TOM MCCLINTOCK DAILY - 8/14/03

[Rabid Dog]

Please post any news and published views from your local area or national here. No RINO ARNIE/UNELECTABLE TOM rants please.

[Hostage]

I don't mind attacking individuals who attack others. I spoke to the issues. kellynla asked me a personal question about what law scholls I atended. What the hell does that have to do with anything? And then you attacked me personally by calling me a know-it-all blowhard.

FYI I still have property in CA and relatives so I am hardly an outsider.

It seems you don't have a clue to the issues and all you offer is calling people outsiders. What does that advance?

So pray tell us what vision does your McC offer on energy besides "blowing hard" on canceling legal contracts tied to an alleged kickback on an irrelevant market action. Davis signed those contracts and they have nothing to do with the energy trades. So tell us. Your move toady.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Toady again? Well at this point in your "focus on the issues" I could say Mr McC was going to release his cure for Cancer and you'd attack it.

by calling me a know-it-all blowhard

But sweetheart, that's precisely what you are.

[Hostage]

Have it your way. No issues just game playing. Mark this thread, with supporters like you McC will lose.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Why would he want to win? People like me bankrupted the state.

Have fun bein' mad. Bye!

[Hostage]

I am not mad. I am letting everyone that reads FR know how shallow McC supporters are. It's called winning the debate.

[NormsRevenge]

McClintock supporters are shallow?

Nice stroke of the brush to quash advancing any semblance of an argument you were trying to make.

I have sat and read a lot of vitriolic and ill-advised comments made by a lot of in and out of state recall watchers and have restrained myself from jumping into the fray.

I took my swings at Arnie the day he announced and have backed off any further attacks on him and his agenda and views as he doesn't have much of either to this point, imo.

To blast McClintock (and his supporters)as you do, at least, when he does have an agenda and ideas and is prepared to act to stem the hemorrhage of this state's financial well-being, makes me wonder what you really do know about him.

I really wish some folks would lighten up on their degrees of certitude they claim to have about the final outcome.

It is a race that hasn't even started to be run yet except by the media and handlers... but it would be hard to not believe that as one surveys all the blackened eyes and bloodied brows.

[NathanR]

"Gray Must Pay
Cruz Must Lose"

I totally agree with that statement.
Please put me on your ping list.

I think that Tom McClintock will make a good governor, just not this year.

[Hostage]

Shallow when it comes to energy. Look back on the thread wrt energy and you will see that McC is apparently threatening to cancel energy contracts based on a flawed argument.

I said if he advances that argument he is not fit. I suspect his supporters are ill advising him but that does not matter. When you are the leader you are responsible for your positions.

As far as being an outsider that;s not true. And there is nothing insider about California and their legal attack on the energy industry. California affects the whole country with their energy insanity. It affects other states directly, it affects markets and it kills growth. I would wager that Californians don't have a clue how much damage Davis's legal mercenaries have done to the energy industry and other states.

One example, an energy company has to set aside more than $50 million in legal reserves to defend against Cali's attacks and allegations. That's takes a direct hit to CAPEX and in turn that forces a reduction in purchases and workloads, and in particular loss in jobs. Now multiply that across 30 or more energy companies and it is easy to see what that does to an entire economic sector.

And why? To save Davis' skin? Crap! And now McC is continuing the same crap! Double crap!

So why shouldn't outsider people be mad as hell at California's actions? I can say with certainty that there is a high level of disgust with California and Californians by huge numbers of people.

McC needs to adopt a proactive energy position rather than a continuation of a litigation war. He will lose that battle, the courts and commissions have already ruled against Davis. They will not reverse it for McC. The Feds have jurisdiction not California courts.

The idea of some flying monkey from Davis's camp accepting a kickback on spot market activity has nothing to do with long term contracts. It's a political red herring.

I try to educate persons about the energy crisis's big picture. I think I succeeded. But some of the McC supporters spewed crap rather than discuss the underlying problems.

I hope Californians can solve their problems with liberals, illegal immigration, gun control and so on. But it is the economy that will create a lasting impression for conservatives.

Good luck.

[kellynla]

Hey jerk, you come off all day like you are some kind of legal expert by saying that "a contract is a contract" well guess what genius "a contract is not necessarily a binding contract"...you are not a lawyer and I knew that by your ignorant tirade and ridiculous claims. You do not know what the hell you are blowing off about. I pointed out the law and how the Davis administration representative failed to abide by the law by profiting personally from the contracts he negotiated. And such contracts negotiated by that individual would be deemed null and void. You are either too ignorant to comprehend the law or too stupid to grasp the consequences of those who break it. But whatever you have been one obnoxious *sshole all day. And we don't appreciate you knocking everything that those of us have been trying to do for years to make things better for our families. You see we stayed and fought while you ran off to wherever! Anyone can stand outside the ring and criticize. Get lost!

[Hostage]

Ok toady. But the federal courts and commissions have already ruled that the contracts will be upheld They ruled in March and again in May. So what's your point?

You have no argument.

The case is closed.

Davis and California lost.

Get over it.

Attack me all you want. Maybe it makes you feel better but it doesn't change the reality.

[NormsRevenge]

I'm a fair person, so pardon my quest for knowledge and enlightenment.

From Tom's senate website, Issues - Energy section , a little over a year ago.

And you say the points made by Tom have no basis in fact. I need to check out the US Justice Foundation, it would seem. Thanks..

Power Contracts Lawsuit, Pasadena, California Remarks by Senator Tom McClintock
Senator Tom McClintock
Date: May 1, 2002
Publication Type: Press Release	Print Version
(Senator Tom McClintock today filed a lawsuit to void California’s costly long-term energy contracts. The suit, McClintock v. Budhraja, was filed this morning in Pasadena Superior Court. Senator McClintock is asking the Court to void the long-term energy contracts under Government Code Section 1090, conflict of interest law. Attached are Senator McClintock’s remarks on the filing of the lawsuit.) This is a simple and clear-cut issue involving an estimated $14 billion in electricity overcharges that are now borne by 10 million California consumers as a result of the long-term electricity contracts approved last year by this administration. Under the California Government Code, public contracts may not be negotiated by individuals who have a direct or indirect financial interest in those contracts. If that interest amounts to five percent of the official’s total income, the mere presence of the conflict voids the contract. On January 18th, 2001, Mr. Vikram Budhraja signed an agreement with the state of California to oversee electricity purchases for the state of California, the declared purpose of which was to avert the bankruptcy of California’s Investor-Owned Utilities, including Southern California Edison. In that capacity, Mr. Budhraja was involved in the negotiation and approval of the long-term power contracts that now obligate consumers. While Mr. Budhraja acted in this capacity, he failed to file financial disclosure statements as required by law. When those financial disclosure statements were finally filed, they revealed that Mr. Budhraja received over $100,000 from Southern California Edison’s parent company during this period while he was also acting in an official capacity on public contracts that relieved Edison of its financial losses. It is therefore necessary to prove just three things. First, that Mr. Budhraja was involved in any way in the negotiation or approval of the contracts. This is obvious under the terms of his own agreement with the state, as well as repeated statements made by the governor and other state officials. Second, that Southern California Edison had either a direct or indirect financial interest in the contracts, the declared purpose of which was to prevent its bankruptcy. This question is self-evident. Third, that the more than $100,000 payment Mr. Budhraja received from Edison constituted at least five percent of his income. If these three conditions are met, then under state law, the contracts are void. We believe that these three conditions have been met. We believe that the high prices now being paid by California consumers are the product of financial conflicts of interest that are forbidden by state law, and that the contracts are accordingly null and void. California consumers are paying an estimated $14 billion more than they should be for electricity – or $1,400 in overcharges that the average ratepayer is paying for precisely nothing. These consumers have a right to the protections of state law that forbid public contracts from being tainted by any financial entanglements of their public officials. And we now ask the court to invoke that law. This suit is being filed with the legal assistance of the U.S. Justice Foundation, a private non-profit legal firm. # # # The lawsuit challenging the energy contracts can be read at: http://www.usjf.net/html/energycomplaint.html

[Hostage]

Your comments cause you to lose the debate.

Calm down. Look at the facts.

Earlier this year California names 67 energy companies (some in Canada) it had contracts with that it wanted abrogated.

The courts and FERC reviewed tons of arguments and data and arrived at the decision that the contracts were legitimate.

FERC threw California a bone by allowing an investigation to go forward into trading activities, not contracts.

FERC did the latter as a result of political pressure on the part of Feinstein and Boxer.


So the individual that is alleged to have accepted a kickback from Southern Cal Edison may be prosecuted criminally. It has nothing to do with the contracts outside energy companies signed. Or does it? Did he accept kickbacks from all 67 companies? I don't think so. Does McC have the goods on the entire energy industry? He hasn't said so.

That's the problem with California's argument. They think there is this huge conspiracy. People in other states just look at California and shake their heads.

Take just one utility: Public Services of New Mexico (PNM). They were named by California for abrogation of contract based on flawed indexing by a publication service. Yet PNM used their own internal indexing. California looked damn foolish with that allegation.

[Hostage]

Good. You post some political coments. SOCAL Edison may be guilty of bribery.

But the other companies? There is no mention of improper payments. BPA signed a contract with California. If BPA has no conflict of interest with the California official for contracting, then BPA's contract is legitimate. That's what the higher courts are saying.

California's lower courts cannot change the outcome. Even if the case goes forward in California, a Federal Court will uphold the contracts unless it can be shown that each company so named can be shown to have had an improper relationship.

So McClintock's filing is political hot air. It has already been superceded by higher jurisdiction.

For an easy reading news summary:
http://www.newsdata.com/clients/fercreport.html

or the official decision:
http://www.ferc.gov/press-room/pr-current/06-25-03_contract_sx.pdf

[Princeliberty]

Or least ones that are like this meant to information
posts on a campaign other ones posts that
are not about information and fellow supports
talking to one another about how to help
their candidate can be the debate posts.

[Princeliberty]

I think McClintock is already showing he is stronger
than Simon, so he could quickly blow
Simon away and gather up most of Simon's supporters
even if Simon doesn't drop out.

And Arnold will be coming down the polls,
and if the conservatives who now say they support
Arnold start moving to Tom McClintock as Tom rises
in poll and Arnold begins to weaken,
Tom could soon have the conservatives united around
him then the media would be paying him full scale
attention.

And he could get blue collar democrats and
social conservative Hispanics to support
him and that would push him over the top
to a win in October!

[Princeliberty]

Actually Simon does not lead McClintock in any polling.

The one in which he appeared to leaded
was the Sunday CNN poll because when first announced
it only said Arnold 42, Bustamante 22(or something
like that) Simon 13.

Later on if you check it again you will see McClintock
at 13. Just they did not announce than on CNN
news on TV. CNN major agenda pushing.
And playing games big time with its polls!

[Princeliberty]

Just go to McClintock webpage and see what
Tom says about the energy problem.

Why what do you think cause it?

[Princeliberty]

How about you let the campaign upfold first
and let Tom try to make a race of it
before saying he has no chance.

[Hostage]

Thanks. See post #40 this thread.