McClintock shut out of voter's guide: Republican candidate loses last-minute Supreme Court appeal

Worldnetdaily ^ | August 30, 2003 | Art Moore

[Reagan Man]

>>>They WERE given equal treatment under the law - McClintock freely CHOSE to give up his spot in the election pamphlet in return for being allowed to raise more then 6 Mil.

Obviously, you didn't read the article.

He did not realize that by checking "I do not accept the voluntary expenditure ceiling" the proposition's rules barred him from filing a candidate statement in the voter's guide.
When McClintock discovered the consequences of his choice, he amended his form and refiled it one day before the Aug. 9 deadline. But the secretary of state's office refused to accept it, contending the rules prohibit amendments, although this is not indicated anywhere on the form.

>>>He made a bad decision, then when it is revealed how badly he screwed up - blames it on someone else.

The McClintock camp made a mistake and figured they caught it in time. It's not that big an issue, but clearly indicates how desperate California's liberal Democrat majority is, to keep a conservative off the agenda pamphlet.

Only a liberal would deny a conservative, equal treatment under law.

[RS]

"Obviously, you didn't read the article."

I not only read the article, but the law regarding it, which from you obviously had not from your abrupt change from the 1st amendment defence to equal protection.

" He didn't realize" and "they (wrongly) figured" dosent change the FACTS.

At this point, would you allow someone to enter the contest as a candidate if they simply said "I didn't realize I had to apply by a certain date ?"

"It's not that big an issue,..." Obviously not to McClintock, since he did not even take the time to figure out just what it was he was doing.
... and I suppose he brought it to the courts because his lawyers needed some more practice ( again obviously, since they did not even have the evidence they might have needed)

Equal protection also means the rights of the other 190 odd candidates who read, understood and followed the procedures to have opponants who are not given special consideration simply because they " did not realize" or wrongly figured.

Actions have consequences, and if Tom and his team can't understand and follow simple directions....

[Dave S]

Every individual candidate for public office, has an equal right to have their agenda printed in a recall election pamphlet, along with other candidates.

And he had that right but through incompetence or arrogance, he blew it.

[Reagan Man]

>>>I not only read the article, but the law regarding it, which from you obviously had not from your abrupt change from the 1st amendment defence to equal protection.

I haven't changed my tune. The way I read it, it's an infringement on McClintock's first amendment right of free speech and his right to equal treatment under law.

I can't think of a good reason why any conservative would deny another conservative his rights under law and condone the outrageous behavior of California's liberal Democratic majority.

[Reagan Man]

>>>And he had that right but through incompetence or arrogance, he blew it.

This isn't a case of arrogance or incompetence.

On this issue, you're acting as unfair as the California liberal Democrats, who control the state legislature. This wasn't an error in judgment. People do make honest mistakes and in this case, a valid attempt was made to rectify that mistake. Too bad, you don't see it that way.

[RS]

"I can't think of a good reason why any conservative would deny another conservative his rights under law and condone the outrageous behavior of California's liberal Democratic majority."

Just because you "can't think of a good reason" dosen't mean that there is not one that you don't WANT to see.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats in this race realize that to give one candidate a special priviledge based on stupidity is against the law, common sense, and would set a precedent that none of them wants.

Do you seriously want to use as a basis of argument what McClintock's INTENT was as he submitted his paperwork rather then what he marked ?
( thank God the applications are not in punch card format )

[RS]

"...a valid attempt was made to rectify that mistake. "

Wrong again, both the Secretary of State and the Supreme Court have ruled that it was an INVALID attempt.

[Reagan Man]

"...a valid attempt was made to rectify that mistake. "

>>>Wrong again, both the Secretary of State and the Supreme Court have ruled that it was an INVALID attempt.

An honest effort was made to rectify the problem. The courts ruled against McClintock on this specific issue. If there was more time, perhaps he would consider taking this to the federal appeals court.

However, this is a conservatism website and the idea is to support conservative candidates and oppose liberal candidates.

Don't you want conservatives to triumph over liberalism?

By supporting the California liberal establishment on this issue, you're giving credence to the liberal agenda. By condoning this wrongheaded behavior by the political party who controls the California government, you aren't championing conservative values, beliefs and principles.

[RS]

"However, this is a conservatism website and the idea is to support conservative candidates and oppose liberal candidates. "

So it's just fine to use Democrat tactics to support conservatism ?
Our guy is allowed to break the rules as long as he is OUR guy ?
Our guy is given a pass when he screws up - we will just change the rules to accomodate him ?

Anyone who does not march in lock-step with OUR guy is to be attacked ?

We will stand here and shout and LOSE any chance of actually having any effect whatsoever on the path of the government ?

FR has allways been wide open for debate, where arguements can be tested and ideas put forth that might actually be able to be put into effect.

[Reagan Man]

Tom McClintock hasn't reverted to Democrat tactics.

McClintock may have made a mistake, but he immediately turned around and rectified the problem, by complying with the law. It was the liberal establishment of California who was unwilling to be give McClintock an opportunity to correct this oversight. McClintock received NO pass from anyone in the California governing establishment.

>>>Anyone who does not march in lock-step with OUR guy is to be attacked ?

We're talking about standing up to unfair treatment of a conservative. Truth is, I would be willing to give any candidate, an opportunity to rectify such an insignificant oversight.

I really don't understand your reluctance to cut Tom McClintock some slack on this issue. After all, don't all FReepers want conservatism to triumph over liberalism? Why do you take sides with California's liberal governing establishment on this issue?

[truthkeeper]

Very good post.

[Dave S]

However, this is a conservatism website and the idea is to support conservative candidates and oppose liberal candidates. Don't you want conservatives to triumph over liberalism?

So in order to see conservatives triumph over liberalism, you are saying we all have to lie, even on this website? I dont think so. So much for your candidates moral stand if he attracts supporters like you. Lets see incompetent candidate and amoral in the pursuit of victory.

[RS]

"I really don't understand your reluctance to cut Tom McClintock some slack on this issue."

He can have all of my slack he needs - But my slack will not do him any good when no voter sees his name in the pamphlet.
Lets hope he can get a little traffic out of reporters who happen to mention that he is not in there.

" The election pamphlets are on the way, and the one candidate who is not listed is Tom McClintock..."

Maybe a campaign saying something like " dont carry the whole thing to the polls, simply write my name on the cover and tear it off"

[BJungNan]

If he did not follow procedurer in filling out the forms or whatever, that's it. Someone made a mistake. They should have been more careful.

Even if it is a political opponant being too much of a sticker for details, unless he can prove that his form was rejected while others got a pass on the same type of error, he should accept his mistake and the consequences.

Sounds like he is another Gray Davis blaming others for his mistake.

[BJungNan]

When McClintock discovered the consequences of his choice, he amended his form and refiled it one day before the Aug. 9 deadline.

In other words, when McClintock realized his donations would be under the limit anyhow, he decided he better go ahead and check the box so he can be included in the voter guide book.

What would be really interesting is to see what date he filed the first form. He waited until the very last day to file the amendment. Also, once you file, can yoy file an amendment? Should you be able to file an amendment? Allowing such amendments leaves open this problem:

1). Candidate beleives he will get tons of donations, putting him over the limit to be included in the voter guide book.
2). On the last day he finds out donations have not come in as expected so he says, wow, I better get in that voter guide book. Quick, file an amendment.
3). If you allow the filing of the amendment, you violate the intent of the law and the check box on the form - you agree to limit your spending to help make it a fair race. In exchange, you get to be in the voter guide book. If you don't agree, go buy your media elsewhere. You should not be able to have it both ways by filing one way then filing a different when you see things did not go as you planned.

What am I missing here? McClintock should not be so careless when filing forms. This is not a simple matter of forgetting to dot an i or cross a t. I say, tough luck. Be more careful next time. It was an important question on a form you took lightly.

[BJungNan]

Read on in the article and you can see that McClintock faxed the amendment. He did not take it there personally. What idiot relies on faxing a document as important at this. It should have been hand carried and whoever in the office recieved it should have been made to sign for it.

This is really sloppy by McClintock. Very, very sloppy.

And to say this is a first amendment issue, that is the same kind of court twisting I am getting very sick of. This is not a first amendment issue. This is an issue about the proper filing of paperwork. He did not do it.

My impression of McClintock is now much lower than it was previously. He was my ideal choice for governor. Not after this behaviour though.

[A CA Guy]

He isn't prepared for this job. Doesn't have the following beyond talk radio listeners and didn't even figure out how to do all the paperwork!

This, from the PROFESSIONAL politician. AMAZING!

[A CA Guy]

Has he made any dramatic rise in the polls yet?
Has all that cross over vote jumped on board yet?

[A CA Guy]

True, yet if he had the votes, I would not mind him still being in the race. But he hasn't even the votes to be competitive, at this point he can only be the spoiler IMO!

People supporting Tom need a McMiracle

[Reagan Man]

I've not told anyone to lie, so I don't know what you're talking about. I think you're entitled to your opinion, but I also believe you're rhetoric is misplaced and your opinion is dead wrong.