His [McClintock's] Passion Is Purely Fiscal (CA Recall)

LA Times ^ | September 21, 2003 | Paul Pringle

[pogo101]

Chris McClintock traces her son's twin penchants for politics and penny wisdom to age 8. The third-grader wanted to ride the bus to presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's campaign office near the family home in White Plains, N.Y.

"He was really into the whole concept of government," McClintock said, her eyes welling with pride. "He loved it."

Young Tom McClintock didn't have to ask his parents for the bus fare. He had it stashed in his piggy bank. So off he went.

Thirty-nine years later, he is a state senator on the ride of his life, running for governor in California's Oct. 7 recall election. The Thousand Oaks Republican bills himself as the thriftiest politician in the race — the unequaled enemy of a bloated bureaucracy and a "taxpayers' advocate" loath to dip into the state's piggy bank.

...

[pogo101]

RELATED STORIES IN TODAY'S TIMES:

How McClintock Voted [on key issues]"

With His Expenses, Senator Tallies Some Inconsistencies"

[pogo101]

ping

[joesnuffy]

My "New" Piggy Bank

[pogo101]

I don't quite get the casino reference. McClintock's going to be getting a mill or so in aid from the gaming/tribes, but it pales in comparison to what they're giving No On Recall and Yes on Bustamante, perhaps 1/10 or so as much. What bothers me is the thought, "If they REALLY wanted McClntock to WIN, then why would they give so many, many times more to 'No on Recall' and to BustaMecha?'"

Zero indian gaming dollars to Arnold, so they must hate him.

[Rabid Dog]

McClintock Bump!!

[Sabertooth]

Zero indian gaming dollars to Arnold, so they must hate him.

So, who has contributed the the millions to Arnold's campaign?

Do they really hate McClintock?

[Reagan Man]

The links are no good. If you can't supply valid links, without requiring FReepers to register with the LASlimes, then I don't think you should be posting the article.

And no, this has nothing to do with whose side we're on either. Without all the facts contained in the article, there can be no intelligent debate between FReepers.

[RichInOC]

Works just fine for me. Go register.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[ambrose]

Good article. This tidbit (noted many times before) is of interest:

The 2002 defeat hurt most. Steve Westly beat him by less than 1% of the vote, after outspending him 5-1. McClintock got little money from the GOP.

What's funny is how all the RNOLD supporters state with hysterical certainty that McClintock is finished after this race, because he won't get any support from the GOP in the future... Bwaha... he never got any support in the past either. He'll do just fine.

[pogo101]

The links work. Stick your verbal abuse in your other end.

Thank you for playing.

[pogo101]

As I'm sure all experienced FReepers know, the LA Times -- which whether WE like it or not often posts articles of note to FR -- disallows posting anything but short excerpts and a link.

And no, this has nothing to do with whose side we're on either.

Horse s*it. Had you perceived me as being of YOUR mindset on the Arnold vs. Tom issue, you'd have been respectful. Here is your disrespectful attitude back atcha.

[pogo101]

I think you're changing the subject.

The answers to your questions, however, are:

1. NO ONE other than Arnold himself has contributed millions to his campaign. His non-self-sourced contribs are much more atomized than the 6- and 7- figure ones from the gaming interests to Davis and BustaMecha and, just recently, also directly and (more) indirectly to McClintock.

2. Do who hate McClintock? My point in saying the tribes must hate Arnold derived from the fact that they've given two of the three leading replace-Davis candidates tons of money, and zero to Arnold. Viewed in this context, it can be read as a negative view on Arnold. But if Pepsi (let us say) gives $22,000 to Arnold and zero to others, including McClintock, I don't think it sends the same message. (It might if Pepsi also gave $22,000 to Bustamante AND zero to Tom.)

[Reagan Man]

Yes, I know all about the judgment against JimRob/FR and the LASlimes. No need to preach.

I said, "The links are no good." Better take a second look.

This has to do with posting of the full content of the article or a viable link for debate purposes. I did mention that.

It wasn't my intention to upset you. Sorry.

[pogo101]

And I apologize in that you were not "verbally abusive." I should have left only my second reply and not my first.

It's simply unreasonable -- whether or not you are applying a double standard in "narcing" this entirely mainstream article (including its excerption) to AdminModerator -- to complain about the posting of any and every properly-exerpted-as-required-by-FR-policy article from the LA Times, NYTimes, WashPost, and the others in that category. Sometimes even those left-wing rags have useful articles for discussion purposes.

If one does not wish to register for conscientious reasons, etc., fine, but the proper FR "reaction" isn't to complain about the posting of the excerpted article. It's to shrug and understand that this is a thread in which you won't be able to participate fully.

[pogo101]

And I did take another look at the links. They work for me. They seem to work for everyone but you, if you're saying they still don't work for you.

Of course, I am registered, and I surmise from your initial comment that you are not. They obviously CAN'T work if they're (correct but) sourced to a site requiring a registration that you haven't completed.

[rdf]

....perhaps a peaceful word from a third party would be in order?

The atmosphere at FR is more poisoned over this race than I can recall, at least back to the Keyes/Bush flames.

You two have steadily been among the examples of good discourse, until this insignificant little flap. I hope you'll continue the old way for the next two plus weeks.

Forgive anything offensive in this bit of preaching from me. It is what I honestly think and wish.

The article is really quite informative, in its way, and gives people a plausible and "moderate" reason to vote for McClintock. He is, in fact, expert on fiscal matters, cares about them, and has shown the abliity to say "no" to all kinds of spending, giving in public sound reasons for his opposition. As Governor, that "no" would be spelled, "Veto."

Tom has a way to go, but his gains in back to back polls by the same organizations all show a significant positive trend. If there are one or two more late this week, and if the debate goes well, he could have pulled the "vote for the guy who's ahead" card from Arnold's deck.

Wouldn't that be a wild scenario?

Cheers,

Richard F.

[pogo101]

I agree, and although RM and I seem to have patched things up, I certainly don't mind a referee to help make sure of it.

[Reagan Man]

>>>... the proper FR "reaction" isn't to complain about the posting of the excerpted article. It's to shrug and understand that this is a thread in which you won't be able to participate fully.

I stand by my remarks. The complaint has to do with the unavailable nature of the article itself. IMHO, I believe FReepers should simply not post anything from the LASlimes. Under the black cloud created by the legal decision, this is a valid position to take. All FReepers should work to make life on FR a little more user friendly. Creating confusion, doesn't foster debate.

On RE:#17, let me clarify. The links you provided are accessable, but do not link to the article itself. That was the point I was making. I PINGED the AdminMod to see if they might offer an alternative to posting from the LASlimes. Btw, this was the first time I encountered the registration requirement for viewing the LASlimes and was caught off guard, to say the least.