"It will stain your soul"

I am glad to get back to real issues after the 2-3 day descent into Ed Norton Land. And I will have lots to says about energy issues. And we will leave the zero sum game gotcha politics behind if those who comment here wish to eschew the "cheapies".

But first about the headline.

I had a talk with my closest earthly spiritual advisor this morning. I asked SA if SA considered me to be a "decent man".
I got a wary response. "Why do you ask?" I immediately began to feel defensive. I didn't like that question. After some squirming internally, I told SA that I was going to put out here all the info about the one who was swift-boating Charlie Brown re his patriotism.

SA said, you need to stop. I said I could not fight back at a disadvantage as to weaponry or methods. SA then went into checkmating mode on me. "Yes you are a decent man. It is your values." I said, "What values?. SA said, You are fair, tempered by kindness. You hate cruelty." Then the checkmate move, "It will stain your soul."

(fade to black)

What would be a win win bipartisan energy policy? One that would shelve the one-upsmanship game in favor of serving the American People

I Googled “bipartisan energy policy” and this came up at the top:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy2-2008aug02,0,5500595.story

This story is over three weeks old, but not ancient history. It describes Senators, a group of ten, five from each party who have taken the lead on this. Thinking about this, it seems that it makes sense for Senators to take the lead on crafting a bipartisan energy plan. They are less vulnerable to the 2 year election cycles. This allows them to stand albeit with some temerity above the tumult and the shout.

Excerpt:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) initiated the bipartisan talks several weeks ago, approaching (Sen., D. ND) Conrad after another day of partisan warfare in the Senate over energy policy.

Chambliss acknowledged that the bipartisan talks irked party leaders. "The fact that they're uncomfortable means we're doing the right thing," he said.

But though the proposed compromise enjoys bipartisan support, the five Democrats who endorsed it hail from states that voted for Bush in 2004.

Other senators putting forth the plan are Democrats Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska; and Republicans Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Thune of South Dakota.

I think the money quote is from Sen. Chambliss, R. GA,” . "The fact that they're uncomfortable means we're doing the right thing,"

This is a positive move for America…

Thanks be to God…

Another poll I saw yesterday that was very interesting was the Gallup Poll, showing McCain has pulled ahead by two points. Not only has Joe Biden not done anything for NObama's polling numbers, but the Convention has seemed to do little as well. This is quite rare.

I'm glad you raised the energy issue again, Aaron. It's true, Nancy Pelosi and the Dems have switched their stances on this issue significantly, and it will be funny to watch Charlie Brown do the same. He might have to change that energy policy proposal he has on his website now that Pelosi has flipped on the issue.

I am certain that Charlie Brown won't hold his ground on this one, because like many other issues, he will say anything to get elected. It's obvious that we, the consumers, are in favor of drilling and so Charlie will go along I'm sure, for now. But I don't trust a word he says. If elected, he'd soon revert back to his old liberal ways. Environmentalist groups first! Sierra Club, ACLU, CodePink cards in hand.

Nice Reach - Cheap Shot Lee...

America is to the right of the Gang of Ten proposal, it does not even come close to where America is with regard to the poll numbers.

The 1/4 measures in the proposal aren't going to come close to a solution.

In the course of your first post - it hit me that Brown has not moved from parroting Nancy Pelosi's talking points and she is to the left of the 1/4 measures in the gang of ten proposal.

Charlie is nowhere on this issue.

Day 4 of the effigy watch - still no answers, just whining. Will Charlie Man Up and take ownership of his anti-war activities? Will he set me on fire and issue a flat denial?

You can't call me dirty on this issue and continue to avoid answering...

Meanwhile Brown refuses to answer the no new taxes pledge...

The Colonel is getting overrun by the General.

Wow. 87% back government funds for renewable energy such as wind and solar power. What has Tom had to say about this? Nothing. No plan, no details, no ideas, no action.

Wow. 78% back mandating higher mileage standards for cars. What say Tom on this? Nothing.

The Democrats plan includes all of the above - drilling, conservation and renewables. The Republicans plan? It's all about drilling and giving lip service to conservation and renewables.

It looks like the Democratic plan is much more in line with the American people than what Republicans are pushing. As I have said here before they can win the battle on drilling but lose the war on energy with voters.

Davido your data is old. Obama is back on top in Gallup's latest daily poll 45% to 44%: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109873/Gallup-Daily-Race-Still-Close-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx Guess the convention is working after all since it's given Obama a three-point lift in one day. Meanwhile, in a state-by-state look at polls and the likely electoral vote--which is all that matters--Obama still holds a commanding lead:

electoral-vote.com/

and
rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

Sorry!

Bob

We need to show our support for a 5-year plan which includes more drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. Visit http://cea2.advocacyinteractive.com/?cea=blg.

The Democrats plan says ONLY renewable energy and says nothing about what do we do about today. The GOP plan includes ALL OF THE ABOVE - and since the GOP won't back down on Drilling, madam Pelosi is torping the whole thing. That is called narrow-minded.

There's your problem - the reason why Dems are losing the energy battle is the obsessive stranglehold that the enviros have on their throats and their refusal to acknowledge that we need to drill and build.

All we get from you Bob are excuses and partial answers to issues. You know, the commodities market argument, the 10 years away argument, the shale oil won't work argument... that is why Charlie is going to get hammered.

If done today - McC 55 Brown 43

if this blog is an indicator - McC 65 Brown 34. You have 73 days to make it worse for Charlie, so go out and earn your money.

From OpenSecrets.org...

Big oil contributions over the last ten election cycles:

Republicans - 75% Over $166 million.
Democrats - 25%

This year:

Republicans - 74% Over $14.7 million (so far).
Democrats - 25%

Environmental contributions to Democrats over the last ten election cycles: A little over $16 million.

This year: About $1.3 million...less than one tenth what Big Oil has given to the Grand Oil Party this year.

I wonder who is in a stranglehold? Money talks. BS walks. Take a hike, Aaron.

Sorry you guys totally screwed up your "permanent majority". Maybe you ought to spend a moment and wonder why.

Bob

Attn: Anon Commenters - Bob is fair game as he is anonymous.

Bob - the only person who will be taking a hike is Colonel Klink.

As usual Bob - you ignore the main points about PACS and 527's whose money dwarf that of "Big Oil".

There is one thing the Luddites do well - buy influence, how else could we have tons of underbrush and overly dense forests with a blizzard of lawsuits keeping them that way? It make no other sense then to play follow the money who people do irration things (like ignore fire protection)

Bob - when you and Colonel Klink left the Fire Summit early before the Sierra Club came, it showed us a lot.

Bob, you are a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.

Aaron

The first time I saw you use "Luddites" I thought that you were a closet intellectual masquerading as a slackjaw. Then I came across McClintock's boffo performance down at SoCal O&V in which he gets "Luddites" into his knee-slapping narrative.

McClintock disassembles global warming at Western CPAC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913877/posts

Aaron shows his mettle as a McClintock parrothead shouting out almost word for word McClintock's words.

"They’ve also forbidden the clearance of flammable brush from around your home in areas like Lake Tahoe – that’s an affront to Mother Nature."

It is well established that McClintock is very close to radical extremist Christian Reconstructionist Stoos and Stoos' CRA buddy Aaron Park. Aaron Park has stated publically that he has "issues" with Pastor Rick Warren.

Could this be the main "issue"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html

Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative

Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."

Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life."

"For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority," the statement said. "Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough."

Ummm...Pastor Rick Warren doesn't kowtow to McClintock, Stoos, and Park..

That would be an issue, I'm sure

Lee - that was the closest you have ever gotten to actually debating an issue - I am proud of you.

You're dead wrong that the eco stuff is my issue with Rick Warren. However, even Rick would agree that inhaling smoke for three weeks due to wildfires made worse by Sierra Club endorsed forest management is being a poor steward of our natural resources.

Everything else is a cheap shot on your part.

Luddites are the right term to use on the Eco movement and we have been explaining as such for a long time. However, Charlie and you are going to have to find out the hard way at the ballot box.

Why fire protection is even a debate is beyond me...

Aaron,

Post some facts about 527s and how they have contributed to Deomcrats and caused them to back environmental energy initiatives in a way that runs against the national interest. PACs are already included in the data I provided. Do some research, post some facts and their sources.

While you are at it, why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY how the Sierra Club has increased the risk of forest fires. Take me to a Department of the Interior or USFS study not some conservative megaphone site like Worldnet Daily.

If you can't post some facts then it would be best to just shut up.

Face it, you're just a shouter. You have little to offer in terms of genuine information. You just shout louder and louder and hope people will hear you.

Bob

They aren't listening

Bobby - start with the fact that the Sierra Club has been in print in local media multiple times as being behind complaints / lawsuits to stop clearing / thinning of forests.

Talk to any forester / ranger and they will tell you.

BTW - still no answers on the effigy / gay marriage / energy plan that is a clone of pelosi's / no new taxes pledge... the list is growing.

Fascinating comment with your spiritual advisor Lee. It begs the question though, not as a gotcha but because I am simply curious... Why do you continue to operate on this level of politics if you think it might "stain your soul"? I've already said that I don't like politics, so this strikes a chord with me.

More to the issues, I do think that bipartisanship is good, but I think getting it right is more important. From glancing at that article Mr. Reed, it seems that -- to me -- it does not focus on increasing supply enough. particularly through opening up the west coast as well as the east. It can be done with extreme care for the environment and very low risk of spills. The minuses are practically non-existent, unless you just despise oil companies, as I respectfully believe many on the left do.

Which brings me to another point, for you Bob. An American oil company is, at its very simplest, a group of citizens. Their donations of money to political groups they support effectively constitute free speech. It is unfair to complain about their speech more than the speech of, say, the Sierra Club, simply because someone doesn't like the business a company is in (despite gassing up their car to drive places on a routine basis). I don't particularly like oil companies myself, but I recognize that they should have a right just as anyone else to make political contributions. Though the Democrats focus on it often, it is actually not very important that Republicans get a lot of money from oil interests.

More importantly, Bob, I think you assume the worst about your Republican adversaries. You imply that Republicans do the bidding of oil companies because they owe their donors for the money that keeps them in power. But I don't think you actually could say either way whether the opposite order is the actual one – that Republicans support oil companies for whatever ideological or philosophical reasons, and that oil companies then donate to Republicans because they know Republicans generally are on their side.

It has struck me recently how silly it is for some Democrats -- including Charlie Brown -- to bemoan the power of "Big Oil" in American politics, how sinister and manipulative those companies supposedly are, and then in the next breath many of the same Democrats are outraged that oil companies donate more heavily to Republicans. Perhaps these interests would donate to Democrats if said politicians didn't spend all their time "hatin'" on the oil industry? Big Oil makes for a very easy bad guy, probably second only to Big Tobacco, but that doesn't mean they aren't aware of which party bases a significant amount of its platform on Big Oil being the Big Villain. I think the Lt. Colonel could speak more fairly when it comes to the oil companies. If Mr. Park is wrong that Brown is attached to the hip of Nancy Pelosi, I think a good way for Brown to show it would be to lay off the oil companies -- not to mention actually promoting offshore drilling.

Is it so ridiculous that Republicans might, just might, say what they say regarding America's energy policy because they simply believe it, and the oil companies with their donations follow after that? As has been said in many other contexts, correlation does not equal causation. Besides, if you were in charge of the political wing of an oil company, do you really think you'd give just as much to Democrats as to Republicans? I doubt it.

It is dangerous to assume the worst about your enemies. It tends to make them do the same. If Charlie Brown's campaign motto is true, patriotism above partisanship, then his supporters should not be so quick to make out the Republicans to be unthinking lackeys for Big Oil.

If Bob or Mr. Reed is suspicious of my partisanship based on a seeming support of McClintock in energy policy, I am sorry to disappoint. I happen to think McClintock is just about bang on in energy policy. You two happen to think he is wrong. This is how it works.

I would also like to correct the record and point out that McClintock does indeed stress alternative sources of energy -- just not to the hyper-level that the Law Offices of Pelosi, Reid, Reed, and Bob do. (Permit me a partisan joke once in a while, eh?)

The Democrats are in disarray, on energy, in their convention, and in the election. I would be nervous if I was the Lt. Col.

Regards to all involved,
Hector

Aaron,

Post a reference and tie it to fires. You are lazy and I'm calling you on it. As far as I know what you say is accurate. But you offer no evidence and with your track record of a very loose hold on veracity I'm not going to buy anything you say unless you post some specific, verifiable and valid references.

Bob

Gheez Bob - I am owed a hell of a lot more answers.

Why don't you catch up - Charlie was there at the fire summit when the Sierra Club crashed it. Oh, wait, he left so that he would not have to take a stand.

That behavior is enough to raise eyebrows.

How about some answers "Bob" not only as to who you are, but the effigy, anti-war activity, no new taxes pledge, ACLU, NRA, pay a fine immigration and gay marriage.

I am getting short-shift here. So get off your high horse and provide some answers.

So here you go - I am calling you on your evasiveness. Come get some...

Hector,

My father worked for Big Oil for thirty years. Mammoth Oil Company, in fact, followed by Texaco. I know a little bit about oil companies. I worked for Texaco, Inc., myself for a time. I've done a fair amount of reading about the industry. Saints they ain't.

Perhaps you have heard of the Teapot Dome scandal since you are a student of history? That involved Mammoth, the oil company my father worked at. He was an oil prospector in West Texas and New Mexico between the wars. Of course Teapot Dome is ancient history. I think you know there are plenty of more recent examples of undue influence.

If you truly believe big oil is rewarding Republicans "because they know Republicans generally are on their side" it's just a sign that you haven't seen enough of the world yet. Give it time. Unfortunately your idealism will fade as years experiencing reality start to pile up. By the way, I haven't heard you challenge Aaron's assertion that Democrats are in the pockets of environmentalists. Why is that?

Freedom of speech. A concept intended to apply to individuals has been extended to corporations. Once again your idealism shows through. I suspect you know how most corporations are run. Only the largest shareholders and senior management have any real say in what the company does. My company contributes millions to politicians and political organizations each year. As both a shareholder and an employee I have no say about that. None. The free speech argument when applied to corporations is just an excuse to give a handful of people an additional avenue for influence.

On the question of motives, one wonders whether some of Mr. McClintock's personal friends will benefit from offshore drilling in areas, say, near Santa Barbara which is in his Senate district today? The city's leaders just voted in support of drilling again after almost thirty years, of course. That might be worthy of some journalistic nosing around.

You say "I happen to think McClintock is just about bang on in energy policy". Please explain how you think his policy will get us away from foreign oil, Hector. Bush's DoE says that at best--drilling all domestic sources including offshore and ANWR--we can reduce our imported oil from 70% to 64% of what we consume. The most likely figure is 67%. That's after twenty years of full-scal and successful development. How is drilling a good stand-alone policy? And if it isn't what--specifically--will McClintock do to conserve energy or invest in alternatives?

It seems to me that the Lt. Col., as you call him, has a better grip on the national defense issues bound up in the energy debate than your man McClintock who has, let's admit, no experience with foreign policy or national defense. We need to invest in technology that will reduce oil consumption or we will never get that number down to a level where we are no longer held hostage. Surely--as a student of history--you understand that? Why did Japan go to war, after all? Oil and steel, that's why. Why are we in Iraq today? Oh, never mind. I'm sure your idealism won't permit you to think for even one second that maybe oil had some part to play in THAT decision.

So I think you have talked yourself into supporting McClintock without truly thinking through the issues. Perhaps you really are a social conservative and are finding reasons to support him beyond abortion and gay marriage. Or maybe your parents have been lifelong Republicans and--as yet--you haven't been exposed to many new ideas yet.

You say you go to Davis. That's a politically moderate student body. You can probably find plenty of people who have different views than you do, I'm sure. I recommend you seek out some of them to augment the diet of conservatism you have apparently had for many years (as reflected by your well-written comments). You might be pleasantly surprised.

Bob

Aaron,

Post a reference and tie it to fires. You are lazy and I'm calling you on it--again. As far as I know what you say is accurate. But you offer no evidence and with your track record of a very loose hold on veracity I'm not going to buy anything you say unless you post some specific, verifiable and valid references.

Bob

I'm about to go for a walk with "Mrs. Hector" to paraphrase Lee Reed, but quickly I'll choose the most salient points of your comment to address.

I am something of an idealist, yes. But in many ways I also think I am a realist. For example, I would call you an idealist in thinking that there is any fair or reasonable way to regulate free speech and political donations. You are an idealist for the capabilities of government. I am an idealist for freedom and the capabilities of the individual. Important distinction.

I do basically think Democrats are in the pockets of environmentalists. Mr. Park is right. But rather than money being the main currency, it might instead be guilt. The media give a free play to the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, et al. The environmentalists have emotion on their side. Look at the poor bear, the poor wolf, the poor eagle, the poor river, the poor trees. I'm not saying I don't proudly want to protect every part of nature I just listed. All I'm saying is that it's a very easy, marketable story to defend the environment, and Democrats know that. Whatever the answer may be to the 527's and PAC's issue, it is certain that "green" lobbying groups get very easy, very good press. A good press is as good as money when it comes to elections.

Oil definitely had some things to do with Iraq. Maintaining access to a tremendously important resource in the Middle East is certainly a consideration. But I don't think it was a predominant one.

I have to give a friendly laugh at the idea that Davis is a politically moderate student body. Say that again after listening to the communists who called for slitting the throats of police officers on the Quad last year -- with loudspeakers and nary a whisper from the university.

Regards to all involved,
Hector

Hector,

I guess you haven't spent much time on campus at Berkeley or, for that matter, most anywhere else in the U.S. I have been a student at four major universities in my life on both the west and east coasts. ALL of them had some people in the center square making speeches about communism and calling for anarchy or something similar. There's a radical fringe everywhere though maybe you won't see them out making speeches about killing police at Bob Jones or SMU. On those campuses you might instead see students calling for the bombing of abortion centers. Ugliness is everywhere, Hector. UCD is pretty much in the middle of the road in the scheme of things as far as university campuses go.

You say these ugly speeches met "nary a whisper from the university". What would you propose the Administration do about these people, Hector? Shut down free speech? I thought you were something of a free speech advocate? Now I'm getting confused.

But I stray from the point which is you seem to have developed a very fixed political philosophy for one so young and I wonder why. It takes a certain amount of very conservative mental conditioning to see make the leap to the idea that Democrats support the environment because they feel guilty, or to ignore the basic realities of the energy issue which are that oil is a finite resource and that we cannot drill our way to cheap oil prices or energy independence.

And you also made the leap to your statement that I don't condone free speech just because I made the obvious point that corporate contributions really reflect the interests of only a few people as opposed to all of the shareholders as you seem to believe. Maybe you also think I don't support free speech because I pointed out that Republicans get a disproportionate share of oil & gas interest contributions.

No, all I said was that these contributions--which by and large come from some very well-off people with a vested interest--are intended to influence legislation in favor of that vested interest. To think otherwise is naive.

Or you may be simply acting coy when you say "An American oil company is, at its very simplest, a group of citizens. Their donations of money to political groups they support effectively constitute free speech." Your legal concept is correct but the assumption in your statement that the people making decisions on political contributions are all of the shareholders (who I guess is what you mean by a “group of citizens”) is absurd. It's top management with the implicit support of major individual shareholders and the fund managers of the largest institutional investment shareholders. In fact, if you look at the shareholder movement to reduce investments in South Africa during the apartheid period you can see just how difficult it is to make change happen within corporations from outside. Unlike that effort there is no significant action today to organize oil & gas investors to spread their political contributions more evenly. In the scheme of things the issue just isn't that important to shareholders. It's a reality that they accept (and even benefit from) and that I am simply reporting on here.

Bottom line: Follow the money. Republicans receive far more money from oil & gas interests than Democrats and that money is an order of magnitude larger than the contributions Democrats receive from environmental special interest groups. You also neglected to consider the massive ad spending by oil companies designed to influence public opinion in their favor (witness “green” BP, for example). This more than offsets the meager lift environmental groups get from "friendly" media reporting. And at some level, Hector, you've got to wonder: Is the reason movements to encourage energy conservation and development of alternative fuels get a lot of "free" publicity simply because they have a better idea than quixotically trying to drill our way out of this problem?

Finally, you say I am an “idealist for the capabilities of government". I don't know where you got that; maybe it's just that you think that since all liberals believe bigger government is better government and because I support Brown I am a liberal then I believe big government is better government, too. That's funny because I have never said that and that train of logic—if true—is very strained.

But now that you mention it I think there are ways government can motivate and direct the private sector and we are far from effectively using all of these tools today. For example, the use of government money (in the form of tax credits, in particular) to encourage oil exploration far outstrips the amount of money the government is using to incent conservation and development of alternative energy sources. Simply shifting the balance can make an extraordinary difference in the speed of demand reduction and energy source substitution through private sector efforts. No government bureaucracy is required at all. McClintock is not calling for this shift; he is instead calling for continued focus on oil supply which, ultimately, is a dead-end street.

As an example at an individual level I have a quote in hand right now from a solar electric installation firm for the installation of either 20 or 24 solar panels on my roof. Given Schwarzenegger's California Solar Initiative rebate (through PG&E), the federal tax credit and a rebate funded by my company this system will generate positive cash flow from day one. In the past installing a solar electric system would take years to get to this point. But now I will enjoy positive cash flow on this investment immediately while also adding value to my home dollar for dollar on the investment and reducing my electricity demand from the grid by almost 50%.

Some will say I'm a "solar energy welfare recipient" for using tax money from other people to subsidize my energy costs. These people fail to understand that the price of the oil that they buy is not only subsidized by tax credits it is subsidized by the money spent by the United States on sea lane security and to provide security and stability to oil-producing nations that supply to the U.S. A large percentage of our oil comes from the Middle East; if the oil companies had to bear the cost of protecting their facilities and their tankers how much do you think oil would cost? This is a real savings for the oil companies. Oil is our most important import; we all know without these imports our economy would grind to a halt. This fact is a major consideration in national defense and is something I am acutely aware of from my own experience in the Navy and as a Gulf War vet having seen Middle East oil operations and our security first hand.

So, Hector, I encourage you to think about the energy issue in broader terms than how Tom McClintock has framed it. That narrow view is against the interests of the United States and most of its citizens.

Thanks,

Bob

Bob

Trust me on this one. When someone regresses into incorporating "commie" into a blog comment, there is no way, no how that you are going to get through to them. Also the "stilted" manner of expressing oneself is a marker.

Lee

Lee,

Yeah, Hector's posts read like someone who studied English as a second language for many years. Not really the style of an American-born college student. Not to many people say they have to "give a friendly laugh" at anything.

Bob

Bob - you are the last anon coward who can say anything about friendly.

Bob, you bones are hollow. Impiety has mad a feast of you.

OK Bob and Reed, have it your way -- hyper partisan with an extra helping of condescension.

Thanks for lecturing me about my own university, Bob. But I am aware of the political demographics of other schools. I have friends in college politics across the country, and have been to and read plenty of other schools. I don't have to oddly bounce through four schools or whatever to understand the spectrum. UCD is up there in wacko liberalism, as a less well known version of Berkeley with a little more of an emphasis on the environment. Nonetheless, I love my school and would never transfer.

I did not call for UC Davis to shut down any protesters I don't like. But far right protesters would get a serious condemnation from the university, and the administration would probably find some technical violation to shut them down (security concerns or some such garbage). Thanks for the ignorance of the double standard, though.

Furthermore Bob, thanks for the absolute funniest thing I've ever seen on this blog. If you think I learned English as a second language, I'd wager your powers of perception are pretty weak elsewhere too, which explains a lot. Given that I comment with the name "Hector" if I were liberal I would whine with outrage for days at how racist your stereotype is. Since I'm a conservative, however, I don't obsess over race -- and I don't give a d_mn about your amusingly idiotic observation.

I said that I had to "give a friendly laugh" to be -- surprise surprise -- friendly. That's a mistake I won't make a second time.

And Reed, if anyone even mentions communists they are suddenly radical right wingers? Nice viewpoint, except that it says more about your close-mindedness than it does about mine. And stilted manner of speaking? So when you complimented my writing ability before it was simply to get at Aaron Park and not anything you actually believed. So for the sake of an insult you made a false statement. Oh yes... Duty, Honor, Country indeed!

You know what else? I've tried to avoid being too hard on Charlie Brown, but I guess I'll stop bothering, if Bob and Reed are any indication of the quality of his supporters. So, the much-vaunted Lt. Col. Charlie Brown is a political neophyte who fails to understand how to handle the conservative voters of the 4th CD. He knows he is too liberal, and yet his attempts to feign right are predictable and foolish. Charlie Brown will not win, and he will never rise to such a level as a House race in politics again. Little known local races will be his destiny, if he does not fade away altogether. He should've stuck with the Roseville PD.

Notice a difference in comments Bob and Reed? That was all you. Nice job promoting patriotism before partisanship or whatever tripe Brown invented.

Regards to all except Bob and Reed,
Hector

"Wacko liberalism"?

What happened to "moderate conservative", Hector? You are nothing but a right-wing, Rush Limbaugh-inspired pathological liar. You lied about your political philosophy and misrepresented yourself to us here. Your only agenda has been to stir things up and then lay down the McClintock talking points one after the other. Now you get mad when you are called to the carpet for being a fake.

Yes, I have trouble believing your college-student story. I don't care where you are originally from but all you have said is that your parents recently moved to Newcastle (or Penryn or something) and you are a student at UCD. Maybe your family is part of the Cuban exile community which is well known for extremely conservative politics and voting 90% Republican (though this is changing). Maybe you didn't want us to know that because you knew it would blow your cover as a "moderate". Whatever your story is there is much more to it than you have let on.

I had a roommate at the U.S. Naval Academy Prep School who was a Cuban exile which is why I mentioned that possibility. Man, I blew it when I told him I thought John Kennedy had done some great things as president. He exploded and wouldn't speak to me for several days. That's when I first learned how passionate that community is about its politics. Once he cooled down we talked about it some and I learned more about why my Kennedy comment caused such a reaction from him. Since I proofread many of his papers for him (and vice versa) I still remember the way he wrote. He had been educated at a private school in Miami and wrote very well but there was something different about it. Lee calls it "stilted". I don't know. But your writing style reminds me very much of his. That could just be because you are trying to write for a character you aren't. But something's not quite right.

It's not about race. I opened my home for an entire summer to a family of four from Mexico my wife had met who had no other place to live. I did it again for a mother and her baby later. I have many Latin friends in Puerto Rico, Brazil, Mexico and Spain in addition to Hispanic Americans here in Placer County. I love their culture. My kids all speak Spanish. No, it's not about race. It's that you don't seem to be who you say you are. Your emerging political views and your writing are strong clues.

As a result I am going to simply assume you are part of the McClintock Campaign--maybe as a student volunteer, who knows--sent here to help out poor struggling Aaron who has been getting knocked over regularly by Lee and myself. That will be tough because the facts--as shown by my dissection of McClintock's flyer--are not on your side.

Bob