Roll Call Reality Alert for Charlie Brown (Hint: It Hurts)
Posted by: Aaron Park | 10/07/2008 12:51 PM
Take a look at today's edition of Roll Call magazine:
I am telling you - Brown is not using Brett Shylock the way he should be. Given how they took John Kerry and made him into the second coming of Rambo... Maybe Stenhouse will take the muzzle off the guy after this... look at this snippet from Roll Call's article today and judge for yourself what Brown should do to try and regain traction. The House of Pain Rolls on...
By David M. Drucker, Josh Kurtz, John McArdle, Matthew Murray and Shira Toeplitz
Roll Call Staff
October 7, 2008California
House
4th district
Incumbent: John Doolittle (R) is retiring
Outlook: Likely Republican
State Sen. Tom McClintock (R) is well positioned to beat retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charlie Brown (D) and should win comfortably when all is said and done in this solidly conservative Northern California district.
But in a volatile election cycle and with an open seat, it's too early to put the lid on this race.
Brown ran in 2006 and nearly beat Doolittle despite the strong conservative lean of the district. Brown is campaigning largely on his biography as a career military officer, pledging to work with Democrats and Republicans to get things done for the good of the district.
However, it is notable that Brown's best tactic is to campaign on his biography rather than his position on key issues, like taxes, abortion and Iraq. Brown would have a better chance in this district if he was a conservative Democrat who opposed abortion rights, was more ardently against taxes and had favored the Iraq War surge.
McClintock is a perfect ideological fit for the 4th district. And even though he represents a state Senate district in Southern California and doesn't live in the district, he is among the most beloved Republicans in the state.
His name identification in the 4th district is high, courtesy of the several times that he has run for statewide office. Even in losing the 2006 race for lieutenant governor, McClintock won the 4th district, and in doing so, he received far more votes than either Brown or Doolittle.
For all of these reasons, Brown's attempt to diminish McClintock by labeling him as a carpet-bagging political opportunist is likely to fall short of its objective. It also doesn't help Brown that McClintock isn't weighed down by ethical issues, as Doolittle was in 2006.
Charlie - you're in the jungle baby... and your tour guide will be here through the 4th of November. You oughta send the lollypop man back to New Hampshire and save the money for another mailer that says nothing - just one man's suggestion, because I care.
Women's right to vote didn't exist until they fought for it. Blacks rights for equality didn't happen until...
I guess now even Roll Call has joined the vast right-wing group of extremists that Bob is so concerned about!
His reading list is growing VERY narrow. Like the Daily Koss is about it.
John
From Electoral-Vote.com:
--> "He [McClintock] is extremely conservative, perhaps even too much for this heavily Republican district."
"In 2006, Rep. John Doolittle defeated his Democratic opponent, Col. Charlie Brown, a retired Air Force pilot, by 49% to 46%. However, the ongoing FBI investigation of both Doolittle and his wife, both of whom have ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, got to be too much and in January Doolittle announced that he was not running for reelection. Brown is running again. The Republican candidate is Tom McClintock, a state senator who represents a district 400 miles from CA-04. McClintock was first elected to the state assembly at 26 and later graduated to the state senate. He has run for state controller and governor and lost. He is extemely conservative, perhaps even too much for this heavily Republican district."
"Bob" your response basically means Roll Call hit the mark. Quoting left-wing sites is no ointment for the house of pain.
Bob,
How can one be too conservative for a district where over 50% of the likely voters identify themselves as conservatives???
I don't know what percentage of the 4th Cd voters support radical anti-war candidates that attend rallies where US soldiers are hung in effigy, but I suspect it is MUCH smaller.
John
It wsn't a left-wing site. Go take a look.
The point is there is a subnarrative in this race. It's the narrative that explains the 2003 recall results where McClintock got just 16% of the CD4 vote to Arnold's 60%. Neither of you have ever answered the question: Why? Why did California's Conservative Icon - well known even then - fare so poorly in a race between himself and a moderate newcomer in one of California's most conservative districts?
Why indeed? The reason, I think, is that this district is not blood red. It has a large percentage of Republican registrants but a huge chunk of them are the old "country club" type who are most interested in economic matters. Sure there is a socially conservative core but as I have demonstrated in earlier analyses these are a distinct minority. In combination, social and fiscal conservatives own this district but when a candidate is extreme on the social issues and ineffective on the fiscal side he or she will not get the Republican vote en masse.
The Primary this year is further evidence of this subnarrative. McClintock got just 56% of the Republican vote. Care to guess which 56% that was?
Fact is, despite your repetitive and demeaning attacks on Brown most people do recognize him for what he is: A middle of the road conservative Democrat. That's why you are worried and that's why it's very possible that Tom McClintock will lose this election and go into--I hope--political retirement.
Bob
REPETITIVE AND DEMEANING
Well, that's Aaron simply being Aaron. But hey, he raised over 20 thou for Charlie this past weekend. That makes him a REPETITIVE AND DEMEANING SUPERSTAR.
We need to do another fund raiser starring Aaron. This time I will put up this video of Aaron doing the Lambo Limbo. It fits the HOW LOW CAN AARON GET? motif...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXyrr6OWd3Y
We love you, Aaron...And please, please stay in fine form...
God Bless and take care...
Lee Reed
Repetitive and Demeaning -
"Bob" if you were actually in California in 2003 - you'd have realized that there was a considerable amount of paranoia that Cruz Bustamonte would win because people thought McClintock was going to split the vote with the Comic Book Character.
Again - if you were really from Auburn for the last 20 years - you'd have known that.
Brown is no more conservative than Barack Obama that is another lie your campaign is perpretrating and the tutu is coming off of that pig.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtXN_EHPwSg
C'est La Vie
Lee,
I have no idea what that link has to do with the campaign, but I would certainly say the man needs a new car!
John
Bob,
So Charlie supports killing the unborn, opposes Prop 8, is a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU, wants to raise $18 BILLION in new energy taxes because the price of gasoline is not high enough to get us all on bicycles, supports amnesty for those who enter our nation illegally and is even willing to wear his uniform to anti war rallies where US soldiers are hung in effigy: And THIS makes him "A middle of the road conservative Democrat" in your mind.
SO, what would a candidate have to do and believe to be a "left-wing liberal" candidate in your mind?
John
PS: That is a serious question: I really would like to know!
There is conservative and there is reactionary.
Reactionaries want to return to some mythical "earlier time" when the people and their leaders were reliably conservative, a time which never really existed but which they constantly pine for.
With McClintock that time is hard to pin down. Is it 1802 before Marbury vs. Madison gave the Supreme Court authority to rule on the constitutionality of federal laws? Perhaps 1912 before federal income taxes were instituted? Could it be 1928 when economic deregulation and laissez-faire economic policy was the rule of the day? Maybe it is the McCarthy era in the late 1940s and early 1950s? Perhaps Tom most pines for the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan's time in the morning sun. Maybe Tom just wants to live in the past, period.
One thing is clear. Tom doesn't fit well into 2008. As California freeways decay and continue to get more and more congested, as gas prices increase and oil supplies worldwide decline, as data piles up that man is contributing to global warming Tom McClintock is the principal opponent of high-speed rail. Maybe Tom pines for the early 1960s when the interstate highway system was fresh and crowd-free. When gas cost 30 cents a gallon. Before LA smelled like an armpit. I don't know. But more and more freeways and more and more gas-guzzling cars (no doubt Tom opposes Prop 10, too) are not the answer for a state that will have almost 50 million people in 2030.
McClintock's economic policies have already been thoroughly discredited. His social notions are bizarre: Anti gay marriage but pro gambling. Anti abortion but pro prostitution. Voted against Alzheimer's care for veterans even though it could have directly benefited his own father.
CD-4 voters are wary of Tom McClintock. A statewide Republican figure should be ahead of a Democrat by twenty-five or thirty points in this district. Doolittle routinely beat Democratic challengers by that much until 2006. McClintock's problem is not only the Republican brand but the McClintock brand. Voters know it means "reactionary" and in times like this they want someone who is looking ahead and not pining for a return to 1984.
Bob
I NEED TO KNOW
...WHY McClintock takes such a LIBERTINE* view of morals. He hasn't yet completed the LIBERTINE TRIFECTA
. Pot legalized
. Gambling legalized
. Sex for sale in masage parlors
But it is not for wont of trying.
I NEED TO KNOW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMUj8avm-JI
*Libertine has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society
Lee Reed
Bob,
I noticed that you did not answer the question: What positions would a candidate have to take to be a "left-wing" democrat in your mind?
John
PS: The air in Los Angeles actually DID stink and was very unhealthy in the 1960's when we have far fewer cars on the road than we do today, but that is another entire subject.
A CONSERVATIVE THAT MAKES McCLINTOCK A SHAM
Saturday, October 04, 2008
(Video) UK Tory Leader David Cameron's Convention speech
At the UK Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, party Leader David Cameron joined Stephen Harper in distancing himself from a laissez-faire position. Cameron explains that "many people wrongly believe that the Conservative party is just about freedom...that is libertarian, and that is certainly not me"–thanks for the clarification. Here is his stirring speech in praise of economic regulation:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/video-uk-tory-l.html
David Cameron has brought the Conservative Party into modern times. And by the way, Cameron is enormously popular with the voters in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/18/polls.labour
Those who fancy themselves Conservatives, this is a must view from start to finish...
Lee
Oh Lee:
I just came out from under my saguaro cactus to dress you down on the milquetoast attitude of the UK Conservative Party. Peter Hitchens is spot on his assessment that the Torys are no different from New Labour.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/09/our-political-p.html
John,
Well, duh. Though Republicans fought smog-control requirements for California's cars (this is a "left wing" notion in your book I guess) the controls were put into law and that is why the air smells better and is better today than it was in LA in the 1960s.
And, as always, when you are on the extreme right everything and everyone will look like a "liberal" to you. Doug Ose was a liberal, if I recall. Scharzenegger is a liberal. Pete Wilson, too. The word has such a different meaning in your dictionary that answering your question is a complete waste of time.
Bob
Bob,
You obviously have NOT watched the insightful movie Tucker. Government is usually the problem even with safety issues. BTW, we still don't have cars that have those turning headlights!
And AGAIN, I noticed that you STILL did not answer the question: What positions would a candidate have to take to be a "left-wing" democrat in your mind?
Neil and "Bob" like playing twister - John.
I'd also like to see an answer to that question, too!
Neil and "Bob" - I'll refresh the question for you:
"So Charlie supports killing the unborn, opposes Prop 8, is a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU, wants to raise $18 BILLION in new energy taxes because the price of gasoline is not high enough to get us all on bicycles, supports amnesty for those who enter our nation illegally and is even willing to wear his uniform to anti war rallies where US soldiers are hung in effigy: And THIS makes him "A middle of the road conservative Democrat" in your mind."
SO, what would a candidate have to do and believe to be a "left-wing liberal" candidate in your mind?
"Bob" - I'll throw something else in there for you.
Cars produce a fraction of the pollution - which as Stoos rightly pointed out was insanely worse in the 1960's where there were very few cars on the road compared to today!!!
Please try again. How are your accomodations in the house of pain?
Charlie is a socialist, eh?
In honor of the upcoming federal elections in Canada, I did a little comparison between the party Manifesto of the left-wng New Democratic Party of Canada and the positions of "conservative" Charlie Brown. What's next Charlie, will you praise the Regina Manifesto?
Exporting Jobs
New Democratic Party:
As part of our job protection strategy, New Democrats will stand up against our jobs being exported out of Canada by implementing job-focused trade strategies.
Charlie Brown:
Stop rewarding U.S. Businesses for shipping American Jobs overseas.
Education
New Democratic Party:
For Canada's young people and new citizens to thrive and remain competitive economically, we must invest more in education and training, and do a better job with the investments we make.
Charlie Brown:
Invest in a high-quality education for our children and our workforce.
Socialistic involvement in energy
New Democratic Party:
Introduce new financial incentives for clean power, including from solar, wind, water, biomass and other renewable sources for electricity production and from industrial co-generation and small-scale, sustainable community facilities.
Charlie Brown:
Charlie supports wind energy development in Lassen County, and Solar Energy Development out by Honey Lake, and the use of bio-mass to clear of forests of dangerous fuels, which will reduce energy costs locally, and create hundreds of new clean energy jobs.
Gay Rights
New Democratic Party:
Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression and identity among the prohibited grounds for discrimination. Support gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gender and transexual equality internationally, as per the Montreal and Jakarta Declaration on Human Rights.
Charlie Brown:
In Charlie’s family tradition, marriage is religious ceremony between a man and a woman, but he would never vote to impose his religious beliefs on someone else.
Abortion
New Democratic Party
Reaffirm women’s right to safe therapeutic abortion services.
Charlie Brown
Charlie supports existing law governing a woman’s right to control her own reproductive healthcare choices.
Take off Charlie, eh?
Wow, Efrem.
In YOUR world things must be really bad - bad - bad.
Things like, oh, I don't know, ridding ourselves of our dependence on Saudi oil. Who needs that! Eh?
Or high-quality education--that be bad. What?
And sure--it's GOOD for American jobs to get shipped overseas. To oppose that is bad. Really bad. Huh?
I don't really have too much of an opinion on the rest of the stuff...but apparently it's bad - bad - bad in your book.
Do you read what you write before you post?
Bob
Oh...I missed your abortion comment at the bottom.
Yes, abortions are bad.
Criminalizing abortions, though? That's not good unless you live in some sort of idealistic world where young girls don't get pregnant. Because in the real world if they do and they can't get a safe, legal abortion they will most likely get an unsafe, illegal abortion. Just like the 1960s. Unless the girl is rich. Then she would get a SAFE, illegal abortion. Strictly hush-hush, though.
Maybe you didn't notice but the abortion rate has been steadily falling. Why mess with a good thing, Efrem? Oh. I understand. It goes against your religion. Problem is, you end up with more abortions and more dangerous abortions if you blindly follow strict religious teachings. I know, it sounds perverse. But it's true.
The focus should instead be on reducing the rate of abortion by attacking the root causes. Lack of self esteem among young women, for example. Inadequate sex education. Etecetera. Just like with drugs. You can reduce the problem by attacking the causes. Attacking the symptoms leads nowhere--fast.
Is it the Feds job to invest in education? NO!! I thought Charlie was for Local control
Maybe if we stop having high corporte tax rates, then jobs won't go overseas.
Federal subsidies for guys like T. Boone Pickens? Nice Coporate welfare.
Oh and don't forget that Charlie would have voted for a bailout bill that gave out over $100 BILLION in pork. What a sham!!
I stand against the culture of death Bob. Charlie is NO HERO if he allows the death of unborn babies. The liberals have destoyed the family, they made churches impotent by telling to keep their religion to themselves and you expect things to get better? Maybe the abortion rates are lower is because more kids are turning homosexual. thought about that Bob?
Allow me to have just a little fun by making just a FEW edits on Bob's last post:
Efrem,
Oh...I missed your stealing comment at the bottom.
Yes, thefts are bad.
Criminalizing theft, though? That's not good unless you live in some sort of idealistic world where young girls don't get hungry. Because in the real world if they do and they can't get a safe, legal meal they will most likely steal a meal. Just like the 1960s. Unless the girl is rich. Then she would get a SAFE, bailout from the Federal government. Strictly hush-hush, though.
Maybe you didn't notice but the robbery rate has been steadily falling. Why mess with a good thing, Efrem? Oh. I understand. It goes against your religion. Problem is, you end up with more thieves and more dangerous robberies if you blindly follow strict religious teachings. I know, it sounds perverse. But it's true.
The focus should instead be on reducing the rate of crime by attacking the root causes. Lack of money among young women, for example. Inadequate financial education. Etecetera. Just like with drugs. You can reduce the problem by attacking the causes. Attacking the symptoms leads nowhere--fast.
The other Bob...
Please review the two carefully and see how little had to be changed! BUT everyone knows that stealing is wrong, Bob will cry, but if abortion is "bad" then even Bob must know it is killing and most people think that is wrong too.
John
Efrem,
Our effective corporate tax rates (after all the loopholes) are about the lowest in the world. I know. I work in a multinational and am very familiar with how we reduce our tax bill. So that dog don't hunt.
I never said the feds should run education. I said what's wrong with high-quality education as a goal?
Sure, use Pickens as a straw man so you can shoot him down. You know that's a spit in the bucket in terms of the entire renewable energy industry. It's a canard, Efrem.
The bailout, Efrem, could have passed without pork if the MOST CONSERVATIVE Republicans had voted for it on Monday. Your fault. Sorry.
"Culture of death"? Did you even read what I wrote? Criminalizing abortions will cause more abortions. THAT'S a "Culture of Death". Oh. Are you for preemptive wars, Efrem?
"More kids are turning homosexual" because of Roe v. Wade? That is the best I have heard in weeks. It sounds Palinish, almost.
John,
Pretzel logic, pastor. False argument. No points for that. Sorry. We were on the subject of abortions, not theft. See if you can stay on topic. Explain why the rate of abortions is going down and how criminalizing abortions will help them go down faster.
Bob
Get your crayon out Bob. If Charlie's a congressman and wants to invest in education, he is going to use FEDERAL dollars to funnel to schools.
I don't care if conservative republicans voted for the bailout, if Ron Paul and Jeff Flake voted against it, then it was wrong for the other guys to vote against it. I am sorry that Jeff's district line is a few miles from me.
No federal subsidies for windmills and no money for McNerney and his little enterprise, PERIOD!!
Bob, abortion is death. Don't beat around the bush, it is DEATH!!
I misread your comment on the bailout Bob. You mean to tell me that it was the conservative republicans who were responsible for getting the pork in the bailout? No Bob, the powers that be used BRIBERY to get that monstrosity passed.
Charlie should not even have education in his platform. My child is in Kindergarten and you know what? He can read I Samuel chapter 1 all by himself and read the cover of Robert Novak's biography and table of contents. No, the problem with education is that kids are lazy and they watch too much TV and played their Nintendo too much. Joseph hardly watches TV by the way. That is why India and China are kicking our behinds. We are LAZY!! Got that Bob LAZY!!
Bob,
Oh, no points I am disappointed!
But to answer you question abortion was illegal in this nation from the 1860's until the 1970's and we never had anything close to a million abortions which would be much lower than today's rate.
So if you don't like my "pretzel logic," then how about saying why you think abortion is "bad" -- your term.
John