Here is the funny thing with Tommy Boy McClintock. He does not live in this District, he lives in Sacramento. So if he runs for Congress does he run here, or where he actually lives?

Well, I don't think a prospective candidate needs to live in the district - which is good for Tom because I don't even think he tries to intimate he holds a residence down here.

I would LOVE having a Republican choice this election. I hope he runs.

The Star just posted a story; if he runs he will replace Doolittle, who is under fire in a lobbying scandal and is retiring. It's the 4th Congressional District where McClintock actually lives.

When I got a hold of the press release I put it up fast to beat any other source.

Thanks to my source for the press release.

Marie, you did see I posted this was for CA-4, yes?

Oops, just read the part that appeared on the site and clicked through to comments. Good scoop, Brian!

If he wins I assume this means he won't run for governor, which pleases me.

He absolutely needs the office as his next stepping stone to the office he has really always wanted: Governor of California.

RUN, Tom RUN!!!! Run as far away from this county as fast as you can!

Our State has "Concurrent Powers". These are powers that we have in common with the Federal Government. We need leaders that can use these powers without having to ask a Texas Republican first.

I think Brian had Tom McClintock sign the Ten Amendment because Brian likes the look of terror on a Republican's face when they see the U.S. Constitution.

Speculation about this was rampant early last year. Dems feared that Doolittle would be indicted quickly and would be forced out midterm. McClintock, who really lives in that district, was the top of the list of the Rep candidates that would be put up to take that seat, leaving SD19 open early. There would then be a special election, leaving us without sufficient time to field a candidate and mount an effective campaign against Strickland, who would have been the obvious choice for the Reps to slide into office. He would then be running this November as an incumbent.

It's bad news for Charley Brown, who is a strong Dem in a very, very red district.

The thing I always heard (even from my Rep sister who grew up with him since grade school) was that McClintock has no interest in going to Washington. Maybe his mind has changed over the years as his kids have grown older, etc. Gov was always his big goal.

Never a dull moment in politics.

Better in Washington representing a red district in N. California than our state senator or our governor.

Could he be elected governor, though, with his inflexible, right-of-center views? I used to think he was tolerable until I read a piece he wrote on education funding a couple of years ago. It was really insulting to our teachers. I have had no love of him since.

Brian:

As Robert DeNiro said to Billy Crystal, in Analyze This, "..Hey you! You're good. No, you're really good!."

You had Tom McClintock sign a copy of the Tenth Amendment cause you wanted to sucker him into agreeing that unlike George Herbert Walker Bush, he would never co-opt eminent-domain proceedings to condemn private property so he could aquire land for a new stadium for his Texas Rangers baseball team using public funds.

It's always been amazing to me that so many self-proclaimed Republican "Captains of Industry," like Ross Perot and "W", claim to be "Free-Marketeers Extraordinaires," but in realty, they made their fortunes at the public trough, nonetheless. Got Lassiez-Faire hypocrisy, anyone?

So, Brian, when McClintock announces for Congress in Sacramento, hang that signed copy of the Tenth Amendment over his head like the proverbial "Political Sword of Damocles." Especially when he and his buddy Strickland start to make noises about tearing the down the Arco Center Stadium and building a new one using excess Vehicle License Fee revenues.... Tony the Tiger needs a taller ceiling, don't you know.

NostraDEMUS

NostraDEMUS,

1. You are correct that I had him sign it because it limits federal power.

2. Tony Strickland endorsed another rival Republican in the primary. But that can change.

Brian:

Yep - you're right.

Tony Strickland's endorsement pledge was as sure a thing as was John Kerry's flip-flopping!

As the lyrics in the Country-Western song says, "..If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.."

NostraDEMUS

Wow, big scoop! It was announced in the morning on KFI, and has been running around for at least a few months.

Ventura Pundit,

I was talking about the press release from a candidate dropping out and endorsing Tom McClintock, not the fact Tom McClintock had been thinking about running.

The press release hasn't been around for a few months, nor was the press release to my knowledge mentioned on KFI.

If I was claiming the scoop for the entire story I wouldn't have linked to Timm Herdt's blog with a week ago.

You are right that the rumors of Tom McClintock was thinking about the seat go back. But they went back farther then you think. People were discussing it on this blog almost a year ago.

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/dennert/archives/2007/04/doolittle.html

Welcome to the conversation. Please read more carefully before you attack something.

Thanks for reading.

It was MUCH less a commentary on you Brian than it was other "insiders" here on the blog. I remember you mentioning at some point in the past. I heard it much more likely in the past few months.

BTW- I'm not sure who Ventura Pundit is.

Another thread that contains the usual relentless bashing of a local republican politician. What a surprise.

Here's the current registration for CD4 (N. Calif.)-
Total registered voters - 415,625
Dems 127,069 30.57%
GOP 196,228 47.21%
Undeclared 72,255 17.38%

It's a safe seat for Republicans, and the only reason that the Democrat almost took it last time was the trouble Doolittle was having over the scandal. It took considerable political pressure to get Doolittle to not run for reelection.

I had heard that social conservative Rico Oller was looking at that seat, as well as Doug Ose (former Congressman, moderate). Both are well known and respected in the region. But, Ted Costa paid for a study that showed McClintock taking the seat if he runs. It's gotta be tempting.

Whoever wins the Republican primary, wins the General in November.

I was just browsing the right wing flashreport website and saw this tidbit.

Conservative Hero McClintock Testing the Waters in Two California Districts
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff

Although it now appears likely that California state Sen. Tom McClintock (R) will run for Congress in the Golden State¹s 4th district, he has yet to completely rule out a primary challenge of Rep. Elton Gallegly (R) in the 24th district, according to a Republican insider familiar with McClintock¹s plans.

McClintock would beat Gallegly in such a primary, this California-based GOP insider said, citing knowledge of a poll of 24th district GOP voters that McClintock¹s team conducted to assess his chances against the Congressman.

Meanwhile, McClintock, a hero to California conservatives who made a strong showing in the 2003 gubernatorial recall election, currently is in the field with a poll in the 4th district to determine his chances there.

"Tom has been looking at the 24th for some time, and he had also done a survey which showed he could take the seat in a primary," the GOP insider said, although he added: "I think in the end he would probably go for the 4th."

Geographically, Gallegly¹s 24th district would be the more logical place for McClintock to run, considering it is in the same region as McClintock¹s legislative district.

There's more to the article. I've sent the link to Brian D. via e-mail.

Bubba Kidd always believes the truth about republicans is "bashing", no Bubba, it is just the truth. Live with it or go rap with Steve Frank, I'm sure he is at least one person who would agree with you.

Hey doodie, you're stinking up the thread again with your poopie breath.

If you read through this you will see where Bubba Kidd wrote "Boo hoo, stop saying bad stuff about my idol Tommy Boy McClintock. Boohoo. Stop pointing out that McClintock does not even live in this District and basically is a liar for saying he does when all he does is use his mommies address to get around the law. Boohoo." I guess it does hurt Bubba when we keep shoving the truth up your bum.

Looks like you guys are trying to kill a thread with your bathroom talk.

McClintock would be hurt by a challenge to Gallegly. How?

McClintock has managed to keep his otherwise fading name in front of his base constituency by bashing the Republican Governor, the current occupier of the post he really wants. He gets away with this by portraying moderate pragmatist Arnold - and those who support him - as RINOs: Republicans in Name Only. And so, he can claim that he does not really violates the 11th commandment of speaking ill of a fellow
Republican. On the basis, he can say that he is righteously acting in the interest of his party's basic (which he translates that as "conservative") principles.

However, to run against a more solid conservative like Gallegly might convince a good chunk of his supporters (who support Gallegly) that McClintock's decision to run is actually for another reason: personal ambition. Therefore, logically he should NOT run here - despite his high name recognition here.

Self ambition is not always a sin, but there are times - when it overreaches - that it is not a virtue either!

BTW - I think Congress, with its earmark spending spree, has earned a visit from Tom McClintock.

Ms. Cornejo. It seems well known that Mr. McClintock has not been telling the truth about where he actually lives and I believe it is a violation of the law. Do you think he has broken the law and that he should be prosecuted? Or, do you think nothing will happen to him because of his political connections and he is therefore above the law?

Hey doodie, stop being such a poopie head. The least you could do is show some originality and come up with your own insults, and perhaps even your own name. But I do have to say that I find it hilarious that you actually answer to the name doodie. Seems appropriate in any case.

Dakota-
People have charged McClintock with living in a mailbox in Ventura County for many many years. If he broke the law, of course he should be prosecuted. But, I would expect that the candidates who have run against him have already done the legal investigation and saw it go nowhere. Otherwise charges would have been filed.

Tom McClintock could beat Elton Gallegly. It would be better for Tom McClintock to separate himself from the Republican Bush regime. It would give Tom McClintock a level of respect in Congress for beating him.

There are plenty of Republicans that want change too. Tom McClintock could be the change they're looking for.

Bubba,

You said:

Another thread that contains the usual relentless bashing of a local republican politician. What a surprise.
Posted by: Bubba Kidd at February 20, 2008 07:43 AM

You aren't implying that I am attacking local Republicans are you?

Hey, who would better represent you in congress? McClintock or Gallegly?

I think McClintock's real goal is to be governor. Anything that can further that end is a good move for him.

Brian, I was just commenting on some of the typical responses to the thread, not the thread itself. I'm fine with Gallegly as my representative but I also think McClintock would make a good Congressman. We need more fiscal conservatives in Washington.

Geez! We've been hearing that "fiscal conservative" mantra since the 1970s and its proven time and time again to be a lie. What makes you think McClintock's seriously over-ripe brand of fiscal conservativism, which is the same deja voodoo economics thats been starving the country for the past three decades, is going to do any better this next time around?

Here's an interesting tidbit from the OMB: the deficit has risen an average of less than 4% for each of the past 27 years Dems have been in the White House. For the Repubs, that same average over the 27 year period ending in 2001 is 22%+.

Conservatives controlled the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the national treasury, the military AND overwhelming public support during Bush's term and STILL they've failed at every single economic initiative....except to grant a $1.4Trillion welfare handout to BigBiz.

Stop talking about "fiscal conservativism"...it doesn't work.

Basically Bubba Kidd is a little cry baby who cannot take the truth because he is a gutless lemming who does as he is told to do by Boss Hogg at the VCRCC. He will bash someone like Dantona all day long, but when the truth starts coming out about the fools he supports, then he cries and cries. Stop blogging Bubba, we are all tired you and your stupid comments. I can also predict that he and Owen will now go into overdrive trying to blame everyone else for McCain having an affair with a lobbyist and for trying to prevent his good bubby Charles Keating from paying the price for his crimes. I think this does prove though that McCain is not a real conservative like Bubba Kidd because real conservative men these days are only caught having affairs with other men, Craig, Foley, Haggart.

Hey doodie, you sure do have a potty mouth. Say hi to your mom for me.

Gary, you know perfectly well that McClintock has one of the most consistent, strongest track records of fiscal conservativism of any politician in this state. Your republican versus democrat generalizations have nothing to do with his proven track record. But you already know that. Since you can't attack him on his record you resort to the tired old tactic of diversion and generalized attacks. McClintock has always stood up for his principles, even if it has meant combating people within his own party. But you wouldn't know much about principles, would you Gary?

It's not that fiscal conservatism doesn't work, but that the Republicans in office weren't putting it into practice. The Democratic platform is massive unfunded entitlement increases. How are you going to pay for that? Other than, of course, raising taxes.

Remember, too, that we only got a balanced budget until Clinton when Gingrich forced the issue by shutting down the government.

Owen, I think you'll see that it was Clinton's budget program that got passed in 1993, NOT Gingrich's nor Congress'. That was the deal the White House struck with Congress for dropping support of universal coverage.

As for Repubs not putting FC into practice...Yes. That's part of the story but it seems to be a continuing saga for Repubs: they profess FC and bamboozle the voters into supporting their efforts at FC and then, VOILA!...they become spending crazy. Chalk it iup to coincidence or bad luck or whatever. Every time the repub voodoo economists get into power they create a fiscal disaster. Its not the Dems who have been generating massive unfunded entitlements...a look at OMB's records show that. Its the Repubs who have been massively increasing spending and deficits.

This is why so many voters are re-registering as independents, and "maverick" or unconventional candidates are leading in the Presidential race. Both parties have lost the trust of the people to produce candidates that will do what they say.

Neither parties nor politicians should ever be trusted. They should be held accountable.

One can come back to this blog after a few weeks and still find the vermin spewing its hate with rarely a new word other than those uttered from under its rock time and time again.

Once again the DTS voters showed what a force they are in Ventura County by turning out a whopping 13%.

My guess is that Tom will indeed run for Congress in District 4. It's almost a slam-dunk victory for him, and those don't come along very often. Whereas the alternative of challenging Elton here in Ventura would be enormously expensive and have a very uncertain outcome, given that Elton is so entrenched.

The issue of residency is a non-issue, since candidates for Congress do not have to reside in the district they're running for. The significance of Tom and his family spending much of their time in District 4 is simply that it takes the edge off carpetbagger charges. He can plausibly argue to the voters in that district that he's very familiar with the area and not an outsider who is coming in at the last minute.

I wish Tom well and hope he goes for it. If Tom had been elected Governor, we wouldn't be facing a never-ending series of financial crises. He did as much as he could from the state legislature to warn people about the unsustainable growth of government, but he went largely unheeded. Perhaps he will have better luck in Congress, although I'm not optimistic. It doesn't seem to matter whether Republicans or Democrats control Congress or the White House - they all want to hike spending and increase bureaucracy.

Well said, dpwiener. The reason Tom McClintock is so despised in Sacramento is that he's the only one who's trying to hold the spendaholic Legislature's feet to the fire, budget year after budget year. He is largely ignored because the Democratic-controlled Legislature does not have the guts to make the hard choices that must be made to bring the budget into balance.

Until that happens, we will be facing the same kinds of budget woes every year at this time, which invariably have a trickle-down effect on local government services (including public safety). Instead of cutting bureaucracy, waste, and inflated wages and benefits for government employees, we're looking at releasing dangerous felons back onto the street and closing down State parks - beautiful!

The governor has certainly not lived up to his pledge to address the deep spending cuts needed to bring the budget into balance once and for all. He has simply papered over the problem, masking it by taking on more debt through bond issuance and accounting maneuvers. God help us!

Bubba Kidd I'm your daddy, I know your mommy very very well! I noticed that McCain's mistress and lobbyist girlfriend looks a lot like his wife. That is interesting. I noticed that OC Sheriff's Mike Corona's mistress also looks a lot like his wife. I had to laugh when I read that McCain is now being defended by drug addict Rush Limbaugh and that McCain is now claiming in his fundraising e mails that he is the victim of a "Vast left wing conspiracy". Also interesting story today on Brazil, during the last 8 years under leftist rule they have gone from a debtor to a creditor nation and during the last 8 years under Bush and the GOP the U.S. has gone into debt by trillions of more dollars and people around the world no longer want the U.S. Dollar.

Another irony: for decades US mining firms in Bolivia have failed to make a profit. Bolivia nationalized many of them and now has some of the world's most profitable mining operations. (Coincidentally, the US is now starting to claim that Bolivia is working hand in hand with Venezuela's evil despot and my guess is US mining firms are lobbying to get their operations back.) Now I'm not using this as an example to say that capitalism and free market economies don't work. Instead it may be that firms such as the US mining companies are gaming the system and THAT's a big part of the reason why the system's broke.

If you have to rely on scripted DNC talking points and gossip journalism then you have already lost the debate. You offer no ideas of your own and can't even come up with your own blog identity. Even your insults are plagerized. You really are a poopie head.

Bubba Kidd go play with your Barbies, the adults are having a conversation here. G.S. You bring up some good points. I was reading the other day how when Castro took over he paid United Fruit and other U.S. Companies for their land based on what the U.S. Companies said the land was worth for tax purposes. Turns out the companies had two sets of books, one they paid taxes on and what that showed the true value. Turns out they only got about 10% of that true value and then they claimed Casto stoled their property, even though in reality he paid them based on what they had been paying taxes on. Only Republican Ron Paul seems to get that the embargo of Cuba is actually what keeps Castro and his ilk in power. Of course without Cuba the CIA would lose part of their budget and Bush/Cheney companies like Halliburton would also lose business.

Same thing happened with the phone network in either Argentina or Chile (I'll try to remember the title of book I read about five years ago about politics & emerging economies.). While US companies ran it they never made a dime (yeah, sure!) but after the US firms were forced to sell and the govt took over operations it makes a profit. To be fair, there are plenty of examples of govts screwing up in such situations for each success story but you have to wonder if the whole line about private firms being more efficient than publicly owned operations isn't just a lot of pro-private interest PR.

Spoken like a couple of true socialists.

I would hate to lump all corporations and companies together. In the post Enron era, boards and upper-management are much more accountable for the fiscal and moral practices of their companies. I don't remember hearing the term "corporate governance" in that light ten years ago.
Likewise, I think government is becoming more transparent (also because of abuse) and more accountable. This isn't because government wanted it to be so. It is because we all have access to better information than in the past.

Wow, now I've heard it all! Bubba's Daddy, GS & Leslie Cornejo (an alleged Republican, but really a RINO), teaming up to support leftist communist regimes in Latin America. This really speaks to the radical Socialist agenda of these bloggers, which contrasts sharply to the more reasoned, logical, rational discussion offered by most of the other bloggers, including Bubba Kidd and Mongo Flamo, who are vehemently attacked when they dare to speak up in support of the true, democratic, free market society we call America.

Excuse me???!!!
How is expecting government AND business to operate with good corporate governance policies and transparency considered leftist?

BTW- My mother-in-law, a Chilean, had to stand in line overnight for a cup of cooking oil under the Allende regime after the communists gutted the Chilean treasury. Chile was on track to become another Cuba.
After the coup, Chileans, including my mother-in-law, wore a copper band after she and thousands of other Chileans donated their wedding rings to the government to infuse money to jump-start the economy.

You will not get away with cheap shots like that, LL.

Thank you for sharing Leslie Cornejo. You are a real service to this community. Did your family support the CIA backed coup that brought Pinochet to power? Did the ends justify the means?

Why is it that Bubba is always shouting about leftists, socialists, and the likes? Does he have a list to share with the HUAC?

My parents-in-law have long since passed away, so I can't tell you their exact political position on this. I just remember seeing my mother-in-law believing enough in her country that she donated her wedding ring.
The average citizen of Chile at the time, suffering severe economic duress under the communist rule, did not know that the military coup would include atrocities for which they now suffer tremendous guilt. Yes, the country felt saved from Communism. However, most of them got tired of the ensuing dictatorship and promises of free elections. Pinochet and the military government stayed way too long. It took a few assassination attempts to force him to relent and hold Democratic elections. Chile is now a democracy and the strongest economy in South America.
Would Chile have been better off becoming another Cuba? Ask the Cubans how life has been under Communism the last 40 years. Did the ends justify the means? I can't imagine anyone is proud of the atrocities and torn families caused by the coup. Would it happen today? I doubt it because communications and information is too available to the average citizen.
The current elected president of Chile is a woman whose father was a member of the military who sympathized with the Communists, was tortured under Pinochet and died as a result of his injuries (as I understand).
Brian - do we need to start a thread about Chile? Or have we beaten that horse enough?
Anyway, I think this is all about transparency in any government or corporation and demonstrates what happens when the citizens aren't paying enough attention.

Maybe a thread about "Could It Happen Here, In America?" would be a better vehicle for discussing the interplay of economics, politics, religion and other parts of the American tapestry and whether or not that weave is strong enough to endure or riddled with weaknesses that need to be fixed. Just a thought.

We don't need to hear about your family history, Leslie. You bore us enough already.

"strong enough to endure or riddled with weaknesses that need to be fixed"

America is the strongest country on Earth. Even with our problems, there is still nowhere I would rather live. That's based on material, quality of life judgment. How could you possibly praise nationalization of industry, or complain that the Communists would have been better than Pinochet. Communism is responsible for more violent, cruel, brutal deaths around the world than any ideology in history. The most prosperous economies on Earth are those that are most free, private, and least regulated.

LL, did you even pay attention to what Leslie wrote? Everything she's said on this post has been right-wing, conservative rhetoric.

I agree that communism has most of the time turned out ugly but that doesn't mean every capitalist dictator is better than a communist leadership.

Would you rather live in Cuba or Nazi Germany?

What do you mean, most of the time? Name one communist country that isn't ugly, that doesn't imprison, torture, and kill people because of things they say or write. Hitler wasn't a capitalist, he was a socialist - hence the name "National Socialism." He nationalized industry.

The answer would be neither. But I'm amazed at some of the liberal propaganda that wants us to believe that Cuba has a better healthcare system, or that equates republicans with nazis. People on college campuses who cheer Hugo Chavez and Yassir Arafat, while protesting against the U.S. Marines and demanding that they be banned from Berkeley. Saying such things is just ignorant.

Owen,

You said:

"How could you possibly praise nationalization of industry, or complain that the Communists would have been better than Pinochet."

Maybe it is because Pinochet was a brutal dictator. Communists have killed millions around the world. From Cambodia to Russia the dream of a utopia has turned ugly.

Here is a book I have if you want to read it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

I haven't read most of it but the thesis is easy to pick up on.

But to say that you know Pinochet is better than Allende seems like a idealogical based rather than historically based opinion. Both have major flaws.

I think I would defer to people in Chile if they think the coup was worth it or not in the end. It seems they were against the communists AND the fascists. Do you know any Chileans? Ask them.

Simply put: Communism has shown time and time again to be destructive to freedom. But that doesn't make every anti-communist always better.

On a second point Hitler was a fascist. Hitler lead a right wing movement. It was not a left wing movement.

I don't blame you for wanting to distance your ideology from Hitler's but don't try to pin it on some of the people that fought against fascism. You shouldn't fall for Hitler's creative name for it. It was the early form of political spin as socialism was popular in many places.

But if you want to argue that totalitarians of either extreme have more in common with each other then they do with mainstream liberalism or conservatism I agree.

Hey, Owen, go kiss McCain's butt cheeks some more, why don't you?

Everyone except you seems to be polite and having a high minded discussion LL so why not just move on and write on another entry? Unless you are a Pinochet defender.

Owen,

I put a link up to an article called right wing politics. It clearly shows fascism on the far right.

But again, the far right and far left have more in common with each other than they do with mainstream left and right parties.

FDR wasn't a communist and Reagan wasn't a fascist.

Owen, I didn't praise communism. I ranted against those international companies that have gamed the capitalist system, hurting both the perception of free market economics AND the people they victimize. And if asking a hypothetical question about the viability of America's extremely complicated fabric is somehow challenging your notion of what it means to be patriotic, then you've begun the discussion I was after. Thankyou.

So...why does it cause you and so many other conservatives such anxiety when people question the basic precepts you hold dear, ie, America is so strong it will last forever?

The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, to believe in America is to be American. The national pride that has always existed in this country has gotten us through some extremely difficult and divisive times in our recent and past history - Watergate, Vietnam, September 11th, the Iraq War. Despite all of these difficult times, when we struggle with our national identity and question whether or not are international pursuits are in our best interest as a free and thriving democracy, we seem to come out of it with our national sense of pride intact.

That is why it kind of raises my hackles when people in our country love to blame America first for all the wrongs that are going on in the world. Despite these feelings, I know in my heart that we should always encourage open debate, dialogue, and dissenting opinions, if we have any hope of retaining our reputation as the number one democracy in the world. Long live America!

Can't disagree with you at all. When you sense the Nation's headed in the wrong direction do you feel it's somehow unpatriotic or anti-American to criticize the navigators? No one was labeled unpatriotic when they criticized Carter's handling of the Iran debacle or even when they went so far as to sell weapons to the Iran regime, so why is it so easy now to label as unpatriotic anyone that opposes the White House's inept handling of the MidEast?

Name one person on this blog who has labelled another as "unpatriotic" because of their views about GWB and the war in the middle east. Please provide direct quotes with date and time.

3/02/2006 @ 6:42:38
rodent

Bad day for McCain. He was in Ohio and they invited a Rush Limpdrug wannabe to open for McCain. The guy then unleashes a verbal barage of racist statements against Barack Obama. Later McCain had to disavow the guy.

test

Bad day for the GOP yesterday. First Bush said at a news conference that he has no idea what the price of gas is at the pump and you could tell he could care less! Then John McCain was giving a speech and he said "I am a proud Conservative Liberal Republican." You can see that on youtube!

Bad seven years for the GOP!!!

Not Owen, I saw the alleged offensive comments by the gentleman who introduced McCain and all he did was mention Obama's middle name a few times when referring to him. Is Obama ashamed of his middle name or something?

I don't believe you don't understand that the guy was trying to play the race card against Barack Obama. If it wasn't offensive what he did why did McCain go out of his way to denounce him?

What is amazing is that Republicans even allowed him on stage after he called Barack Obama a one man sleeper cell.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/26/152128/409/232/464547

He even lied and said Barack's full name included Mohammed as another racist attack.

If it is so important that we say candidate's full names how come you aren't running around talking about George Walker Bush or John SYDNEY McCain?

If you really don't get it you are ignorant.

Excuse me, B.! I am not ignorant, just intellectually honest. Unlike you who wants to scream "racism", every time someone raises a valid point. The guy's middle name is Hussein, after all. I ask you again, is he ashamed of that?

I think the media has been treating Barack "Hussein" Obama with kid gloves, quite frankly. For example, they haven't delved into his association with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam nearly as much as they should given the role Farrakhan and his organization played in helping Obama get elected to the State senate in Illinois. Please...

I gotta agree that the Media have been greasing the path for Obama since his speech at the Dem convention. What IS Obama's legislative record? (zilch) Did Obama really vote AGAINST the war? (no..he wasn't even in the senate when the vote came up and when he was in the Senate he voted to finance the war) Is Obama pro family? (apparently not, since he's voted against kids health care) Where does he stand on controversial legislation? (he doesn't...he usually avoids voting on such issues) Will he make a strong leader? (no way, according to his garbled comments and dabbles in economics & foreign policy)

But he's a great speaker! One of the very best. I'd almost buy a bottle of snake oil from him.

And how well WOULD he have been treated by the Media if Kennedy's middle name were Stalin?

I don't understand GS are you saying his middle name should be an issue or not? I left a link so you could correct yourself that he has no legislative record. He didn't vote against the war but he did speak out against it. If you think the war was a mistake then that is much better then voting for the war.

I still think Mongo has to be either ignorant or he is kidding. A McCain campaign supporter called Barack Obama a sleeper cell. He was given the stage after he said that and went on to talk about Barack's middle name but not john SYDNEY mccain's middle name. If you don't see the race baiting then you are ignorant. McCain saw it for what it was and did the right thing.

A sleeper cell and you don't see the race baiting?

Adding Muhammed to his name and you don't see the race baiting?

Every rational person thinks you are ignorant or kidding.

I think you are kidding. But kidding about something that divides America on race is pathetic. You should be more like McCain.

Of course he was race baiting. There's no question about that. But the fact still remains that running for president today with the middle name of Hussein would normally bring a great deal of Media attention. Instead the Media seems to avoid the subject at all costs and then attacks anyone that mentions the name. That's a sign the Media's taken sides in this race and chosen their candidate.

As for his legislative record, all those mentioned by Sullivan (who is an avowed hater of Clinton and one of Bush's strongest supporters, despite trying to change his spots) are riddled with enough loopholes to make them worthless...as they've been proven over and over again in the real Washington DC. Sullivan's use of them to illustrate Obama's leadership qualities is more evidence of a Media that has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the candidate and spin his weak resume.

So now tell me....what has Obama accomplished that has had a positive effect on his constituents and the country? Or, if you can't answer that, what plans does Obama have for the Nation after being elected?

He has been very specific on his website. Have you checked it out?

He has gotten more specific but he's not saying anything others haven't said in the past...to get elected...including our own resident panderer, Schwarzenoggin. Do you think a national health coverage plan that's voluntary will work? Who'll pay for the added costs of his education plans that, in the end, centralize education efforts even more than they are now? Stiff financial penalties & back taxes for illegal aliens will cause illegal aliens to remain illegal aliens.

His foreign policy dreams are just that. His economic policies are already made suspect by his staffer Goolsbee's assurances to Canadian officials that all his anti-NAFTA rhetoric was for the voters only. His position on Iraq is that troops should come home but the US should pay for more mercenaries to do our dirty work.

Like any other candidate, half of what Obama's got to say sounds good. It's the other half that we need to worry about and on that portion a close look suggests he's blowing smoke.

More mercenaries? I haven't seen that. BTW, mercenaries are illegal in war. Who is using mercenaries?

A Democrat that is calling for merit pay? A Democrat talking about his deep personal faith? A Democrat talking about how government cannot solve all of our problems? That isn't old talk.

If Clinton or McCain had said they'd spend more tax dollars to use more mercenaries in Iraq and elsewhere, it would be shouted from the front page banners of every newspaper in the country and their campaigns would be over. Obama says it and its buried on page 28.

Check the link and go from there.

Teacher merit pay is NOT a solution. Its a way to divide & bust teacher unions.

The Clintons have never shied away from talking about their faith. They just never trumpeted it around as part of their campaign PR.

You can't name a Dem pres candidate who ever said government can solve all our problems. Yet Repub presidents always manage to increase the size, cost and scope of government in our daily lives...why is that?

What are you talking about? McCain barely gets questioned for standing next to the man who called the Catholic Church the great whore but it isn't specific enough for Barack Obama to both reject and denounce racism from the Nation of Islam.

Barack Obama has been very specific on his website for many months. But just because you haven't looked until recently doesn't give you the right to say it is a new thing.

Why don't you look at McCain's website before you peddle the Fox News talking point that Barack Obama isn't specific? I dare you to look at both of their websites and compare.

I also assume you support impeaching the president being that you think we sue mercenaries and mercenaries in war are illegal.

GS,

It is true that many politicians use religion or express their faith. But it is factually untrue that she has done as much as Barack Obama to reach out to people of faith. Barack Obama came to Rick Warren's church and spoke. I cannot imagine Hillary Clinton or John McCain being able to pull that one off without it being pandering.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565076,00.html

Barack Obama has put his faith front and center. Check it out at faith.barackobama.com for more details. Read his speech there and tel me if you think it sounds like another candidate.

You should look at John McCain's education proposal which is all about charter schools, vouchers, and home schooling. Even if you agree with his direction he says next to nothing about traditional schools.

So, next time you start with this demand for candidates to be more specific, start with the least specific from them.

Thanks for writing.

The fact that Obama travels about reaffirming his faith over and over WITHOUT being called on it by the Media, while (as you admit) McCain & Clinton would be called panderers for doing the same thing seems to settle the matter....right?

And lest you forget, the Clintons have a decades long history of working with churches and church-based organizations that is unmatched by ANY candidate out there today, including Huckabee.

By the way, I have looked at Obama's website several times but if you think you're basing your vote on a high priced web ad you're sadly mistaken and probably seriously bamboozled.

Now before you assume I'm a Clinton or McCain supporter let me go on record...I am not. I will support whoever wins the Dem nomination but I'm hoping for a hung convention where Gore will be tapped for the nomination (which he's already said he'll accept).

Otherwise my feelings are: Clinton would make the better chief executive but as the nominee Obama's candidacy will result in MORE congressional & gubernatorial seats being taken from the GOP. Either candidate would beat McCain. After four years of holding the White House & Congress, I honestly believe Obama's tenure will result in no net change (high rhetoric doesn't work in the Capitol building; an ability to bite, scratch and horse trade DOES work). After four years of Clinton there will be changes (for the better of middle class & poor Americans) but the polarization of libs & conservatives will continue unabated.

There's NO chance Obama will seek to dismantle the NeoCon movement in Washington (investigations, prison terms, sanctions, scandals, etc) because you can't have national koom-by-ya without giving those same NeoCons a strong foothold over American politics. There's a good chance Clinton will.

So, right now I'm looking past the pretty face, the resonant oratorical skills and the pandering to "Hope" and looking for a real politician to make things happen. If the DNC sticks by its rules there's a 50/50 chance Gore will be the one.

GS,

Maybe it is because there is a difference between pandering and faith. Some people use religion as a tool to divide instead of bringing people together.

I am not being tricked by an impressive website. Why is it that I can't simply believe in his message?

Again, his policies are pretty well put out there to debate in a much more open fashion than McCain's policies. So feel free to start with the least specific candidate in your quest for more details.

Okay! You believe in Obama's message. So did I. But I refuse to settle permanantly into one position just because I felt convinced earlier about that issue.

As of today, how does Obama's website specifics jive with his comments to Canadian officials that he's not as anti-free trade as he's telling voters? Either way he chooses, he's been caught in a lie.

How does his specifics on ending US involvement in Iraq hold up against his slips about spending more taxpayer dollars to hire more mercenaries to garrison Iraq? Or his near-inane declaration that IF Al Qaeda establishes bases in Iraq he'd be willing to send in US troops? As of today, is he FOR continuing the war or FOR ending it?

And if he's willing to lie on one or two major policy issues, is he lying on the other policy issues?

The foundation of Barack O'bama's campaign is faith.
He has no economic plan. He says just have faith. No foreign policy plans. Once again, have faith. How is Barack going to deal with the human rights violations, civil rights abuses, lying, cheating, stealing committed by the Bush Republicans? Here comes blind faith to the rescue again.

Barack O'bama's platform is faith based politics minus religion.

The organized Republican crime machine doesn't wish for anything more than for Barack O'bama to win the Democratic nomination. Barack O'bama does not have the ability to fix America's problems.

Barack O'bama has the same vision as any other inexperienced rookie politician. The same unrealistic perception of what they can do. The same naive belief that everything is fair and everybody can work together. Every rookie politician starts out that way!

The last thing America needs is a rookie politician; elected on a fascination with skin color, having his faith based bubble burst while in the Oval Office.

Al Gore? I don't see that happening. I like him as a politician but I think it would be undemocratic.

Why would being "undemocratic" have anything to do with it? DNC convention rules state that if no nominee is chosen after the first ballot, all delegates are free of their pledges and can vote for anyone they choose. If enough delegates see there's no way either Obama or Clinton can win a majority in the second balloting or if they feel that continued balloting would harm party solidarity, they are likely to toss both candidates out and nominate Gore.

Or...after a hung first ballot all delegates become, in effect, "super delegates" and vote as they choose. Keep in mind that many, if not most, pledged delegates are also party officials and local elected leaders and there's a good chance that freed of their pledges they will back the party insiders' choice. That could be Clinton.

I agree with Brian. I don't think there's a chance in #$^% that Gore will get the nomination by default at the convention. It may be "possible" within the party's convention rules, but it is undemocratic in the sense that both Obama and Clinton have been through a full-fledged campaign that has enabled each of them to state their positions on a variety of issues, debate each other numerous times, and be fully vetted by the media and the public on where they stand on various issues and why. Gore hasn't gone through the same process and, therefore, cannot just walk into the convention and be nominated by acclimation. That would never fly with the American public and party officials know that.

After all the hard work by millions of supporters for both candidates you think it would be a good idea to give it to someone else? That would basically say that organizing during the primaries was pointless.

Almost no good can come out of backroom deals.

People, not party insiders, should make their candidates known.

Here is a quote from Barack Obama about Hillary Clinton:

ar in Iraq and then describing it as "actually a vote for more diplomacy."

"The title of the bill was 'A Resolution to Authorize the Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq'," Obama said. "That sounds like you were voting for authorizing the use of armed forces against Iraq."

How can you say she has better judgment when she didn't know Bush was going to take us to war?

I trust Barack Obama to make the smart choices, regardless of their popularity.

So you're saying it's MORE democratic to scrap the rules that all party members drafted? Freeing up delegate pledges and allowing them to vote in new rounds of balloting is undemocratic?

How would you propose to select the nominee if neither candidate can get a majority of the convention votes?

I don't think it will come down to that scenario. If it did I would expect the superdelegates to support the candidate with the most earned delegates if there is a sizable difference.

GS,

Of course Democrats don't say government can solve all problems but the issue is that most Democrats don't inspire to believe government can help but you also need to help yourself.

Here is a quote from a story I saw on Andrewsullivan.com:

I spend my minute with Lois Roy, asking her what specifically she would like to see Barack Obama, if he is elected President, do for African-Americans.

'Nothing,' she says. 'What needs doing, we got to do it ourselves. He just needs to be himself. Be a role model.'

Tell me Hillary Clinton inspires just like Barack Obama does.