McClintock's 4th District win pits Brown vs. doubters again

The last time Charlie Brown ran against conventional wisdom, he narrowly lost in a decidedly Republican district where Rep. John Doolittle hadn't failed to win with less than 60 percent of the vote in 14 years.

Now, two years after losing to Doolittle by 49 to 46 percent, the former Air Force helicopter pilot and combat veteran faces skepticism again. This time, his doubters say he can't win without Doolittle in the race.

Brown in 2006 ran against a Washington culture of corruption, lambasting Doolittle's controversial ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Now he will face a popular conservative, state Sen. Tom McClintock, who emerged with a lopsided victory over former Sacramento Rep. Doug Ose after being vastly outspent in a combative GOP primary.

On election night, McClintock, an outsider from Thousand Oaks, staked his claim to the district.

After defeating Ose by 54 percent to 39 percent, he vowed to be a champion for conservatives "who want their Constitution back and want their country back." He quickly portrayed Brown as politically incompatible with the district.

Brown defeated legal philosopher John Wolfgram with 88 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. And he argued that he can win in November despite the 47 percent to 31 percent Republican voter registration advantage and the district's status as one of the nation's most conservative seats.

Brown pointed to his military service and community standing as a 17-year Roseville resident running against a Southern California lawmaker representing a state district 400 miles away.

"The conventional wisdom said I couldn't get close to a wounded John Doolittle two years ago," Brown said. "John Doolittle is no longer in the race, and the Republicans had to do a statewide talent search to find somebody who they thought who could beat me.

My momma once tole me... Why wrestle with the pigs? Only the pigs will enjoy it and you'll only get dirty as a pig!!!

No, seriously, I'll go over to SacBee.com in a while and blast a few ridiculous prigs!!!

We don't wanna work 'em up too much, emotionally, because Demonicrats "get off" on emotionalism, kinda like Obama's revolutionary communutty organizational band of banditos, ACORN, they get to chantin:"We's fired up! We ainta gonna take it no mo!!!"

Then they go out and get all their other "groups" fired up and sometimes they time their emotionalism just right and actually beat somebody. (and here you thought you heard 'em say "I wanna be somebody)

In other words, maybe we should let them get as arrogant and overconfident as Ose and a few of my misguided friends did in jumping on the Wilsonnegger/Ose RINO bandwagon!!!

I have the Bee delivered daily and weekends but I never read it, my wife does. I ask her to pull the auto parts ads 'cause I like to see what oil, filters, and such are going for on sale.

So glad Tom beat Doug. Doug was too smug. Also, the willingness to spend taxpayer's dollars on whatever pet project (read: special interest payback) is so typical of RINOs. While I might prefer their spending over dem-o-crat priorities, it's still raiding the treasury at a time when buget-busting is at an all-time high. Not only that, does it meet the constitutional test?

A couple hundred McClintocks on The Hill could go a long way toward putting this country back on a constitutional track. That that'll never happen means, we get to buckle-down for an election year ride with an ideological compromiser or a stealth marxist who really doesn't like white people (surprise).

When I used to read the Bee (and I might try again, with a buzz) a Peter Schrag used to amuse in the way he'd assign every state-ill to Proposition 13 (the property tax limiting initiative).

If a kid fell off a bike and hit his head, it was the fault of prop 13 'cause the state didn't have the money to buy helmets. If a homosexual got aids, it was because the state didn't have enough money to give out condoms. School performance?, same thing. It was always, "the state doesn't have the money 'cause of Prop 13".

Prop 13 allowed people to stay in their homes rather than be put out on the street due to run-away state spending.

This state's problems are SPENDING problems, not revenue problems. They tried to double car registration to 'fund' their addiction to spending and it got Gray Davis recalled.

If ever the time was ripe for Schwartzenegger to utilize his busniness sense (which is why I voted for him, not his social conservatism) it is now. As our state skids over a sandbar aka bankruptcy due to the economic times, a real business person (captain) would be looking for ways to reduce ballast (throw non-essentials overboard) to increase freeboard.

The democrat's idea is to simply add more dollars to the 'revenue stream' to avoid getting stuck on the silt that lies ahead. This is plain dumb when looking at the fundamentals in the economy. A downturn requires each of us to make adjusments- and that includes the state.

As Captain of the ship of state, I would take any reluctance to reduce weight as an act of mutany. Flogging, keelhauling, whatever it takes to get this ship to it's destination. I'd even wear an eye-patch at meetings with every department head just to make my point. Not to mention a few bottles of Captain Morgan's for the not-so-faint at heart.

Running a government ain't much different than running a ship. Most everyone wants to 'get there', but when some get in the way, it's your job to beat them with a whip. If you can't touch them (they keep getting re-elected) you don't have control and might as well have a lifeboat with your name on it ready to go. I mean, who really wants to sail on the SS Sh*tstupid anyway?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.