Exactly right Aaron. Nice of Charlie Brown to try and pull a fast one on these debates. The press release should have read "Brown FINALLLY agrees to debate McClintock".
I've been told Brown has been ducking the McClintock campaign for several weeks now. McClintock proposed 8 debates, one in each county, to let voters see how liberal Brown really is. I hope his Code Pink, Sierra Club, ACLU buddies show up for this too, Aaron. These debates are going to be a disaster for Brown. Don't make any mistake, Stennhouse has just thrown a low blow on this one, but in the end it's Charlie who's going to be wishing he had never agreed to these debates in the first place.

Dave

You left out Pelosi. Gotta get up to speed on the dog-whistling thing...

Usually the candidate who wants more debates is trailing in the polls.

Lee - you keep whining for variety. I like to make sure that the Brown Repitoire is cycled and re-cycled. Which why do you want it?

Bob - you need to go get Neal, that way Neal and Bob can take turns on me. Maybe you should get 10 or 15 of your paid walkers from Berkley to make it a fair fight on this blog.

If that is all you can come up with - good Lord. Looks like McClintock is up by at least ten.

Bob

We are seein' an upsurge of da ol' East Chicago action, not with Saturday night specials, but with pea shooters...

Uff da

I dunno, Aaron.

This just out from the Pew Research Center:

More Americans want church and politics separate: poll
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_religion_politics_dc

"A huge shift came from voters who described themselves as conservative, with 50 percent saying churches should stay out of politics compared to 30 percent in 2004.

Among Republicans, 51 percent held this view, up from 37 percent in August of 2004."

Trends don't seem to be going your way.

Good, Charlie needs to call on Black Chruches to discontinue flaunting their tax exempt status to campaign for Obama. (like they did for Clinton as well)

Do that and I will be impressed.

Also, it's been--what, Lee?--two weeks since McClintock's robo phone poll and the three questions. Yet we haven't heard a peep. I would have expected the results to have been trumpeted from the highest peaks had the results shown a decided McClintock advantage. But--nothing.

Why?

Up ten points, you say:

Well good work Aaron. You are following the Dan Quayle playbook:

"Votes are like trees, if you are trying to build a forest. If you have more trees than you have forests, then at that point the pollsters will probably say you will win"

So you maybe should go easy on the Sierra Club, they are your friends.

Bob,
Usually the candidate with 50% of the voters registered under his party wins. Try that on for size. McClintock just wants to do eight debates because that's how Lincoln and Douglas did it, one debate for each major city in Illinois. I'm sure you knew that. But spin it however you want, Brown is gonna lose by a landslide. And yes Lee, I did leave out Pelosi, he should bring her. Maybe a hanging soldier from one of his Code Pink rallies would really hit home with voters too. You never know about this guy. He's a sneaky one...

First off, I don't understand why Bob and Mr. Reed seem to be suspicious of anyone but the original three participating in this dialog. If they would like to pressure other commenters out, I guess they are free to do so, but it does not speak well of the confidence they are supposed to have in their beliefs.

I have been reading this blog for a while (for reasons I am happy to explain since people seem to care so much about motives) and I would like to have been commenting, but I have not had much time. The debate on this post seems to have strayed pretty far off topic, but I would like to point out what is missing -- a denial from the Brown supporters that the Lt. Col. jumped the gun on the press release without letting the McClintock campaign know. If he did go for a cheap publicity stunt, regardless of how righteous he may feel in this campaign, he loses some of my respect. And I actually do have some respect for him, even though I generally disagree with him.

A military man should know better.

Hello David,

Yeah, usually the candidate with a registration advantage wins. But not very often so far in 2008 for Republicans. And it didn't work for Doolittle in 2006. He got less votes than his own party's registration numbers.

What on Earth does it matter what Lincoln and Douglas did 150 years ago in Illinois? Are you serious? That shows yet another facet of Tom's personality that is downright weird.

Sorry you guys are so worried that you're here frantically rebutting the nay-sayers who think Tom ain't the greatest thing since canned beer or sliced bread.

Bob

Now Neal er. Bob - let's keep the references to Beer down.

It's kind of like talking about John Doolittle and Tom McClintock being the same thing - makes me wonder if it is just Beer you're drinking.

McClintock hasn't had the Auburn Journal and the Sacramento Bee after his ass for 18 years like Doolittle. But the differences only start there...

Hector,

What does being a "military man" have to do with debate negotiations? Maybe you are in the know as to how these negotiations have been unfolding. I haven't so I can't comment on Brown's press release.

But I do remember that Doolittle was so afraid of debating Brown that it took an acto of Congress (I jest) to pin him down to the ONE debate that was aired on some obscure cable channel and limited to very few people in person. Most people who saw it had to watch it on fourteen You Tube segments. Maybe Brown learned something from that.

Meanwhile, welcome to the forum. Tell us a little about yourself!

Thanks,

Bob

Hector,

What does being a "military man" have to do with debate negotiations? Maybe you are in the know as to how these negotiations have been unfolding. I haven't so I can't comment on Brown's press release.

But I do remember that Doolittle was so afraid of debating Brown that it took an act of Congress (I jest) to pin him down to the ONE debate that was aired on some obscure cable channel and limited to very few people in person. Most people who saw it had to watch it on fourteen You Tube segments. Maybe Brown learned something from that.

Meanwhile, welcome to the forum. Tell us a little about yourself!

Thanks,

Bob

Bob,

Being a military man does not have anything to do with debate negotiations. Being a military man does have something to do with conducting yourself in an honorable and forthright manner. If Charlie Brown is going to emphasize his service so much in his campaign, than he should at least act like someone in the armed forces is taught to act. Candidates get an obvious boost from a distinguished and honorable military career because it indicates that the man or woman has certain qualities that the people should want in a public servant. Since Charlie Brown seems to have been deceptive with the debate negotiations, then perhaps he should get less of a bump from the idea of his time in the Air Force making him such a great candidate.

I have no idea how the negotiations are unfolding between the campaigns, despite your not-so-subtle implication to the contrary. I only know what I read online.

I understand if you can't comment on the press release from an "insider's" perspective. But in the absence of someone saying that Devereux was lying, I have to assume it is the truth, and that Brown did not negotiate in good faith.

As far as Doolittle is concerned, I don't care much for the man. Too partisan, too shady, too loud. Indicative of a lot that is wrong with the party that I reluctantly call home. I am glad the 4th CD looks like it will have a much better Republican representative. But trying to tie Doolittle to McClintock is not fair, unless you know for a fact that McClintock loves the guy. I've never heard that from a source that didn't simply hate McClintock.

Finally, if you want to know a little about me, that's fine. I thought you might. I am a college student and my parents recently moved to Newcastle in the district. I am a McClintock fan because I think he is the type of person the GOP in D.C. needs to rejuvinate itself. I would call myself a moderate conservative Republican, with a dash of libertarianism.

It might seem that I write with a hostile tone. None is intended. I have nothing against you Bob, nor Mr. Reed. I simply take the opposing philosophical side, more often than not. I appreciate you welcoming me here.

Regards to all involved,
Hector

Hector

Welcome. I said some good things about you over on another thread this morning. Look them up.

Lee

Hector,

OK, thanks. I see your point. In response, though, since you aren't directly involved in the debate negotiations process I'd say you are interpreting actions and drawing conclusions about intentions just like Aaron was with his original post.

By the way, who is the Devereux person you mention in your comment? I don't know and see nothing else in this string about anyone by that name.

I've read Aaron's original blog post three times and can't make heads or tails of it. He is apparently aware of internal negotiations between the campaigns regarding debates and is charging that the Brown Campaign short-circuited that internal process in bad faith by issuing a press release proposing a format. I have no idea whether that charge is true or not but proposing a debate format in public is a tried and true method of negotiating a debate sequence. Do you want the process to be conducted without any public input? By publicly proposing an approach the Brown Campaign has put the issue out for public comment. I think that's positive. That's why I don't get the military man connection. As a retired Navy Officer and proud member of a family with a long tradition of military service I don't see anything untoward about Brown's actions.

Instead I think McClintock's debate format as described by Aaron is pretty weird. If it is true that McClintock is proposing to copy something done in Illinois 150 years ago between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas--down to the number of debates and all--then that's a head scratcher. Sounds like Tom is living in some sort of historical fantasy world. I suspect reality is different but have only what Aaron says to go by. You're probably aware that Aaron is within the McClintock Campaign circle, called out in person by Tom for his contributions during the primary run against Ose.

In any case that's my perspective on the debates for your consideration. I appreciate your comments.

Now, on your political thinking. You describe yourself as a moderate conservative with libertarian leanings. I consider myself pretty much the same. I voted Republican and was registered in the party from 1980 through the middle of 2004. If I interpret your description of your political views correctly I think you are probably fiscally conservative and in favor of a strong national defense but not so enamored with conservative social policies. That's why I don't like McClintock at all. He is very, very conservative across the board.

I invite you to Google the words **McClintock Jim Gilchrist** and also **McClintock Chris Simcox**, and then do some further research on Gilchrist and Simcox. You'll find McClintock has been endorsed by both of these guys who are or were founding members of the Minutemen. McClintock is an extreme hard liner on immigration and draws comfort from the hard line views of people like Gilchrist and Simcox. If you look further into each of these individuals you'll find Gilchrist was kicked out of the Minutemen under a cloud of allegations of fraud. Research on Simcox will lead you to learn about an extremely paranoid man who thought 911 was the call to go into the desert and take up arms in preparation for the coming invasion. These are guys who see the world through a narrow prism yet Tom McClintock embraces them in his quest to replace Tom Tancredo as the nation's leading anti-immigration crusader. His proposals on immigration--which essentially involve rounding up illegal immigrants and sending them back home--are unworkable, inhumane and would cause great damage to the economy.

Next, look at McClintock's hypocrisy. He has built his entire reputation around the idea of limited government. He rails against government spending and taxes. Yet this man accepted over $300,000 in personal payments from the state. He was paid per diem of $170 to offset living costs near the capitol because his home is in Ventura County four hundred miles to the south. The problem is McClintock doesn't pay anything for that home--which is his mother's--in Ventura County. He has no living costs there--only for his home in Elk Grove. Yet he accepted these state payments--which some other lawmakers have refused--because "everyone else is doing it". When it comes to government payments that benefit Tom McClintock he is happy to accept them and has never introduced legislation to correct the per diem process to require documentation of actual expenditures in the legislator's home district to qualify for per diem. That would have been the fiscally conservative action.

Then look at McClintock's support for veterans. The Ose Campaign attacked Tom McClintock for his votes on a couple of veteran's bills in 2005. McClintock was either the only or one of two lawmakers who voted against these bills. His problem? The bills transferred the costs of veterans relief on loans unconstitutionally to private enterprise. Yet McClintock offered no alternative legislation. He made no statements on the floor or into the record regarding why he voted against these bills. He simply said "no" to veterans and then moved on until he was called on the carpet during the primary. Then he published his rationale and hit voters with a slew of flyers talking about his love of veterans that contained no substance at all but looked real patriotic.

Next, let's look at McClintock's views on gay marriage. I don't know how you feel about this issue but a lot of Californians believe Prop 22 was a good thing and the Supreme Court was wrong to overtuurn it. But they did and now we have Prop 8 on the ballot, a proposition that goes much farther than Prop 22 to limit rights, rights that if exercised will have little to no bearing on the lives of other Californians. Tom McClintock is a vocal supporter of Prop 8. If you want to move California backwards then vote for Tom and vote for Prop 8. I don't believe this issue is that important compared to others facing the state and the country but Tom is so concerned about it that a question regarding intentions to vote for Prop 8 or not was one of only three questions he asked in a recent robo phone survey.

Finally, look at McClintock's views on energy. His only answer is to drill for more oil. He has made--and since retracted--false statements to generate support for more drilling. I support more drilling but recognize--as most people who have spent thirty minutes studying this issue do--that drilling cannot be the only answer. Yet McClintock offers no specifics at all as to how the country could conserve energy or develop alternatives. Coherent in Auburn just laid off another 140 people from their manufacturing operations there. What if Placer County became an R&D and manufacturing center for alternative energy firms through government initiatives sponsored by our Congressman? We have talented people who could immediately be put to work. That's the kind of proactive policy we need--no head-in-the-sand single-minded dead-end policy that will not solve the problem in the long run.

So I'd like to hear more about why you like Tom and what you think about Charlie Brown. I hope you can look past the one-sided anti-Brown diatribe that pours forth on the blog from Aaron Park and do some independent research or even go to hear him speak. I think you'll find he is a long way from the Pelosi clone that Aaron and the McClintock Campaign would want you to think he is.

Bob

Wow, thanks for the novel Bob on how bad Tom McClintock is. You really didn't say anything, just a bunch of the same old "he's from SoCal, he lives at his mom's, he's a carpetbagger." Blah, blah, blah.... Sigh....
First, the Lincoln-Douglas style debates are a great idea for several reasons, and it's not Tom trying to live a "historical fantasy" or whatever you said. The Lincoln-Douglas style debates are used across the country, primarily in classrooms where students want to learn how to debate. (I remember doing many in college). This style promotes a very open-stye forum. There is little to no moderation, allowing each candidate (speaker) to connect with the audience. Today, it seems as though we are seeing and listening half the time to the moderator. With this style, each speaker gets a set amount of time to come up to the podium, speak, allow the other to follow, and then open a question and answer session at the end. There is also time for the candidates to ask eachother questions, instead of them all coming from the moderator.
Tom wants these debates to open up each candidate as much as possible so that voters can really get a feel for who they both are. During the Ose-McClintock debates, you didn't get a sense for that, and McClintock wants to change that.
So you can stop the smear campaign on Tom. This is an excellent idea, and it would be a great "performance" to watch.
And by the way, instead of acting like a decent man running for congress, and unveilling these debates together as was originally agreed, Charlie issues a press release while he was partying down in Beverly Hills with gay rights supporter Brad Sherman. Hector is exactly right, what a way to conduct yourself, being an ex-military col. and all. Maybe Charlie should try spending some time here in the 4th CD and a little less time trying to pander to his pals in SoCal so he can rally support for his pathetic second-go-arround campaign.

Dave says:

"what a way to conduct yourself"

Hector, all the major, for-the-long-haul posters/commenter here have put up extensive bios. Here is a list of folks of whom I know a great deal about:

Aaron Park
Ken Campbell
Jeff Flint
Mark Klang
John Stoos (currently inactive)
Chris Jones (currently inactive)
Aaron Klein
Bob
and moi

I am sure I have left some out and my apologies to them. Knowing the background of a person including formative events in their lives is helpful in understanding what they are saying.

You yourself posted some of your background late yesterday. That is much appreciated and very helpful as I read what you say.

It comes down to good faith vs. bad faith. Writing under a "anon" cover just doesn't move the dialogue along...

So Dave, put up a bio that matches what Bob and I have put up in terms who you are and what has been formative to you...

that is the way we conduct ourselves around regardless of whom we support...

Hector

Anything I say about myself at Red County Placer is wholely verifiabe via various sources. I do that on purpose.

On the bio that I put up yesterday (for the umpteenth time)is that I am co-chair of our Church's Outreach Committee. Here is a little update on that front:

Subject: RE: Gathering Inn

Hi Carole,

Thanks for the note, and all of your help! (I would have replied sooner
but I have been out of the office for the past several days until this
morning. Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Ralph E. xxxxx
xxxxxxx& xxxxx LLP
xxx xxxxx Street, Auburn, CA 95603
Telephone: 530-xxx-xxxx
Facsimile: 530-xxx-xxxx
Email: ralph@xxxxx.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Carole
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:18 AM
To: Ralph
Subject: Gathering Inn

Good morning Ralph:

Just to let you know that Shirley just called me from the Inn this
morning-----and the running total from the change bottles gathered thus
far at St. xxxxxxx is now $402.11-------tiny parish, big hearts:)

Carole
Lee Reed

Hector, I show this to you not to toot my horn as to say I am a real person who is who he says he is. Beware the comments from those who hide in the shaddows...

Again, welcome aboard

Lee

I agree with Lee, Dave. Speak up. Who are you?

I really didn't say anything? Then why don't you go back and respond point by point? Did or did not McClintock get the personal endorsement of Jum Gilchrist? Did or did not McClintock vote against veteran's bills without offering any changes to the legislation or even commenting on the reasons for his votes? Did or did not McClintock make a false statement in his Op Ed in the Auburn Journal that he later retracted? Did or did not McClintock issue a vocal condemnation of the Supreme Court's action on Prop 22 and is he or is he not a vocal supporter of Prop 8? Has he or has he not accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in per diem payments he didn't need?

Blah, blah, blah you say but you refute nothing specifically and offer no facts.

I have no problem with the Lincoln-Douglas format for the debate. What I found weird was this gem from you: "McClintock just wants to do eight debates [My note: He apparently proposed nine debates according to Aaron, one for each CD4 county] because that's how Lincoln and Douglas did it, one debate for each major city in Illinois." This is 2008 not 1860. We have technology now...like cars and television and the internet. Doing a debate in Sierra County, population 3,400, is nice but not very realistic. Holding a debate just for Orangevale (Sacto County) and Oroville (Butte County) seems over the top, too. Brown's proposal makes a LOT more sense. Combine it with the Lincoln-Douglas format and maybe you have a compromise both sides can work with.

Bob

Bob - I love it when you write a passionate comment. I take it that Charlie Brown is now Publicly against Prop 8?

I see that you will start in on the Per Diem issue. Please go ahead, I would like to see a press release on the Per Diem issue right away.

Get to work! The voters are waiting!

Lee, I appreciate you welcoming me.

But Bob, in terms of whether or not Brown deceived McClintock on the debate negotiations, I am not magically divining anybody's intentions. I read what is out on there on the campaign, in local newspapers and on political sites and blogs. The McClintock campaign made an assertion -- that the Brown campaign broke faith on the debates -- and the Brown campaign did not really challenge it. I read the article in the Auburn Journal in which the Brown campaign tried to excuse their actions. But I thought “the internet made me do it” was not a winner, and neither was the notion of some mysteriously powerful and manipulative Doolittle staffer. If Charlie Brown can't handle an internet debate and the staffer of a disgraced congressman, I doubt he can handle the responsibilities of the US House of Representatives.

And Bob, I respect you, but don't treat me like an idiot. Devereux's name is all over other posts and in various articles relevant to our discussion. He is McClintock's campaign spokesman. I don't appreciate the continued obsession with making me out to be some sloppy poser whom you can trip up with feigned ignorance.

In general, I think the debate on the debates (how many there are, not whether someone is acting deceptively) is a silly one. It's up to the campaigns and the candidates. I personally prefer the Lincoln-Douglas style because people come to hear the candidates, not other people. When people ask questions without writing them down, they tend to ramble, take a long time to actually get to their question, and my attention admittedly wanders. People can absolutely be heard in the format McClintock seeks, but we also get a better sense of which candidate is quicker on his feet, which candidate knows his stuff better. But I don't think the public deeply cares about which format the debates come in – only that they come.

“By publicly proposing an approach the Brown Campaign has put the issue out for public comment.” No. By publicly proposing an approach the Brown Campaign has achieved its goal: a series of headlines with the aggressive, confident Brown issuing a debate challenge to the evasive and politician-y McClintock. Does the headline reflect the reality? Definitely not, and that shows when you read the article. But a campaign is not decided on reality, but perception. So I come back to my original conclusion – Brown made a calculated decision in an attempt to gain some momentum.

By the way, if you think I am preoccupied with this issue, I am actually not. But you keep defending it, Bob, and I have to retort as best I can.

Your thoughts on my political views are reasonably close to the mark. McClintock may be farther to the right than I am, but he and I agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I also very much like the man. I have met him a couple times and while I definitely cannot say that I know him well, in person he is extremely likable and friendly.

I have not heard those things about Simcox and Gilchrist. They may be true, but my political philosophy, even on immigration, is not built off of the Minutemen. From what I know I do like McClintock's views on illegal immigration, however, and they beat Charlie Brown's hands down. Charlie Brown says he's opposed to amnesty – of course, given the demographics of the 4th CD – but then he adds that he's for people paying a fine and getting citizenship. Is that not basically the “amnesty” bill that was shouted down across America more than once in recent memory? It seems Lt. Col. Brown is caught in a tough position with immigration and this district. But he's seemingly responded by having it both ways, being perhaps more of a politician than he purports to be.

Now on to the old “McClintock feeds from the public trough” charge that Ose used ad nauseum (and how'd that work out for him with the voters?). Two things. One, as DavidO accurately (in my opinion) pointed out, McClintock could make way more in the private sector, probably two or three times what he makes now. So he is assuredly not a state senator for the money (a concept I've never even heard of). Additionally, the assertion that he enjoys the public spotlight and the power – which you made elsewhere -- is essentially groundless. He might, but he also might not. You cite no evidence, and therefore I'll give the man the benefit of the doubt (just as I give Charlie Brown when it comes to character attacks). Two, I am guessing McClintock works very hard. Few people at the state or federal level don't work hard – Democrat or Republican. And obviously he is not inclined to take the easy path (really, how could he be inclined to the easy path as a strong conservative in blue California?). The state allows legislators a per diem for having to live in the area. So what? The California budget is billions upon billions of dollars. THAT'S where McClintock makes the real difference.

I get the very strong sense that the veterans' portion of your analysis is only part of the picture. My guess is that McClintock was avoiding what he saw as excessive/unconstitutional expenditures from the government. I bet he does support veterans. But it is a fallacy to say that unless he votes for money for them every time that he therefore doesn't support veterans.

Gay marriage? I don't really care either way. That's up to him and the district. If the district cares about it (and judging from the demographics I bet they do) and he cares about it, then he's the right fit for them, isn't he?

Lastly, finally, I support McClintock entirely on energy. It's one of his strong points, and I think he's smart for focusing on it. He does cover a lot more than just drilling in his energy plan. But he talks about drilling more than other things because the Democrats talk about drilling so little. Drilling is a very logical and simple path to bringing down prices. Increase the supply, and prices go down.

Enough of politics. I'm going to watch the Olympics. But I think Lee wanted more of an extensive bio. The only problem is, as I said earlier, I don't have an extensive bio to offer because I am still in college. I grew up in the Bay Area, I love history, I'm an A's fan, and I am suspicious Usain Bolt is using steriods, but I can't really decide. Better?

Regards to all involved,
Hector

Hector,

I didn't know who Deveraux was until you told me. His name didn't appear anywhere else in this string except when you brought it up originally and I haven't spent time learning the names of McClintock's campaign staff. That's why I asked you. It's easier to have a dialogue with people if you don't create your own motives for their actions.

It's politics, Hector. I don't understand why anybody is getting upset that Brown's Campaign put out a press release on the debates. This is a contest and as long as it is fought within the rules and ethically then what's the problem? I am sure no one signed a pledge to keep the debate negotiations secret until final agreement. Perhaps McClintock's proposal carried some additional features advantageous to McClintock that the Brown team opposed. Who knows and who cares? I was responding to the whining.

On immigration here's your problem: What do you do with the twenty million people (MCClintock's number) who are here now? What do you do with them, Hector? McClintock wants to deport them. Do you think that is practical? Do you think that would be good for our economy? Do you think that is humane? The bill that was "shouted down" was the best compromise to come along in a generation. Now we have no legislation. The problem is still there and the people who "shouted down" a good bill want to deport twenty million people. This is just absurd. And you really should look up Gilchrist and Simcox. These men endorsed Tom McClintock in person during the primary. You should know more about the type of people this man hangs around with.

Look, it appears you have your mind made up. You don't wonder why McClintock didn't offer any alternative legislation when he voted against veterans bills supported by the Cal Guard and by every other state senator except one. You don't even seem inclined to look into it further. You're not disturbed that McClintock would take a lot of state money he doesn't need and rail against state spending at the same time. The amount of the state budget doesn't really matter, does it? It's the principle.

Those are choices you have made and you have to be comfortable with yourself and those choices.

Bob

Let me get this straight, Bob... You've been posting on Red County Placer since at least May. Devereux's name appears on at least three press releases for McClintock posted on here in the last ten days alone. You discuss with ease issues relating from McClintock's assocations with all sorts of varied people in politics to obscure veterans' legislation to the California laws on per diem payments to legislators. With all this in mind, you don't recall one of the most prominent names in the McClintock campaign? Either you actually do recall it and lied, or your skills of observation aren't very high. I'll let you choose which one you like.

As far as who has his mind made up, I came in a few days ago and made a couple statements in support of McClintock, adding that I respect both you and Charlie Brown, and I get a small novel in return running the gamut of political issues and saying how incredibly radical, ignorant, and all-around evil Tom McClintock is. Then when I reply with my own opinions, I am made to feel guilty for having made decisions on these topics. I've made some decisions on what I believe, you bet. But for you to take high ground in the "open mind" category? I'm not letting that one go, sir.

My understanding is that, as an outsider who has never been elected to public office, Brown makes criticizing the failures of politics as usual a big part of his campaign. But I guess you reject that by instead replying, "It's politics, Hector" as if that justifies anything. Does Brown agree with you? How about "It's politics, people" as a campaign motto?

Suddenly throwing in the word "whining" about me does not make the topic a sudden victory for you either.

On immigration, I think it might be tought to deport all illegal immigrants, but I also think a simple fine for tens of millions of people whose first act in America was to break our federal law is ridiculous. You wanted me to talk more about what I think of Charlie Brown? Sure. I said Charlie Brown seems to be trying to have it both ways on illegal immigration. To that charge, you had nary a whisper, instead changing the subject to what I believe.

How quickly things degenerate, eh Bob? That's all right. I still have nothing against you.

Regards to all involved,
Hector

Considering that Brown has now publicly lied about

Being a Vietnam Vet when he is not legally recognized as one. His DD214 proves it as well...

McClintock getting paid when he isn't because the State budget is late...

Bloggers spreading misinformation about debate negotiations when there was nothing posted before the press release...

I guess lie number four is the promise to run an issue-based campaign.

Service with honor my ---

The Brownies shoulda stuck to polar bears and priuses.