OTT: Charlie Brown Stands Alone On Protest Accounts
Posted by: Aaron Park | 09/22/2008 1:07 PM
For the past four years Charlie Brown has consistently denied he has participated in a variety of anti-war activities. These denials have been made in the face of overwhelming evidence that Brown joined with the radical group Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan and others in the extreme anti-war movement.
New video emerged this week that showed Charlie Brown attended a Sacramento anti-war rally wearing his military uniform. The video clearly shows Brown standing with anti-war demonstrators in front of a home where a soldier had been hanged in effigy. The development capped years of denials and misrepresentations from Brown and his campaign about Brown's actions that night and in other anti-war activities. The issue is not about what position Brown took on the war; it is about his failure to tell the public where he truly stands. Is this the type of person we want to send to the United States Congress?
Brown's true stripes emerged publicly April 16, 2004. While working as a records clerk at the Roseville Police Department, Brown sent an email to City of Roseville employees many interpreted as an insult to them and our troops. In the email Brown responded sarcastically to the news of the return of a city employee from a deployment in Iraq this way: "Only 130,000 or so military members left over there now wondering when they will let home from this war of occupation/aggression."
"I personally know that several employees were offended by Charlie's politically-charged negative comment regarding our nation's involvement in Iraq," said Steve Uribe, a retired Roseville police officer who worked with Brown at that time. "Rather than welcoming home a fellow veteran, Charlie chose to call our troops occupiers and aggressors."
Brown made his appearance at the war demonstration wearing his uniform February 15, 2005. When asked about it in a radio interview the Bruce Maiman Show, September 12, 2007, Brown said: "I was down there. I was not in uniform. The only times I put on my dress uniform these days are veterans' ceremonies and I was actually on both sides of the street last night talking to people to find out, you know, what their concerns were. So, yes I was there, no I was not in a dress uniform and I was actually on both sides of the street, policemen down the center. Second Amendment, right to free speech." (sic)
Stephen Pearcy hanged the soldier in effigy at his home. He says Brown stood with him at the protest. "Brown came to my home wearing his full military uniform and stood outside with many anti-war folks to defend my free speech. Several right-wingers had gathered across the street after I placed a display on my home of a uniformed soldier with the sign, "Bush Lied, I Died." When Brown, his wife, and about two hundred others, including Cindy and Pat Sheehan, showed up to stand in solidarity with my wife and me, we really felt like there was hope for ending the criminally orchestrated U.S. invasion of Iraq."
Pearcy's recollection is matched by Deborah Johns, the mother of a Marine, who attended the rally: "Charlie Brown was most definitely there. He made statements before that he was not a supporter of Cindy Sheehan and that he was not at Virginia and Steve Pearcy's house in Land Park. He was inside their home. He was hugging not only Steve and Virginia Pearcy, but he was also hugging Cindy Sheehan."
After a news conference where the video was shown to reporters, Brown spokesman Todd Stenhouse continued to deny that Brown stood with the protestors, telling Politickerca.com: "He did absolutely not lie," [regarding] Brown's previous characterizations of his appearance at the house. "He walked on both sides of the street. And I'll take the word of a 26-year military veteran on that."
The Sacramento Bee reported that in February 2006, "Brown appeared at an 'Out of Iraq' event, sponsored by the anti-war group Code Pink and other organizations. [Cindy] Sheehan and actor Sean Penn also attended." According to the Bee: [Spokesman Todd] "Stenhouse insisted Tuesday that Brown had no idea that Sheehan and Penn were going to appear at the February 'Out of Iraq' event. Pearcy said Brown's plea of ignorance is 'ludicrous' because Sheehan's appearance was well advertised four days in advance."
In October 2006 Brown continued to back away from his anti-war issues. According to the Sacramento Bee: "Provoking Pearcy's anger was a request by Brown's wife, Jan, last week that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan cancel her appearance at a planned Friday protest in downtown Sacramento.
"Imagine how strange it must have sounded to Cindy to have someone who she had previously considered an anti-war enthusiast, and friend, tell her that it could hurt Charlie's chances if Cindy attended the anti-war event, Pearcy said. Brown spokesman Todd Stenhouse said Tuesday that Jan Brown's request was not made on behalf of her husband or the campaign."
The Brown campaign spun Brown's actions this way:
"It was an emotional reaction by someone watching her husband get attacked for guilt by association because he stood on a stage with a group [Code Pink] he doesn't even support."
How strange it is that Brown is consistently observed by citizens, government employees, police officers, conservatives, liberals, and pro-and anti-war demonstrators as having a record of participating in radical actions with the extreme anti-war movement.
And he keeps denying those acts.
Women's right to vote didn't exist until they fought for it. Blacks rights for equality didn't happen until...
It's a fact.
Tom McClintock cannot campaign on real issues. His surrogates cannot provide specifics supporting claims like this:
"We know that Tom McClintock has always supported America and it's troops."
The reality is that Tom McClintock has not done one meaningful, positive thing for veterans over a twenty-two career in the California legislature. California, the state that sends more men and women to war in uniform than any other state in the nation. By far.
Not one thing.
McClintock is:
* An extremist (see: immigration endorsements; Doctor NO)
* A phony (see: per diem)
* A liar (see: energy flyer lies; China and Cuba lie)
* A Career politico (see: bio; "The Venturian Candidate" who is shopping for a job in government after getting termed out of his Senate seat)
* A Doolittle look-alike (see: Campaign staff, political network, donors, extreme position on issues, shady friends)
I must add that Tom McClintock is also not a leader. He has never held a leadership position outside of committee assignments despite his long history in the California legislature. He has a reputation for being a loner.
Bob
I had the pleasure of attending the fair in Rocklin on Saturday and was very glad to see all the support for Tom coming from the people. I cannot tell you how many people I saw carrying McClintock yard signs around with them, and the McClintock booth was packed when I walked by several times.
I wish I could say the same for the Charlie Brown tent. I actually got the nerve to go and talk to the lady standing behind the Brown table. When she tried spewing her liberal spiel about how great Charlie was, and his service record, and yada yada yada... she seemed as though she had just left a Stones concert half-stoned and disheveled. She stuttered quite a bit, and would say, "and uhh, what was it, uhh... Bill, do you know what it was he did in the military..." He was just about as stupid, but seemed to be a bit more knowledgeable about his career. I thought to myself, "Couldn't a monkey have done a better job behind this booth." When they asked me to come work for them, I knew I had had enough. I KINDLY thanked them for the info and the literature (which I threw in the trash about thirty seconds later).
I can now see that it's not just Brown who is spaced out of his mind, but his whole team. Charlie, for future reference, tell the people who are representing you to lay off the pot next time, at least until they get home. Get some people with brains working for you and you MIGHT come close to having a shot at this.
Sincerely,
David
Bob,
I was hoping that maybe a word might be said here about Charlie showing up at an anti-war rally where they hung a US Soldier in uniform while wearing his uniform to show support for these radicals, but alas I am disappointed yet again!
John
The reality is that Tom McClintock has not done one meaningful, positive thing for veterans over a twenty-two career in the California legislature. California, the state that sends more men and women to war in uniform than any other state in the nation. By far.
Not one thing.
Bob
Enough of detailing Tom's lack of interest in veterans. It's time to look at the national scene.
Below are the first few paragraphs and the close of a Wall Street Journal editorial from last Friday. Since it is, after all, the WSJ, I can understand that the editors had to take a cheap shot at Obama or risk being frowned on at the country club. Nevertheless, they take a hard shot right at John McCain, the guy who said he doesn't really know that much about the economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html
McCain's Scapegoat
John McCain has made it clear this week he doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does. But on Thursday, he took his populist riffing up a notch and found his scapegoat for financial panic -- Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.
"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him."
Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.
Bob's comments...
The WSJ is dismayed with this candidate. Unlike GWB with his Harvard MBA (I wonder how much he remembers of his time in Cambridge?) John McCain barely made it through Annapolis and has never taken a business course. I know this because I know what the curriculum was at Annapolis in the 1960s. It was all engineering, all the time.
The Journal finishes the piece saying:
"In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution."
Darn! That brings us right back to McClintock even though I wanted to shift gears. A candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution! What better description for the Venturian Candidate?
Bob
Wow! Checking around a little more I find this gem by George Will, reliably conservative commentator at the WaPost:
I'll start with Will's closing paragraph:
"It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?"
No. McCain is 72 and is not about to change. Who knows what he would do as Commander in Chief?
Here's the full article. Definitely worth a read.
McCain Loses His Head
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21
"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19, Page A22). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."
Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.
In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17, Page A4; and the New York Times of Sept. 20, Page One.)
By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."
The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?
On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
Credit again to George Will of the Washington Post.
Bob
Bob,
You have REALLY been working overtime this morning to avoid the topic that is now front and center in the 4th CD: Did Charlie attend an anti-war rally in uniform where a US soldier was hung in effigy? If he did, why has he publically denied doing so???
hatever you might think about the source of our current economic mess, you certainly want someone who tells the truth and is loyal to our country making the tough votes in Congress over the next few years and I guess that leaves Charlie out since you silence screams guilty as charged!
John
Bob:
I have read your banter of the last few months about what has Tom done for veterans. Well, let him answer that.
However, my brother, who lives in San Antonio, Texas and supports Tom from afar has done more for veterans than Charlie Brown and his Veteran's fund. My father, a veteran of Korea and Vietnam spent the last years of his life bedridden and unable to clean himself. My mother and my brother took care of him until my Mom died from exhaustion and my brother took the full load. Yeah, he could have taken him to a nursing home, but my brother love him took care of him every day in addition to his going to work at Audie Murphy Veteran's Hospital. He came home, change his adult diaper, gave him shaves and haircuts and got him meals from the Taco Cabana or Luby's Cafeteria. He has been gone three years now, but I salute my brother as somebody who doesn't get the recognition he should.
Let me say this in righteous anger, my brother's work in helping my father is worth a lot more than Charlie Brown's little publicity stunt.
Efrem,
Your brother sounds like a very caring person. However, he is not running for Congress here in CD4. And if you don't think tens of thousands of dollars can help veterans if given directly to organizations that care for them then I don't know what to say. Your logic completely escapes me.
You look at what Brown has done as a publicity stunt. Is it a bad thing that the plight of veterans like your father is getting some publicity, Efrem? I don't understand how you think that could be a bad thing. I have spent quite a bit of time at VA hospitals and I think they need to get a lot of publicity so people will ask their representatives to do more for these wonderful men and women.
No, in your case and your brother I think your views on this are completely set by your politics. You are very conservative and I suspect your brother is, too. For some odd rason you both support Tom McClintock even though neither of you live in this state. Fine. But don't try to make me believe that your politics has nothing to do with your views on this. It has everything to do with it.
Bob
John,
As Katherine Hepburn told Henry Fonda in "On Golden Pond": "It's very simple, Norman!"
It's very simple, John. Brown didn't lie because he wasn't in uniform. The military is very picky about what it calls a uniform and what Brown was wearing didn't even come close.
Brown never denied he was at the rally. He has denied wearing a uniform which was truthful. I'd hate to see you take this baby to a jury.
Oh, I forgot. You are. You are doing your level best to slime a good man in the court of public opinion through lies and misrepresentations (yes, lies. Deborah Johns and Stephen Pearcy both lied about a "full uniform" and McClintock has used those lies in ads). I really do hope it backfires. This has got to be one of the sleaziest attacks in recent American political history, right up there with the best Karl Rove had to offer. It would be absolutely wonderful to see John Kerry vindicated in some small way by a Brown victory.
So that's it. That's all I'm saying. You are wrong.
Your turn. What has McClintock done for veterans? Specifically? Efrem, who worked for him, had nothing to say about that; he referred the question to McClintock who so far hasn't done anything except send out glossy flyers showing absolutely no tangible accomplishments. You have hinted that you have a long list of things but so far, nothing but silence.
Your silence, as you say, is deafening.
Bob
Bob,
Sorry, here all this time I thought you were a veteran, like those who showed a novice like me at the press conference why what Charlie was wearing is an official uniform. Who is splitting hairs now?
Tom has a record of over twenty five years in the state legislature with dozens if not hundreds of votes cast in favor of veterans, including co-authoring [I believe] the bond for veteran housing that is on the ballot this fall.
You have selected maybe a half-dozens votes that we have discussed at length where what sounded like a great deal for Veterans could have potentially harmed them.
And as to your nasty comments thrown Efrem's way, how many tickets did Charlie, you or Lee by for the luncheon that Ken asked you to attend to help the veterans???
John
John
Since we hear the theme that liberals care and conservatives don't want to help ALL the time, I think this is a good place to thrown in a comment about Senator Biden's tax returns.
Joe is the 3rd most liberal member of the US Senate which means he "really cares" when it comes to spending other people's money to help those in need, even if it mostly goes to dumb or inefficient programs.
So how did Joe and his family do with helping others with their own money with an income that runs into the hundreds of thousands each year? Well the average over the past ten years is a little over $300 per year! How did they ever afford that?
John
Come on John, everyone knows that wasn't a uniform Chuck was wearing -- it was a jersey. I will ask once again: please get some pros in here to run this race. This is getting rather embarrassing.
John,
How about posting details on a half-dozen of those votes? Provide the bill number or title and approximate date. I really do want to see them.
Since you brought up the national campaign, here's some fresh information:
Americans think Republicans are to blame for the current financial nightmare two to one over Democrats.
Two to one.
CNN/WSJ poll.
Second, McCain's Campaign Manager's lobbying firm was paid by Freddie Mac through last month despite his prior statements that the relationship ended three years ago. Rick Davis, the campaign manager, owns the firm in question which received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac. McCain quote from last Sunday: "[Rick Davis] has had nothing to do with it since [2005], and I'll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it."
Well, they looked at it and it stinks.
Read it and weep.
Bob
And John? Your guys at the press conference? They don't know squat. I wore BDUs for ten years and worked with people in all services all over the world. Your guys? Partisan chipmunks.
Bob
Bob:
As you know, I do live in Arizona and have not been on Tom's staff for over a year. I am quite happy here in Arizona where I can climb Camelback Mountain with my son when the weather's cool, ride a miniature train at a park in Scottsdale or visit an old Titan missle silo south of Tucson.
This will be my last post on Red County for quite a while as I pretty much said what has to be said on my part. John, Ken and Aaron will take up the slack.
I made a post here about what I termed "publicity stunt" on the part of Mr. Brown. I cannot see how it is not. First he puts his veteran's fund promotion right on his website and then he puts out a press release challenging Tom to do the same to a lesser extent. It is my firm belief that are good works should be done without hoopla. Jesus taught in Matthew 6:1-4:
"1Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
Charlie Brown should also heed King David when he said in Proverbs 27:2:
"Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips."
In conclusion, I would say that I had great years with Tom and that he had foresight to see the troubles ahead. To see him get trashed has made me sad given the fact that he stands for integrity. However, this is not suprising. Even the Son of God himself came through the gates of Jerusalem on a donkey with people saying "Hosanna, glory to God in the highest." After just one week of negative ads from the pharisees people chanted "Crucify him!!" and "We have no king but Ceasar!!"
The late Don McIlvane (sic), the late movie trailer announcer used to start off each trailer by saying "In a world..." Well, I would say that in a world where men lack courage, one stands tall-Tom McClintock.
Thank you for the many years Tom that I worked with you, see in DC in January Tom and goodnight from the Valley of the Sun. Out!!
Bob,
Amazing that you missed all the discussion in the primary about those votes, but I guess if you can't recognize a uniform when you see one, things like that can be missed.
As I said earlier, if this is the best that Charlie can do I think it is game over: Remember Mr. Ose dumped about $5 MILLION to attack Tom on per diem and veteran votes and you see the results that he got!
John
Bob,
Plenty of blame to go around on the financial mess: Ron Paul is maybe the only innocent member of Congress!
This little clip will NOT be helpful to your man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related
John
John,
Yes, I followed the debate between the Ose and McClintock camps about Tom's support (or lack thereof) for veterans. I followed it closely. I see you have yet to post even one specific thing he has accomplished that is tangible for veterans besides a reference to the bond act.
The Bond Act, John? A perrenial favorite going back to right after WWI. No cost to the government and nobody but nobody voted no on it in the California legislature. There were about ten co-authors.
No, McClintock gets no points for that. Got anything controversial where he took a stand on something and fought for veterans? Where he had to display leadership or original thought? Anything?
Bill number or name and approximate date.
Half a dozen would be enough if ineeded there are "hundreds" of examples out there as you indicated in an earlier post.
Bob
John,
I should note that McClintock's involvement in SB 1572 (the 2008 veterans bond measure) came AFTER he was attacked by Ose in the primary when McClintock KNEW he would be defending his record with veterans in the general election against Brown. See the bill's history at the bottom of this post.
So he definitely gets no points for that.
Also, I'll add that McClintock was NOT a co-author on the prior veterans bond bill that went on the 2000 ballot. He didn't even vote on the bill.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_101_cfa_20000804_092228_sen_floor.html
Bob
COMPLETE BILL HISTORY
BILL NUMBER : S.B. No. 1572
AUTHOR : Wyland
TOPIC : Veterans' Bond Act of 2008.
TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Urgency
Non-Appropriations
2/3 Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
BILL HISTORY
2008
July 15 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 122, Statutes of 2008.
July 15 Approved by Governor.
July 8 Enrolled. To Governor at 10 a.m.
July 7 Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page
4656.) To enrollment.
July 3 In Senate. To unfinished business.
July 3 Read second time. To third reading. Unanimous consent granted to
consider without reference to file. Read third time. Urgency
clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 75. Noes 0. Page 6008.) To
Senate.
July 2 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.)
July 1 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time.
Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
June 26 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time.
Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
June 18 From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR.
(Ayes 8. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 1 To Com. on V.A.
Apr. 22 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Apr. 21 Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes
0. Page 3513.) To Assembly.
Apr. 15 Read second time. To third reading.
Apr. 14 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0. Page 3406.)
Mar. 27 Set for hearing April 14.
Mar. 26 From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR.
(Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3194.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Mar. 12 Set for hearing March 25.
Mar. 6 To Com. on V.A.
Feb. 25 Read first time.
Feb. 24 From print. May be acted upon on or after March 25.
Feb. 22 Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Bob,
What is the use of bringing up votes? You will dismiss any we submit as you did the bond vote.
What is the use of bringing up examples where Tom fought for veterans? We did that in the primary and you dismissed that as well.
What is the use of having Veterans be vocal in their support for Tom? You just say they don't know what they are talking about, like you did with those at the press conference last week.
What is the use of saying Tom adored and respected his father who was a veteran. That would not count for anything either.
Bob, it really looks like the ONLY way that you believe someone can REALLY show support for the veterans is to attend anti-war rallies where US Soldiers are hung in effigy: Tom McClintock is NEVER going to do that so I guess he won't be getting your support.
John
What's the use of talking to you? You are bobbing and weaving on this one, John.
Examine the chronology. SB 1572--a no-brainer that every California legislater i both parties votes "yes" for every eight years when it comes up--gets going at about the time Tom McClintock throws his hat in the ring for CD4, a race he knows will involve questions about his record on veterans. This gives him a veterans bill he can point to. It would work if the timing wasn't so awkward.
That's a very legitimate point.
I still have a McClintock veterans flyer from the primary. I can't find the other one that I received but there were two. I don't know why they were mailed to me but they were. The one I have contains nothing of substance whatsoever. Just a bunch of Tom's quotes with no specifics on his record at all. The other one, as I recall, had a couple of veterans endorsements. I checked into those and they were both partisans who have given money to the Republican Party or who have otherwise been involved in Republican politics. That flyer contained no specifics on Tom's accomplishments, either, to the best of my recollection.
So what else do you have? Just more duck and avoid tactics?
Bob
Bob,
I think you missed my last post where I said:
"What is the use of bringing up votes? You will dismiss any we submit as you did the bond vote.
"What is the use of bringing up examples where Tom fought for veterans? We did that in the primary and you dismissed that as well.
"What is the use of having Veterans be vocal in their support for Tom? You just say they don't know what they are talking about, like you did with those at the press conference last week.
"What is the use of saying Tom adored and respected his father who was a veteran. That would not count for anything either.
"Bob, it really looks like the ONLY way that you believe someone can REALLY show support for the veterans is to attend anti-war rallies where US Soldiers are hung in effigy: Tom McClintock is NEVER going to do that so I guess he won't be getting your support."
So Charlie is your man and that is fine with me, I just don't think you are going to get any real veterans to go along with that or attend those types of rallies, but there are a few like Charlie out there so I guess you can keep digging.
John
There is the answer.
Tom McClintock doesn't have a record of doing positive, tangible things for veterans.
John Stoos has just confirmed it.
John had three opportunities to provide a list of specific legislative accomplishments for veterans out of the "dozens if not hundreds" he has claimed for his man, Tom.
Three strikes and you are out.
Bob,
I think you missed my last post where I said:
"What is the use of bringing up votes? You will dismiss any we submit as you did the bond vote.
"What is the use of bringing up examples where Tom fought for veterans? We did that in the primary and you dismissed that as well.
"What is the use of having Veterans be vocal in their support for Tom? You just say they don't know what they are talking about, like you did with those at the press conference last week.
"What is the use of saying Tom adored and respected his father who was a veteran. That would not count for anything either.
"Bob, it really looks like the ONLY way that you believe someone can REALLY show support for the veterans is to attend anti-war rallies where US Soldiers are hung in effigy: Tom McClintock is NEVER going to do that so I guess he won't be getting your support."
John