I just listened to the debate on KTKZ. Yep, what had been planned to be a Brown-bashing party by Eric Hogue and Tom McClintock turned into an unscheduled twenty-five minute debate between the candidates when Charlie Brown called in as the first caller at about 12:35.

Brown did a terrific job and unmasked McClintock for what he is: A man who can't run on his own policies and has therefore resorted to slimy and false attacks on his opponent. Tom McClintock wouldn't know a patriot if one fell on his head.

Tom McClintock, who continues to collect per diem payments he doesn't need that come directly from taxpayer dollars claims he's the man to reduce the burden and cost of government. He said he's "concerned about California's finances" but not enough to turn down the per diem payments, and, better yet, introduce legislation to completely eliminate the loophole he enjoys. Such a move could save California taxpayers almost $5 million but since Tom has been able to pocket well over $300K in tax-free payments one can only conclude he is a phony when it comes to smaller government. When it comes to a real test of his principles he falls short.

McClintock claims his support for Prop 12, the California Veterans Housing Bond makes him a model citizen when it comes to veterans legislation. The truth is that this measure has been successfully passed in the California legislature every few years since the 1920s. It took no courage or really any work for Tom to be one of the ten (10) co-authors of the bill, especially when he jumped onboard after he knew he would have to defend his terrible veterans voting record as a candidate for the House of Representatives in California's District 4. In today's debate Tom rationalized his no votes on measures for California veterans and their widows but failed to note that the bills were supported by the leading California veterans and guard/reservists groups and by every state senator except him and, for one bill, one other clueless Republican. If the bills were going to be bad news for veterans why is it that they were so strongly endorsed by veterans organizations and passed by an almost unanimous vote? Why have there been no lawsuits since the bills were passed in 2005 if these bills were so harmful to companies or to veterans? Why, if Tom McClintock cared so much, didn't he offer his objections then in writing or on the Senate floor or, better yet, propose alternative legislation to correct the problems he had with these bills? No, he doesn't care about veterans. He cares about his principles--unless it concerns his lucrative per diem income.

Back in May Tom McClintock responded in writing to an Auburn Journal request for the candidates to identify and talk about their top five issues for the district. What did Tom McClintock say? Immigration. He thinks restricting legal immigration and proposing expensive, draconian and completely impractical measures to fight illegal immigration are the solutions to what he calls the number one issue for our Northern California district. McClintock stood alone out of all the candidates with this strange priority at a time when energy costs had already risen dramatically, we are still fighting two wars and when the economy was already on very shaky grounds. Yet in this radio debate McClintock has suddenly decided the economy is the number one issue. That's funny: I have all his flyers at home and not one--not ONE--talks about the economy. And for good reason since his party is largely to blame for the mess. Americans believe Republicans are behind the current economic mess 2-1 versus Democrats. In fact if you look at his advertising spend you'd have to believe that his own sorry record and poor policy positions are the number one issue for Tom as his campaign launches one slimy and underhanded attack ad after another. Make up your mind, Mr. McClintock!

McClintock's energy policy is as old and as backward as the dinosaurs that became the oil he is so focused on. As Brown pointed out, new oil is only part of the solution to our energy problem. McClintock went on and on about a $10 billion dam that won't get built for decades if at all (there are real seismic issues that have not been resolved) and which will cost taxpayers dearly in the process. McClintock offered nothing--nada--to move the country away from inevitably finite oil to new, renewable sources of energy and to better conservation technologies.

All McClintock has is slime, lies and bad policies. If elected he will be completely marginalized as he was for most of his career in the California legislature. CD4 will be stuck with a Don Quixote figure who desperately wants to mount his anti-immigrant horse and attack windmills like Tom Tancredo while the country suffers from so many other more important problems. He will be an embarassment to this district and to California.

Brown did a terrific job in the debate today despite the advantages McClintock enjoyed in this decidely partisan radio program. He displayed clear debate skills and more than held his own against a veteran politico who has done nothing in his life outside running for office.

Great job, Charlie. Tom McClintock - it's time to retire.

Bob

Bob,

If Charlie is so good he should have shown up at the El Dorado forum this morning!

BUT it sounds like there is breaking news from the Brown campaign: despite what he told Hollywood donors over the summer he now realizes that we need new oil! That will be GREAT news for all the voters in the 4th CD who drive cars or use plastic.

Of course if you leave out hydro, nuclear and coal, you still have a problem reaching energy independence but maybe Senator McClintock can move Charlie a little further along in the next forum.

John

PS: Just so folks know that you do just make stuff up as you go along, your first charge that Tom "continues to take per diem" cannot be true since per diem is only paid when the Senate is in session and they have adjourned for the year! I thought someone who studied per diem the way you have would have known that, but then again I guess you did and just could not help yourself.

John,

Glad you brought up per diem. I suspect McClintock hasn't received his last per diem payment since the Senate just finished its session a few days ago after the epic budget battle and government guys like Tom probably get paid on the 1st and the 15th of every month.

Tom made a LOT of money on the budget fight. By staying in session several extra weeks he has pocketed an additional five or six thousand tax-free dollars. No wonder he was in no hurry to compromise!

But Tom could still do the right thing and refuse that last payment. Of course he has missed his opportunity to introduce any legislation. We'll have to call him Too Late Tom.

Bob

Bob,

Typical Bob: Caught in a lie so change the subject! An apology would have been nice and then the discussion could continue.

By the way, I see on the other post that Charlie discussed his underwear on the Hogue Show... You really should have included that in your comments!

"What About Bob?"

RE: I'm reading and I personally heard a different debate.

What were you listening to?

I'm thinking you must have been listening to an old audio cassette left over from the KFBK interview with Bruce at night, certainly not today's 'surprise debate' with McClintock on 1380 KTKZ. My headsets were burning.

Now I'm having some fun here at the risk of being self aggrandizing with KTKZ and my show...but I couldn't refuse.

Seriously, I personally like Charlie, but he should know better than to bring a pocket-knife to an AK-47 gun fight. Calling in for a 'free-flow' debate with Tom McClintock (on 'live' talk radio no less!) is like sleeping in your BTU's, it may feel like a good idea, but you get a rash come morning.

Hogue

Oops, I meant BDU's...not BTU's; then again maybe I should have said BVD's instead considering what Charlie said about his attire during the show.

Hogue

Eric,

Yes, McClintock is a caveman with an AK-47. Pretty good description of him. Prehistoric ideas coupled with attack politics using blunt weapons like a 60-year old Soviet machine gun. He may be a better speaker but that does not mean he would be a better congressman.

'Course your audience probably ate it up. Raw meat for them. But Brown did surprisingly well. He destroyed the "full uniform" lie. He made the point that he worked both sides of the line that night. He drove home the fact that he and his family have invested their lives to the service and to veterans. And more.

McClintock's attack on Brown's judgment doesn't wash when one remembers that in February 2005 our war strategy was a disaster. Where was Tom McClintock then? Pressure finally forced Bush to do something different. Though the "surge" has reduced violence there are signs that the Sunni Awakening is falling asleep (see AP article, below) and the military has been unwilling to move troops from Iraq to shore up Afghanistan which desperately needs reinforcements. But that's OK; Palin says we have achieved victory so it must be so. I hope so but I don't think so. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqcf4hJJLFQ6OQ5r856u0KlvnJlwD93DS9981

Brown's positions on energy are much better thought-out and forward-thinking than McClintock's use--no, his abuse--of standard Republican talking points (even points that have already been proven false like China-Cuba). McClintock's policies simply guarantee long-term dependence on foreign oil.

Sure I'm part of the choir but on balance I think Brown did very well. I do appreciate that you gave him the air time today.

Bob

Bob,

Finally you have clarified the difference between Charlie and Tom: Both had concerns with how the war was going in 2005.

Tom joined with Senator McCain in saying the plan was broken and that we needed to WIN since we were committed with our troops in harms way.

Charlie put on his uniform and ran down to the anti-war rally where they were hanging a US soldier in effigy. As I have said, something Tom would never had done because he has too much respect for our troops and veterans!

Charlie may still have the anti-war vote, and you guys can cheer his performance today. BUT, his problem is that it is a very small group in the 4th CD and none of them are real veterans.

JOHN

John

John,

Let's see--you say McClintock stood with John McCain in saying the war plan was broken and that we needed to win. Funny. I searched Tom's speeches and press releases and everything else on his Senate website going back to 2001 and not one time--not once--did he mention Iraq. He did, however, find time in February of 2005 to release a statement praising the Reagan stamp.

In fact, the one time it appears that Tom McClintock could have taken an official stand on the war he decided not to take a stand. Republicans have attacked Obama for his “Present” votes; McClintock didn’t even vote on the “Iraq Withdrawal Ballot Question” in the California legislature. Should we assume his silence was assent or that he just didn't care?

SB 924: Iraq Withdrawal Ballot Question

Issues: Foreign Aid and Policy Issues, Military Issues
Date: 08/30/2007
Sponsor: Sen. Perata, Don

Concurrence Vote Passed
(Senate)
How members voted
(23 - 14)

Senator McClintock did not vote
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=15603&can_id=9715

Bob

Bob,

There is a reason Tom's title is "State Senator." He serves in the STATE Senate and they have little to say or do with national policies, especially war policy where they have no benefit of intelligent briefings.

John

Bob,

I am finally able to listen to the debate: I almost lost my coffee when Charlie said we could get 20% of our electricity from wind right now!

That is some of the BEST HOT AIR I have ever from a campaign or a candidate. California has invested MILLIONS into trying to get wind production and it has been a dismal failure.

By the way, IF we are to believe Charlie's explanation of that fateful evening he attended the anti-war rally where they hung a US soldier in effigy, then he just drops by such events to check out both sides and see what is going on: Sort of confirms the new web site about "wishy-washy" Charlie!

John

John,

The reason you almost spilled your coffee is because you are one of Aaron's Luddites.

From the California Wind Energy Association:

Wind in the Big Picture

Wind energy produces electricity without emitting any pollutants or greenhouse gases at all, requires no mining or drilling, helps preserve habitat and open space, and poses no national security threats. Wind energy could easily and cost-effectively contribute 20% of California's electricity supply by 2020.

A recent California Energy Commission (a state agency) report showed that in 2004 1.5% of California's electrical energy came from wind, enough to power San Francisco (if it survives the federal budget cuts Tom plans to impose). Efficiency of wind power systems--as with solar--is increasing rapidly making these technologies very cost effective.

I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I am planning the installation of solar electric panels on my home. The detailed analysis and site survey indicates that this installation will generate positive cash flow from Day 1. This wasn't remotely possible ten years ago.

CD4 has the combinations of sunshine, land and wind energy available to be a major player in the solar and wind energy games in California. How can you be against that? Yet McClintock pays it no heed. He has received $150,000 in lifetime contributions from oil and gas interests.

See this page for a map showing where California's wind energy resources are located. CD4 is a significant part.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind_potential.html

Your information on the potential for wind energy is, like McClintock's entire energy program, antiquated.

Bob

John,

Yes McClintock is a State Senator. However, you posted that "Tom joined with Senator McCain in saying the plan was broken and that we needed to WIN since we were committed with our troops in harms way."

When was this? AFTER he threw his hat in the ring for this election early in 2008? The surge was already showing good progress in reducing violence by then. Where was McClintock on Iraq when the country needed political leaders--from all levels--to weigh in on the failing Bush war strategy? In Tom's case the answer is that he chose to not engage in the debate at all. His decision not to vote for the 2007 Iraq Withdrawal Ballot Question means he either tacitly supported the measure or just didn't care enough to vote at all. Tom has a l-o-n-g history of voting "no" on things he doesn't like. Why did he fail to weigh in on this question?

Bob

Bob,

This gets better with every cup of coffee!

You have now made my point: After years of work,million in subsidies and lots of ugly hillsides wind can only account for 1.5% of our power: And that is not very reliable and VERY expensive. And I guess no one cares about all the birds that they have killed!

How does Charlie propose we get it to 20%? That would take even more than the $85 billion in tax increases he has already proposed.

And please do go to the map that you linked and show us where in the 4th CD you would put additional wind farms. You slam me for not caring about a hole made in the middle of nowhere to obtain some shale oil, but you want our grand Sierras to look like the Altamont Pass! The word that you should have looked up in the dictionary is hypocrite!

John

Bob,

As is often the case you have missed the point: Tom thinks state official should focus on state issues and he always has. You complained that he did not have any positions on the war on his state web site and that is the explanation.

It is also the explanation of the vote you cite: It was a protest against a measure that should never have been put before the Senate for a vote. You do not establish foreign policy, and especially war policy by having state referendums.

John

Wow Bob.

Since Hogue's show ends at 1, and I assume the debate ended then, you managed to get your lengthy thrilled review in a mere 38 minutes after the fact.

Where do you work again Bob? I ask because I want that job, since it gives you a lot more time to post on websites than my work and school (which started up again yesterday, btw. Looks like a great quarter coming up, thanks for asking.)

Regardless, were you listening to the same interview I just heard? Brown struck me as genuinely and righteously angry, but also unprepared. I don't think he used a less common term with "coal shale." I think he is not a good speaker and fumbled to combine words.

His "ambush" seemed to encounter an unexpectedly superior force. He was beaten off with heavy casualties.

Just how heavy?

Look at the length of Bob's posts on the subject to find out. A winner doesn't have to prove that he won. The loser has to attempt a rewrite of history.

Hector

A rewrite of history...as in what McClintock is now trying to do with his record on the war and veterans.

Funny!

Bob,

Need I remind you that it was Charlie who went to the anti-war rally where they hung a soldier in effigy that he is now having to dodge, dance around, change and even lie about.

You may not agree with every stand the Tom has taken on many issues, but can you give me one example of where he is trying to rewrite history in that kind of fashion???

John

Oh OK Bob, here's some history:

Here is a list of McClintock's voting record supporting serving U.S. troops, veterans and their dependents. Compare it to the small handful of votes Charlie Brown has managed to twist to his favor.

TAXATION/FEE EXEMPTIONS:
SB 1777 - May, 2008. Streamlining of the disabled veterans property tax exemption.
SB 1495 - April 2008.– Closing a loophole protecting the disabled veterans property tax exemption
SB 386 – August, 2007. – Exempts the surviving spouse of a former POW or Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient from paying the vehicle license fee and registration fees on their vehicles
SB 1637 – August, 2006.– Make several changes to the disabled veterans property tax exemption.
AB 1910 – August, 2006 – Allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue disabled license plates to agencies and organizations that transport disabled veterans
SB 1498 – April, 2006 – Exempts a member of the California National Guard or a US Armed Forces from paying the vehicle license fee and registration fee
SB 162 – June, 2005 - Exempts a member US Armed Forces that is deployed outside California from paying the vehicle license fee and registration fee
AB 160 – June, 2005 – Exempts the surviving spouse of a former POW or Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient from paying the vehicle license fee and registration fees on their vehicles
SB 764 – August, 2004 – Index the disabled veterans property tax exemption for changes in the Consumer Price Index
SB 1725– August, 2004 - Parking placards and license plates for disabled veterans
SB 1713 – May, 2004 – Conforms California tax law to the changes made by the Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003
AB 1143 – July, 2003 – Exempt disabled veterans from paying certain vehicle and license fees
SB 2195 – August, 2000 – Extends the property tax exemption for disabled veterans
SB 1462 – August, 1998 – Exempts POWs from paying the vehicle license fee

FINANCIAL/MEDICAL/LEGAL/ OTHER PROTECTIONS/PROGRAMS/BENEFITS:
SB 1353. May, 2008 – Authorizes the Governor to issue an Executive Order to extend exiting benefits from two years to four years for state-employees-members of the Military Reserves called to active duty in support of the Global War on Terrorism
AJR 2 . September 2007. Resolution asking Congress to enact legislation granting veteran benefits to Filipino Americans who fought in WWII in the Armed Forces
AB 839. August, 2007 – Adds National Guard members to the list of military services who would be exempt from renewing their real estate license while serving on active duty
SB 904. May 2007. – Requires county recorders to mask the personal information of service members when a copy of a military service record is furnished
SB 159. May, 2007 Adds Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise to receive the same prompt payment protections afforded other California small businesses
AB 2884 – August, 2006 – Expands the health care coverage protections for members of the US Military Reserve and National Guard who are called to active duty
AB 2750 – August, 2006 – Creates the California Veteran and National Guard Benefit Commission to study and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on National Guard and Veterans issues
AB 2586 – August, 2006 – Allows a court to place a defendant who suffers from substance abuse, post traumatic stress disorder, or other psychological disorders as a result of military combat in a probation and treatment program
SB 1720. August, 2006 – Assist any veterans returning to California to obtain health screening for exposure to depleted uranium.
AB 2844 – August, 2006 – California Veterans Mental Health Services Act of 2006
AB 2085 – August, 2006 – Modifies one of the eligibility requirements for receiving aid from the California Military Family Relief Fund
AB 980 – September, 2005 – Provides disability benefits to members of the state militia who are wounded, injured, or disabled during federal active duty in an amount equal to those benefits received by regular military personnel
AB 1594 – August, 2005 – Provided for a $10,000 death benefit for the beneficiaries of member of the National Guard who were killed in the performance of their duty after March 1, 2003
AJR 2 – August, 2005 – Resolution urging Congress to grant full veteran benefits to Filipino veterans of the US Armed Forces
SB 1082 – June, 2005 – Facilitates a process whereby deployed military personnel can seek a modification of their child support orders
SB 1193 – August, 2004 – Requires the state to pay a $10,000 death benefit for the beneficiaries of member of the National Guard who were killed in the performance of their duty after March 1, 2003
SB 1008 – September, 2003 – Strengthens the sanctions that can be levied against businesses that fraudulently misrepresent their eligibility for disabled veteran business enterprise certification
SB 544 – August, 2003 – Added protection to Veteran service records from identity theft
AJR 21 –July, 2003 – Resolution urging Congress to maintain lifetime medical care for military retirees
SB 1893 – May, 2002 – Allows the Department of Veteran Affairs to establish a separate rate of interest for any loan holder called to active duty
SB 1309 – May, 2002 – Provides life and disability insurance increases for qualified veteran Cal-Vet loan holders
SB 1281 – May, 2002 – Requires the veterans home administrators to provide a written notice of care that are incurred in excess of the members contribution fee
SB 1251 – August, 2002 – Clarifying changes to the Cal-Vet home loan program
AJR 50 – August, 2002 - Resolution urging Congress to establish a federal-state partnership to use local county veteran service officers to assist the US Department of Veteran affairs claims processing backlog
SB 569 – January, 2002 – Includes inactive duty training days for which a public employee is entitled paid leave
AJR 26 – June, 2002 – Resolution urging Congress to take action to ensure fair treatment of military reserve members called to active duty when they apply for loans
AB 1850 – August, 2002 – Allows reservists of the National Guard called up to active duty for more than 30 days to be eligible for health care benefits to cover their dependents
AB 979 – August, 2002 – Provides certain benefit compensations to state employees called into active military service as a result of the war on terrorism
AB 1433 – May, 2002 – Extends SACRA benefits to California reservists and members of the National Guard called to state military duty or to federal military duty on domestic territory
AB 120 – August, 2001 – Prohibits a person who provides lending or financing from discriminating against any person regarding the term or financing based on the person’s membership in the Armed Forces
AB 2092 – August, 2000 – Allows disabled veterans to retroactively file for disabled veteran benefits
AB 274 – May, 1999 – Inclusion of life and disability insurance for loans made under the Cal-Vet program
AB 1978 – July, 2000 – Permits Filipino-American veterans of WWII who live in California and return to the Philippines to continue receiving support benefits
SJR 35 – May, 1998 - Resolution urging Congress to grant full veteran benefits to Filipino veterans of the US Armed Forces
AB 2094 – May, 1998 – Provides the Department of Veteran Affairs with greater flexibility to set interest rates on loans under the Cal-Vet program
SB 335 – August, 1997 – Requires the Department of Veteran Affairs to study the health care need and costs of providing care to veterans with Alzheimer’s and other dementia diseases
SB 846 – July, 1997 – Revises the eligibility and security requirements for Cal-Vet loans
SB 574 – July, 1997 – Expand eligibility for state veteran benefits under the Cal-Vet program

HOUSING/PROPERTY BENEFITS:
AJR 32 –August, 2006 - Resolution that urges Congress to enact legislation to increase the issuance of Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds to fund home purchases and home improvement loans
AB 2266 – August, 2004 – Authorizes the Cal-Vet Farm and Home Loan Program for purchase of shares of stock in cooperative housing corporations
AB 3000 – July, 2004 – Allows POWs to receive priority status to California’s Veterans Homes
AB 1036 – September, 2003 – Increase benefits under the Veterans Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1974
AB 1736 – August, 2003 – Allow the State Department of Veteran Affairs to equip and design and construct various veterans homes
AB 322 –August, 2003 – Allows a disabled veteran who has qualified for the disabled veterans property tax exemption to maintain their exemption when they no longer reside at the home because they are confined to a care facility or hospital
SB 1773 – August, 2002 – Renovation of the Veterans Home of California, Yountville
SB 1234 – 8/2002 – Authorizes the State Public Works Board to issue lease-revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, design, construction, renovation, and expansion of Veteran homes
SB 933 – August, 2001 – Gives priority to recipients of the Medal of Honor for residence eligibility in Veterans Homes and allows their widows and widowers to gain eligibility as well
AJR 17 – September, 2001 – Resolution urging Congress for an extension of the home loan program
AB 2428 – August, 2002 – Expands the definition of veteran for the purposes of eligibility for home mortgage financing through the Depart of Veteran Affairs
SB 1324 – July, 1997 – Change the eligibility requirements for entering a Veterans Home of California

FINANCIAL AID/EDUCATION BENEFITS:
SB 1680. May, 2008. Authorizes the California Community Colleges and California State University and encourages the University of California by establishing a Military and Veterans Offices for assisting veterans for financial aid and other student services
AB 950. September, 2007. Extends from one year to two year the period of time which nonresident Californian member of the armed Forces stationed in California seeking a graduate degree to be considered as resident for paying fees.
SB 272 – September, 2007 – Give those California State University and California Community College campuses who provide priority enrollment for classes to members of the armed forces within two years of leaving active duty
SB 1322 – August, 2004 – Five year extension of the APLE-National Guard program and other academic related benefits
AB 1965 – June, 2002 – Prohibits the UC, CSU, and CCCs from charging mandatory student fees to any undergraduate student who is a child of a recipient of the Medal of Honor

VETERANS BUSINESS/EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY INCENTIVES/RIGHTS:
SB 1697 – August, 2006 – Requires the Military Department to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
AJR 25 – June, 2006 – Resolution urging Congress to establish a federal-state partnership to use local county veteran service officers to assist the US Department of Veteran affairs claims processing backlog
SB 115 – September, 2005 – Requiring the Department of General Services to establish a Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise participation incentive to bidders that would be mandatory for all state agencies.
AB 1523 – August, 2005 – Extends the period for a military leave of absence for state employees from four to five years
SB 320 – May, 2005 – Delays recertification of potential fraudulent Disabled Veterans Business Enterprises for three years.
SJR 17 – August, 2003 - Resolution urging Congress to establish a federal-state partnership to use local county veteran service officers to assist the US Department of Veteran affairs claims processing backlog
SB 1033 – May, 2001 – Provides an additional bid preference for state government contracts to disabled veteran businesses
AB 941 – September, 2001 – Increase the participation of disabled veteran business enterprises in state funded contracts
AB 737 – July, 2001 – Expands the simplified contract bidding procedures to include disabled veteran business enterprises

Here's some more history, Bob:

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

"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."

Care to revise your statements, sir? Care to rewrite some history?

Hector

Hector,

That is pretty shoddy work: You missed the first eighteen years that Senator McClintock served in the Legislature! :)

John