Javascript and Flash must be
enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Javascript and Flash must be
enabled and installed to play this audio file.

This post brought to you by Aaron F. Park, Proprietor, Charlie Brown’s house of Pain…

“This has gone on long enough. Elected officials are guardians of the public trust, and must be above any perception of wrongdoing.” Charlie Brown, 4/11/06

Democrat Charlie Brown was quick to point the finger at Republicans he claimed were engaged in unethical behavior. But partisan Democrat Brown remains silent as evidence mounts that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi directed almost $100,000 from her Political Action Committee to her husband’s business. Pelosi has also contributed $12,000 to Brown’s campaign for congress.

“As we saw in his refusal to return tainted campaign cash to Democrat Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel, Brown talks a good game about ethics but fails to utter one word criticizing Democrat big wigs when they are ethically challenged,” McClintock for Congress Communications Director Bill George said. Brown has held on to $11,500 in tainted campaign cash sent to him by Rangel. “Charlie says he’s independent, but while other Democrats call for reform Brown ducks the issue and keeps the cash,” George said.

Congressman and Democratic Senate candidate, Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado called on Rangel to step down as Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee in light of his three ethics investigations for questionable practices. Iowa Rep. Dave Loebsack gave up his $5,000 in Rangel contributions. Newspaper editorial boards all across the country have called on Rangel to resign and for Democratic candidates to give back his contributions. “Charlie Brown should join Udall’s call for Rangel to resign. Charlie should return the money he’s received from his fundraising accounts. And he could make a few pithy quotes about Pelosi’s ethics in shoveling money to her husband,” George said. “As Charlie said, ‘this has gone on long enough.’”

(Cue up Guns and Roses in the background)

This post brought to you by Aaron F. Park – proprietor, Charlie Brown’s house of pain.

Listen to spot here

FT: Hi, I’m Fred Thompson.

I’d like to talk to you today about our fiscal crisis and who we can trust to keep the Washington politicians honest.

Tom McClintock is a nationally recognized budget expert and the voice of fiscal sanity in our Legislature.

Time and time again I’ve heard people say, “If we had only listened to Tom McClintock we wouldn’t be in this mess.”

Well, I wish we had listened. Years ago.

Because believe me, I’ve seen firsthand how Washington can turn a budget surplus into a deficit. The financial crisis our nation faces is complicated, and I don’t think anybody got all the answers.

But I’ll tell you one thing. I’ll feel a lot more confident with Tom McClintock working on it, rather than some amateur.

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agree when it comes to watching the budget and fighting for the taxpayer, Tom McClintock is the one we can trust.

TM: I’m Tom McClintock and I approve this message.

Announcer: Paid for by McClintock for Congress

QUICK – Charlie, call Wesley Clark… QUICK!!!

This is key – Tom McClintock voiced this spot himself, as if he is talking to us. Charlie Brown quoted Nancy Pelosi’s bailout line word for word the other night on Channel Three. Does anyone think we will hear Charlie Brown in his own words on the Radio or once he gets to Congress if Daily Kos is correct with their poll?

Does Charlie have the knowledge to deal with stuff like this financial crisis?

TM: Hi, This is Senator Tom McClintock.

For many years, I’ve warned that the fiscal mismanagement of California was taking us to the brink of bankruptcy. Now we’re watching the same thing happen to our country.

This financial mess began with a housing bubble that government caused by pushing lenders to make risky loans and then assuring them that taxpayers would cover their risk.

Now they want to take an average of $9,000 from every family in America to bail out THEIR bad decisions.

When government takes that kind of money to buy up bad loans, it consumes money that could be used for good ones.

Instead, shouldn’t we change the laws that created this crisis in the first place? And the healthiest way to get more capital into the market is to reduce taxes to encourage new investment – not raise our taxes to pay for Wall Street’s mistakes.

The strength of our nation is in the common sense of the American people – and now is the time to stand up to the leaders of both parties and insist on it.

I’m Tom McClintock, and I approved this message.

Announcer: Paid for by McClintock for Congress.

The Poll was done between 9/22 and 9/24 with a margin for error of 5%

McClintock – Favorable / Unfavorable 43 to 31

Brown – 35 to 37 (something about the effigy)

Both Brown and McClintock draw 72% of their own party’s voters

Independent Voters prefer Brown 48-37 over McClintock

Have a look at the McClintock Press Release for more information.

Ooooh! That’s got to hurt…

Oh, but wait, there is more pain for Charlie - Charlie Brown’s trying to sell himself as a conservative has been a definitive failure. On the attribution of “conservative” McClintock leads 66% to 9%. On the attribution of “liberal” respondents identified Brown by a margin of 60% to 7%. Regarding the attribution of “winning the war in Iraq” Tom leads 58% to 29%. And on the anti-tax attribution McClintock leads 56% to 18%.

Where are all those “Blue Dogs” for Brown???

At about the 3:10 point in the video – Tom is talking about cutting the Capital Gains tax rate and paying for it by eliminating the farm bill… in the background you can hear the news anchor saying, “Oh Boy” in a sighing harumph.

She then follows up with a question along the lines of – “If you are in congress I can assume that you oppose oversight and regulation!?”

Nice question by the anchor, wasn’t it.

Even with 3:1 odds – Tom McClintock gave specific answers to questions in detail and Charlie Brown’s answers were general and repeated almost word for word what Pelosi said.

The most telling occurrence was at the end of the interview – Charlie Brown took some distinctly partisan shots at McClintock. So much for patriotism over partisanship – Charlie is now 0 for 2 as he has neither patriotism or non-partisanship.

The link to the TV jousting session is here…

It looks like Charlie is gravitating back to his base… you know Blue America and Daily Kos.

Calitics has also had a few things to say about CA-04.

But First – these messages from our Stenhouse:

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

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

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

“I’m not an expert on military code of conduct.”

ActBlue made a weak buy targeted at Dan Lungren in CA-03 indicating a shift in Dem strategy. The DCCC and MoveOn have done little if anything in CA-04. It also appears that a rumored bus-a-mob coming from Kool-Aid land never materialized.

Another hard-left blog: Calitics had some more to say about St. Charles (these religious references have got to be annoying the left…)

CA-04: A lot to report here. While Tom McClintock is off putting together propaganda blogs attacking Charlie Brown, and of all things, this website, he ought to be paying attention to his campaign manager problem.

The camp of Democratic candidate Charlie Brown claims evidence shows state Sen. McClintock, a Republican, effectively is a substitute Doolittle, and in particular asserts that McClintock campaign manager John Feliz ’s connections to Doolittle are significant.

” John Feliz is the architect of Doolittle’s first known political-practices transgression,” said Todd Stenhouse, Brown spokesman. “The bottom line is McClintock claims not to be John Doolittle, yet he’s using his former campaign manager, and he has the same treasurer (David Bauer).”

McClintock campaign spokesman Bill George said, ” John Feliz hasn’t worked for Doolittle in 18 to 20 years.”

Note that he doesn’t respond to Bauer, who is still the treasurer for an active Doolittle campaign committee.

Meanwhile, Charlie Brown has endorsed the Pickens Pledge. I am in complete agreement that the Pickens Plan for energy independence is just a scheme for a rich guy to get richer, but the pledge merely calls for an energy plan to be enacted in the first 100 days of the next Administration. There is a difference.

Blogger’s Note – Charlie Brown has the same consultant as Gavin Newsome, Chris Dodd and Wes Clark, and fellow tin soldier Congressional Candidate Mike Lumpkin… Do you think the Auburn Journal will say anything about that?

I wonder if Lumpkin was in uniform too?

The fact that Calitics is reduced to going after John Feliz and trying to attach John Doolittle to Tom McClintock signifies that their own polling data shows Charlie is about to bug out of another island. If that isn’t enough – the limited resources ActBlue has are going after LUNGREN whose seat was supposed to be less of a target than McClintock’s!

Sorry Charlie – Storefront would have helped you in San Francisco. Here in CA-04, you are a fish out of the Tuna Can.

P.S. Charlie – give that $11,500 from Charlie Rangel-Abramoff to charity, QUICK!!!

Tom McClintock was assailed by Doug Ose for a handful of specific votes on Military Issues and Charlie Brown has predictibly picked up on those – I decided to dredge up a few of my own. The following votes only apply to the genre of votes Tom made on behalf of veterans in the category listed. I wouldn’t want to give McClintock too much credit for being a freedom-loving Republican.

God forbid we keep harping on Charlie Brown’s anti-war activity… “Only 130,000 or so military members left over there now wondering when they will get home from this war of occupation/aggression” – Charlie Brown as quoted in an an E-mail sent to everyone in the City of Roseville E-Mail system and released through a freedom of information request in 2006 from the City of Roseville. This was Brown’s response to a co-worker celebrating the return home of their loved one.

Financial Aid/Education Benefits:

SB 1680 – May 2008 – Authorizes the California Community Colleges and California State University and encourages the University of California by establishing a Military and Veterans Offices for assisting veterans for financial aid and other student services.

AB 950 – September 2007 – Extends from one year to two year the period of time which non-resident Californian member of the armed Forces stationed in California seeking a graduate degree to be considered as resident for paying fees.

SB 272 – September 2007 – Give those California State University and California Community College campuses who provide priority enrollment for classes to members of the armed forces within two years of leaving active duty.

SB 1322 – August 2004 – Five year extension of the APLE-National Guard program and other academic related benefits.

AB 1965 – June 2002 – Prohibits the UC, CSU, and CCCs from charging mandatory student fees to any undergraduate student who is a child of a recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Please note that McClintock voted yes on all the above – I don’t think we will see these in a Brown Mailer anytime soon.

Brown tries to hide behind his uniforn to avoid scrutiny – Tom McClintock proudly stands on his record to answer Brown’s cowardice.

A Mother-to-Mother Plea: Don’t Hurt Charlie Brown!

Democratic Candidate’s Wife Asks Sheehan Not to Protest the Iraq War

By STEPHEN S. PEARCY

When America’s leading anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan, got a phone call last week from Jan Brown, wife of Democratic Congressional candidate, Charles D. (“Charlie”) Brown, the last thing in the world Cindy expected was a plea from Ms. Brown, “mother-to-mother,” that Cindy stay away from a Sacramento anti-war protest. But that’s exactly what she got.

Fortunately for the hundreds of peace activists who showed up at the protest at 16th & Broadway in Sacramento to meet with Cindy, she rejected Ms. Brown’s request, and the event went wonderfully.

But imagine how strange it must have sounded to Cindy to have someone whom she had previously considered an anti-war enthusiast, and friend, tell her that it could hurt Charlie’s chances if Cindy attended the anti-war event.

Nearly two weeks ago, for the 22nd time since summer 2005, my wife and I organized an anti-war protest at 16th & Broadway, in Sacramento. On this particular occasion, we picked the date (October 27th) because Cindy said that she could come if it were held that day. Once she agreed to attend, we prepared fliers, sent out email announcements, and posted advertisements online.

We also passed out over 300 announcements to students in front of C.K. McClatchy High School, and we delivered them door-to-door to many homes in the Land Park neighborhood of Sacramento. We even paid a high school student $100 to deliver more fliers other places.

All of the announcements stated that Cindy Sheehan would be there. The day before the event, I stood on the corner of 16th & Broadway for 2 hours with a 4-foot by 8-foot sign that said Cindy would be there the next day.

I had no idea that Jan Brown was working behind the scenes attempting to frustrate our plans.

When Cindy arrived at 16th & Broadway on Friday, there were already about 200 people there who were very excited to see her. The event was held in the midst of rush-hour traffic. Horns were honking, drivers were cheering as they passed, people gave thumbs-up, and there were lots of smiles and nods of approval in response to anti-war statements on the signs.

Needless to say, I’m sure glad that I didn’t have to stand there explaining to people why Cindy didn’t show up

After Cindy waded through the crowd a bit and met with several people, she walked over to the area where I was standing and we spoke. She told me that Jan Brown had called her earlier to try to talk her out of coming to the demonstration. At the time, I was so pleased to see Cindy at the event, and so happy to see all the positive reactions from those passing by, that what Cindy told me didn’t sink in completely. Now it has.

Later that evening, Cindy and I discussed Charlie Brown’s recent attempts to disassociate himself from the anti-war movement and how cowardly that is.

Recently, the race between Brown and Doolittle has become close. In fact, it has become so close that Doolittle even participated in a debate with Brown a few weeks ago, although Doolittle had previously rejected the idea thinking Brown had no chance.

In the debate, Doolittle criticized Brown for attending an anti-war event that Cindy Sheehan also attended. But instead of proudly thanking Doolittle for mentioning something favorable about Brown’s activities, Brown chose to respond by criticizing Doolittle for his own associations. Since that debate, Brown has been quoted as saying that he’s neither associated with Cindy Sheehan nor has he ever taken any campaign contributions from her.

But why would Brown want to boast about that? That is, wouldn’t it be much better if he could say that Cindy is (or was) a good friend of his or that he’s so committed to ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq that even Cindy Sheehan has contributed to his campaign? Instead, Brown is boasting about his non-association with Cindy. What gives?

Sean Penn was a surprise guest at an anti-war rally that Brown and Cindy attended in Sacramento several months ago, but apparently Brown is now referring to Cindy as the “surprise guest” at that event. Actually, Cindy was booked 4 days before it was held, and that was widely publicized immediately after the booking.

Until I heard about Brown’s new strategy of disassociating himself with the anti-war crowd, I was rooting for him. I really thought that he was a new and different kind of Democrat: one with a spine.

I also appreciated the fact that Brown came to my home wearing his full military uniform and stood outside with many anti-war folks to defend my free speech. Several right-wingers had gathered across the street after I placed a display on my home of a uniformed soldier with the sign, “Bush Lied, I Died.” When Brown, his wife, and about two hundred others, including Cindy and Pat Sheehan, showed up to stand in solidarity with my wife and me, we really felt like there was hope for ending the criminally orchestrated U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Today, however, it’s no longer clear to us whether Brown supports an immediate end to the occupation. Ironically, now that most people are opposed to it, Brown seems more opposed to associating with the anti-war crowd.

The kind of political transformation that Brown has recently exhibited is precisely what’s gotten us into the mess in Iraq. From the perspective of someone who already lacks hope in the Democratic Party, Brown’s new unwillingness to be identified with Cindy and the anti-war crowd only reaffirms my belief that we can’t expect any meaningful change without a viable new party. It’s really sad.

Stephen S. Pearcy is an attorney and peace activist in Berkeley, California. You can email him at stephen.pearcy@sbcglobal.net

For the past four years Charlie Brown has consistently denied he has participated in a variety of anti-war activities. These denials have been made in the face of overwhelming evidence that Brown joined with the radical group Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan and others in the extreme anti-war movement.

New video emerged this week that showed Charlie Brown attended a Sacramento anti-war rally wearing his military uniform. The video clearly shows Brown standing with anti-war demonstrators in front of a home where a soldier had been hanged in effigy. The development capped years of denials and misrepresentations from Brown and his campaign about Brown’s actions that night and in other anti-war activities. The issue is not about what position Brown took on the war; it is about his failure to tell the public where he truly stands. Is this the type of person we want to send to the United States Congress?

Brown’s true stripes emerged publicly April 16, 2004. While working as a records clerk at the Roseville Police Department, Brown sent an email to City of Roseville employees many interpreted as an insult to them and our troops. In the email Brown responded sarcastically to the news of the return of a city employee from a deployment in Iraq this way: “Only 130,000 or so military members left over there now wondering when they will get home from this war of occupation/aggression.”

“I personally know that several employees were offended by Charlie’s politically-charged negative comment regarding our nation’s involvement in Iraq,” said Steve Uribe, a retired Roseville police officer who worked with Brown at that time. “Rather than welcoming home a fellow veteran, Charlie chose to call our troops occupiers and aggressors.”

Brown made his appearance at the war demonstration wearing his uniform February 15, 2005. When asked about it in a radio interview the Bruce Maiman Show, September 12, 2007, Brown said: “I was down there. I was not in uniform. The only times I put on my dress uniform these days are veterans’ ceremonies and I was actually on both sides of the street last night talking to people to find out, you know, what their concerns were. So, yes I was there, no I was not in a dress uniform and I was actually on both sides of the street, policemen down the center. Second Amendment, right to free speech.” (sic)

Stephen Pearcy hanged the soldier in effigy at his home. He says Brown stood with him at the protest. “Brown came to my home wearing his full military uniform and stood outside with many anti-war folks to defend my free speech. Several right-wingers had gathered across the street after I placed a display on my home of a uniformed soldier with the sign, “Bush Lied, I Died.” When Brown, his wife, and about two hundred others, including Cindy and Pat Sheehan, showed up to stand in solidarity with my wife and me, we really felt like there was hope for ending the criminally orchestrated U.S. invasion of Iraq.”

Pearcy’s recollection is matched by Deborah Johns, the mother of a Marine, who attended the rally: “Charlie Brown was most definitely there. He made statements before that he was not a supporter of Cindy Sheehan and that he was not at Virginia and Steve Pearcy’s house in Land Park. He was inside their home. He was hugging not only Steve and Virginia Pearcy, but he was also hugging Cindy Sheehan.”
After a news conference where the video was shown to reporters, Brown spokesman Todd Stenhouse continued to deny that Brown stood with the protestors, telling Politickerca.com: “He did absolutely not lie,” [regarding] Brown’s previous characterizations of his appearance at the house. “He walked on both sides of the street. And I’ll take the word of a 26-year military veteran on that.”

The Sacramento Bee reported that in February 2006, “Brown appeared at an ‘Out of Iraq’ event, sponsored by the anti-war group Code Pink and other organizations. [Cindy] Sheehan and actor Sean Penn also attended.” According to the Bee: [Spokesman Todd] “Stenhouse insisted Tuesday that Brown had no idea that Sheehan and Penn were going to appear at the February ‘Out of Iraq’ event. Pearcy said Brown’s plea of ignorance is ‘ludicrous’ because Sheehan’s appearance was well advertised four days in advance.”
In October 2006 Brown continued to back away from his anti-war issues. According to the Sacramento Bee: “Provoking Pearcy’s anger was a request by Brown’s wife, Jan, last week that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan cancel her appearance at a planned Friday protest in downtown Sacramento.

“Imagine how strange it must have sounded to Cindy to have someone who she had previously considered an anti-war enthusiast, and friend, tell her that it could hurt Charlie’s chances if Cindy attended the anti-war event, Pearcy said. Brown spokesman Todd Stenhouse said Tuesday that Jan Brown’s request was not made on behalf of her husband or the campaign.”

The Brown campaign spun Brown’s actions this way:
“It was an emotional reaction by someone watching her husband get attacked for guilt by association because he stood on a stage with a group [Code Pink] he doesn’t even support.”

How strange it is that Brown is consistently observed by citizens, government employees, police officers, conservatives, liberals, and pro-and anti-war demonstrators as having a record of participating in radical actions with the extreme anti-war movement.

And he keeps denying those acts.

Javascript and Flash must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

KFBK lit Charlie Brown on fire…

California: Brown Hit for Anti-War Rally Appearance
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff
September 18, 2008

State Sen. Tom McClintock has launched a broadside attack against retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charlie Brown in their race for the open 4th district, accusing the Democrat of embracing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and participating in a protest where a soldier was hung in effigy.

Brown, hoping to outlast McClintock in the solidly Republican 4th district after nearly knocking off retiring Rep. John Doolittle® last cycle, responded with a call for his GOP opponent to stop the partisan attacks and
join him in supporting veterans.

McClintock held a news conference Tuesday demanding that Brown come clean about his role in a 2005 anti-Iraq War demonstration in Sacramento. McClintock’s campaign also went up with a district wide radio ad featuring the mother of an Iraq War veteran who chides Brown on his participation in the rally.

“Hi, I’m Deborah Johns, proud mother of a United States Marine. My son has served three tours of duty in Iraq, and everyday I’m reminded of what it’s like to have a child in harm¹s way,” Johns says as the ad opens.

“That’s why I was so upset to see Charlie Brown at an anti-war protest where a soldier was hung in effigy,” Johns continues in the ad. “That’s no way to support our troops. Showing up in uniform sends the wrong message to our
veterans and only helps groups like CODE PINK promote their left-wing agenda.”

At the demonstration in question, the owners of the home where it was held hung a soldier in effigy to symbolize the troops who had died in Iraq for a war that the they deemed to be unjust and unnecessary. Brown has claimed that he was wearing a camouflage jacket at the rally, but McClintock’s ad argues otherwise.

Brown, in a statement released by his campaign, doesn’t directly address all of the charges the McClintock campaign makes in this radio ad.

But Brown does criticize McClintock, saying he has voted against veterans and soldiers at war “time and time again,” while encouraging him to donate 5 percent of every campaign dollar that he raises to veterans’ charities, just like he has.

“Rather than join me in a bipartisan effort to provide real, immediate help to veterans, [McClintock] would rather spend thousands of dollars on negative attack ads,” Brown said. “This is exactly what’s wrong with politics in Washington and why so many people are frustrated that our
problems never get solved.”

McClintock also hit the 4th district’s radio airwaves this week with an ad on fiscal issues.

Listen to Todd Stenhouse struggle to answer simple questions.

Also note that McClintock answers for himself – Stenhouse talks for Charlie Brown.

This dovetails with past assertions as to why Brown wants to avoid a Lincoln-Douglas debate style.

Javascript and Flash
must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Javascript and Flash
must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Javascript and Flash
must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Take a listen to your radio folks. I have had two people tell me that they have heard a McClintock radio ad with some Blue-Star Mom in it.

She says that she saw Charlie Brown in some sort of uniform at a vigil in front of Steven Pearcy’s House in support of the Soldier Hung in Effigy? Remember the article in the Sacramento Bee? October 31, 2006 where Steven Pearcy talks about Brown’s participation in anti-war rallies?

In Uniform? What was it, a clown suit?

This is huge – apparently Charlie Brown did stand with the Soldier hung in effigy, this is why he could not Man Up and issue a denial.

To think, his supporters have piously defended his military service and patriotism and they HAD to know that Brown did this. They had to!!!

I leave you with the Sacramento Bee Story (again)

“Anti-war activist Stephen Pearcy, who gained attention from his Sacramento home in February when he hung a human-shaped form dressed in a military uniform and adorned it with anti-war messages, charged that the retired Air Force officer is distancing himself from the protesters who had come to regard Brown as one of them.

“He’s back-pedaling,” said Pearcy in an interview. “He was initially holding himself out as an anti-war candidate, someone who vehemently opposed the war and supported immediate withdrawal. Now I am not so sure he supports that … This is an example of the kind of Democrats we’ve had who have acted basically in a spineless manner.”

Pearcy said the Roseville Democrat had appeared at his house in February when his dangling protest symbol was generating crowds of pro-war activists. Pearcy said Brown was dressed in his Air Force uniform to show his solidarity with him and his wife.”

Sacramento Bee, David Whitney, Bee Washington Bureau Published 6:39 pm PST Tuesday, October 31, 2006

On August 18th – Charlie Brown sent out an Email PROUDLY chiding Tom McClintock for not doing his job!

It boastfully started, “If you didn’t do your job, you wouldn’t get paid. Right now in Sacramento, Tom McClintock’s not doing his job. But while the state of California still doesn’t have a budget, nothing happens to Tom McClintock…”

No kidding, some 25 days later – as broken by my friend Jason Daniel ... the Sacramento Bee and the LA Times obtained a copy of an email from Don Perata indicating that they were going to have to cut a deal with the “NO TAX REPUBLICANS”.

Now – since Perata has given Charlie support and campaign cash in between FBI depositions… One would have to wonder why Perata gets it. He called the Republicans, the NO TAX REPUBLICANS.

Maybe Perata can explain to the Brown team, the Auburn Journal and the Monutain Democrat why I nailed Charlie for supporting tax increases.

If you chide someone for doing nothing on a budget and 25 days later people pushing said budget indicate that they are going to have to deal with the “No Tax Republicans” to get a budget deal – the opposite is supporting tax increases.

Charlie Brown just got drilled again.

Sorry Charlie – the voters are far too discerning for “Nuanced” stances on the issues (if the Brown Campaign ever took any).

McClintock – on the other hand gets to finally enjoy a budget victory because the Dems couldn’t get a second Republican after Abel Maldonado to join his tax raising budget. (The Dems need 100% of their caucus + two Republican Senators to pass a budget.)

I guess the McClintock campaign is going to start having to use photos and the like to force Charlie Brown to stop the Chameleon Act. Only after getting drilled with photographic evidence of his feelings for Obama did Charlie Brown come out of the closet.

The Photographic shreds of evidence were apparently compelling enough to get Charlie to take a stand on the issue of Presidential choice.

When speaking to Blue America – Charlie told them he would have co-sponsored Murtha’s bill against the Troop surge in Iraq… that same surge that now appears to have broken the insurgency. (note how the media is not reporting on Iraq that much anymore…) Blue America went one step further stipulating that Brown would support a “real” bill, not some weak resolution. This is Charlie Brown clearly on the record as an anti-war activist. He owes the 4th CD an apology for attempting to portray himself as a patriot.

In the district, Brown is wrapping himself in the Flag. Which Charlie is it? The Anti-War protester? Given the glass jaw of the Brown campaign over anything close to a question about his military service – one wonders why Brown has not vociferously protested his innocence of charges leveled against him over his support of the soldier hung in effigy.

Despite Blog posts drilling Charlie to the wall over energy – The Brown Campaign clings to articles in the Mountain Democrat and the Auburn Journal about energy. Make no doubt – Charlie is being duplicitous – linked here is a story about Florida residents complaining of seeing Chinese rigs off of their coast and linked here is a story with all the evidence you’d ever want about 1 trillion barrels of oil in reserve in America.If the Oil wasn’t there, then why did Charlie’s fellow Liberal Democrat Mark Udall make sure to insert language into a bill to prevent drilling for it? Charlie owes the voters of the 4th CD an apology over Gas Prices.

Truth be told – Charlie Brown said flat out at the Beverly Hills Fundraiser of Brad Sherman that he opposes Offshore Drilling. When pressed on the issue – he says he supports offshore drilling only on the existing leases, a la Nancy Pelosi. We blogged about that, too.

These are called campaign ethics – Brown has none. He attacked Doolittle over ethics and his are amazingly lacking. When a candidate has to get drilled with pictures in order finally take an honest stand, it is a sad commentary. Charlie owes John Doolittle an apology for attacking his ethics.

Further – there is the Dirty Money. Loads of it… $11,500 from admitted Tax Dodger Charlie Rangel. The Rangel of Charlie’s®Angels… If Tom McClintock took campaign money from Duke Cunningham – Charlie and his friends in the Monutain Democrat and the Auburn Journal would trip over their kool-aid jugs to report the story. Jack Abramoff got a raw deal.

Dirty Money? Don Perata – the subject of THREE Federal Investigations (BTW – 4 1/2 years, no indictment of John Doolittle – add that to the apology list). Jack Abramoff is blushing from Prison right about now…maybe some of Charlie’s Angels will be coming to the party soon?

Dirty Money? The Communist Black Panther Barbara Lee – do you think the media would say nothing if McClintock got help from David Duke? Barbara Lee is the Left’s equivalent of Duke.

The Air Force teaches – I will not Lie, Cheat or Steal, or tolerate those who do. Amen, Charlie – that’s why this Sailor is all over you…

But, wait there’s more than the dirty money you’re taking – which you should also apologize to John Doolittle for… You chided Tom McClintock over not voting for the budget.

Remember??? I am sure as I am writing this post, the Brown team is trying their case with their friends in the Mountain Democrat and the Auburn Journal. On August 18th – the Brown team sent out an email that began, “If you didn’t do your job, you wouldn’t get paid. Right now in Sacramento, Tom McClintock’s not doing his job. But while the State of California does not have a budget, nothing happens to Tom McClintock…”

Nope. Not a shred of evidence that Charlie Brown was advocating voting for the State Budget. The proposal on the table at the time that McClintock was and is fighting against includes massive Tax increases. Charlie was leading with his chin once again – while Charlie tries to play the greased pig routine to avoid being caught in a position on an issue – the campaign continues like a downhill steam train.

Closing Time Charlie – We haven’t even gotten to Gay Marriage, Border Security and Earmark reform yet.

Now is the time to man up – Did you stand with the effigy?

Did you mean to suggest that Tom McClintock vote for the State Budget with it tax increases, if not, what did you mean?

Did you have too much to drink when you said you oppose drilling all together at Brad Sherman’s fundraiser?

Were you caught up in the feelings of social justice when you said Prop 8 should not be on the ballot – basically stating that the California supreme court’s decision should stand unabated?

When you gave Blue America an interview that ultimately earned their endorsement you said, “Sure I could have joined the NRA or canceled my ACLU membership, It may have appealed to some people here, but that’s not who I am…”

Charlie – you’re an anti-war liberal, be proud. You take money from anyone, apologize to Doolittle and drive on. Stand up and hug the effigy – it’s yours. Get on board the No on 8 campaign show your sensitive side. This is leadership – the kind of leadership people expect, not the kind of leadership that gyrates and avoids issues until the camera lens traps you.

Questions lose campaigns, answers will set you free.

Faced with photographs showing him wearing a Barack Obama for President button, the Brown for Congress Campaign finally admitted that Charlie Brown will in fact vote for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

After evading the question for months, the revelation came just one day after Brown refused to say if he would endorse or vote for Obama. Here is what his campaign said on Monday, September 9:

“Ask Charlie Brown if he supports Barack Obama, and he’ll tell you he hasn’t endorsed anyone yet. Ask him whether he plans to vote for Obama in November, and he says that “a lot’s going to happen” between now and then. Ask him if he’d want Obama to campaign for him, and he says, “I’d like to see both McCain and Obama come to the district and have a debate out here rather than ignore California.” Charlie Brown is a Democrat, but you wouldn’t necessarily know it talking to him. Tim Grieve, Politico-9-9-08.

Faced with the photo evidence, the Brown campaign changed its story just a day later:

“Brown isn’t voting for McCain; his campaign spokesman, Todd Stenhouse, confirmed Tuesday after some hesitation that the former Air Force officer and local police administrator will vote for his party’s presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.” David Drucker, Roll Call 9-10-08.

“Charlie Brown would still be dancing around the question if the picture didn’t show him wearing the Obama button,” said McClintock spokesman Bill George. “We can expect Charlie to keep attempting to avoid the issues that matter most to the voters of the 4th Congressional District.”

Blogger’s Note: Something never sat well with me about Charlie’s grandstanding regarding charitable donations – especially since he is doing it to get attention. It would be another thing if it was disclosed what Charlie’s real intentions for doing this were.

As I have asserted for weeks – Charlie is a hard-core anti-war activist and he has the credentials to prove it. I believe that Charlie’s “Charitable” actions are to either cover a guilty conscience or to try and decieve the voters about his real motives.

In either event – there is a passage of scripture that applies – especially since Charlie claims faith on his website:

Matthew 6: 1-4

1. Be careful not to parade your uprightness in public to attract attention; otherwise you will lose all reward from your father in heaven. 2 So when you give alms, do not have it trumpeted before you; this is what the hypocrites do in the synagogues (Roseville, Grass Valley et. al.)and in the streets to win human admiration. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward. 3. But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing; 4 your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

Blogger’s Endnote: These were the words of Jesus delivering one of many sermons he delivered while on earth. These words are timely and important today, right here in Placer County.

“Deeds not Words”

Sen. Tom McClintock’s campaign has issued Democrat opponent Charlie Brown a list of six actions he needs to take in order to let the voters of the Fourth Congressional District know where he stands on the issues. Charlie has been accused of trying to be all things to all people by attempting to distance himself from the liberal Democrat positions he has taken on offshore drilling, amnesty for illegal aliens and higher taxes.

When McClintock’s campaign distributed a direct mail piece to voters over the Labor Day weekend that highlighted the positions of the two candidates on these issues, including gay marriage, the Brown campaign went into a tizzy. Apparently they have never seen their record compared before. The Brown campaign called the mailer “rife with fabrications” and is telling reporters that Charlie hasn’t taken liberal Democrat positions on the issues. While Charlie says he has not taken liberal Democrat positions on the issues, deeds will show the public exactly where he stands.

As a public service, the McClintock campaign has produced a list of actions Charlie can take to set the record straight. We will also help him draft the letters and fill out the forms (we just happen to have an extra copy of the no new tax pledge) so he can quickly get his views on the record:

1. Join with Tom McClintock and send a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking to reconvene Congress and vote on an energy plan for America that includes increased oil exploration and production offshore California and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

2. Sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

3. SUPPORT Citizens Against Government Waste Earmark Reform Pledge and oppose boondoggle spending.

4. Say NO to Amnesty for illegal aliens, period. No means No, even in Spanish. Comprende?

5. Sign the endorsement list to support Proposition 8 which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. You don’t need to sit on the fence with this one. A simple but clear statement of support will suffice.

6. Admit you made a mistake by participating in the hanging of a soldier in effigy, and apologize for wearing your uniform at this event.

As an extra item, why not drop your ACLU membership and join the NRA instead!

Deeds not words. By taking these actions Charlie Brown can prove to the voters of the Fourth Congressional District that he’s not a liberal Democrat.

Blogger’s Note – The interesting thing is that the Brown campaign has called leading Border advocates racists, avoiding addressing the issue alltogether. Exception: Brown endorsed the massive proposed anmesty bill from a few years ago that public outcry killed. Closing time, Charlie – what are you going to do?

State Sen. Tom McClintock spoke to a gathering of Minutemen from the Sacramento region on the steps of the State Capitol Tuesday.

In town for their annual ‘Lobby Day,’ the Minutemen make visits to lawmakers to raise awareness on issues stemming from illegal immigration. This year, one of the topics is crimes caused by illegal aliens. One high-profiled example is the murder case involving Edwin Ramos, a native of El Salvador who is charged with three counts of murder. Tony Bologna and his two sons, Michael and Matthew, who were on the way back from a family gathering, when they were brutally murdered following a traffic incident with Ramos in San Francisco’s Excelsior district.

According to news accounts in the San Francisco Chronicle, “San Francisco’s political establishment has long prided itself on providing a haven for illegal immigrants. Mayor Gavin Newsom even launched a taxpayer-funded $83,000 ” public awareness campaign” earlier this year assuring illegal immigrants that the “sanctuary city” by the bay was in their court. And indeed it is. Under the city’s 1989 voter-approved sanctuary ordinance, police officers and other city employees are prohibited from inquiring into immigration status. In addition, the city will not direct municipal funds or employees towards assisting federal immigration enforcement, unless such assistance is required by federal or state law or a warrant.”

In his speech Tuesday, Sen. McClintock suggested that all federal aid to so-called “sanctuary cities” be cut off beginning with the city and county of San Francisco. “A local government that actively works to undermine our nation’s security and sovereignty has no claim to our nation’s resources and support.”

“The Minutemen have become our nation’s neighborhood watch, and I want to commend all of the law abiding, concerned Americans who have volunteered their own time and their own resources at enormous personal risk in order to assist the border patrol by peacefully reporting illegal incursions of our border,” McClintock said.

The following are the remarks delivered by Sen. Tom McClintock.

The Minutemen have become our nation’s neighborhood watch, and I want to commend all of the law abiding, concerned Americans who have volunteered their own time and their own resources at enormous personal risk in order to assist the border patrol by peacefully reporting illegal incursions of our border.

Our nation was built upon LEGAL immigration – the orderly process by which immigrants come to our country in order to become Americans – and they do so by acquiring a common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of American constitutional principles and American legal traditions.

Illegal immigration undermines that process of legal immigration that makes our nation of immigrants possible.

We should never forget that there are hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants who, right now, are obeying our laws, waiting in line and doing everything our nation asks of them to do, while millions of illegal immigrants cut in line in front of them.

Last year, together, we defeated the amnesty bill in Congress that would have legalized and legitimized the presence of up to 20 million illegal aliens within our borders. It would have excused them from obeying the same laws as every legal immigrant who has respected our nation’s sovereignty.

We fought the leadership of both parties in Congress and we won.

Now, it is time to press for enforcement of our existing laws.

There is nothing radical to insist that we do so. Every other nation in the world has immigration laws. The only difference is that every other nation in the world actually nforces them.

The supporters of last year’s amnesty bill never were able to explain what exactly is wrong with our current immigration laws – except that they’re not being enforced.

Indeed, a prerequisite for any future immigration laws is first to demonstrate a concerted determination to enforce our current ones.

We can start by expediting completion of the 700 miles of the border fence that Congress authorized last year, and that the Bush administration has dawdled on ever since. According to Congressman Duncan Hunter, who coauthored the “Secure Fence Act,” just ten miles of security fencing in San Diego reduced that county’s crime rate dramatically. Imagine what 700 miles would do.

Second, hundreds of armed incursions by Mexican military units in support of drug runners have been documented in recent years and we need to beef up our military presence on the border. Even the limited deployment of a few hundred unarmed National Guard troops last year had a significant impact on those sections that they patrolled.

Third, the government must at least demonstrate a determined, sustained effort to deport those illegal aliens it actually encounters through law enforcement or social service agencies. No immigration law is going to be taken seriously if illegal aliens can receive government-funded benefits while the government cheerfully ignores the fact that they’re not legally entitled to be here in the first place.

Fourth, sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants need to be just as rigorously enforced as all of our other labor laws. There is no excuse for those who would shortchange American citizens and legal immigrants in order to employ those who violate our nation’s sovereignty.

If our state and federal labor agencies can audit every scrap of employment minutia down to lunch and bathroom breaks, they should certainly be able to determine the legal residency requirements that were supposed to be the cornerstone of the 1986 immigration act.

Fifth, we should cut off all federal aid to so-called “sanctuary cities” beginning with the city and county of San Francisco. A local government that actively works to undermine our nation’s security and sovereignty has no claim to our nation’s resources and support.

These modest steps toward enforcing existing law would not only stop the immediate demand on services that is overwhelming our schools, our hospitals and our prisons, it would also produce the voluntary departure of that portion of the illegal population drawn here by public handouts and the underground economy.

Citizenship should be reserved for those who obey our laws – starting with our immigration laws – as hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants are doing right now to fulfill their dream of becoming loyal Americans.

And together, these steps – which require nothing more than the faithful enforcement of existing law—would preserve our nation as a melting pot for many future generations of legal immigrants from around the world who sincerely seek to become Americans and “to secure the blessings of liberty” to themselves and their posterity.

All this talk over renewable energy hits an interesting crossroads.

Tax Credits are scheduled to expire at the end of this year for investments in Renewable energy sources.

Nancy Pelosi has enacted a policy of no spending cuts at all meaning when there is a tax cut or an extension of a tax cut / credit etc that is to expire… it has to be offset with a tax increase somewhere else.

Complicating matters is the group of Blue Dog Democrats who are deficit hawks who apparently have not figured out that budget cuts are another way to go.

Last year – the Alternative Minimum Tax relief bill was delayed into December because of the above issues.

WWCBD? Would Charlie advocate for spending cuts? Would Charlie join his fellow liberals in allowing R&D credits to expire because they don’t want to cut social welfare programs? Would Charlie stand up to Nancy Pelosi?

Tom McClintock will advocate for smaller government and spending cuts – he has proven it for 22 years.

This is a link to an article about how Wind and Solar development R&D tax credits are set to expire…

It doesn’t stop there: Pelosi has even more trouble when it comes to Wind Power.

Pelosi has taken thousands from “Green Energy” companies and seems to be pushing continued subsidies for this form of power. T. Boone Pickens – cited by many luddites as a Texas Oil Man who has seen the light, stands to gain millions from Government subsidies on Wind Power.

Pelosi has also bought large amounts of stock in companies whose existence is dependent upon Government subsidies… Charlie Brown would have come unscrewed if Doolittle had done the same thing.

WWCBD? Will he join with Pelosi and stick his hand out for campaign cash from those looking for government subsidies?

Take a look at this expose on the Wind Boondogle – no wonder why tax credits are set to expire, God forbid they stop Government subsidies.

So here you go Charlie – do you support Government subsidized power generation from an unstable medium? Will you stand up and ask why Pelosi has her fingers in the cookie jar? Tax Credits? Spending Cuts?

Blogger’s Notes: Ohhhh Charlie, this has got to hurt.

Ose Endorsement Highlights McClintock’s Campaign Mailer

Former Congressman Doug Ose spent six million dollars to win the Republican nomination in the 4th Congressional District only to lose State Senator Tom McClintock. The day after the election, Ose called McClintock to congratulate and endorse. Now, McClintock is highlighting the Ose endorsement in the first of many direct mail pieces that voters will receive.

“When it comes to the issues that matter to us, there’s simply no comparison between our candidates for Congress. That’s why I support Tom McClintock,” states Doug Ose. The mailer is a two-sided comparison piece that highlights the positions and issues of McClintock and Democrat Charlie Brown. The issues highlighted are energy, taxes and spending, illegal immigration and gay marriage.

McClintock spokesman Stan Devereux said, “Congressman Doug Ose is a fierce competitor and we appreciate having his support as we work together to defeat Charlie Brown. This mailer is the first comparison piece highlighting the positions of Tom McClintock and Charlie Brown. It’s crystal clear that Charlie Brown is liberal and very partisan.”

As evidence, Devereux listed the issues highlighted in the mailer.

McClintock signed the “No New Taxes” pledge and insists that Congress pass a real balanced budget where we live within our means. McClintock challenged Brown to outline his opposition to raising taxes. Brown called on California lawmakers to approve a state budget that includes tax increases.

“The no tax pledge is so important. And that’s why Charlie Brown’s insistence on passing a budget with the second biggest tax increase in the history of California is so appalling – and why it’s important to understand what it would do to our economy,” said McClintock.

On energy, McClintock recently challenged Brown to join him in a bipartisan approach and ask Speaker Nancy Pelosi to end her vacation and reconvene Congress for a vote on an energy plan. Brown has refused to buck Nancy Pelsoi given that his first vote in Congress would be to elect her House speaker. McClintock wants to end the moratorium on tapping America ’s vast oil reserves offshore and in Alaska . Taking a strong partisan position, Charlie Brown opposes drilling for new oil remaining

On immigration, McClintock supports completing the border wall and deploying our armed forces along the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of illegal aliens into our nation. McClintock also opposes amnesty and opposes giving illegal aliens benefits like social security, in-state college tuition and driver’s licenses. Charlie Brown supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

On social issues, McClintock strongly supports Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Charlie Brown supports Gay Marriage and opposes Proposition 8.

Devereux said, “The McClintock campaign believes that Charlie Brown is a Nancy Pelosi tax and spend liberal. Charlie Brown is unable to take one position and stick to it. He is trying to be all things to all people. The Voters of the 4th congressional district need want to know how Charlie Brown would vote if he was elected to Congress.”

“You can’t call yourself a conservative Democrat, support liberal positions on issues and raise money with the help of liberals like Brad Sherman and Barbara Lee,” Devereux said. “What’s the old saying about if it walks like a duck…?”

McClintock Challenges Brown to Take the No Tax Pledge!
McClintock Says “I Will Not Raise Taxes”

State Senator Tom McClintock’s Democratic opponent, Charlie Brown, who has never been involved in state budget negotiations, last week distributed an email demanding passage of the budget now pending in the State Legislature. McClintock delivered a response to Nevada County Republicans in a speech Saturday in Grass Valley .

“Sorry, Charlie, I will not raise taxes. I will not raise taxes in California . I will not raise taxes in Washington D.C. I will not raise taxes, period,” McClintock said. “And, that is something the people of this district can take to the bank.”

While McClintock is a candidate in California ’s Fourth Congressional District, he has not stopped fulfilling the duties of his day job. McClintock is one of the 15 Senate Republicans holding the line in the debate over California ’s state budget. The current state budget proposal that Charlie Brown demands be passed includes more than $5 billion of new taxes that will boost California ’s sales tax to nearly 10 percent. McClintock said the state budget proposal contains the second biggest tax increase in the history of California .

“It will cost an average family some $550 of additional taxes at a time when they’re struggling to pay their electricity bill, their gasoline bill and a tax burden that is already one of the highest in the nation,” McClintock said. “That shouldn’t surprise us. Charlie has already proposed an $18 billion tax increase on oil companies. There’s only one problem with that. Oil companies don’t pay oil company taxes. We consumers pay oil company taxes as they pass them along to us as higher prices.”

McClintock said it comes as no surprise that Charlie Brown refuses to take the “No Tax Pledge” to protect the people of the 4th Congressional District from the massive tax increases that the Pelosi Congress is already preparing to unleash.

McClintock said that the Pelosi and her colleagues have refused to make the Bush tax cuts permanent – and they have refused to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. He said their refusal to do so makes those tax increases automatic.

“That’s why the election is so important. That’s why the no tax pledge is so important. And that’s why Charlie Brown’s insistence on passing a budget with the second biggest tax increase in the history of California is so appalling – and why it’s important to understand what it would do to our economy,” McClintock said.

The full text of the speech follows:

Nevada County Republican Central Committee Barbecue

Grass Valley, California

August 23, 2008

A funny thing is happening on the way to the Obama coronation. Americans are waking up and asking some basic questions, like:

Does anyone seriously believe our health care is going to be improved by handing it over to the same people who run the DMV and the Post Office?

Does anyone seriously believe that a House leadership that places William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee after he was caught with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer has the best interests of our nation at heart?

Does anyone seriously believe that socialism will work any better in America than it did in the Soviet Union ?

Nobody here does – and fewer and fewer people across the country do either as they begin taking a closer look.

And once they began asking those questions, the political tide began turning in our favor. Just since the energy debate began in Washington last month, the Rasmussen poll has tracked a five point shift toward Congressional Republicans. Last week, John McCain pulled even with Obama for the first time in the Gallup poll.

Another thing is happening: Americans are awakening to the fact that the Luddite Left of the Democratic Party has been blocking development of America’s vast energy resources and we’ve had enough.

Last month, my friend Charlie Brown announced that he was marching in lock step with Nancy Pelosi by opposing opening the 97 percent of our offshore and 94 percent of our onshore land that is currently off-limits to American oil production. At a time when our families are struggling to afford a tank of gas, we have more than 800 billion barrels of American oil under American land that is off-limits to American production. That’s three time the known petroleum in Saudi Arabia and enough oil to meet American needs for the next century.

But that’s just part of the damage they’ve done to American energy independence. We Californians are already paying the highest electricity rates in the continental United States – and the utilities have just filed for another rate increase.

The cleanest and cheapest possible way to produce electricity is from our dams. Hydroelectricity costs about 1 1/2 cents per kilowatt-hour (compared to 28-cents for solar energy). At 1 ½ cents per kilowatt-hour, your average household electricity bill should come to about $90 – per year.

Meanwhile, water rationing now threatens our region although we have the most abundant water resources in the nation.

And yet, a short distance from here is the site of the Auburn Dam. The footing was carved for that dam more than 30 years ago, but it was suspended because of opposition from people like Charlie Brown.

The Auburn Dam would generate 800 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough for nearly a million families. And it would conserve 2.3 million acre feet of water – enough for more than two million families. And all this at a time when we can’t guarantee enough electricity to keep your air conditioner running or enough water to keep your lawn green.

And yet Charlie Brown has vowed to block the development of this vital local resource that promises both cheap electricity and abundant water for the people of this region.

Ronald Reagan was right: Government is not the solution to these problems – government has been the cause of these problems.

And this week Charlie Brown sent out an e-mail to supporters demanding that I vote for the state budget. Ladies and gentlemen, that state budget contains the second biggest tax increase in the history of California . It will cost an average family some $550 of additional taxes at a time when they’re struggling to pay their electricity bill, their gasoline bill and a tax burden that is already one of the highest in the nation.

That shouldn’t surprise us. Charlie has already proposed an $18 billion tax increase on oil companies. There’s only one problem with that. Oil companies don’t pay oil company taxes. WE CONSUMERS pay oil company taxes as they pass them along to us as higher prices.

An $18 billion tax increase at the federal level is nearly $200 of additional taxes an average family will pay at the pump.

So it should also come as no surprise that Charlie refuses to take the “No Tax Pledge” to protect the people of the 4th Congressional District from the massive tax increases that the Pelosi Congress is already preparing to unleash.

They have refused to make the Bush tax cuts permanent – and they have refused to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. And it is important to understand that their refusal to do so makes those tax increases automatic. If they just sit there and do nothing those tax increases will take effect. They are already set in motion.

That’s why the election is so important. That’s why the no tax pledge is so important. And that’s why Charlie Brown’s insistence on passing a budget with the second biggest tax increase in the history of California is so appalling – and why it’s important to understand what it would do to our economy.

The current state budget proposal that he demands be passed includes more than $5 billion of new taxes that will boost California ’s sales tax to nearly 10 percent.

The last time we did this was in 1991, when Pete Wilson increased the California sales tax to almost 9 percent.

The first thing that happened is that retail sales in California fell faster in the next quarter than they had fallen in the previous thirty years. Remember that 2/3 of economic growth depends on consumer spending – and a sales tax strikes at the heart of our economy.

And that’s exactly the next thing that happened. The tax increases of 1991 sent California into an economic nose-dive. The new taxes produced only a fraction of the new revenue that had been promised, and then produced two consecutive years of billion-dollar-a-year declines in state revenues as our economy imploded.

And that was at a time when the rest of the country was heading into an economic boom – imagine the damage that will be done to our economy at a time when the nation’s economy is faltering and our own unemployment rate is running frighteningly ahead of the national unemployment rate!

At least people can escape bad energy and tax policy in Sacramento by moving out of California . Where can we go to escape bad energy and tax policy in Washington D.C. ?

So here is my response to Charlie Brown: Sorry, Charlie, I will not raise taxes. I will not raise taxes in California. I will not raise taxes in Washington D.C. I will not raise taxes, period. And that is something the people of this district can take to the bank.

A year ago, Sam Aanestad and I and several other Senate Republicans warned that the state budget was dangerously out of balance and that we were running out of time to fix it. We offered billions of dollars of spending reductions that would have prevented this fiscal meltdown. Where was Charlie Brown then? I know where his fellow Democrats were: they were crisscrossing the state assuring everyone that the budget was not only balanced but included the biggest budget reserve in the state’s history!

Here’s the good news: Americans are paying attention and they understand what’s at stake. And I’m not just talking about Republicans. Our voter ID calls in this Congressional race now indicate that we’re bringing in one in five Democrats who reject the Pelosi-Brown obstructionism on energy and who don’t share their exuberance for higher taxes.

I am confident that this district is now poised to send a clear and powerful message to Nancy Pelosi and her minions just 73 days from now: We want our country back. We want our Constitution back. We want our freedom back. We want our energy independence back. We have had it with your high taxes, your bloated bureaucracies, your empty promises and your endless obstruction of every attempt by American enterprise to restore American abundance and prosperity.

Ladies and gentlemen, what has happened to our country has happened on our generation’s watch, and it is our generation’s responsibility – and our generation’s destiny—to set things right.

And when history looks back upon this period, I believe it will record that just when it looked like our American rights might be consumed by the bureaucratic state, this generation of Americans rose to the defense of our liberties and when we were done, we had produced a new era of American freedom, prosperity and energy independence and abundance for generations to come.

Sorry Charlie!

ENERGY. A new Quinnipiac poll> out this morning indicates overwhelming public support for House Republicans’ “all of the above” energy solutions. For starters, by 62 – 32 percent, Americans favor drilling for oil in currently protected offshore areas. While Republicans back offshore drilling 82 – 12 percent, Democrats back it 50 – 43 percent and independent voters say drill 60 – 36 percent. Additionally, the poll – which surveyed 1,547 likely voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points – finds:

• 56 – 35 percent in favor of building new nuclear plants;

• 51 – 42 percent back drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge;

• 87 – 10 percent back government funds for renewable energy such as wind and solar power;

• 78 – 18 percent for mandating higher mileage standards for cars.

Also a must-read this morning, the lead editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal> examines leading Democrats’ recent shifts on offshore drilling: “It took a few months, and more than a few polls, but Democrats have concluded that they’ve lost the debate against more oil-and-gas drilling. The surrender became official on Saturday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that even she was ready to ‘consider opening portions’ of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration.” The Journal urges caution about Democrats’ true intentions, and says: “The Democratic choice is between sticking with an anticarbon theology that opposes all new drilling, or siding with American consumers who want more energy supplies so they don’t have to pay $4 for gas and blow their family budget to keep the lights on. We’ll soon find out whether Democrats have found religion on drilling, or if they’re merely doing an election-year incantation.”

Blogger’s Note – Why hope that Pelosi will actually allow a vote… Why hope that Charlie Brown will do the right thing? Tom McClintock is a known quantity on these issues. Charlie Brown has been tied at the hip to Nancy Pelosi and this issue is taking him and his party down the oil well.

Sorry Charlie – The Voters are going to Drill You

These clips are from a radio interview Brown did on a Susanville, CA Radio Station KSUE 1240am a few weeks ago.

They demonstrate the problems Charlie Brown will have in a debate – first off, listen to his communication style. It will put people to sleep.

Javascript and Flash must be
enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Clip one – “Not my energy plan” Really? Then this proves that Brown is parroting Nancy Pelosi. Any doubt is removed when he cites a drop in Oil prices without stating that the reason was the fact that Bush is going to let a drilling moratorium expire.

Javascript and Flash must be
enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Clip two – “I don’t care what Obama does…” either Brown is being disengenuous or he is annoying his base. Then – he gets back on his talking points, parroting the Oil Companies are sitting on their leases (which is a lie, they will lose them under existing law if not used).

He then goes back to the American Can’t argument saying that nothing will happen for 10 years.

Then he says, “drilling is taking our eye off the ball” Nice soundbyte – are they sure they want to debate. That soundbyte is great fodder for radio ads!

Javascript and Flash must be
enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Clip three – circular logic, that will work great in a debate… not.

Javascript and Flash must be
enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Clip four – says government needs to drive priuses. Nice feel good deflection from the real issue. I guess Charlie has a politician streak after all.

These clips illustrate the extreme risk debates pose to Charlie Brown. It is the opinion of this blogger that Brown is pushing for debates because he is the challenger and his campaign is starting to slip.

A major website has changed the race from “toss-up” to “likely Republican”, by-passing the “leans Republican” level.

My prediction – debates will occur in some form and the Colonel will get overrun by the General.

Heck – weather there was drilling in Cuba in 2008, there is no argument that foreign countries will be drilling our oil in 2009 while we sit on our hands.

The Wall Street Journal Weighs in – keep in mind, Charlie Brown is running for Congress and his first vote will be to elect Pelosi speaker.

Link for attribution

Republicans Are Skeptical
Of Pelosi’s Offshore-Drilling Proposal

By IAN TALLEY
August 18, 2008; Page A2

WASHINGTON—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s proposal Saturday to make expanded offshore drilling part of a new Democratic energy bill got a skeptical reaction from Republicans, who said they suspect it will contain other provisions unacceptable to the minority. The result may be that Congress remains deadlocked on the potent election issue.

Ms. Pelosi’s proposal is the clearest sign yet that Democratic Congressional leaders are tacking away from earlier strong opposition to expanded offshore oil production, in the face of opinion polls that indicate many voters favor the “drill more” stand adopted by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and others in his party.

According to people familiar with Ms. Pelosi’s proposal, her plan borrows from a bipartisan plan proposed by a “Gang of 10” senators five from each party that allows several East Coast states to opt into drilling off their shores. It doesn’t allow drilling off California or the eastern coast of Florida, the people said. Just a few weeks ago, the House speaker said Republican calls for a vote just on drilling was “a hoax on the American people.”

Discussions over the package are continuing. The draft proposal includes several measures that Republicans have already blocked in Congress: releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve and a renewable-electricity standard that would require a rising percentage of power to come from sources such as wind and wave generation.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said this month he would support an expansion of offshore drilling as part of a bipartisan energy bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has also indicated he would allow a drilling vote, possibly a version of the Gang of 10 proposal though his highest priority is implementing long-term tax credits for renewable-energy production and investment.

The most troubling provision for the GOP is the proposed repeal of tax breaks to oil companies, such as the manufacturing and foreign-earned income credits. Republican leadership, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and President George W. Bush have made clear the tax issue is a deal-breaker.

“The Democratic leadership should … give the members a chance to vote up or down on whether or not we should proceed with offshore drilling,” Mr. Bush said last week after Mrs. Pelosi indicated she would allow a vote on drilling, adding that they shouldn’t insert any “provisions that they know will never be enacted and are added only for the purpose of killing the effort to open up the…outer continental shelf to drilling.”

Here’s the bait and switch – take away tax credits for research and development. Limiting drilling to certain days of the week in certain spots only if the state whose shore it is supposed to be off of approves… absurd. Most coastal states are blue and the Democrat leadership knows that

As Reported by the Auburn Journal who let the story run as the top story on Auburnjournal.com for four days – Tom McClintock had said that China was drilling off of the coast of Cuba.

As you would expect – the Auburn Journal wing of the Brown for Congress campaign ignored the absurdity of the fact that someone else could drill for our own oil. “We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while these two (China and India) come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard.”

If the Auburn Journal had followed up on the story – they would have found the following:

In 2006, Cuba started to lease it’s off-shore territory for off-shore oil drilling some to China.

In 2006, Test drilling was conducted by a number of foreign oil companies on the leased off-shore territories.

The first actual producing oil wells are in the final stages of study before full development. You have to drill to study and develop.

But since the Auburn Journal has transfered their hatred of John Doolittle to Tom McClintock, nothing but dancing in the endzone over a technicality.

Take a look at the following from 2006:

Link

Exploratory Oil Drilling Done Off Cuba
by Marc Frank and Anthony Boadle

Drilling of an exploratory well in Cuba’s virgin Gulf of Mexico waters that could make the Communist nation an oil exporter and undermine the U.S. embargo has been completed, a senior official said.

Blogger’s Note – it is accurate to say there is drilling going on in Cuba after all!

Work on the well by Spain’s Repsol YPF began in June and captured the attention of the industry and governments due to its potential economic and political consequences.

“The drilling has ended and the Spanish company is assessing the results. We don’t know if there is good quality oil yet. We expect to be informed in two weeks,” the Cuban official, who spoke on the condition he was not identified, said on Saturday evening.

The oil industry is watching closely the first ever well sunk in Cuba’s 43,000-square-mile exclusive economic zone in the Gulf, which may hold large quantities of medium-grade crude.

A commercially viable find could transform the cash-strapped island from oil importer to petroleum exporting nation, adding pressure on the United States to lift its four-decades-old trade embargo against President Fidel Castro’s government.

The senior Cuban official said Repsol was analyzing samples to determine their quality and whether commercial production would be feasible.

Repsol believes up to 1.6 billion barrels of oil may be located where the drill bit went down 18 miles off the northwest coast of Cuba in waters one mile deep.

TRADE SANCTIONS

Experts said if the results were positive Repsol would take at least four years to develop production. But they believe U.S. trade sanctions could be a problem since much of the equipment needed to extract oil at such a depth is American.

Cuba’s exclusive economic zone runs along the north coast and down past the western tip of Cuba. It was parceled into 59 blocks for foreign exploration in 1999.

Repsol took the rights in 2000 to the six blocks closest to shore and Cuba’s oil-producing northwest coast. Sherritt International, a Canadian mining and energy company, recently opted for four adjoining blocks.
Industry sources said companies from China, Britain, Brazil, Venezuela and elsewhere were considering exploration, but waiting for the Repsol results and the U.S. reaction.

The president of Brazil’s state oil company Petrobras was expected in Cuba at the weekend to discuss exploration and the creation of a lubricants joint-venture, but his visit was postponed at Cuba’s request, Demarco Jorge Epifanio, Petrobras coordinator of Cuba projects, said.
Cuba has desperately searched for oil with foreign partners since the Soviet Union’s demise deprived it of 255,000 barrels per day on preferential terms.

There have been some minor discoveries along the northwest coast’s traditional oil belt, which produces an extremely heavy crude burned in the modified boilers of power plants and factories on the island.

Cuba’s oil and gas production has increased from less than 20,000 barrels per day a decade ago to the equivalent of 75,000 barrels, half the country’s current consumption.

Welcome to Blue America (Written early 2007)

Thanks for coming by the Crooks & Liars, Firedoglake, Digby, Down With Tyranny join ActBlue page. For the 2006 election cycle, we raised nearly $545,000. Take a look at the archive of our candidates. And that was in just a few months. We hope to be a lot more effective leading up to the 2008 election. Darcy Burner came up with a great motto for us: “We have got to elect more and better Democrats.”

Blue America endorses

Charlie Brown
CA-04

In his first run for office, Charlie came very close to defeating ethically-challenged and reactionary incumbent John Doolittle. When I asked if he had it to do all over again, what would he do differently, he told me he would have started earlier. In that spirit, Charlie Brown is the first candidate Blue America ‘08 is adding to our fund-raising page. Let’s go all the way this time—for a safer and better California and U.S.A.

Donate $ Raised on this page: $12,369

“We’re not just Democrats, we’re progressives. We’re not about getting the leadership of the Democratic party more power,” explains online activist Howie Klein of Blue America, which has raised more than $1 million since he co-founded it in 2005. “Blue America is about better Democrats, not more Democrats.”

By: Howie Klein Saturday February 3, 2007 11:00 am

[Charlie Brown joins us today in the comments to discuss his candidacy for Congress. As always in Blue America threads, please stay on topic - any off topic comments should be taken to the prior thread - and please be polite. Thank you, and please stop in the comments and give Charlie a big FDL welcome!—CHS]

John Doolittle is one of the crookedest politicians in California—and in this state that says a lot. He’s also an extreme right wing loon with an abysmal voting record. After he barely beat Patricia Malberg, an unabashed pro-choice liberal to win the open seat in 1990, Doolittle has never been effectively challenged—until last year. In the last few campaigns he won the seat on the cheap—always under a million dollars—and with wide margins of over 60%. This year Blue America candidate, Charlie Brown held Doolittle to under 50% of the vote, gave him the scare of his political life and forced him to spend about 3 times what he spent in 2004—close to two and a half million dollars.

Charlie’s campaign, a powerful grassroots effort, was his first run. I called him a few days ago and asked him to join us at Firedoglake to talk about the race and about his political future. I noticed that yesterday when Charlie alerted his mailing list about today’s session he came tantalizingly close to declaring his 2008 candidacy for the seat he nearly won in November.

“Lasting change,” he wrote, “requires dedication—it means staying on offense. I have spent much of the past few weeks reflecting on the ‘06 race, staying connected with supporters, and looking forward to the future… Many have asked if I’m planning to run again. In 2006, I learned how much money and manpower it takes to put together a winning campaign, and how having those resources in place as early as possible is crucial for anyone seeking to take on an entrenched and well-funded incumbent like Doolittle. That’s why I’ve recently re-formed my campaign committee—to see if enough support exists to warrant another candidacy.”

When I asked him what he would have done differently if he had it to do all over again, he said he would have started campaigning earlier.

“Sure I could have joined the NRA or given up my ACLU membership. It may have appealed to some people here but that’s not who I am. If I can do one thing differently in the future it will be to have live debates. We tried but Doolittle refused—he did one and under very controlled circumstances. We need to stand up in front of the voters and debate the issues, defend our positions and explain them to the people here. That means a lot more than slick mailers and robo-calls.”

And Charlie has certainly not stopped speaking out on the issues. He’s doing volunteer work with a couple of veterans’ groups and speaking whenever he can in the fourth CD. He sounded as passionate and engaged on the phone as ever and yesterday he write his supporters about Iraq.

“The re-packaged ‘stay the course’ escalation recently proposed by President Bush and supported by Doolittle does nothing to address the core political problems that are fueling sectarian violence. Having dedicated my life to defending this country, I know that putting more brave young Americans in the crosshairs of an increasingly bloody civil war is not a plan for victory.”

I asked Charlie to put himself in the shoes of a freshman congressman and tell us what he would be doing about the war now. One thing he said was that he would have signed on as a cosponsor to Jack Murtha’s re-deployment resolution (not one of the non-binding symbolic things). Only 9 freshmen have signed on as co-sponsors to either Murtha’s or Woolsey’s proposals, the first of which aiming to end escalation and the second of which aiming to end the war.

Charlie would like to be a cosponsor of the Murtha bill because he thinks Murtha’s credibility and impeccable military credentials make it clear that he supports the troops, just not the way the Bush Regime is misusing them.

“This war is being fought without a plan. I support our troops on the ground—my son is still currently serving overseas—but this escalation is wrong.”

Charlie refuses to accept the notion that CA-04 is a “red district.” He knows better than anyone how close he came to evicting Doolittle.

“It’s a red, white and blue district and Doolittle is learning not to take it for granted like he has in the past. But with him his attention is just on p.r… Like Bush he doesn’t want to be confronted with facts. They don’t bother with reports like the Baker Commission’s or the 9/11 Commission’s or the Auburn Dam Commission’s. Doolittle has convinced himself that there are Iraqi WMDs stashed away in Syria. Even Bush and Cheney have given up on that one. Instead of learning about Global Warming and climate change, Doolittle claims global warming is a scare tactic and tries using a novel by Michael Creighton to prove his point. It’s time for these people to start dealing with facts, not novels.”

You may have noticed that we haven’t done any Blue America fund drives since the election. We start today. And we start with Charlie. He’s the first candidate added to the new Blue America ‘08 page. I see that Charlie Brown For Congress is off to a good start with $63,428 already in the bank (as opposed to Doolittle’s $44,406).

Of course Doolittle can make up the difference with a couple of calls to lobbyists. Charlie’s counting on us. Of all this weekend’s donors, we’ll pick 20 randomly and send a CD, The Essential Collection by Donovan, an English folk singer who was performing antiwar songs as a teenager during the Vietnam era.