the hell can we fix the message without the most basic of Republican principles being upheld? If we can't spend responsibly? Why then should we be upset that we are getting blamed for everything else that is wrong?

The only reason why Charlie Brown even has a snowball's chance is not the mcClintock is too conservative... it really has nothing to do with Doolittle other than the fact that Doolittle's poor 2006 campaign made Brown a contender...

It has to do with the fact that the Label on the package is polluted (R), and I guess it will take a supreme court with Obama moonbats on it legalizing gay marriage and euthanasia to get peoples attention!?

Maybe if there is another terrorist attack? It is like the Republican Party has shaken baby syndrome or battered woman syndrome...

To anyone thinking this is an opportunity against McClintock - you have another thing coming. The GOP leadership needs a McClintock right across the face and the 4th CD are going to embrace that.

It really has little to do with D vs R and more to do with two shades of gray in DC... this is why Obama's Change BS is selling.

McClintock is Change - Coloniel Klink can't finish a sentence, checkmate.

Aaron - The Orange County Lincoln Club is NOT Country-Clubbers. Stick to things you know...

Flint - opinions vary. I have mine, you have yours.

Stick to things you know.

Ah Aaron, I think it is about time to talk about the Pink Elephant in the room that everone here shys away from. Your continued slurs of someone who served this nation honorably obviously will not stop. But I think it is worthy of knowing exactly the background of the intractable messenger of this venon and vitriol served up to someone who served honorably and well.

Inquiring minds would like to know what exactly what John Stoos was saying here about you and your military discharge...

Anonymous said:

Erin,
How were you discharged? Honorably or Dishonorably?

May 18, 2008 8:23 AM

John Stoos said:

Aaron was discharged when he was young and stupid, living a lifestyle that he and I have BOTH been forgiven for years ago, and I was fined $500 once by the FPPC even AFTER I became a Christian!
So the list now has full disclosure and each reader can decide whether to listen to our posts or not.
John

May 18, 2008 9:10 AM

Please unskirt this skirting around by Stoos...

Lee

Aaron - I know the Orange County Lincoln Club. You don't. End of discussion.

Lee - as you stand in judgement, which is quite the contrary to what you keep writing when you quote scripture in an attempt to deny me my right to nail Charlie Brown on his record...

Maybe you ought to open your Bible again - or maybe your Bible is missing a few sections (Like Romans Chapter 1), because you have never reconciled your support of Gay Marriage with the Bible or a host of other stances with that same Bible.

I can loan you my Bible if you need one.

Until those pointing their finger stand up and show their face, I don't owe them or you an explanation. (Note how that same brave anon commenter spelled my name)

Jesus Christ preached a message of redemption - his blood has justified me and everyone else that has accepted him. (That is also spelled out in that same Bible)

As it is - you and other brownies are consistently avoiding Charlie Brown's history of Anti-Military activism.

There will be accountability for Brown as he is the Candidate who is currently attempting to wrap himself in the flag even though his history as been one of contempt for it.

No amount of finger pointing can cover up Brown's record.

It has been interesting tangling with someone whose background is in Psychology. I expected better, as it is now obvious that you can't debate Charlie Brown's record, so now you are reduced to attempting to discredit the messenger.

Jeff - I know you, end of discussion.

Is anyone else wondering why on earth Aaron Park repeats the things that Jeff says in his posts? Seems kind of childish and brings nothing of substance to the discussion.

In this instance, Aaron lumped an entire successful GOP organization together by calling them "country clubbers" without any explanation or proof.

Jeff, who apparently has personal experience with this organzation, called Aaron out for making an unimformed, slanderous remark and not backing it up.

So why does Aaron reply with a childish, school yard style comment that just repeats what Jeff said?

For the good of the blog, instead of acting like an 8 year old, Aaron should stick to the issue at hand.

Aaron,

This isn't about whether you have sinned and been forgiven or even about your Navy past, really. It's about the disrespect you exhibit today for someone who served his country long, well and faithfully--and under fire from the enemy--no matter what his politics are. There simply is no reason for that.

I don't know if you have noticed but your practice of making disparaging remarks about others--things like Colonel Klink or even Cabana Boy--are not widely used even here on Red County. That's because most of us understand that it's crossing a line to talk about people like that under any circumstances.

That said, I don't agree with Lee's throwing your past back in your face. I did that--once--and regret it. I will even say I am sorry for doing it. As you noted, your discharge is history. We live and learn.

But you will be both wrong and taking a risk for your candidate if you make false or misleading statements about Charlie's record and his relationships with other people based on nothing more than an online post by Stephen Pearcy, a guy Brown told to pound sand. If you have something more concrete, great--bring it on, as your man Bush would say. But I think that if there were something new it would have come out in 2006 and it didn't. So all you apparently have are old online statements from an anti-war lawyer with an ax to grind and some rehashed stuff about one benign e-mail Charlie sent years ago. If that's your basis for maligning the honor and service of one of America's veterans and a man willing to put his name and reputation on the line to run for high office I recommend you dust off that Bible you keep talking about because there are some lessons you need to learn in it.

No amount of rationalization can justify what you have already said and what you say you plan to do. If your candidate can't win without your mudslinging then he is truly not the right guy for the office. If he can win without it then bully for him. A fair fight free of Karl Rove-style practices. Is that too much too ask?

And in a way I'm actually doing McClintock a service if you honor my request and start punching only above the belt. Because as I have said before as a Brown supporter I would welcome your attacks because they will actually work against your candidate. People are sick of it, Aaron. And unlike 2004 or even 2006, this time the Democrats are not going to take it sitting down. Food for thought.

Bob

Earmarks are nothing but a red herring. Deal with the real issues of entitlement reform, debt repayment, and limiting government. If Ken wants to give all control over spending to unelected bureaucrats, go ahead - they'll gladly do the job.
I'll continue to remind all my "constitutal" friends of Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Time to stop picking and choosing which parts you defend and others you cast a blind too.

I usually don't respond to losers who can't even remember their own name, but this anonymous dimwit needs to be straightened up.

To that end I will refer him to my post http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/06/despite-pledges-to-cut-earmark/ with Senator Tom Colburn's piece. I think we can all agree Senator Tom Colburn is much more knowledgeable in earmarks than any of us including the loser who can't remember his/her name. This is what Senator Colburn said:

"Congress will never take serious steps to reduce our $300 billion in annual waste -- much less address the impending bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security - when members are spending much of their time earmarking."

In other words Senator Colburn makes the point that how can Congress take care of the big problems such as "impending bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security" if they can not take care of the little things like their wasteful and irresponsible earmark/ pork addiction. Again, this is coming from someone much more knowledgeable about earmarks than all of us including the anonymous loser that can't remember his name.

Bob:

Maybe you can ask Charlie Brown whether his position on Iraq is closer to Senator Obama's position of two weeks ago, or Senator Obama's position as of today?

Jeff

Man, I go to bed too early. There is a lot of internets action going on while I snooze.

Bob:

Thank you for your post and I endorse everything you said including your rebuke of me for bring up Aaron's Navy past.

Jeff:

I am not at clear what Tom McClintock's position on Iraq is. Is it close to McCain's position that he wants US military forces to maintain a presence ala Korea for years to come?

The Iraqi gov'ment folks are saying that they want an agreement that incorporates a deadline and they are not talking 2050, or even 2015. Its more closer to now than that.

Ken:

This is what Charlie Brown said re earmarks a year ago:

https://www.charliebrownforcongress.org/files/pdfs/2007/06/Earmarks62507.pdf

How supportive were you of the idea of JTD putting up all his earmark requests up on his website?

Back to Bob:

I agree that in the order of magnitude, the major entitlement programs are the most serious drain on our national treasury. We will need a Congress made of men and women who are of the pragmatic problem solving sort to wade into that can of worms. In that vein, these men and women will need to put aside ideology constricting ways of searching for solutions and reach across the aisle to work with each other.

Lee/Bob:

Also, since Obama is now in favor of the FISA update with the telecommunications immunity section, will Charlie Brown reconsider his position.

Do you really think Charlie Brown, who is now to the LEFT of Obama, can get elected with these positions?

I'm not sure which is more of a bad joke, Obama or Charlie Brown...the sad thing is that the issue is national security, so it should not be a joke.

Jeff

Lee, perhaps you misread. Jeff didn't ask you about Tom McClintock's position on Iraq. He asked you about Charlie Brown's. Answer for the candidate you support, not the one you're constantly attacking.

As a follow-up, does Charlie Brown support the funding of faith-based organizations with federal dollars, like Obama does?

MR Vandelay - I had already apologized to Jeff off line before I saw your comment.

Since you don't have the integrity to attack me under your own name... leave the disputes between Jeff and I between us. End of Discussion.

"I don't know if you have noticed but your practice of making disparaging remarks about others--things like Colonel Klink or even Cabana Boy--are not widely used even here on Red County. That's because most of us understand that it's crossing a line to talk about people like that under any circumstances."

Bob - unfortunately on July 3rd, Brown opened fire. Your comment about Democrats not taking it laying down is laughable - they have lied about their GOP opponents for years.

You personally might be tired of the mudslinging - it is a fact of politics.

If you don't like my style (eg giving people monicres) that's your right - I am still waiting for those phone calls and emails from more than three people telling me off.

However, I will make a bi-partisan compromise... I will hit Brown above the belt until his campaign goes below Tom's belt. So - I will refrain from calling Brown anything other than wrong.

In turn - please quite hiding Brown behind the flag and we can debate issues... I think that would be fun!

Aaron did indeed apologize, and I accept that.

At the center of the issue - the use of the term Country Clubbers as it applies to the OC Lincoln Club should have been explained further.

It was a reference to their Income, not calling them a bunch of RINOS. It was also my opinion - as with many opinions, there may or may not be fact.

Aaron - deal.

Thanks!

RC,

Perhaps Jeff misread. The string is not about Brown's position on Iraq or FISA it's about pork spending. Jeff changed the subject, a common tactic when faced with uncomfortable facts. Lee flipped it again--turnabout is fair play, I guess, as in my agreement with Aaron on slime.

Bob

RC

Second request:

It would help the way of a civil discussion of the issues if you were to put up your bio, as Bob and I have. It helps to understand where one is coming from. And then we will all understand whether questions are posed in good faith or bad faith.

I know a lot about

Aaron Park
Aaron Klein
Jeff Flint
Ken Campbell
John Stoos
Eric Egland
and of course, Bob

I am looking forward to making your acquaintance

Lee

For all of you with questions about Charlie's positions on various issues I recommend you either visit his website, contact one of his several campaign offices or go to one of his public events. I am not part of his campaign team and don't have any inside information to offer.

I can say that he is willing to make his positions on issues clear and he is open to new facts that could cause him to evolve his positions as the facts change. I personally think that's very healthy and is certainly something John McCain, for one, has done many times.

There are some folks who lock in on a position and can't be budged off of it no matter what. The current POTUS comes to mind. This is more than unhealthy--it is dangerous.

The use of the term "flip-flop" applied to any change in position is a very bad practice in American politics. There are certainly situations where it appears a politician is changing his or her position to fit the audience or to remain popular. Romney was accused of this. Kerry was guilty of it. But there are many cases where the position needs to adjust because the facts are different.

Has Iraq changed? Certainly the security situation has improved to the point that the government doesn't feel we are needed anymore. But good news may be bad news--what if we leave as requested and then the government immediately aligns with Iran and replaces its current secular constitution with one based on Sharia law and Islamic fundamentalist principles like Iran's?

There should be lots of questions right now about what the best strategy should be. The presidential candidates ought to be looking hard at the current situation and the prognoses offered by experts in the field and adjust their plans accordingly. It took Bush over three years to figure out he needed to fire Rumsfeld and try something different. We don't need that kind of "leadership" in the WH.

I appreciate that you want to know more, Lee, but frankly, I'm not that interested in having my background psycho-analyzed. I actually agree with some of what you've said in your postings, but obviously not everything.

My political philosophy is that of a Reagan conservative. I believe the free market solves problems, not perfectly, but far better than government does.

Let me pick on one of your favorite issues, where I think you're half right, and that's energy.

I have to laugh when I hear people say that energy is a great example of the free market run amok. So basically, we've artificially held back the market by banning domestic oil production for years, and now we have the gall to blame that "free" market for higher prices?

Higher prices result from low supply and high demand. Where you are correct, Lee, is that we need to work on both sides of the equation.

If I were President for a day, I'd open up domestic oil production while still requiring the use of clean technologies and making the private companies commit to cleanup and protection of drilling sites during and after production ceases.

I'd also create a ten year project to decrease our country's reliance on oil. Create major tax credits to boost investment in R&D for new energy technologies. Increase tax credits to boost the competitiveness of cars like your Prius. Incentivize the use of alternative fuels. And renew the tax credit for solar.

I'm also intrigued by Newt Gingrich's idea of announcing an immediate release of 1/3rd of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the market. While it's only a couple of months drop in oil prices, it would immediately bankrupt the oil speculators that have been helping to drive prices up, and get them out of the way.

All three of these items would immediately start to depress the long term price of oil. (Markets DO react to credible actions that are going to affect the future two, five and ten years out.) And ten years from now, the world would have (a) a huge surplus of oil supply and (b) vastly reduced need for the stuff.

To be honest, the fact that you don't support any effort on the "supply" side is what leads me to suspect that you're actually a partisan Democrat. But I can be convinced I'm wrong. :)

Bob:

My adding the FISA issue and Iraq issue here was laziness of not creating a new post, and while the change in status in Iraq is a fair point to discuss changing one's position, I don't see a change in circumstances other than an impending general election that caused Obama's change on FISA. This will have some relevance to Charlie Brown, who was articulating Obama's old position.

I do want to point out that I agree WHOLE-HEARTEDLY with you on this statement:

The use of the term "flip-flop" applied to any change in position is a very bad practice in American politics. There are certainly situations where it appears a politician is changing his or her position to fit the audience or to remain popular. Romney was accused of this. Kerry was guilty of it. But there are many cases where the position needs to adjust because the facts are different.

Good work!

Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks. Not sure about the FISA issue. I'm not up to speed on either Obama or Brown's views on this.

My personal view? Every search that has any connection to a domestic person or organization should have a warrant but the process should be set up to:

1) Allow a search without a warrant if it meets certain conditions and if a warrant is obtained within, say, 72 hours. Evidence should be inadmissable if said warrant is refused.
2) Allow warrants to cover enough ground so that the investigative agencies do not have to drown themselves in paperwork but which are specific enough to protect individual rights (tricky balance)
3) Are approved FAST and through the secrecy controls of the FISA court

I do not agree that the telecom companies should get blanket immunity. There could be a middle road where the immunity applies if the program had certain parameters that were clearly in the grey zone of legality and does not apply if the program required actions that the companies performed that were clearly outside of current federal law.

Bob

Let me put up one of the lefties Ain't It Awful du jour.

They are railing against this:

"At a town hall meeting on Monday, McCain said:

Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.

In other words, the way social security has worked since the thirties is a disgrace."

The only thing that McCain can be dissed for is his inartful language. He is right on the basic issue itself. He needs our man Flint on the job.

Jeff, get ready to move up to the Bigs...

Lee

Flint Quoted Bob who wrote:

I do want to point out that I agree WHOLE-HEARTEDLY with you on this statement:

The use of the term "flip-flop" applied to any change in position is a very bad practice in American politics. There are certainly situations where it appears a politician is changing his or her position to fit the audience or to remain popular. Romney was accused of this. Kerry was guilty of it. But there are many cases where the position needs to adjust because the facts are different.

Good work!

To Clarify a personal example:

Earmarks + Doolittle OK, Earmarks + OSE = Bad because Tom McClintock opposes Earmarks... constitutes Aaron adjusting a position because the facts are different.

Huh. I really thought Lee would respond and we'd understand why he thinks we can only make progress on the demand side of the energy equation.

Not looking good for his centrist credentials... :)

Lee - Thanks for the endorsement. I have done my time on Presidential campaigns. I am retired from those. Besides, Steve Schmidt will take care of things.

Aaron - Not quite the same thing, but nice try...

Jeff

RC

Lee played hooky and went to Citrus Heights Bridge Club for an afternoon of duplicate bridge. He used up all his savvy and marbles there. He is going to need a nights sleep to recharge his savvy and get all his marbles back.

Have a little patience with an almost 69 yo who hasn't had his nap time...

See you in the morning...

Lee

Jeff - you just had it in for Doolittle, Admit it.

BTW - to all - my original comment included:

"Unfortunately, say Republican reformers, it looked like a case where the operation was a great success but the patient died. Popular though expanded drilling may be, Republicans are blamed for $4 gasoline. Away from the party leadership table, members blame a negative Republican image created by the leaders..."

How the hell can we fix the message without the most basic of Republican principles being upheld? If we can't spend responsibly? Why then should we be upset that we are getting blamed for everything else that is wrong?

The only reason why Charlie Brown even has a snowball's chance is not that McClintock is too conservative... it really has nothing to do with Doolittle other than the fact that Doolittle's poor 2006 campaign made Brown a contender...

It has to do with the fact that the Label on the package is polluted (R), and I guess it will take a supreme court with Obama moonbats on it legalizing gay marriage and euthanasia to get peoples attention!?

Maybe if there is another terrorist attack? It is like the Republican Party has shaken baby syndrome or battered woman syndrome...

To anyone thinking this is an opportunity against McClintock - you have another thing coming. The GOP leadership needs a McClintock right across the face and the 4th CD are going to embrace that.

It really has little to do with D vs R and more to do with two shades of gray in DC... this is why Obama's Change BS is selling.

McClintock is Change - (sic) can't finish a sentence, checkmate.

Okay, okay, I'll be patient. :)

Some breaking news tonight...one of Barack Obama's chief supporters, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, announces his support for efforts on the supply side of the energy equation.

How long until Barack Obama decides that he has to "move to the center" on this issue as well?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top U.S. Democratic senator said in a newspaper interview published Wednesday that he would consider supporting opening up new areas for offshore oil and gas drilling.

"I'm open to drilling and responsible production," Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin told The Wall Street Journal, adding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could also support the move.

However, Durbin said his support for opening new areas to drilling was contingent on setting requirements that oil and gas companies begin production within a specified time frame on acreage they have leased from the government.

I am not opposed to drilling either offshore or in ANWR as long as it is done with reasonable and prudent environmental controls. To be clear: Open up the fields for production but do it without creating undue risk of another Exxon Valdez incident.

If we do this don't expect the price of oil to budge much due to putting an additional 1% or 2% of reserves on line (which is what these fields represent as a portion of the world's reserves) that won't deliver any oil for several years. Even if the oil were available now the price would not change much because there is currently no short-term demand and supply problem.

Oil drilled in the U.S. will go on the world market unless someone is proposing that we nationalize our fields or try to manage some kind of tiered pricing structure discriminating against foreign buyers of our oil. Both of these are problematic both in terms of our approach to business and in practical implementation. If we do not take any price control steps then the price our oil is sold at will be set by the world market. Since the cost of extracting our oil will be relatively high compared to land-based or temperate climate fields elsewhere in the world the companies that exploit ANWR and U.S. offshore fields will be driven to sell at the highest possible price to preserve their profits. So the only impact of the oil on price will be a relatively small increase in world supply.

What's interesting is that even as the discussion in the U.S. has tipped (e.g., Durbin's announcement) toward opening up some of our protected reserves the price of oil has not moved much. Of It rose again today following the Iranian missile tests.

The real problem with oil prices isn't that we have not put a small amount of oil (in the worldwide scheme of things) into play but the fact that the world will ultimately run out of oil if demand keeps increasing against a finite supply (unless you are one of those nutty mantle-seep endless replenishment enthusiasts).

So put the supply on line. But we must take strong action to curb demand or the price impact of the new supply will be swamped by an ongoing fear that the world is running out of oil and not taking enough action to curb demand for oil through conservation and/or development of energy alternatives.

RC

Since Dickie from my native state of Illinois is providing cover for us centrist switch-hitters, if I may, I'd like to go back to your question about Charlie and faith-based community services.

Here is a little blurb about what’s up with Charlie on that issue...

Sgt. David West II, USMC
April 10, 2008

Back on March 20, something unprecedented in our country’s history happened here in Roseville. While politicians in both parties used the Iraq War Anniversary for pontificating and armchair quarterbacking, a local candidate for office (himself a 26 year vet with a son going back for his fifth rotation in Iraq) made good on a pledge to donate 5 percent of money raised in his congressional campaign to non profit organizations helping veterans and families in need. He gave away $17,500 last Thursday — just a down payment.

It’s not widely publicized, but community based non-profits do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of outreach and service delivery for veterans — and there’s a lot of heavy lifting to be done.

War carries lasting scars that aren’t always visible. One in 3 homeless is a veteran — and we don’t come home that way. Veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide, and are at greater risk for substance abuse, family and other problems than their civilian counterparts. Chronically under funded by politicians, the VA is already stretched to its breaking point—and even with recent funding increases, will be for decades to come. That’s where community based services, like the ones Charlie Brown is supporting, play the crucial role of filling in the gaps.

RC, that $17,000 presentation was just a down payment from Charlie Brown’s PROMISES KEPT Veteran’s Charity Challenge.(link)* The website counter shows
$42,073.56 as of this moment.

There were 3 non-profits who received this money. Gathering Inn which is faith-based was the site of this presentation. My wife and I have a very close relationship with Gathering Inn. My own involvement is motivated by my concern for homeless vets which goes back to 1980. I am very, very moved to know that Charlie and I stand on common ground on this issue. Every time I see a homeless vet, I think…there but for the Grace of God go I or my son…

You are a good man, Charlie Brown

* http://www.charliebrownforcongress.com/article.php?uid=762

Great post, Lee.

Unless CD4 Republicans have looked beyond the robocalls and Doolittle/RNC campaign attack mailings from 2006 to form their opinion of Charlie Brown they will be stuck with a sharply skewed view of the man and his politics.

As Lee shows above, Brown is a proponent of faith-based organizations. On another note, some here have mentioned Brown's statement on the Supreme Court decision on the DC handgun ban. Here it is for reference titled "Brown Hails Supreme Court Decision to Overturn DC Hand Gun Ban": http://www.charlieforcongress.com/files/FOR_IMMEDIATE_RELEASE_6-30-08.pdf

Lee also mentioned Brown's service and that of his son somewhere recently on this blog. Brown's wife, Jan, is also a service veteran. That's the kind of family they are.

So if you hear talk about Code Pink, Stephen Pearcy and soldiers hanging in effigy, you really ought to consider how inconsistent these statements are with who Brown and his family are. If you either accept without question or, worse, propogate unfounded smears ask yourself: Just what kind of citizen am I? We need to elevate politics in America and it starts with each of us, one person at a time.

I pledge not to accept in blind faith or propogate any smears against Tom McClintock, John McCain or any other Republican or conservative candidate for office. If I say something it will be following research and verification through valid sources. If I am proven to be incorrect I will offer a correction as visibile as the original statement.

What I'm really saying is that I believe Brown is the better candidate regardless of party affiliation and that in a fair campaign a majority of voters will agree.

Bob

Bob - Brown can't run away from his own words and the photos.

Jeff Flint blogged about how Brown waited four days and then gave a carefully worded response over the DC gun ban decision.

What I am saying here is that Brown is inconsistent.

Gentlemen - giving 5% of your campaign donations to Military Charities seems like a prop to cover for his past actions of being virulently anti-war and anti-america as demonstrated by his actions.

That's my issue - it totally looks like Brown is trying to reinvent himself.

I do not believe that the Democrats are serious about the Faith-Based charity initiative because when it was Bush's idea - the Democrats started screaming "Separation of Church and State".

Dick Durbin coming out on Oil Drilling is great - but where was he years ago when he was voting against it. Did the Dems see polling data and then decide to change their time-honored tradition?

Motivations matter as much as the issues themselves...

So, let's review.

1. Bob is okay with drilling but he thinks it's useless. He completely disagrees with the long-tested economic theory of supply and demand. He only believes that "curbing demand" will help energy prices drop. But drill anyway. (For fun?)

2. Lee thinks that Charlie giving campaign money to faith-based causes is the same as voting to direct federal funding to those organizations. Perhaps it was because it is federal campaign money, but I'm literally talking about federal government money being given to these organizations. Is Charlie for that?

3. Lee thinks Charlie Brown is a good man because he gives to charity. So do I. It is somewhat inversely implied, because we're in the middle of political discussions here, that Tom McClintock is not a good man in the same light. However, is it possible that Tom McClintock gives to charity and doesn't announce it in press releases? (He is a Christian, and his wife is a church secretary or something like that.) Or is the only good charitable donation one that you can announce in a press release?

So really, we have very few answers here about what Charlie Brown -- your candidate -- believes on a comprehensive energy solution, or on funding for faith-based organizations.

Instead, we have dodge, spin and confuse.

Are you sure you guys aren't political professionals? :)

I want to talk about my son. My son turned 27 years old in June. He is at Wright-Patterson AFB as I write this. His rank is Ssgt. He “put on” this rank April 1, 2007. He went into the USAF at Lackland in the wee small hours of 9/11 2002.

He called me earlier this year. He said that he thought it time for him to step up to the plate and volunteer to go over to Iraq. This was a very proud moment for me. It meant that I had taught him well.

He is “tagged” to go over, not to Iraq, but to Ali al Salem AB 26 miles inside Kuwait the first week of October. But this is not a done deal. He must first re-qualify with the USAF issue handgun and rifle starting August 11-12. This is a worrisome thing to me. He does extraordinarily well with the handgun but really struggles with the rifle. He is right handed but left eye dominant.

He wants to stay in the USAF for 20. He filed reenlistment papers June 15th. But if he does not qualify with the rifle, that may be a deal breaker. If one is not deployable, one has little value to any branch of the military service.

Something happened last week to take some of the worry away from his dad and step-mom. The new GI Bill sponsored by Jim Webb and others passed the US Senate. My son will now be eligible for 90,000 dollars to attend a college of his choice.

Lest one wonder if he would be able to do college work, there is a trophy in the trophy case at Edgewood High School in Ellettsville Indiana which is a testimony to his academic prowess. He was the captain of a 4 student team that won the Hoosier Academic Super Bowl in 1997. This was and is the only state championship that Edgewood has ever won in anything. To show this was not a fluke, he took 3 other guys back his senior year and came in 2nd.

Who had my son’s back? It was not McCain. Who between Charlie Brown and Tom McClintock would have had my son’s back?

Who would have not only my son’s back, but everyone’s back who steps up to serve this great nation and for some reason or another has to be honorably separated from the military service?

It is the bargain struck with all our young men and women who serve with honor…

Promises Kept…

See, you're proving my point -- a centrist you are not. Ignore the issues that were raised, and instead roll out the partisan Democratic bill that was loaded with poison pills to try and get Republicans to vote against it.

Finally, trot out the same old attacks that those who voted against the partisan bill don't care about veterans, blah blah blah.

Spin, dodge and confuse.

What's funny is...these attacks seem really familiar. Where have I heard these before?

Oh right, it was the Ose campaign. Which McClintock beat by 15 points.

Don't worry. Charlie will do a little better than that. But prepare to lose.

You -- and Charlie -- are professional Democratic pols. You're smart and effective. But you're running in Placer County. So fight hard and carry your liberal banner. Just don't expect to win.

But I am learning something from you guys. Next time you ask me a question, I'll be sure to ignore it and post completely unrelated anecdotes. :)

P.S. Any chance you can actually answer the questions about energy or faith-based federal funding?

In re-reading the last two posts here, I'd like to add the following point.

First, I applaud your son for his service to our country. He sounds like a great person, and anyone willing to wear the uniform and serve receives a great deal of gratitude from me.

Second, claiming that John McCain doesn't have your son's back simply because he wouldn't vote yes to give your son more money -- well frankly, it's sort of similar to the attacks that you referenced earlier in South Carolina, where John McCain was accused of "deserting our veterans."

That's just utter baloney -- and I think you should be ashamed of yourself for making that comment.

If I were Senator for a day, I can't tell you how I would have voted on that bill. Maybe I would have voted yes, maybe I would have voted no.

But claiming that John McCain doesn't have the back of every single man or woman wearing the uniform is preposterous. His lifelong record of standing up for veterans contradicts you.

Well

John McCain didn't have my son's back last week. And his attempt to explain his vote to a grizzled Vietnam vet a couple of days ago was rambling and hard to follow. If you can make heads or tails out what he said, you translate it for this vet and me...

With McCain, what is done is done. I know that Charlie Brown will have my son back, and all our sons and daughters in the military as well.

I am pulling for McClintock to clearly articulate where he stands on military personnel issues. Of course we are talking about spending money from Uncle Sam's collection plate...

Aaron:

Re the Lincoln Club as "country clubbers." Jeff is absolutely right. Being successful doesn't make one a "country-club" GOPer.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but as far as the Lincoln Club goes, you're opinion is flat wrong.

Jubal - you're nice and late to the gate. Jeff and I settled our disagreement, or did you fail to read the above comments?

RC said: "1. Bob is okay with drilling but he thinks it's useless. He completely disagrees with the long-tested economic theory of supply and demand. He only believes that "curbing demand" will help energy prices drop. But drill anyway. (For fun?)"

RC, did you read my entire post? Why don't you respond to this part:

"If we do this [drill for oil offshore and in ANWR] don't expect the price of oil to budge much due to putting an additional 1% or 2% of reserves on line (which is what these fields represent as a portion of the world's reserves) that won't deliver any oil for several years. Even if the oil were available now the price would not change much because there is currently no short-term demand and supply problem.

Oil drilled in the U.S. will go on the world market unless someone is proposing that we nationalize our fields or try to manage some kind of tiered pricing structure discriminating against foreign buyers of our oil. Both of these are problematic both in terms of our approach to business and in practical implementation. If we do not take any price control steps then the price our oil is sold at will be set by the world market. Since the cost of extracting our oil will be relatively high compared to land-based or temperate climate fields elsewhere in the world the companies that exploit ANWR and U.S. offshore fields will be driven to sell at the highest possible price to preserve their profits. So the only impact of the oil on price will be a relatively small increase in world supply."

RC, I have an advanced degree in business and understand demand and supply. I understand that putting an additional 1% or 2% of supply online in seven to ten years is going to have a negligible effect on the price of oil. I ask again: Why do you think it will make a big difference?

Remember: The current price of oil has some expectation that the U.S. will put our reserves into play ALREADY BUILT INTO IT. That means if we announce tomorrow that we will open up ANWR and offshore some may go "ho hum" because they are already expecting that. And the price will move even less as a result.

"Remember: The current price of oil has some expectation that the U.S. will put our reserves into play ALREADY BUILT INTO IT. That means if we announce tomorrow that we will open up ANWR and offshore some may go "ho hum" because they are already expecting that. And the price will move even less as a result."

Bob, are you serious? Is that a serious statement? Do you really think that the oil markets believe that the United States is about to tap reserves offshore, in North Dakota and in ANWR? You're kidding, right?

NOBODY believes that the US is going to do that, because we have a tangled mass of environmentalist regulations based on the ideology that Lee espouses -- everyone needs to just sit at home, be pessimists, put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat. (By the way, I hope the Democrats keep espousing that -- it resulted in my favorite President getting elected in 1980.)

Let me ask you this question. Did supply fall, or demand increase, by a combined 100%, to cause oil prices to soar from $70 to $144 per barrel?

(Hint...the answer is no.)

So why did the price go up 100%?

Because the market is pricing the exact opposite expectations into the future. The market sees the US not increasing supply, and Venezeula and the Middle East have no political or economic reason to increase supply either. The market also sees China's booming demand for oil, and figures the US is going to keep up its demand because it has no choice in a global economic competition.

So the market sees LOW supply and HIGH demand in the future. Seriously, Bob, are you going to deny that economic fact?

If we were to undertake a ten year plan to simultaneously increase production of oil in the United States and build the new energy technologies we need to dramatically cut our reliance on oil, we could play a HUGE role in creating higher supply, and lower demand.

And if the market saw the United States "taking some money out of Uncle Sam's collection plate and dangling it in front of smart people" (to quote Lee), the market most definitely WOULD begin pricing that new reality into the price of oil.

And the price of oil would drop significantly. Probably not back to $70 immediately -- but it most definitely would drop like a rock.

But please -- keep up with the message of sweaters and thermostats. John McCain appreciates all the help he can get in the wake of the overspending of this last administration. :)