You have read it here first – Tom McClintock and Doug Ose held a conference call with 8,000 participants.

The significance is that the 8,000 participants were all identified as being from the “Non-McClintock” universe in the Primary.

These Primary voters that supported candidates other than McClintock heard a message that was unmistakable – A unified GOP in the 4th Congressional District headed into the General Election showdown with Charlie Brown.

The call itself featured some remarkable quotes – Of Ose, McClintock said, “by far you were the toughest opponent I have ever faced” (out of 14 primaries), McClintock continued, “and now you’re the most gracious!”

McClintock made sure that the callers understood the significance of the collaboration of the Republican team in the General election declaring, “I am so pleased to have Doug’s support, Doug is helping us unify the party and ensure that the 4th Congressional District remains in Republican hands.”

McClintock told the audience – “This district is the battlefield for determining weather Democrats can hold a long-term majority in Congress.”

Doug Ose praised Tom McClintock for continuing the fight to lower gasoline prices by expanding domestic supplies.

Callers had chances to ask questions which focused on Water, Energy and Forest Management.

McClintock re-affirmed support for the Auburn Dam – critical for flood protection and water storage as the region is running short on both.

McClintock’s vision stands in stark contrast to the Charlie Brown Energy plan. (Hailed on left-wing blogs as a clone of the Reid-Pelosi Energy Plan)

Ose reminded the audience that since the Democrats gained control of Congress, Gasoline has gone from $2.15 to $4.50 a gallon in California.

The conclusion as pointed – Charlie Brown would do nothing more that support the failed policies of Nancy Pelosi.

They’re baaaaaack…

In 2004 – the Placer CRA mailed in local elections, assisting the election of several local Conservatives to local office.

If particular note is the group calling themselves – Rocklin Citizens for Council Change. www.betterrocklin.org

The folks behind this group are a bunch of Democrats looking to choke off Rocklin’s growth, and they are relying on the fact that the entire Rocklin City Council endorsed Doug Ose in hopes that supporters of McClintock will vote them off, too.

The group’s leader is Tony Rackoja who is a registered DTS – but like most DTS in Placer is a Democrat in hiding. On the slate with Rackoja in 2004 were Linda Hall and (can’t remember) DaFoe.

Linda Hall is a past Dem Central Committee chair.

Also of interest is another blog by a Michael Patrick Murphy. This looks like another in the team of folks trying to move Rocklin back into the stone age… Friends of Rocklin

Murphy made some nice comments about Terbolizard, but misspelled his name. His disdain for Ose is evident – so he can’t be all bad ;-).

Conclusion of Earlier Post:

In the effort to punch any hole they can in Tom’s Armor – Ose supporters attempted to suggest that McClintock supports Human Cloning. Meanwhile – Charlie Brown is getting a free pass. If you think Charlie Brown will have any better a record on the Life issue – think again. Charlie Brown is and will be beholden to Nancy Pelosi if he wins.

What has been established is that Tom McClintock was endorsed by the Eagle Forum, the National Right to Life and the California Republican Assembly. (the CRA) These three endorsements represent three organizations that rarely, if ever endorse someone who is soft on the life issue.

Ose, however helped pave the way for the California Supreme Court Legalizing Gay Marriage. (HR 3313, Roll Call #410, July 2004 – Marriage Protection Act – Voted No.)

Ose, also helped pave the way for destroying human life in the name of science – we are not talking cloning, but rather taking conceived embryos and “harvesting” the cells for research. This is called embryonic stem-cell research.

HR 4682, 108th Congress – Co-Sponsored a bill to provide for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. California’s stem cell proposition that passed was modeled after this creation out of the mind of Doug Ose.

Destroying embryos is a waste of tax dollars in the name of Abortion. Embryonic stem cell research has produced no significant breakthrough. Adult stem cells, which do not require killing a life to get, have yielded many breakthroughs.

Ose, once again placed his social agenda ahead of science and the taxpayers. (Just like he did when he voted against oil drilling four separate times in four separate areas of the US – if you think Charlie Brown is going to vote to drill ANWR… look at his Prius.)

Ose also voted to use tax dollars to pay for abortions:

By voting to repeal prohibition against Military medical facilities performing abortions – June 1999, May 2000, May 2003, May 2004

By voting to to repeal prohibition of abortion coverage in federal employee health plans – July 1999, July 2000

Are you starting to read that Ose attacks along these lines are absurd? If you think Charlie Brown will vote any differently, you will have another thing coming. When Pelosi and the Democrat Base start breathing down his neck – he will have no “choice”.

Now the Coup d’Etat -

HR 2505, Roll Call #304, July 2001 – Human Cloning Ban, Ose voted No.

Just to make sure, Ose had a second chance – a clone of the Human Cloning ban re-appeared… HR 534, Roll Call #39, Feb 2003 – Ose Voted No.

Once again, we have a case of the facts dooming Ose.

People care about $4 a gallon gas – Ose voted against Drilling

The CA Supreme Court is trying to force Gay Marriage on us – Ose Voted against the Defense of Marriage Amendment

Ose wasted our tax dollars on bunk science and voted to use our tax dollars to pay for abortions for federal employees and soldiers.

Now- do you understand why Ose spent $1.8 Million on Per Diem attacks against McClintock? Ose can not discuss the issues – because his record says, “I am a Liberal”.

Meantime – Ose has gone on Tilt, shifting to fratricidal attacks against McClintock. It seems that Ose is content to do damage now that polls show him in a distant second, thereby assisting Charlie Brown in the fall.

Doug Ose / MTA’s obsession with Per Diem

Part two of: Doug Ose’s 10 Year History of Censure and Hostility toward Central Committees.

Did you know why Doug Ose got censured by so many Central Committees and Republican Organizations? His consultant, McNerney-Temple is obsessed with using legislative Per Diem as a basis to attack Conservatives.

Problem Number one – It is OK for Ose to take his per-diem in Congress because he is not a Conservative. This is what McNerney Temple (MTA) is saying by omission.

Big Problem Number One – Ose attacked Barbara Alby for NOT TAKING PER-DIEM in 1998. He ran a coordinated radio / mail campaign depicting Alby in Hawaii. His evidence that Alby was derelicting her duty were blank roll books in the state legislature.

Alby refused to sign roll so that she would not get paid per diem. Ose’s attack against Barbara Alby was so despicable that two Republican Central Committees took the unheard of action of publicly chastising Ose over his campaign ethics.

Ten Years later, McClintock is getting attacked for taking per diem. I suppose if McClintock was not taking his per diem, we’d see ads of a man in a Scottish Kilt in Disneyland with his family while the rest of the legislature was working. Does that sound far-fetched?

Given the fact that Doug Ose is now scraping the bottom of the barrel, pulling out all the stops in order to damage McClintock as much as he can – anything is possible. Make no doubt, McClintock is crushing Doug Ose in polling taken recently, yet Ose continues his barrage.

As I have written several times over the last few days – Tom Cole and the NRCC are spectators once again while establishment types are attempting fratricide to prevent the new blood that can bring the GOP back from the brink. (The MainStreet Vision for the GOP – Conservatives Go Home)

Big Problem Number Two – Jim Brulte, Bruce McPherson, Dean Andal, Jim Battin, Tom Harman, Rod Pacheco, Gary Miller and Charlene Zettel all retained the services of MTA. I will lay odds that every last one of them took Per Diem while serving in the State Legislature. (Battin and Harman are still sitting Senators)

McNerney Temple needs to drop their obsession with the 4th CD race and get back to Dean Andal. They have let Andal swing while trying to slay the great Conservative Dragon.

Big Problem Number Three – The Per Diem arrow has only gained a spirited and unified Republican base – against Doug Ose.

All this, and no one has asked Doug Ose about his per diem while in Congress. Why?

Per Diem is a non-issue to the voters, but it has allowed us to see a window into the soul of the Doug Ose campaign.

Like the National Republicans that keep losing seats, while wondering why – I will defer to a comment by my friend Lee Reed:

(To) John (Stoos):

When the political debate focuses on solutions, it is in a positive iterative loop. Some “solutions” will be winnowed out for one good reason or another. You mention keeping contract protections is a good example. It will survive the iterative process and be a necessary condition to the ultimate solution. Half-baked conditions will drop out.

Dog whistle politics…too liberal…too whatever…is the lazy and ineffectual road to good governance…

“Dog whistle politics” – Per Diem attacks.

“When the political debate focuses on solutions” – Doug Ose loses, because his values are out of touch with the Republican mainstream.

“Some “Solutions” will be winnowed out for one good reason or another.” – Doug Ose is going to be rejected by the voters on June 3rd. It is time for him to suspend his campaign.

Don’t worry Charlie Brown, you’re next on the “winnowing” list – even Ose’s assistance won’t be able to help your campaign. Tom McClintock is not John Doolittle.

Tancredo: “I was there” when Doug Ose Voted to give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens

Congressman Tom Tancredo, the founder and former chairman of the bipartisan House Immigration Reform Caucus, has endorsed Tom McClintock for Congress and urged voters not to be fooled by Doug Ose’s claims that he is tough on illegal immigration.

“I was there when liberal congressman Doug Ose twice voted to give amnesty to illegal aliens,” Tancredo said. “He never joined our Immigration Reform Caucus and was never a reliable vote on border control, sanctuary cities or federal requirements for a secure ID.”

“Doug Ose can spend 3 million dollars trying to hide his votes, but it doesn’t change the truth,” Tancredo said. “Don’t be fooled by Doug Ose’s claims. His voting record tells the real story. When he voted to protect ‘sanctuary cities’ from punishment for violating the law and harboring illegal aliens, he showed his true colors.”

The vast majority of the public support measures to improve the enforcement of our existing immigration laws, and overwhelmingly oppose granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Tancredo is steadfastly opposed to any form of amnesty, and has worked to prevent the passage of any legislation that would provide a path to citizenship to illegal aliens, or any expansion of guest worker programs.

A school teacher by trade; Tancredo taught for several years at Drake Junior High before serving in the Colorado Legislature. He worked at the Department of Education for former presidents Reagan and Bush. Tancredo is a member of both the House Foreign Affairs and Natural Resources Committees and is retiring from Congress after the current term.

“Congressman Tom Tancredo was there when Doug Ose voted to give social security benefits to illegal aliens,” said Stan Devereux, spokesman for McClintock. “As a member of Congress, Tom McClintock will carry on Tom Tancredo’s fight against illegal immigration.”

Ose’s Lifetime 55% rating from Federation for American Immigration Reform
Ose’s Lifetime “C” rating from Americans for Better Immigration

LINK=

Blogger’s Note – was this another CD in the album, “Ose, the Liberal years”?

Or Perhaps this group was using more of Ose’s votes out of context…

Please Click this LINK for a copy of Campaign for Working Families comparison of Nancy Pelosi and Doug Ose. (Don’t worry, Charlie Brown, you’re next…)

Monday, May 12, 2008

To: California Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

Vote For Tom McClintock

Friends, there is a very important election in your state coming up on June 3rd. Congressman John Doolittle is retiring and his decision to step down has created a very competitive primary in this conservative district. I’m proud to endorse Tom McClintock in the June 3rd primary and I strongly encourage all conservatives in the 4th Congressional District to vote for Tom McClintock.

As I am sure you know, the Republican “brand” isn’t very popular right now for a variety of reasons, but the liberal Democrats are not the solution! For the Republican Party to regain the public’s confidence, we must recruit and nominate more pro-family, pro-life conservatives who will unapologetically fight for our values. Tom McClintock just such a man. He has taken on the liberal establishment in Sacramento and he will fight Nancy Pelosi in Washington, D.C. You can trust Tom McClintock to stand by his principles and even challenge his own party’s leadership when necessary. He is a conservative champion and we desperately need Tom’s tenacity in Washington! But first he must win the June 3rd primary.

Unfortunately, he’s facing an independently wealthy former congressman, Doug Ose, in the primary. Campaign for Working Families has produced a short voter guide for this primary, which you can view here. As you will see, on key values issues Doug Ose voted a lot like Nancy Pelosi. The 4th District voted for George W. Bush by 24-points over John Kerry. It would be a tragic setback for our pro-family, pro-life cause if a liberal like Doug Ose won the primary in this conservative district.

If you live in 4th Congressional District, please vote for Tom McClintock for Congress on June 3rd. Print out our voter guide and be certain to share it with friends and undecided voters. If you don’t live in the 4th District, but have friends or family members there, please be certain to forward this message to them and encourage them to visit our web site so they can check out CWF’s voter guide.

That’s correct. Ose has given himself another $700,000 to continue his barrage against Tom McClintock.

Ose Lifetime 62% from Citizens Against Government Waste – one of the worst Republican Scores.

The cornerstone of his campaign has been to attack Tom McClintock, (and his blog moonbats have parroted the rhetoric about…) the resident Evil of accepting Per Diem.

He is a crook because he lives in Elk Grove and is taking tax free per diem. Yet, at the same time Ose is attacking him for being from Southern California. Mean time, his anon commenters ignore the contradiction.

Tim Leslie got tax free Per-Diem for years while living in Carmichael and being registered in Tahoe City. I guess Tim Leslie is a crook, too.

Slight Problem – the National Taxpayer’s Union endorsed Tom McClintock. They would never endorse someone who was taking our money illegally. (Ose was back in DC calling McClintock a felon btw…)

118 of 120 members take per diem. The two that don’t can not – as their districts include the Capitol Building in them. (Dave Jones and Darrel Steinberg)

However, Doug LaMalfa takes per diem, Roger Niello Takes per diem, Dave Cox takes per diem.

Ahhh… but they both have only one residence. Ted Gaines – one residence… Rick Keene and Sam Aanestad, one residence, but they rented a house from Rico Oller for a few years. Are Keene and Aanestad gaming the system by renting a full-time residence while taking their checks tax free? LaMalfa does it, too… they all have to be crooks according to Doug Ose.

The only exemption is if you give the Per Diem to charity – (working kinda like Kirk Uhler’s “slush fund”) – then you’re not a crook. Only Ose can determine weather you qualify for an exemption from being a per diem crook – like the Liberal he is, he gets to determine how that money is spent in order to qualify you for an exemption.

Why has Ose made this such an issue? Why has Ose obsessively focused on Per Diem knowing that he would get hit over taking over twice as much in Farm Subsidies? Ose must have figured that he could shock and awe his opponents with his wealth, endorsement club and withering attacks. Ose’s supporters have also been as single-minded (as this blogger is accused of) in desperately trying to press home the Per Diem issue.

Ose is trying to hide his:

32% lifetime score from National Right to Life
48% lifetime score from the Eagle Forum
(Both have endorsed McClintock)

Andal tried to use Per Diem against McClintock in 2002. Andal and Ose have the same consultant – so there is no original thought going into today’s campaign. In fact, that consultant may have been playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws.

Now team Ose is forced to continue the Per Diem attacks because their foray into Tom’s voting record reveals McClintock opposing money-wasting resolutions and opposing bonds.

But wait – McClintock was the only vote against this resolution about base closures. McClintock was outspoken about the waste of money and how the resolution would do nothing to fix the problem – but it will make a nice hit piece for Ose to spend some more money on, won’t it?

Again – this requires deception in campaign attack ads, where half-baked research breeds half baked attacks.

What is irrefutable is Ose’s contempt for our values in the 4th CD.

His MainStreet Partnership letter deriding Right Wing Fringe Groups – his radio comment about “Philosophical Angels on the Head of a Pin”... show Ose’s soul. His despicable character attacks against McClintock show that he can not campaign on issues and the issues will ultimately take Ose apart.

55% from Federation for Immigration Reform (again, a horrid score for a Republican) – Ose’s response? To Get Pete Wilson to say that McClintock is lying – news flash, Wilson hates McClintock because McClintock led the opposition to his tax increases when he was Governor.

Lifetime D+ from the NRA? Go buy a life membership and watch the NRA endorse Tom McClintock.

Lifetime 52% from the Republican Liberty Caucus
Lifetime 55% from the Family Research Council – one of the worst Republicans again.

As Doug Ose continues his egomaniacal barrage against Tom McClintock, he provides a great backdrop for a quote to finish this post with…

Teddy Roosevelt said, “the only thing worse than hardness of heart is softness of brain”.

At recent debates – team Ose has been ridiculing the Citizens Against Government Waste Earmark Reform Pledge – commonly referred to the “No Earmarks” pledge.

Ose voted $800,000 for a Red Ant Farm, and he thinks Earmark Reform is silly. ($604K in Farm Subsidies be dammed…)

During some of the debates and most recently, last night Ose launched into an attack against Club for Growth President David Keating…

Why is Ose attempting to label the Club for Growth? The below editorial, written by Ose’s former colleague Pat Toomey explains some of the motivation for Ose’s enmity tworard the Club for Growth. Don’t forget Ose’s MainStreet Partnership Letter, either…

Wall Street Journal (5/8/2008 – this came as an E-mail from the CFG)

In Defense of RINO Hunting

By PAT TOOMEY
May 8, 2008; Page A13

The Club for Growth Political Action Committee has long been attacked for intervening in Republican primaries and targeting the party’s most economically liberal incumbents.

In 2000, Pennsylvania Rep. Jim Greenwood called the Club “cannibals.” When the Club ran ads against Ohio Sen. George Voinovich and Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe for resisting President Bush’s 2003 tax cut, Karl Rove deemed the ads “counterproductive.”

And Newt Gingrich, the man who ushered in a conservative Republican majority in 1994, once denounced the Club. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” he said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.”

Now comes Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, the man charged with rebuilding the GOP majority in the House. In a New York Times Magazine article, he denounced the Club for Growth’s involvement in a special election in Ohio’s fifth congressional district.

“The problem I have with the Club is I think they’re stupid,” Mr. Cole said. “They spend more money beating Republicans than Democrats.”

Republicans would be better off, the argument goes, if the Club PAC spent its money targeting Democrats instead of liberal Republicans. This is the argument of politicians who care more about maintaining power than using that power to implement conservative policies.

Thus comes the demand for an uncompromising obeisance to the bottom line: Elect as many Republicans as possible, regardless of how they will vote once in office.

It is for this reason that challenges to incumbents are deemed sacrilegious, no matter how far the incumbent has strayed from conservative principles. And it is for this reason that party leaders defend some of the most liberal incumbents, also known as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), and assail the Club PAC for helping to elect true conservatives.

In 2000, Rep. Tom Davis, then the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, denounced the Club for supporting Scott Garrett’s challenge to New Jersey Rep. Marge Roukema. Mr. Cole and the entire Oklahoma establishment backed Tom Coburn’s primary opponent in the 2004 Senate race, Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, viewing Mr. Coburn as too conservative to be electable. Led by President Bush, the GOP cavalry rallied behind liberal Arlen Specter in 2004, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Joe Schwarz of Michigan in 2006.

Mr. Chafee, you may recall, is the same senator who refused to vote for the president in 2004, and voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and Justice Sam Alito’s nomination.

This year, Mr. Gingrich and conservative favorite former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele stumped for liberal incumbent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest against conservative state Sen. Andy Harris in a primary. Mr. Gilchrest was also defended by the Service Employees International Union. He lost by 10 points.

Let us take a moment to consider how these liberal Republicans are serving the GOP today. Mr. Specter, just in the past year, joined Democrats in voting for “card check” (which allows unions to organize without holding a secret ballot election), for increasing the minimum wage, for expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for the bloated farm bill.

Mr. Chafee, who was defeated, switched his party affiliation to Independent and has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Following his loss to conservative Tim Walberg in the 2006 primary, Rep. Schwarz of Michigan backed a state-level tax hike, and threatened to run against Mr. Walberg as a Democrat.

Mr. Gilchrest has hinted recently that he will endorse the Democratic nominee for his seat. All four of these pols were heralded by the Republican establishment as genuine conservatives who would go to bat for the party when it mattered.

Conversely, many of the Republican candidates the Club for Growth’s members have supported over the years are now leaders in the conservative movement and favorites among the party’s grass roots. Sens. Coburn and Jim DeMint and Reps. Scott Garrett, Jeff Flake, John Campbell, Jeb Hensarling, Tim Walberg and Mike Pence are just some of the brave leaders who have led the fight for limited government and greater economic freedom.

Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress.

A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu.

Mr. Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, is president of the Club for Growth.

I had to stop and ask myself, self… why do all those Bible-thumping Right-Wing Wacko Pro-Life Groups include Human Cloning on their scorecards???

The National Right to Life, the Eagle Forum and the CRA/NFRA all take Human Cloning seriously, but put cloning and abortion into the same (divisive) life column.

Doug Ose said on the radio that every abortion is a tragedy. I agree with him, but unlike O-Si I mean it…

I posted Doug Ose’s clip on the radio several weeks ago

Every Abortion is a Tragedy -

HR 503, Roll Call #89 April 2001 – Unborn Victims of Violence Act – Voted NO. While every abortion is a tragedy according to Ose, murdering a fetus during the commission of a crime doesn’t merit a criminal penalty.

H Amdt 27 to HR 503, Roll Call #88, weaken the Unborn Victims of Violence Act – this vote occurred before Ose voted against the act itself, further underscoring Ose’s hardcore Pro-Choice position. The “Fetus” is not a life, therefore Ose voted no on making it a crime to hurt an unborn child in the womb and voted to gut the bill he knew might pass. No wonder why he scores 32% from National Right to Life.

In addition – in 1999, HR 2436 Roll Call #464 – Ose voted no on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by voting Yes on a Hostile Substitute. Then on HR 2436 Roll Call #465 the actual Act itself which Ose voted No on as well.

Staying consistent after 1999 / 2001 – in Feb 2004 H amdt 465 to HR 1997 Roll Call #30 – Ose voted Yes to a hostile substitute to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Every Abortion is a tragedy, except an unborn child in the womb of a Woman who is assaulted or raped.

Well maybe we could stop Abortions if we taught kids about not having sex, correct? Ose doesn’t think so (explains his ‘mixed’ record on family issues and his 48% score from the Eagle Forum)

H Amdt 377 to HR 3061 Oct 2001- transfer $33 Million for Sex education to Abstinence programs – Ose Voted No. Apparently, the right to have sex as a teenager is more important to Ose than stopping teenage pregnancy.

H Amdt 221 to HR 2660 Roll Call #352, July 2003 – Prohibit Taxpayer Money for sex research – Ose voted No. Now that we have de-funded abstinence programs, we need to study the results with more tax dollars, right?

To be continued…

Contact: Bill George, Spokesman
May 3, 2008 (916) 899-9871

Where in the District is Doug? New You Tube Video Searches for Ose’s Alleged “Home” in the 4th Congressional District

Doug Ose has made a big deal about his new ties to the Fourth Congressional District. He has spent a fortune accusing Tom McClintock of carpet-bagging. Ose even claims that he moved into a “home” in the District—or, more accurately, he claims to live in a cabana in a wealthy friend’s secluded compound in Granite Bay. Supposedly, he has left behind his wife, his children, and his family home to live in a cabana so that he can vote for himself in the June 3rd primary election.

What’s Doug’s life like in his new digs? Find out by watching political video commentator Bryan Barton’s expose on You Tube at this link

Barton paid an unexpected visit to Doug’s new residence, searching around the pond, tennis court, and the luxurious grounds.

Ose says he’s planning to buy a home of his own soon. After you see this video, you might find yourself wondering where Doug Ose really lives. Does he really expect the Registrar of Voters to believe that he lives in a pool shed in our District? Perhaps we can now understand why Doug Ose is in no hurry to move out into the real world.

Last night, there was a debate in Orangevale put on by the Sunrise Area Republicans. This group is reported to be deeply tied to Ose as Ose called Citrus Heights home before and during at least part of his stay in Congress.

This club’s express policy is to not endorse in contested primaries and was (incorrectly) characterized as a Moderate group by my sources.

Ose Admission: “I knew Farm subsidies were wrong…so I stopped.”

You’d think by now, Doug Ose would stop debating Sen. Tom McClintock. Each time the two candidates square off in candidate forums, Doug Ose walks away a loser. This time, Ose may have made two big mistakes. Moderator Jim Pelley gave all four Republican candidates for Congress questions from the audience that covered the gamut of issues raised in this election cycle.

Ted Terbolizard and Suzanne Jones made it clear they were not rolling over for the Ose-McClintock debates. Terbo is always entertaining and in some respects is a better public speaker than any of the candidates.

Tom McClintock loosened the audience up considerably stating, “I will not respond to Character attacks, I’ve come to talk about issues”.

Early in the Debate, Ose admitted that he took farm subsidies while serving as a member of Congress and sitting on the House Agriculture Committee. In 2004, just before Ose left office, the farm subsidy issue was a brewing scandal for Ose. The Sacramento Bee covered the story at the time, but seems to have contracted a case of amnesia as it relates to Ose and Farm Subsidies. (Maybe all the beating up on Doolittle and the desire to see anyone but a Conservative in the 4th CD is at play here)

The farm subsidy issue is important as Ose continues to obsessively criticize Tom McClintock for receiving per diem. Ose took more than $600,000 in subsidies, that we know of. In a past post, I asked more questions about how much Ose and his family benefited. After the debate, Ose was confronted by Fox 40 news reporter, Michelle Liu, about the subsidies. Ose admitted, ”I knew it was wrong, so I stopped.”

I wish John Doolittle got the same treatment! I knew it was wrong so I stopped? I wish President Bush got let off the hook over the 24 year old DUI in 2000.

What about all the money paid not to grow rice!? What about the people rioting in 3rd world countries for food?What about the $604,000 (that we know of)?

Is Doug going to give the money back? This is an issue I am sure we will hear more about in the days to come. – Meantime, where are those Tax Returns?, the Ticker continues to mark the time…

Near the end of the debate, Ose criticized Club for Growth and its’ founder Stephen Moore. “You don’t know about this group,” said Ose. “Stephen Moore has stated that senior citizens as the most greedy class of Americans.”

Isn’t that special – Tim Macy from Gun Owners of America is a racist and now Stephen Moore hates senior citizens. I wonder if Ose is going to call Mike Spence of the CRA a psycho or something next. Usually when one person has an issue with several others – it suggests that the one person might be the issue.

The Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom.

Club for Growth Policy Goals:

Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
Death tax repeal
Cutting and limiting government spending
Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
Expanding free trade
Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
Replacing the current tax code
School choice
Regulatory reform and deregulation

At the Debate – Tom McClintock got raucous applause when he proclaimed Education to be a local matter, going so far as to suggest the abolition of the Department of Education. Ose, by contrast is part of the establishment that kept feeding it money while our students continue to fail.

The Club for America recently launched a radio advertising campaign against Ose, throwing what is believed to be several hundred thousand dollars in an independent expenditure on behalf of McClintock. With Ose’s comments, aimed at Stephen Moore, one has to wonder if that guaranteed another round of media buys against Mr. Ose.

It certainly suggests that Ose is feeling the heat of the response to his $2 Million worth of character attacks.

Will Ose stop debating McClintock? The next round is tonight in Downieville.

Blooger’s Note – The response of the Ose campaign thus far has been to call Tim Macy a Racist. I guess it cuts both ways…

Press Release from McClintock Campaign Follows:

Gun Owners of America Strongly Endorses McClintock for Congress
The Gun Owners of America-Political Victory Fund has endorsed state Senator Tom McClintock in the fourth Congressional District of California.

“Senator McClintock has earned an A+ rating by Gun Owners every year that he’s been in office, and he will be a leader on Second Amendment issues when elected to the U.S. House of Representatives,” said Tim Macy, Vice Chairman of Gun Owners of America PVF. “We strongly endorse Tom McClintock.”

“On issues important to gun owners and protecting the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, Doug Ose maintained a liberal voting record in Congress,” said Stan Devereux, McClintock’s spokesman. “A liberal like Ose is completely out-of-step with this conservative district.”

Ose has received a lifetime rating of “F” from the Gun Owners of America and “D+” from the National Rifle Association.

OK – so the Sierra Club Complains about any development, but this one is special. Doug Ose was taking direct action on behalf of his father’s land interests in Natomas…

Bob Matsui and Doug Ose were so well connected that Ose refused to allow Matsui’s sacrifical lamb opponent – Ken Payne – to be photographed with him in 1998. Payne is a current member of the Placer GOP Committee.

Why didn’t Ose have Wally Herger take the lead on this? Herger is right next door in Sutter County – only about 10 miles away and Herger who never endorses anyone endorsed Ose. Seems like those two are pretty tight.

Take a look at the end of this where the attorney representing the opponents of expanding Natomas Development lit into Ose. It seems that Enlow Ose owns 1,118 acres right in the affected area.

Of further note are the BONDS that were passed to pay for infastucture development. Will further investigation show that Ose campaigned for those bonds as well? Bonds used to pay for infastructure for development on daddy’s land, a sweet deal that should keep the developer fees nice and low!

This is not a debate over how wrong the Sierra Club is or their opposition to development of any kind, rather it is a debate over Ose’s motives for doing what he did.

This should also give you pause as the levees, also a subject of this contraversy were downgraded effective 5/1/2008 and development in Natomas is effectively being halted.

Why is Ose running to get back into Congress again?

Take a look at this article from 2002 -

Copyright 2002 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Sacramento Bee (California)
January 23, 2002 Wednesday
HEADLINE: Matsui, Ose urge action on Natomas plan;
Environmentalists accuse lawmakers of interfering in species protection process.

Worried that North Natomas developers will run out of land to build on by summer, city officials recently turned to Sacramento’s two congressmen for help.

City officials and developer representatives met with Reps. Robert Matsui and Doug Ose in late October. They told the lawmakers the federal government was moving too slowly on a revised plan for protecting endangered species in the Natomas basin. The plan is needed before portions of the area can be opened to development.

Matsui and Ose responded with a Dec. 14 joint letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton urging that federal regulators approve a new agreement by May 1.

The lawmakers said further delays could erode the credibility of the habitat conservation plan concept, in which all developers in an area pay a fee to help preserve large blocks of land, rather than simply addressing concerns raised by their individual projects.

Failure to move quickly could “tarnish the image of the HCP program in the eyes of the development community,” the lawmakers warned.

The old Natomas plan was thrown out by U.S. District Judge David F. Levi in January 2001. Levi found that the city’s Habitat Conservation Plan was inadequate to protect two species, the giant garter snake and the Swainson’s hawk, which are listed as threatened by federal and state environmental regulators.

Environmental groups accused the lawmakers of meddling and trying to limit the scope of changes to be made to the previous plan. But Matsui, a Democrat, and Ose, a Republican, say their letter simply represented the legitimate interest of local governments and constituents in their districts.

“We were shocked and dismayed at much of the congressmen’s letter, which made demands that were clearly improper and unethical,” reads a Jan. 21 letter to Matsui and Ose that was signed by representatives of the Sierra Club, the Environmental Council of Sacramento and the Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk.

These same groups sued the city over the previous habitat conservation plan, causing it to be thrown out.

Their letter points out that Ose’s father, developer Enlow Ose, owns 1,118 acres in North Natomas. The bulk of his land lies outside the city limits and is not immediately eligible for development, but Enlow Ose is seeking eventual permission to build.

Congressman Ose’s spokesman, Yier Shi, dismissed the idea that Ose was pursuing his family’s interests in co-authoring the letter.

“This is not something that’s personally driven; it’s something local government came to him for help with and he complied,” Shi said.

Matsui spokesman Cody Harris pointed out that the city of Sacramento has already issued a substantial amount of bonds – more than $100 million – for North Natomas streets, sewers and other infrastructure. Bond repayments are dependent on developers being able to build.

“The congressman wants to see the habitat conservation plan go through as quickly as possible,” Harris said. “It’s just a win-win for everybody. It makes environmental protection and economic growth compatible.”

In their letter, Ose and Matsui refer to the importance of completing a new plan by the “May 1, 2002 deadline.” But city officials said there was no deadline set by Levi. May 1 is simply the start of the five-month season when developers can grade land.

An interim agreement approved by Levi in May 2001 allowed the city to issue grading permits for 1,668 acres in North Natomas – a move that prevented construction in the rapidly growing area from coming to a halt. But only 600 acres of that allotment remains, said Carol Shearly, the city’s North Natomas manager.

“We will get considerable pressure, come May 1, to issue grading permits,” Shearly said.

At this point, it is unlikely that a new plan can be finalized by May 1, Shearly said. The new plan includes not only the city of Sacramento but also Sutter County, Reclamation District 1000 and the Natomas water district. The parties have just hammered out a preliminary draft of a new agreement that would bring Sutter County – which has big development plans of its own – into the habitat agreement for the first time.

Once the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepts a plan, it must circulate it for public comment for 60 days, and then respond to those comments.

Cay Goude, Sacramento field supervisor for the federal endangered species program, said she is “very hopeful” that a new plan will be approved sometime this summer.

Goude said the letter from Ose and Matsui asks “fair and legitimate questions.”

“The applicants understand we have a large volume of work and they want to make sure we devote our attention to it, which is understandable,” Goude said.

The Bee’s Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com

The letter follows:

The congressmen attempting to dictate the content of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan have committed two serious violations of ethics.

First, the House Ethics Committee ethics manual has “admonished all members to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper action.” Rep. Doug Ose should avoid lobbying the wildlife agency on Natomas Basin issues because close family members, including his father, own 1,118 acres in Natomas.

The congressmen also were pressuring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to violate the National Environmental Protection Act, which prohibits a federal agency from making a decision affecting the environment until after extensive analysis and public review. Surely it is unethical for congressmen to pressure an agency to violate federal law.

The original Natomas Basin Habitat Plan was flunked by the federal court because it failed to provide legally required wildlife protections. The Sacramento community cannot afford another failed plan. Continued legal strife over protection for endangered species is worse than plan delay. The congressmen’s interference has heightened tension and mistrust, roadblocks to building the consensus we need.

-James P. Pachl, Sacramento Legal Counsel, Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk

Club for Growth PAC Releases Ad in CA-04

Washington – Today, the Club for Growth PAC released a radio ad (MP3 file) on Sacramento radio in California’s Fourth Congressional District.

The ad seeks to set the record straight about Doug Ose’s liberal voting record in Congress. Doug Ose is running ads claiming to be a conservative, but when he served in Congress, Doug Ose voted for billions of dollars in wasteful pork spending, including the Cowgirl Hall of Fame, peanut competitiveness, and an indoor rainforest in Iowa. Ose also voted for a Democratic budget and against Republican budgets. He even voted to make it easier to tax the Internet. That’s a liberal record, no matter what his ads say.

“Doug Ose is trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes, but he can’t hide his liberal, big-spending record,” said Executive Director David Keating. “Voters in California’s Fourth Congressional District deserve to know the truth about how Doug Ose voted when he was in Congress. If voters are looking for a conservative candidate who will fight to protect their tax dollars-that person is not Doug Ose; it’s Tom McClintock.”

PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.

Doug Ose needs a towel to wipe the egg off of his face after the following commentary was posted on the Sacramento Bee

The Sacramento Bee Writes:

Retail food prices have climbed more than 4 percent in the last year, and a similar hike is projected for next year. Riots have broken out in developing countries over food shortages. Schools are being forced to change their lunch menus.

Doug Ose got $604,000 in direct money he voted to give himself while a member of the House Agricultural Committee – this does not include:

1.) Money paid to NOT FARM land he or his family owned
2.) Earmarks he voted for that his family could have benefitted from
3.) Influence he may have used to assist in making his / his families’ land more valuable.
4.) The effects of price supports
5.) Subsidies before 1995 and since 2002 that Ose received

The Bee Continued on “Some consumers, reacting to a rise in the price of rice, have made a run on stores – prompting Costco, Sam’s Club and other retailers to limit how many bags they sell to individuals.”

Since Congress limited Farm Subsidies in the wake of large companies, billionaires and Congressman getting subsidies… we can assume based on the past that FY 2005 forward that Ose raked in the $300,000 limit each of those years.

While Riots are breaking out in third world countries – you have to ask yourself…

What does the Sacramento Bee know about farm subsidies that they didn’t write?

What could all those millions of dollars that Ose and his family received from the government been better used for?

Tough as Nails means doing the right thing – “Instead of Making Accomodations to be Part of the Club”... how about forgoing this gravy train so the money can be allocated elsewhere. (Start with not shrinking our tax cuts)

The Bee Concludes – “Will Congress ever reform the farm bill? Possibly, but not while powerful commodity interests have a lock on leaders of both parties, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Until that changes, Amercians will continue to pay twice for their food – once at the grocery store and once in their federal tax returns.”

We do know this – Ose was part of that problem, with his earmarks and self-serving votes for Farm Subsidies.

“Conservative” Republican Doug Ose has spent a ton of money promoting his endorsements. His supporters have also talked about Ose being a Team Player.

When I posted the MainStreet Partnership Letter on Monday – I did so without too much commentary, looking to see what kind of reaction it got. Pretty much everyone missed the fact that is used the word “Moderate” five times. Now, Ose is campaigning, calling himself a “Conservative”.

The significance of the MainStreet Partnership Letter is that it shows that Doug Ose was proud to be a Moderate in 2003 and was campaigning against Conservatives the entire time he was in office. Now he wants to become one long enough to fool enough voters into voting for him as a Conservative.

Next Week – Doug Ose’s All-Star Team are assembling at the Hyatt for a Fundraiser with Governor Pete Wilson. During the recent debate – Ose referred to Pete Wilson as a Conserative, which drew laughter from the audience.

Ose’s All-Star Team are those whose names appear on the invitation to the $500 a person fundriaser. (Apparently, all those character assassination advertisements are quite expensive.)

Michael Applegate – FOLSOM, CA 95630 – Democrat
Larry and Marjorie Booth – SACRAMENTO, CA 95864 – Both Democrats
Marcy and Mort Friedman – CARMICHAEL, CA 95608 – Both Democrats
Marjorie and Mark Friedman – SACRAMENTO, CA 95864 – Dem and Ind
Marlene and Steve Gidaro – SACRAMENTO, CA 95864 – Dem and Rep
Maggie Abrate and Thomas Griffin – Both Democrats
Sandra and Clarke Rosa – GRANITE BAY, CA 95746 – Dem and Rep

Not Bad – 10 Democrats, one Independent and 2 Republicans. This seems awfully similar to the house/cabana where Ose is registered.

If we add the Schuberts and Flints to the list – Republicans are still outnumbered. Is this Ose’s definition of being a team player?

There is a reason why the MainStreet Partnership is significant coupled with Ose’s own behavior. The RMSP has always had an affinity for working with Democrats over Republicans and the fact that Ose would have an All-Star team made up of Democrats for a fundraiser shows you where he is running in this race – to the left.

Let’s conclude this by taking a look at Mort Friedman -

$2300 to Doris Matsui 6/15/2007
$2147 to Carl Levin 6/18/2007
$750 to Nanci Pelosi 12/3/2007
$500 to John Kerry 8/1/2007
$500 to Jay Rockefeller 10/9/2007
He was also on the list for Phil Angelides and others locally.

Given Ose’s proclivity to give money to Democrats running for local office – looks like a good fit. In a Republican Primary, this should be sufficient cause for alarm.

Doug Ose is running a double-minded campaign, mailers and public communication says “Conservative”, his history and actions state otherwise.

The Corruption label. (It does not matter weather Ose is corrupt, Charlie Brown is going to pounce on this)

This article talks about the latest Abramoff-related indictment. Article

Also mentioned in the article is Kevin Ring – who worked for John Doolittle for a long time. Ring also worked side-by-side with many of Ose’s current team. Ose’s current team is replete with ex-Doolittle staff.

Campaign finance reports show donations to Doug Ose from both Ring and Abramoff. Those same reports read like a who’s who of Ring’s clients. I will be posting those reports very soon, but I am sure open secrets could shed light as well.

Charlie Brown based his 2006 campaign on Doolittle being corrupt. Doolittle is gone, but his staffers have moved on to Ose. Brown could easily level the charge that Ose is more of the same. (Like we have been doing with the spending issue)

Given that anyone connected to Doolittle has been subpoenaed – are any of those now Ose staffers going to be raising their right hand anytime soon?

The problem is – as liberal as Ose is, combined with the connections to Abramoff and the ex-Doolittle staff who were in the middle of it… Does Doug Ose think he has enough money to fight off the attack ads Charlie Brown could run?

Confirmed Doug Ose Supporter Jeff Flint wrote the following in his response to my entry about how the NTU shows that Ose is not fit for office…

And finally, on an issue I have touched on and will address again, there is the issue of working with a team to move policy generally to the right, by effective legislating, by helping elected other Republicans, and working withing the Conference. On these, there is clear evidence in my mind that Ose would be a better representative than McClintock, based on years of personal observation.

Doug Ose was the California Chairman of the MainStreet Partnership, a Moderate Republican group during his tenure in Congress.

The Mainstreet Partnership raised money to run attack ads against conservatives – which flies in the face of “helping other Republicans”.

The Mainstreet Partnership also talks about Centrist Coalitions which flies in the face of “moving policy generally to the right”.

Attached below is a letter sent out 3/28/2003 signed in wet ink by Doug Ose that assails ‘right-wing fringe groups’ which included the Club for Growth, the Pennsylvania Republican Assembly, Gun Owners of America et. al. for preparing a campaign against Arlen Specter.

Specter as you remember, voted with President Bush only 43% of the time! The Mainstreet folks wondered why Republicans were aggrivated…

The letter is attached

Folks – this is why I am dead set against Ose ever holding office as a Republican. His behavior has been destructive to the Republican Team – including his big spending votes and defenses of “Republicans” that vote for Abortion Rights, Gay Marriage, Open Borders, to Grab Our Guns and for Higher Taxes. (MainStreet Republicans)

These kinds of Republicans are what led us to ruin in 2006 – voters look at them and can not tell the difference between MainStreet Republicans and Democrats.

When the GOP lost congress in 2006, the three main reasons were corruption, spending and falling down on messaging the war in Iraq.

The NTU ratings show us why the Republican Party experienced a 10% drop in turnout in 2006 and why Tom McClintock’s charge of squandering the Reagan Legacy is true.

In the defense of Doug Ose, the point was made that Ose was within a few points of the Republican average score from the NTU – 61.7% a D-. Ose was compared to John Doolittle who was slightly above the average.

A closer look shows some disturbing triends – John Doolittle slid from 70% in 1999 down to 53% by 2006. This means that Doolittle became a fiscal liberal and his declining score conicides with his ascension up the Leadership of the GOP.

A closer look shows that Ose beat the Republican average only once in his 6 years in congress and that one time was by 1%.

The average Republican score of 61.7% is abysmal and using that as a benchmark makes the case for why the GOP lost Congress in 2006. Ose’s score was worse than the abysmal Republican average.

When Ose attacked McClintock over Per Diem and it was pointed out that 118 out of 120 legislators take Per Diem – the charge of “the everyone is doing it” defense was leveled.

What we have here is the same defense.

Doug Ose’s second best scorecard is the NTU at 58%. This means that Spending and Taxes are a strong point for Ose in a GOP Primary – and he even misses the average of the GOP as a whole on that issue.

Christian Coalition 61% Score says ‘mixed’ record on Family Issues
When you throw in 55% lifetime score on the borders / immigration
32% from Nat’l Right to Life
D+ NRA / F Gun Owners of America
Campaign Donations to Democrats
Voting against defending Marriage
Voting against the pledge
Voting to tax the internet / sponsoring $46.7 Billion in Tax Increases in 107th Congress
Voting against energy independence twice
Voting against Republican Study Committee budgets three times (spending cuts)

You have a Liberal.

John Doolittle was criticized for being a big spender, earmarker and the like. Doug Ose would be a vote for more of the same.

What a novel concept – when a liberal rag like SN&R says it, now you know why Ose’s mail barrage has stopped.

Ose’s polling has to be telling him what the SN&R wrote below…

Posted by the Sacramento News and Review 4/17/2008

Click here to see Tom McClintock on the Issues

Hypocrisy matters

Carpetbagger. It’s a term with roots deep in the most traumatic period of American history. In the aftermath of the Civil War, with most of the South’s political class disenfranchised while freed slaves were newly (albeit temporarily) enfranchised, the former Confederate States were deluged with wannabe politicians from “up north.”

Depending upon the point of view, these “carpetbaggers” (named for the inexpensive and lightweight luggage they used) might be either heroes or villains in the post-war drama. That the term “carpetbagger” has become derogatory, readily mixed with mud and slung during political fights, indicates which view carried the day. “Carpetbagger” is the first cry from opponents when a candidate relocates in search of an elected position.

But in a country as mobile as ours has become, it doesn’t make much sense to judge a candidate on where she’s lived the longest—unless, of course, the candidates themselves turn opportunist to make residency an election issue.

Dismay, then, would be the only way to describe our reaction to the television ads touting Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock as less worthy of election in the 4th congressional District because he doesn’t live there. Of course, former congressman Doug Ose, the man behind the ads and a competing Republican candidate, doesn’t live there either—unless you count the guest house in Granite Bay he rented just about the time these residency-related accusations started heating up.

Ose really lives in the neighboring 3rd District. In fact, he used to represent the 3rd District in Congress. But in order to take back the seat he gave up in 2004 (he was campaigning unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination to challenge Barbara Boxer for her spot in the U.S. Senate), he’d have to run against current Republican incumbent Dan Lungren—who didn’t live in the 3rd District when he started his 2004 campaign, either. And before Lungren was elected in the 3rd District, he represented the 34th District, way down in Long Beach.

Meanwhile, McClintock’s been representing a Southern California district that includes Thousand Oaks, but he lives in Elk Grove.

Confused?

Here’s our message to Ose, McClintock and everybody else in the Republican race in the 4th District: Will someone please, please start discussing how to return integrity to government in the northeast part of the state?

That’s the real issue. None of these candidates had any interest whatsoever in this district until “Boss” Doolittle’s political machine threw a gear and started spewing subpoenas. Then they all got busy packing their bags.

So gentlemen, please end the residential discussions. Your potential future constituents would be better served if you were to explain what you’ll be doing to change the area’s reputation for insider dealing, machine politics and big-time political money laundering.

Here’s a chance to do the right thing for a district that’s been through 17 years of the Doolittle machine. If candidates put good government ahead of campaigning, integrity ahead of scoring points in polls, they might be worthy of the job for which they campaign.

And it gets better, Doug Ose sat on the committee that gave his companies the subsidy.

That’s correct – pointing the finger at Tom McClintock for taking per diem (like 118 or the 120 legislators).

Can you say conflict of interest? This is as bad as Ose’s connections to Jack Abramoff…

Ose sat on the House Agricultural Committee while voting for the following Farm Subsidies -

(Please note that the numbers given are for 1995-2002)

The Heritage Foundation is the primary Source and the Backup sources are listed at the bottom:

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company $2,653,378
Calvin Dooley (D-CA) $625,695
DOUG OSE (RINO-CA) $604,157
David Rockefeller $518,122
Chevron $427,719

Notables: Ted Turner – $206,948, Scottie Pippen $210,520, Sam Donaldson $$84,742, Ken Lay (that Ken Lay) $18,057…

David Rockefeller, a Billionaire received 99 times more subsidies than the average farmer. Why does a Billionaire need a farm subsidy?

Why didn’t Ose ask any questions about this? Why did Doug Ose vote for this?

Why do Doug Ose’s signs say Tax-fighter when he votes to give himself $604,157 in Farm Subsidies!?

This is hypocricy – you sit on a committee where you vote yourself $604,000 in farm subsidies and have the audacity to whine about Tom McClintock’s per diem payments he voted against (because he voted no on the budgets that authorized them!)

Supporting documentation provided by SF Chron 12/6/2001
National Review 11/30/2001
Newark NJ Star-Ledger 3/18/2005
Providence Journal 2/14/2005
And several articles from the Heritage Foundation

Doug Ose’s Ethical Problems

By Frank Stephens

Doug Ose is spending huge advertising dollars to establish himself as the conservative candidate of ethics. Yes, the carpetbagger from Woodland doesn’t like Sen. Tom McClintock, the carpetbagger from L.A., so Doug is running advertisements attacking McClintock as a carpetbagger.
Ose was the U.S. congressman for the 3rd District from 1999 to 2005 and stepped down to fulfill a promise to serve only three terms (I guess Doug’s promise applied only to District 3 because he briefly announced his intent to run for U.S. Senate before announcing for the 4th Congressional).

Now, Ose a self-proclaimed conservative (who claimed to be a moderate while in the 3rd District), has an ethical problem he cannot make disappear. Mr. Ose is a John McCain delegate from District 3! That’s because Doug lives in District 3. (blogger’s note – Ose surrendered his delegate badge before launching his attack ads on McClintock’s residency)

Yes, Doug is renting a pool house in District 4 from a supporter who is registered Decline-to-state, along with another resident registered with the Green Party. So now what does Doug do ethically? If he now lives in District 4 he can’t be a delegate for McCain from District 3 – that would be unethical! And we all know from Ose’s campaign of ethics that he wouldn’t do anything unethical.

If you want to see Doug Ose’s vision for the El Dorado County Republican Central Committee, look no further than Sacramento and Placer counties. In 2002, he was one of the biggest boosters of the liberal Placer County Republican Congress. Ose works hand-in-hand with the Log Cabin Republicans, whose primary mission it is to change the GOP Platform to reflect a liberal vision.

By looking at the Ose-backed GOP central committee in Sacramento County we see Ose’s vision of the Republican Party. We are rightfully concerned, because the first thing the liberal-controlled central committee did was show the conservatives on the Committee the door, thus alienating their volunteer base.

Ose, who has never met a Democrat he didn’t like, has a history of supporting Democrats for election to local office (he also supported Democrat Vic Fazio for congress). Dan Lungren, a fellow liberal reform-minded Republican, has seen his district hemorrhage Republican registration as he supports liberal policies. Together, they are members of MainStreet Partnership—whose mission it is to attack conservative Republicans. Ose continues to prove his strong ethical underpinning as he claims for himself a mantle of conservativism (Just don’t look at his horrid voting record to prove that absurd lie).

Dan Lungren and Lew Uhler (both have endorsed Ose) are certainly not the definition of Conservative Republicanism – both are proud of their progressive positions. The California Republican Assembly is the recognized conservative Republican organization. The CRA has endorsed Tom McClintock, and for good reason.

Ose’s voting record speaks volumes about his vision for the GOP, like sponsoring 37 bills to raise taxes $46.7 billion in just one session of congress. Look at his voting record and weep for a future devoid of Conservative values and morals.

Former Congressman Doug Ose, has a lackluster record that includes voting for increased spending, increased regulation, and limiting economic freedom:

Voted for McCain-Feingold and against protecting political free speech (RC #34, 02/14/02)
Ose rated D+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
Ose rated “F” from Gun Owners of America (2000, 2002, 2004)
Ose said he is in agreement with many Democrats on gun control issues (San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 2002)
Voted against school choice (RC #135, 05/23/01)
Voted against eliminating money for pork projects, like wood utilization research (RC #160, 05/26/99) and peanut competitiveness (RC#161, 05/26/99)
Voted against the Republican Study Committee budget that would cut wasteful spending (RC #73, 03/23/00) (RC #79, 03/20/03) and for a Democratic budget (RC #75, 03/25/99)
Voted to spend taxpayer money on mohair subsidies (RC #383, 07/11/00)
Voted for the fiscally irresponsible Medicare Prescription Drug Bill (RC #669, 11/22/03)
Sponsored 37 bills to increase spending by $46.7 billion in the 107th Congress
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004
Ose rated 61% by the Christian Coalition: mixed voting record on families. (Dec 2003)
Ose rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003) FAIR is an Immigration watchdog group – according to their information Ose opposed the border fence as well.
Ose rated 59% by National Taxpayer’s Union, indicating barely “Satisfactory” on tax votes. (Dec 2003) When I was in school, 59% was an “F”.

(Frank Stephens is Government Affairs Director for the Air Conditioning Trade Association, 1st Vice Chairman EDC Republican Assembly, former 1st Vice Chairman of the El Dorado County Republican Central Committee, a political consultant, and nationally published author and writer – www.frankstephens.com)

File this under the category of: To Tom McClintock, every day is the 4th of July, to Doug Ose, every day is April 15th.

Frankly, the voters have a right to know how much of daddy’s inheritance Ose is spending.

For Immediate Release!

Contact: Stan Devereux
April 16,2008
(916) 783-4411
cell (916) 825-0572

McClintock Calls on Ose to Release His Tax Returns

State Senator Tom McClintock released his tax returns Wednesday, and challenged his congressional opponent, Doug Ose, to do the same.

“Mr. Ose is a millionaire. Voters have a right to judge for themselves which candidate best relates to them,” McClintock said.

McClintock called on Ose, who is also new to the District, to release his tax returns from 2002 until now so that voters get to know him better. A five-year stretch would cover a portion of Ose’s years in Congress and his interests during the past three years in the private sector.

“The residents of the 4th Congressional District deserve to have the facts about us. They want to know if their next Congressman is more like them or just another Washington insider,” McClintock said.

Folks – this post by Ken Campbell today was the mother lode on Doug Ose.

Please take a good look at this attached post as it pretty much lays the Ose record wide open.

Ken’s encyclopedia Ose is linked here

Ose told Eric Egland – “In order to be a part of the club, you need to make accommodations!”

From rosevillept.com 4/17/08

William Jessup University will host a debate featuring the two leading Republican primary candidates for the 4th Congressional District from 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, May 8 at the University’s campus in Rocklin at 333 Sunset Blvd.

LINK

The below attached story illustrates some key points -

1. Ose is a poor fundraiser which explains why he digs deep into his own wallet to finance his campaigns.

2. Ose knew as far back as 2003 that he wanted to keep as much money in his account as possible for a future run – read the article and see how it talks about a concerted effort to repay campaign debt.

3. Ose put $1.4 million into his 1998 race. This also explains why rumors exist that GOP leadership in 1998 worked hard behind the scenes to sabotage Barbara Alby, they wanted Ose’s money.

4. The tone of the article and Ose suggests that he shuns grass-roots support. This is backed up by McClintock’s 3,000 plus strong donor list. (A list which the Ose campaign intends to pick apart and attack McClintock for in future ads.)

July 27, 2003: Sacramento Bee: “The Sacramento Republican was elected to represent the 3rd Congressional District in 1998 after investing about $1.43 million of his personal wealth in a campaign that cost $2.3 million, one of the most expensive House contests in the country that year. Since taking office, Ose’s campaign has repaid $110,000, leaving it indebted to him to the tune of $1.32 million.

When Rep. Doug Ose announced in May that he was not going to run for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and would instead retire from Congress, that did not mean he was retiring from the fund-raising business.

In fact, Ose not only is still raising funds, but he’s in an unusual position for a member of Congress: What he takes in over the coming months can – and will – go directly into his own pocket.

And unless he cranks up his fund-raising operation to maximum speed, he is going to find that the price of six years of public service is measured in negative numbers – as in hundreds of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket.

“I am aware of the financial reality,” Ose said.

The Sacramento Republican was elected to represent the 3rd Congressional District in 1998 after investing about $1.43 million of his personal wealth in a campaign that cost $2.3 million, one of the most expensive House contests in the country that year. Since taking office, Ose’s campaign has repaid $110,000, leaving it indebted to him to the tune of $1.32 million.

On paper, Ose is a multimillionaire for whom such amounts would seem trivial. But earlier this year, when he was exploring a run for the Senate seat held by Democrat Barbara Boxer, Ose said his assets are tied up in limited partnerships that would be difficult to cash out. He described himself as “cash poor.”

Ose has cash balances in his campaign accounts of nearly $550,000, according to the most recent reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. All of that cash can be transferred back to him personally to repay the loans. But that still would leave him nearly $800,000 short of recovering what he loaned his 1998 campaign in six no-interest installments.

“I’m not in a rush to make any decision (about) how to handle this,” Ose said. “Obviously, I have a debt that I owe myself. That’s the reality of it. For anyone, that is a large chunk of money.”

Steven Weiss of the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors campaign finance issues, said that some congressional members in Ose’s position have decided not to repay themselves and instead forgiven the debts.

But Ose said his intention is to be fully repaid when he leaves Congress.

“I think anyone in my position would want to do that,” he said. “That’s not rocket science.”

Raising that kind of money may not be easy. Incumbents do better than challengers raising money because they are officeholders who have some influence on issues that contributors care about. Ose’s best opportunity for attracting contributions will be over the next year or so when he still has some influence.

“Although his campaign will be raising money to retire a previous debt, contributors will be motivated to give him money because there is legislation important to them,” Weiss said. “The contributors likely to make up the bulk of contributions are going to be the businesses and interest groups with agendas before Congress, and they’re not likely to care how he spends the money.”

But Ose is not a member of any of the committees famous for their money-raising possibilities, such as the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee or the House Appropriations Committee that writes spending bills.

Ose also has never been a heavy fund-raiser. The most his campaign took in was $882,000 for his 2002 re-election.

Ose announced May 16 that he would not run for the Senate and would retire from the House to spend more time with his family.

Since then, he said, his only fund raising has been for previously scheduled events that were planned when a Senate campaign still looked possible.

He cited a fund-raising event at a golf course at the end of June, but nothing about that event showed up on his most recent campaign reports that show transactions through the end of June.

However, his 1998 campaign committee, which continues to file reports because of the outstanding debts to the congressman, reported about $48,000 in contributions in June for events that appear to be related to events planned around a Sacramento River Cats baseball game and a Sacramento Kings basketball game.

Ose said he couldn’t recall whether those events were planned for his Senate exploratory committee or his House re-election committee.

Because the exploratory committee was operated under rules that do not require transactions to be publicly disclosed unless Ose had entered the Senate race, how much money he raised and spent for that effort is unknown.

It appears, however, that as of the date of Ose’s announcement that he will leave Congress, new contributions are being directed into his 1998 committee for debt repayment. “I certainly appreciate that,” Ose said of the June receipts. “My wife does, too.”

Link to Article

“If you want to be part of the club, you have to make accommodations.” That was the response from former Sacramento Congressman Doug Ose, to Major Eric Egland, when Ose was asked about his position on Congressional “earmarks”.

Unfortunately, Ose’s attitude is all too common in Congress today; which has led to the shameful spending sprees resulting in ballooning deficits and huge debt piled on our children and our children’s children.

Although the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to write federal checks, our Founding Fathers never envisioned the corrupt “earmark” system. The term “earmark” refers to funds provided by Congress for projects, programs, or grants that circumvent the legitimate spending process. Earmarks allow members of Congress to spend on their pet projects without oversight, discipline, transparency or accountability.

The earmark system works great for everyone; everyone, that is, except the taxpayer. Earmarks are particularly great for members of Congress who have discovered how they can use them to ensure their re-election by buying votes, facilitating campaign contributions and rewarding special interests—sort of an “incumbent protection system.”

Most members of Congress turn a “blind eye” to other members’ earmarks because they want the same courtesy applied to them. Remember, “If you want to be part of the club, you have to make accommodations.” But this is precisely the attitude that thwarts the kind of reforms we desperately need in Congress. “Making accommodations” means ignoring the root cause of our fiscal crisis because Congress does not want to disturb a highly lucrative practice that helps them personally and politically.

For example, Copley News Service reported that Rep. Jerry Lewis steered hundreds of millions in federal funding to clients of lobbyist Bill Lowery. Lowery is a former Congressman and friend who served with Lewis until 1993. It was probably just coincidence that Lowery, the partners of his law firm, and their clients donated 37 percent of the $1.3 million that Lewis’ political action committee received in the past six years.

Another example, in November 2005, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham resigned from Congress and pled guilty to conspiring to take $2.4 million in bribes from the defense contractors who received earmarks through Cunningham’s legislative work. And amazingly enough one of the defense companies was also a Bill Lowery client.

A final example, as reported by the Washington Post, despite the Pentagon wanting to abandon the project since 2001, Rep. Jim Moran used earmarks to keep “Project M” alive through fiscal 2005. Created by Vibration and Sound Solutions Ltd. (VSSL), a small defense contractor in Moran’s district, Project M’s purpose has changed over the years but has failed to deliver anything useful to the Navy. VSSL’s president and wife have coincidently donated $17,000 to Moran’s campaigns over the years.

Earmarks add up to real money, and it’s your money. The 2007 Water Resource Development Act illustrates how earmarks and grotesque overspending work. In 2007 President Bush asked Congress for $4.9 billion. The Senate added another $9 billion in pork and passed a $14 billion bill. Then the House passed their $15 billion version. By the time the bill made it out of the conference committee where both houses of Congress met to work out their differences, the President’s $4.9 billion request came out as $23 billion pork package.

In 1987 President Reagan vetoed the 1987 Transportation Bill saying, “I haven’t seen this much lard since I handed out the blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.” The bill contained 121 pork projects. In comparison, Congress stuffed more than 6,300 earmarks in the 2005 Transportation Bill. And the abuse continues to increase, the total cost for pork increased by 29% between fiscal years 2003 and 2006.

For the most part earmarks are spending the Federal government has no business funding, like the 2005 Agriculture Appropriations Act which included $100,000 for the “Trees Forever Program” in Iowa; a program to make sure people in Iowa are aware of the type of injuries trees can sustain from winter ice and snow. A laudable goal, to be sure, but why should taxpayers in Placer County fund this program in Iowa?

The corruption of earmarks and the self-serving attitude of “making accommodations” can and should be changed. Voters need to replace any candidate for office that will not swear off the ethically dubious enterprise of earmark spending. We need representatives who will not make “accommodations” to be “part of the club.” We need representatives who respect taxpayers enough to put an end to corrupt practices like earmarking.

By Shane Goldmacher – sgoldmacher@sacbee.com
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A4

Over the next seven weeks, the congressional campaign of Doug Ose will hammer opponent Tom McClintock as a carpetbagging state senator from Southern California.

But the truth is, McClintock has lived with his family in the greater Sacramento area for more than 10 years while representing a Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles county seat – enabled by loose state laws that allow legislators to make their homes hundreds of miles from the districts they represent.

Under federal law, both McClintock and Ose are eligible for the 4th Congressional District seat, despite the fact that neither has made his home there. Congressional candidates must only reside in the state in which they are running, be at least 25 years old and have been a U.S. citizen for seven years.

“I’ve always interpreted my responsibility as a state legislator to cast my votes in the interest of the entire state,” McClintock said. “I believe that every congressman has the responsibility to cast his or her vote in the best interest of the United States.”

To me, this is a none issue. See the full article here.

Tom McClintock for Congress—California District 4 News Recommendations

In California politics, Tom McClintock is viewed as a Conservative hero. He has a legendary reputation for his work to cut wasteful spending and taxes. During his years in the California legislature he complied one of the very best voting records on economic issues. In the last fire years, he racked up straight “A” grades from California’s Howard Jarivs Taxpayers’ Association.

He does much more than simply vote right. He also played key roles in efforts to rebate over $1 Billion in taxes and cut the state’s hated car tax.

Tom also worked at two leading Conservative state think tanks – first as director of the Center for the California Taxpayer and later at the Claremont Institute.

To get a flavor of McClintock’s motivation for running, read this excerpt from his announcement speech:

Like all of you, I believe in the founding vision of America; in a nation whose government’s purpose is to defend our natural rights as individual citizens.

And, like all of you, I watched as Ronald Reagan brought a new energy to that vision. Our generation knew a time when it truly was morning again in America. I want our children to know what that feels like.

It is true that we had a Republican Congress and a Republican President and they squandered Reagan’s legacy. They abandoned our Republican principles. I want to return to them.

The fundamental design of our national government is to maximize individual freedom and minimize the burdens of government on our people. Government is not our nanny and our national treasury is not a grab-bag for politicians.

We have no doubt that if Tom wines the nomination in June and wins again in November, he will be one of the best members of Congress on economic issues.

His opponent is former Congressman Doug Ose, who used to represent a neighboring district. Ose consistently voted against Conservative Republican budgets and voted for the budget-busting Medicare drug bill, the 2002 Farm bill, and the outrageous anti-free speech McCain-Feingold bill. He also supported pork barrel spending, voting against proposals that would strip earmarks out of spending bills.

SPECIAL NOTE ON THE MILLIONAIRES’ AMENDMENT IN THIS RACE

Ose triggered the “Millionaires’ Amendment” in the federal election law. This allows you to donate up to $6,900, triple the usual amount, to Tom McClintock’s campaign. If you give the $6,900 maximum, only the first $2,300 of your donation counts toward the $42,700 election cycle limit on giving to federal candidates. Please contact us if you need more information.

Please support Tom McClintock’s campaign for Congress so he can win his June 3 primary against Doug Ose.

“But McClintock’s extensive history of statewide ballot appearances, not to mention his 19 years in the state legislature, could provide him with a shield against Ose who is launching character attacks against McClintock on a near-daily basis.” PolitickerCA.com 4-11-08

April 11, 2008 – 3:21pm

McClintock says race against Ose is for ‘the heart and soul of the Republican Party’

By Alex Isenstadt

WASHINGTON – To say that Tom McClintock is confident or unquestioning in his conservative stances is something of an understatement.

“I try to steer a str