Wow! You go away for a weekend and you guys just go NUTS! Look at all the nonsense that has piled up here on Red County Placer in just a couple of days!

Thousands and thousands and thousands of words in blog posts and comments and yet...

Not ONE tiny bit of information about why Tom McClintock should be our next Congressman.

Not one word.

Lots of attacks on his opponent. Lots of attacks on Democrats. But nothing--not ONE SINGLE WORD--about why anyone should vote for Tom McClintock.

That speaks volumes.

Bob

We know that Charlie is an anti-war activist before dissing Sheehan and Pearcy.

We know that Tom McClintock has always supported America and it's troops.

In Tom McClintock's family tradition, marriage is between one man and one woman and he has voted that way. Charlie supports Gay Marriage.

We know that Brown supports Abortion on Demand / Tom has a lifetime A rating from California Right to Life

We know that Brown has said on Blue America that he is not an NRA member / Tom McClintock has a lifetime A rating from the NRA

We know that Brown supported the massive amnesty bill / Tom McClintock is endorsed by every major border watchdog group out there

Charlie Brown chided Tom for not voting for Arnold's original budget - 30 days later a deal was struck without a tax increase

Tom McClintock has signed the no new taxes pledge / Brown has not

Brown is an ACLU member

Brown opposed the surge that has brought results in Iraq

Brown has parroted Nancy Pelosi's energy "plan". Tom McClintock says we need to drill in new places and now.

Tom McClintock has not taken campaign donations from tax evaders and communists.

Is that enough for you?

Bob,

I guess you missed all those "words" about energy and tax policy so let me summarized:

IF you want higher gas prices vote for Charlie

IF you want lower gas prices and energy independence, vote for McClintock

IF you want to pay higher taxes vote for Charlie

IF you want to pay lower taxes and have a balanced federal budget, vote for McClintock.

John

PS: I could mention that Tom supports Prop 8 while Charlie opposes it [we think] but that would upset Corey

CHARLIE BROWN: "I was not in uniform."
TODD STENHOUSE: "It was a BDU [Battle Dress Uniform] Jacket..."

Bob and Lee, answer the question: are you still going to support a candidate who LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH to the public about wearing his uniform at a radical anti-war protest where a soldier was hung in effigy?

YES or NO?

OK, let's take these one at a time:

"We know that Tom McClintock has always supported America and it's troops."

No, we don't. In fact, we know just the opposite. McClintock has a long history of voting against bills for veterans while in the California legislature. And he has added to this sorry record by his sordid attacks this month on his opponent.

From a post by Jeff Flint last April:
http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/04/tom-mcclintock-a-consistant-re/

1. Tom McClintock was only one of two members of the legislature to vote against given California active duty troops some relief from certain fees, expenses, and obligations while they are deployed overseas - AB 1666 (Frommer), passed the State Senate on 9/7/2005, the vote was 38 to 2, McClintock voting no.

2. McClintock was one of just two senators to vote against legislation that allowed active duty military members to defer some financial obligations upon deployment for a period of time - AB 306, passed State Senate 35 to 2 on 9/6/2005, McClintock voting no.

3. McClintock was one of two members of the Senate who opposed legislation to provide a six month grace period on interest charges and surcharges to accounts belonging to surviving spouses of military members killed in action or accounts belonging to the deceased for which the surviving spouse is liable - SB 513, passed the State Senate on 8/29/2005, 33 to 2, McClintock voting No.

4. McClintock in 1997 (then in the Assembly) was the only Assemblyman to oppose AJR 29, which stated to Congress that California had been disproportionately impacted by military base closings and that this should be taken into account, minimizing further California base closures. - AJR 29, passed State Assembly on 7/3/1997, 76 to 1...McClintock voting no.

I invite Aaron, John, Ken or someone else to post SPECIFICS...how has McClintock supported veterans? Real deal stuff, not speeches, not platitudes.

Bob

Bob,

Nice try but all of this was discussed at LENGTH in the primary: You might not agree with the arguments presented for those votes, but they were explained.

We are yet to hear even ONE WORD of explanation from you or Lee as to how a veteran can explain what Charlie did at that rally.

Looks like this campaign is running on empty.

John

"Tom McClintock is endorsed by every major border watchdog group out there"

Yes, and that's truly scary. I have posted at length here about the shady history of the people who have endorsed Tom McClintock in person during this campaign. Jim Gilchrist, kicked out of his own organization for alleged fraud. His lawsuit challenging that act was thrown out of court. Chris Simcox, paranoid wing nut. His ex-wife accused him of abusing his own son. He appears in photos with pistols stuck in his pants looking like he just got out of jail.

McClintock wants to replace Tom Tancredo as the nation's leading anti-immigrant activist. He supports immigration policies that are impractical and inhuman. In a district that doesn't suffer much (if at all) from immigration (legal or illegal) he rates this issue the most important. He appeals to voter fears and prejudices.

McClintock's overall endorsement list is a who's who of extreme groups led by extreme people. There is nothing better to know Tom as an extremist than a review of the groups that have endorsed him. They have patriotic or family-oriented names but their agenda is very often brutal, driven by greed or focused on pushing a small minority's views onto the majority.

Bob

"Charlie Brown chided Tom for not voting for Arnold's original budget - 30 days later a deal was struck without a tax increase"

This is completely disingenuous. The budget deal the governor will sign is a Frankenstein that pushes the problem to next year through a series of strange financial mechanisms. The budget increases many costs to California taxpayers including higher withholding (loaning the state money and earning no interest), penalties on businesses which underpay taxes and the hidden costs associated with not addressing the structural deficit...California takes in less money than it spends.

What McClintock and company have probably done is to fight to a draw in a battle while setting the stage for losing the war. A ballot measure reducing the 2/3 vote required to pass a budget to 55% is likely next year (maybe leaving a 2/3 vote as a requirement when the proposed budget exceeds some set year over year increase threshold). Such a measure was turned down by voters in 2004 but after this year's mess and the likelihood that we will go through Act II again next year the probability of such a measure passing is much higher.

Let's not forget that Tom McClintock kept earning per diem for the extra long session required for this budget fight. He made money on the prolonged negotiations.

This is a good, non-partisan view of the budget. Everybody gets a little credit--and a lot of blame:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap22-2008sep22,0,6116488.column

Bob

Bob,

Lots more words, but still NOT one word of explanation on you candidate attending a rally IN UNIFORM where a US soldier was hung in effigy.

We are waiting...

John

"Tom McClintock has signed the no new taxes pledge"

Pledges like this by politicians are absolutely silly. All they are is a political gimmick. They also box in a lawmaker when reality bites. Did Tom's pledge come with an asterisk? Something like this...

"I pledge to never increase taxes. Read my lips: Never!"*

* Except in cases where the nation is attacked, goes to war and needs to increase spending to defeat the enemy

or

* Except in cases where some of the nation's most important financial institutions are failing and taxpayer money is needed to inject into the system to prevent wholesale failure

or

Yadda yadda yadda

The fact is that politicans need to be able to compromise to get things done. McClintock is way too black and white.

Bob

"Tom McClintock says we need to drill in new places and now"

I have debunked McClintock's energy policy at length on this site. The bottom line is that the United States does not have the reserves to drill our way to energy independence. Domestic drilling MUST be accompanied by substantial investments in conservation and alternative energy technologies. Tom has no concrete plan besides opening up offshore areas and ANWR to drilling. He doesn't even have a proposal for how to tap shale oil. His ideas on conservation and alternatives are small bore and contain no teeth.

Further, McClintock has lied to voters about his energy policy. See my detailed earlier posts on this.

"Trillion barrels of reserves" = lie
"Brown supports $18 billion in increased prices at the pump" = lie

McClintock's in favor of "Drill, baby, drill". No impartial economist or oil industry analyst thinks that will work. McClintock uses our nations' economic future in a political game. This is one of the worst areas of McClintock policy (after immigration).

Bob

John,

Tell me SPECIFICALLY what Tom McClintock has done for veterans. Something that really helps them. C'mon, John. Cite a few examples of Tom's undying support for California's veterans.

Whatcha got?

Bob

Wow "Bob"- you stink of desperation now. Why don't you stard with answering some of the many questions I, and others, have asked of your Ultra Liberal Liar candidate. I have been asking you questions for quite some time- only to be ignored because they are not questions you want to have to address. You tell me to see the Liberal's web site for his say nothing talking points...lame

Answer the questions "Bob"

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."

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 should add that Tom McClintock is 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

Jimmy,

I answered your questions on another string. My turn. Answer this:

What meaningful and positive things has Tom McClintock done for veterans in his 22 years in the legislature?

Bob

Day 4 of the Bob-n-Lee Hypocrisy Watch...

CHARLIE BROWN: "I was not in uniform."
TODD STENHOUSE: "It was a BDU [Battle Dress Uniform] Jacket..."

Bob and Lee, answer the question: are you still going to support a candidate who LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH to the public about wearing his uniform at a radical anti-war protest where a soldier was hung in effigy?

YES or NO?

Todd Stenhouse at the press conference, September 16, 2008:

"My understanding of the uniform is that if Charlie showed up on base wearing that he'd be reprimanded. It ain't a uniform."

"That is not a military standard uniform. Right? It's a BDU jacket. 300,000 homeless veterans on the streets of America tonight. You know how many of them were wearing similar jackets? Quite a few. Take a walk outside."

"I'm not an expert on military code of conduct."

Neil and Bob - you're going to have to do better than regurgitating Doug Ose's military attacks.

You were the one that sent the press release chiding McClintock over the budget - you can't hide from that.

You are the ones taking money from Rangel and Barbara Lee...

This is not the John Doolittle campaign - we play as rough as you do.

I encourage you to sell your top ten reasons why we can't drill to the voters - at the same time, please be sure to talk about the social issues of Gay marriage and Abortion while you are at it. It's a winner in the 4th CD.

Aaron,

Smoke and mirrors.

Answer this:

What meaningful and positive things has Tom McClintock done for veterans in his 22 years in the legislature?

Bob

Still Day 4, Bob...just saying "Yes" would work.

CHARLIE BROWN: "I was not in uniform."
TODD STENHOUSE: "It was a BDU [Battle Dress Uniform] Jacket..."

Bob and Lee, answer the question: are you still going to support a candidate who LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH to the public about wearing his uniform at a radical anti-war protest where a soldier was hung in effigy?

YES or NO?

"Reagan" Conservative,

Ronald Reagan was not only a veteran he was a man who REALLY supported service people and veterans.

Your man McClintock is neither.

Bob

Bob,

Still a LOT more words and still not one word about that rally and your boy's attendance in uniform.

We are waiting.

John

PS: I can give you a long list of votes and actions on behalf of veterans, but as you said, it is your turn.

John,

I have posted on this site many times on this issue and have answered that question multiple times. Simply search Red County and you will find everything I have to say about this. Quit asking the same questions over and over again. Asked and answered.

No, it's YOUR turn. Watcha got?

Bob

We'll take that as a solid yes from Bob, even though he can't bring himself to write the words.

Bob and Lee pounced on Tom McClintock when he accidentally got some facts wrong about oil drilling in Florida.

Now, their candidate INTENTIONALLY LIES about his OWN ACTIONS, and they can't bring themselves to acknowledge it or justify their support for this joker.

So, Bob is still going to support Charlie Brown (D-Liarsville). Frankly, that makes everything that Bob writes from here on out sort of suspect, but we'll try and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Lee, still time for you to confirm your support for the liar before Day 4 comes to an end...

CHARLIE BROWN: "I was not in uniform."
TODD STENHOUSE: "It was a BDU [Battle Dress Uniform] Jacket..."

Lee, are you still going to support a candidate who LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH to the public about wearing his uniform at a radical anti-war protest where a soldier was hung in effigy?

YES or NO?

While we are talking about Bob's credibility, for weeks Bob has been touting the "Clinton surplus". Bob, I have asked you many times now, when are we going to get the exact year and amount of the "Clinton surplus"? I want to compare your numbers to the Congressional Budget Office's number. I am sure we all want to thank Bill Clinton for leading the Federal government into a period when government took in more money than they spent.

OK Bob, humor me and copy just a couple of the sentences that you have written to answer these questions.

John

No, no humor, John.

John - Broken record.

Ken - Confused about basic government accounting.

Jimmy - Another broken record.

Aaron - Go negative, stay negative, nothing but negative.

Reagan Conservative - Apparently doesn't know much about Reagan.

Sorry, you guys. I am NOT going to play your worn-out games.

I will ask you this, though:

1. Tell me what the Venturian Candidate has done for veterans. Specifically. Real, meaningful legislative accomplishments.

2. Tell me how Tom's energy policy achieves energy independence. Prove it with references and facts.

3. And here's a question for Tom: How old is the Earth? That's not a difficult question. What does he have to say?

Bob

FYI for Ken:

From the Office of Management and Budget.

SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS of the United States: 1789–2012

In millions of dollars

Surplus/(Deficit)
1997 (21,884)
1998 69,270
1999 125,610
2000 236,241
2001 128,236
2002 (157,758)
2003 (377,585)
2004 (412,727)
2005 (318,346)
2006 (248,181)
2007 (244,171) estimated
2008 (239,387) estimated

www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist01z1.xls

From the Congressional Budget Office

CBO data aligns to the OMB numbers above. CBO has two views, though. One is the same as OMB and the numbers are the same. This view includes both on-budget items and the impact of Social Security and Postal Service surpluses or deficits. The second CBO view includes on-budget items only and excludes the impact of Social Security and the Postal Service. In this view there is still a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1968 to 2007, in Billions of Dollars
www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Another OMB Source

This view by OMB shows the same data as CBO (including the surpluses in 1999 and 2000):
Historical Tables
Budget of the United States Government
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

Bob