There is no news here. The issue all along has not been a question of legality. It's been a question of hypocrisy.

Why hasn't Tom McClintock, vaunted protector of Californian's wallets, initiated legislation to close the per diem loophole so it truly addresses a need instead of simply being a bonus on a pyacheck? Why has he accepted these payments himself when he only has one household to maintain?

The silence is deafening.

August 27. This is Day 1 of the McClintock Per Diem Watch. I am awaiting a statement from Tom that he has discontinued accepting this gratuity and that he will introduce legislation in the fall to remove the loopholes consistent with his status as a "conservative icon".

Bob, you are like a toad: ugly and venomous.

Sorry Bob! That dog don't hunt because you are not the arbiter of weather someone in the legislature is entitled to Per Diem or not. The law says all 120 are and they can opt-out voluntarily. (BTW - Only Roger Niello has)

This is going to burst your posion sack - but McClintock has opted out of the Pension system - saving taxpayers a boatload of money - FAR MORE than the total of the Per Diem payments. Dammed inconvenient details.

However, I'd love to see your per-diem mailer compete with the deafening silence on the Anti-War activism issue. Hell, millions have been spent on the Per Diem issue - I'd love to see you guys dump more into it... especially in light of this letter you got back from the request you had someone send the AG.

Can we get back to Gay Marriage, Borders, Drilling, Taxes, Fire Protection and Patriotism now?

Tommy J,

Toads are venomous? Better stop hitting the sauce. It's pretty early in the day for that.

Bob

Dueling Banjos

Aaron:

"Can we get back to Gay Marriage, Borders, Drilling, Taxes, Fire Protection and Patriotism now?"

Bob:

(to Hector) "Finally, this year I believe these attacks will backfire. The Kerry swift boating is well known and people will pay more attention" to the claims and the source. And if they don't find them credible (like this one) it will help the target because people will empathize."

John Q The Audience:

"Nine in ten Americans (89%) say it is important that the next president reduce political partisanship and hostility in Washington, D.C."

(Source)
The Harris Poll® #72, July 10, 2008

Partisanship and Hostility Cast a Shadow over U.S. and Canadian Capitals
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=928

Taps

Taps was played by a Lone Bugler at the rites for Lt. Cmdr. Bob. His widow was given Charlie Brown's Distinguished Flying Cross in a moving ceremony in Roseville. Bob displayed the highest form of non-partisanship by hurling himself on top of local partisan agitator, Aaron Park. Mr. Park had come under murderous pelting of rotten tomatoes from the audience at a dueling banjos performance. Mr.Park has launched into his Gay Marriage, Borders, Drilling, Taxes, Fire Protection and Patriotism now medley, provoking the audience who hates hostile partisanship into this murderous rage.

Mr.Park was not in attendance due to some residual hostility. He did sent a contribution to the Sierra Club in Bob's honor...

Bob, your brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage

Tommy J - please add something to the debate, such as telling Bob why his Brain has dried up.

Anon insults are for liberals, just like trix are for kids.

Cheap Shot Lee - There won't be any empathy for someone who stood with a soldier hung in effigy. The empathy will be for the soldiers Brown insulted by his actions.

It is really, really simple - you have a golden opportunity to set me on fire. Get a flat out denial from Brown.

Now - the issues that TRANSCEND Partisan lines, meaning that a majority of Americans deem these important:

Gay Marriage, Borders, Drilling, Taxes, Fire Protection and Patriotism... Where does Charlie stand?

The Solo Banjo:

"Now - the issues that TRANSCEND Partisan lines, meaning that a majority of Americans deem these important:

Gay Marriage, Borders, Drilling, Taxes, Fire Protection and Patriotism"

John Q The Audience

Seven in ten Americans (71%) rate the economic policies of the national government as bad while 13 percent rate them as good. One in five (21%) say the policies are very bad. The economic rebate checks may have hit people’s bank accounts and mailboxes, but that has not done much to change opinions; in March, almost the same number (70%) said the policies were bad;
Compared to one year ago, almost half of U.S. adults (47%) say their household’s financial condition has worsened while one-third (34%) say it has improved and one in five (20%) say it has remained the same.

The Harris Poll® #66, June 24, 2008

Americans Give Government Economic Policies and Job Market a Bad Rating
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=920

Last evening's solo concert in Royer Park by local partisan agitator, Aaron Park was sparsely attended. Most slipped away in silence muttering, "I have better things to do"

Mr. Park did get a standing ovation from three who identified themselves as Shadow Man, Scottie, and Tommy J.

Hey Lee, your virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese.

Tommy - say something substantive about Lee who is a real person, feel free to abuse "Bob" who is a coward...

Let me give you an example:

Lee your world is way too narrow. People talk about gas prices all the time, energy prices, housing costs - and when they find out those problems were created by luddites and their politicians (mostly dems)... they get hostile.

Lee - most people look at the open borders and do the same thing and they get really angry when they realize that the Dems in this state are giving them welfare checks and have passed laws making it illegal for social workers to turn them in when they apply for welfare/medical etc...

Lee - Fire Protection? Are you kidding me, you are delusional or is it that you are so far invested in team klink that you are in hardened denial?

Write your stories - the voters will write Brown's epitaph.

This is how to abuse me Reed properly as he is a real person... Do you get it Tommy?

As to Bob - one sentence insults work great.

I understand, Aaron. You are extremely frustrated that you are cornered, snookered and stymied with every post you make. Sorry. Glad to see I am getting under your skin, though. And--I have Tommy J and all other trolls on ignore now. If it's not a rational comment it won't get a response.

Bob

Bob if you are frustrated, talk to your significant other since you do not believe in Marriage. If he/she/it is not obliging, counseling and prayer are available.

Meantime - the train is on the tracks and the truth is coming.

Aaron,

That post was simply further evidence of your frustration.

I will fact-check everything, Aaron. Get used to it.

It's fun, sort of like an Easter Egg Hunt. Too easy, though. I feel like the nine-year-old who wandered into the egg hunt area for the three-year-olds. The eggs are everywhere and right out in the open. Just like your factual errors.

Bob

Write your stories - the voters will write Brown's epitaph.

Why do you keep blaming McClintock, Bob, for something that goes on throughout the legislature. Guess what, Tom isn't the only one taking per diem. Do you want him to give up his salary, and his medical coverage? Maybe sign away his house and car slip while he's at it? There's no loophole! It's called getting paid for the work that you do.
Charlie Brown has been accepting money from SoCal liberal donors like gay-marriage supporter Brad Sherman. He has taken money from Anti-war groups like CodePink. Talk about special interests... I wonder what Charlie's priorities would be IF he was ever elected to office. Maybe paying back these liberal Democrats who, by the way, stand for everything the 4th District despises.

Excuse me Tiny, but show me proof of a donation to the Brown Campaign from Code Pink. There are none in the FEC or OpenSecrets databases. Can you post a source for your statement or are you just making that up?

There are a bunch of contributions AGAINST the Brown Campaign, though. The NRCC has spent $453,904 against Charlie Brown. Aaron says this election is a laugher but a cash-strapped NRCC has poured almost half a million into this race. Gee, I wonder why? If this district is so ultra-conservative, why worry?

Read what I said again about the per diem. It's in McClintock's power to close the loophole. In case you didn't know, per diem is for living expenses while traveling or during stays away from home. That's the purpose of the money. It is not a payment for work performed. The loophole is that California legislators who are neither traveling nor staying away from home are able to collect these large payments. That's an abuse of tax dollars yet your man, Mr. Fiscal Conservative, has taken no steps to close the loophole and in fact has benefitted significantly from it. That's hypocrisy.

Bob

"Bob" - where's your evidence of that $500,000 or are you making a gross exaggeration or extrapolation regarding the money spent on Andal whose media market overlaps with this one.

I know I ventured into the FUAH world of polysyllabic words, renders soudbytes technically unfunctional, but does create a stimulating question.

The significance of which is akin to the significance of Charlie's protestations that I allege.

Regarding hypocricy - you just railed on McClintock for not doing his job on the budget. In that case it was for refusing to support $5 Billion in tax increases - I think you need some political laxitives to make your writing more consistent.

Which is it? Sponsoring a pay cut for the legislature or voting to raise taxes.

You can't have it both ways - just like Charlie wrapping himself in the flag hoping people didn't notice his anti-war activities.

Tiny

You are making the "everybody does it" argument. But McClintock is not "everybody". He is the Lone Ranger who is the uber principled tax-payers watch dog. An example of him being the Lone Ranger is that he was the only one in the Cal Senate to vote "no" on AB182 in 2003. He had a Tonto in the Assembly by the name of Mountjoy who was the only one to vote "no"

So now that the uber principled McClintock who is unique is established. Then comes the next piece of the story line.

All Dems in the Cal Legislators are shifty weasels. "Shifty weasels" is a bit redundant but all Conservative bloggers have a style manual. The style manual calls for redundancy if one is referring to Dems. The reason is that one has to make sure the reader really "gets it" that Dems are totally bad people.

Almost all Republicans in the Cal Legislator are RINOs. That is in the style book too. There are maybe 3-4 "true Conservatives" in the Cal Legislature. The RINOs by definition are actually closet Dems. Therefore they are also all shifty weasels.

So back to McClintock and the McClintock story line. McClintock can not take the "everyone does it" shifty weasel practice. That simply fouls up the story line.

So, Tiny, I am going to have to hand your comment back to you to re-write it to get the McClintock story line back in order.

It is the principle of the matter that I do this. This is for your own good....

Lee

Oh Lee, you are as a candle, the better burnt out.

Aaron

You say:

"If McClintock was greedy, he'd work in the private sector... he'd make way more there!"

Are you telling me he would be a head hunters dream client? Give me some examples of jobs in the private sector that he could make "way more". I am not exactly taking that as an article of faith.

I, on the other hand, believe that after spending 20 some years as a pol at the public trough, he is what is called "institutionalized"

He could not make it "on the outside world". Prison inmates who are in prison for very long periods of time often commit some petty offense to to get put back into prison, because they are "lost" on the outside.

Evidence of McClintock's institutionalization is two-fold.

Kirk Uhler said that McClintock came to his father hat in hand beseeching him for a political job when he was “in between jobs” That is hardly the behavior of someone who feels that they can make it “way more” on the outside.

McClintock keeps “open” political campaign committees to provide a “safety net” so that he will not have to face being out in the cold cruel real world.

I smell a myth…

Oh, Aaron. You caught me. Fact checking is a good thing because it results, ultimately in better accuracy. I don't mind having errors pointed out.

When going back to look at the data I see that some numbers from 2006 were included in the $453K. I just summed all the numbers in the FEC data dump and neglected to look at the dates. Did I say I was an amateur? I did.

So here's the update. After election day 2006 and through 3/8/2007 the NRCC spent $175,872 against Brown. The balance of the $453K was spent before election day 2006. But I suspect that the amounts listed for after the election day were booked later but actually spent in the 2006 election cycle. So it looks like the $453K was spent to fight Brown in the 2006 race with Doolittle.

However, all of the NRCC spending prior to the 2006 election occurred between October 9, 2006 and March 8, 2007. So the NRCC did not weigh in until very late in the race. We will probably see the same thing this time.

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H6CA04123

Bob

McClintock could earn way more. For about a year, maybe two.

When I was in the submarine force as a junior officer a lot of guys left active duty to work for "beltway bandits". BBs are defense contractors situated around the DC beltway in places like Silver Springs, MD.

After a year or two these young men found that their prospects weren't as good as they had been led to believe. You see they were victims of a process where their current military knowledge and contacts were what the companies wanted more than their skills. Once these were sucked dry the companies didn't have too much use for them anymore.

This would happen to Tom McClintock. He would find himself the darling of certain firms who would want to tap his contacts in the legislature and elsewhere in state government. They would find value in his name recognition; it might get them some clients they wouldn't otherwise hook. Tom might even make some money on the rubber chicken circuit.

But pretty soon his value would decline. These companies would suck him dry and then spit him out on his own. He would either have to offer a sustainable value (what would that be?) or he would see his stock drop like a rock.

Of course, since McClintock has eschewed government spending he won't be popular with very many lobbying firms. Maybe oil and gas, I don't know. But he never developed a leadership position in the legislature and by all accounts isn't the most popular figure among his peers. So his network wouldn't be that strong which reduces his value to private sector employers.

Tom has a bachelor's degree in political science so he can't practice law. He has never held a job in business. He doesn't have teaching credentials though he might land a job in a poli sci department that doesn't require a masters or PhD which is looking for a conservative bookend for their department staff. His long-term prospects aren't that great, actually.

That's why he Tom is so eager to get elected--it's a paycheck.

Bob

Oh Bob. Would the fountain of your mind be clear again, so that I might water an ass in it.

Gentlemen, is this what passes for discursive political thought in Placer County? Much of the preceding can be dismissed as simple humorous invective- the cheap shot, an "off the cuff" remark. But really, Lee, who elected you as the Dean of Bloggers?

Tom McClintock and Charlie Brown are politicians, with all the warts and foul odors incumbent to the class. Keeping the argument to who got how much money from Southern California, accusations of hypocrisy (I'm shocked, shocked I tell you), nit-picking fact checking, and the near tribal call for bi-partisanship prevents the actual discussion of what is important in the race for the 4th Congressional. It's a good strategy, especially good when a candidate does not reflect the district.

Charlie Brown's cavalcade of carefully nuanced "issues" will be quickly put aside once in office. He will simply be a back bencher serving the Pelosi majority and (God Forbid) the Obama Whitehouse. He will be permitted by the Democratic Whip to occasionally vote with the Republican minority so that he may trumpet his independence, and keep his seat safe in the Republican dominated 4th.

Placer voters, don't be taken in by the wanderings of wealthy retired gadflies who are no longer part of the daily struggle. Lee Reed is not on these blogs to enliven your mind or help clarify your thinking. He's here for just the opposite. Like Pete Seeger reminded us in 1965, we need to keep our "Eyes on the Prize."

Robert,

Yes. Eyes on the Prize, a famous song of the civil rights era, the movement that, when supported by national Democrats, led to the political domination of the South by the Republican Party via the so-called Southern Strategy. How strange you would use the title of that song to make your point?

Let's look at how Republicans have governed this decade and ask, what "prize" is it that you are seeking?

Data points on Republican performance since 2001:
* Exploding national deficit
* Two wars that have not led to a safer and stronger America and which have cost well over 4,000 lives
* A culture so corrupt an indicted Senator can win a primary even in 2008
* Collapse of the housing market
* A middle class falling further and further behind (note today's report - another decline in real wages)
* Forsaken veterans
* Roll back of individual rights
* Roll back of environmental protections
* 250% increase in gas prices
* Increased dependence on foreign oil
* 250% increase in the cost to heat our homes
* Increasing levels of poverty
* Destruction of our national image overseas
* Rise of Russia
* Government mismanagement and incompetence
* Politicization of the DoJ
* No progress on bringing affordable health care to more Americans
* Inaction on climate change
* Inaction on energy conservation and development of alternatives
* Development of a corrosive and partisan political divide
* Sharp decline in the affordability of higher education
* No solution on immigration
* Massive transfer of jobs overseas
* Huge trade imbalance

Tom McClintock has nothing to offer to solve any of these problems. His solutions are the tired policies of the 1980s: Trickle-down economics and inhumane cuts to social programs. He places high priority on rolling back individual rights through a state constitutional amendment. He places highest priority on draconian immigration policies that are not only unrealistic and economically unsound they are cruel and inhumane.

So what is the prize? More of the same bad results?

So-called Republican stronghold voters around the country are waking up and realizing they do have a choice. They don't have to vote for politicians who are going to give them more of the same. More foreclosures. More wage cuts. More unemployment. More war. More division and intolerance. More of the same bad results.

California's District Four is not yours. It's not mine or the Democrats. It's a region in the State of California that has suffered significantly from Republican leadership and policies, though. It is people who can and will make up their own minds. And this time, I sincerely believe, they will reject the tired, failed policies of Tom McClintock and vote for renewal in America, in California and right here in CD4.

Bob