Republicans Still Getting Their Asses Kicked
Remember back in April when the first quarter fundraising reports showed how badly Democrats were trouncing their Republican rivals? Well the second quarter 07 presidential numbers are in, and shit is looking even worse for the GOP.
Mr. Romneys campaign announced that it brought in $14 million in contributions for the second quarter, and that the former Massachusetts governor had personally lent his campaign $6.5 million. Those donations to his campaign represented a drop from the $20 million he raised in the first three months of the year.
Mr. Giulianis campaign raised $17 million from April through June, a slight increase from the $16 million that the former New York City mayor raised during the first quarter, when his fund-raising was just getting started after the announcement of his candidacy.
$17 million isnt exactly chump change and is actually quite an improvement for Giuliani, so one could argue that things are going just fine for Republican presidential hopefuls. You could say that, until you look at how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did the last three months.
The overall figures show the Republicans trailing the top Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Mr. Obama raised $32.5 million from April through June, while Mrs. Clinton raised $27 million.
Yikes. Thirty-two million dollars. Thats roughly double what Captain 9/11 brought in last quarter. Hillarys numbers also doubled-up Moneybags Romneys haul. All in all, thats a butt-whippin.
It gets even worse for those candidates who arent in the top tier, like our old buddy John McCain.
The presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who once seemed poised to be his partys nominee in 2008, acknowledged yesterday that it was in a political and financial crisis as a drop in fund-raising forced it to dismiss dozens of workers and aides and retool its strategy on where to compete.
The campaign said the decline in contributions had left it with $2 million. It said it had raised just $11.2 million over the last three months, despite Mr. McCains promise to do better than his anemic $13 million showing in the first three months of the year.
Mr. McCains advisers blamed his close association with the recently defeated immigration bill, which was strongly opposed by conservatives already skeptical of his ideological credentials. But he has also had to contend with a host of other issues, including his support of the Iraq war, opposition from evangelical voters, the prospect of former Senator Fred D. Thompsons entry into the race, and the sense that his continuing struggles to raise money were consuming the campaign and making fund-raising even more difficult.
So with Republican leaders lagging woefully behind their Democratic counterparts, Fred Thompsons impact on the race completely unknown and John McCain having trouble raising money with the gigantic fork sticking out of his back, its no surprise that the folks at the RNC are a little jumpy. Thats even before we mention that all three major Democratic presidential candidates are currently dominating head-to-head presidential polls up and down the board. In short, its not a good month for them.
All of that said, the real story is Obamas record fundraising quarter. After besting Clinton in Q1, Obama repeated the feat in Q2 and did it while by recruiting an unprecedented number of donors to his cause.
Senator Barack Obama raised at least $32.5 million from April through June, he announced Sunday on his campaign Web site, attracting more than 258,000 contributors since entering the Democratic presidential race nearly six months ago.
As candidates tabulated how much money they raised in the years second quarter, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, appeared to be leading contenders from either party, raising at least $31 million for the primary campaign alone. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, raised about $21 million for the primary, a spokesman confirmed Sunday, and about $27 million over all.
Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race, Mr. Obama said, adding that 154,000 new donors had signed on in the last three months. Thats the kind of movement that can change the special-interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And its just the beginning.
Mr. Obama waited barely 12 hours after the fund-raising period closed to trumpet his success, a quarterly record for a Democratic candidate, hoping to depict widespread support for his campaign and to rebut suggestions that his candidacy is falling behind Mrs. Clintons.
Yeah, Id say amassing a quarter of a million donors when most candidates are struggling to hit the 6 digit mark qualifies as not falling behind. While it is worth noting that Obama seems to be focusing on raising money for the primary and Clinton seems to be concerned with the general, its also astounding that someone who wasnt even a candidate 6 months ago could have come this far this fast to establish himself as the dominant fundraiser in the race. Well see what happens once Hillary brings in the big guy, but as of now shes got a hell of a fight on her hands and a bit of egg on her face, courtesy of the Distinguished Junior Senator from Illinois.
Subrosa was one of the 258,000.
Tom Vilsack Already Out for 2008
Tom Vilsack was the first Democrat to officially declare his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. As former governor of Iowa he showed impressive credentials in leading a state that in some ways is considered a microcosm of America; Iowa just barely went Republican in the 2004 election, and has a history of both rural conservatism as well as union-related progressivism, with illegal immigration an issue of ever-increasing importance, as meat processing and farming industries become more reliant on migrant labor forces (both legal and illegal) to remain economically competitive. Being a Democrat from the Midwest also has its appeal from a national political standpoint, as critics of the party love to characterize it as being represented only by California and the Northeast (despite huge party gains in the "Mountain West" in the 2006 election cycle) so politicians like Vilsack, clearly capable of doing well in a solidly Midwestern state like Iowa could serve as a testament to the fact that there's more to the party than just the coasts.
However, despite these advantages the Vilsack campaing lacked two factors that are already featuring more and more prominently in the 2008 presidential race; star power and money. And the lack of those has already proven enough for him to remove himself from the running.
"This process has become to a great extent about money -- a lot of money," Vilsack said at a news conference in Des Moines yesterday. "And it is clear to me that we would not be able to continue to raise money in the amounts necessary to sustain not just a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire but a campaign across this country. So it is money and only money that is the reason that we are leaving today."
Vilsack has had some seriously stiff competition on the fundraising front, squaring off against the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who have garnered far more media attention and popularity from their celebrity status than Vilsack could hope to achieve, barring some sort of scandal or incident to raise his own political and media profile.
Vilsack's dropping out of the race already is unfortunate, as he would have otherwise been a very strong candidate, and placating his supporters would be a reason for other candidates to pay attention to issues they might not otherwise have bothered addressing. Having multiple candidates allows each to highlight issues that are most important to them and has the potential to shift the focus of national debates so that they include more than just the one or two topics of interest that the leading candidates care about. With the incredible importance of money in what is already shaping up to be a bonanza of a political campaign voters are the ones who stand to lose by narrowing the field before candidates have a chance to even introduce themselves to the country. Still, Vilsack shouldn't be entirely discounted as a strong vice presidential pick for one of the more popular candidates, as he brings a lot to the table.
Bush Condemns "Cut and Run" Democrats
In one of the few places left in the country where association with the president helps more than it hinders, Bush made some rather choice remarks about Congressional Democrats yesterday. The fundraiser was for Bob Riley, the Alabama Republican candidate for governor who probably doesn't need the extra money, as his commanding lead over Democratic challenger Lucy Baxley is unlikely to change much between now and election day. Nevertheless, Bush rarely misses a chance to throw a little mud at the Democrats, and this time he seems to have completely forgone his earlier "above the fray" aloofness.
In his sharpest partisan attack of this election campaign, President Bush denounced Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Thursday and said "the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run."
[...]
Republicans "understand the nature of the enemy," he said. "We know the enemy wants to attack us again," whereas Democrats "offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing."
Despite assertions in a recently declassified intelligence report that the war in Iraq has become "a cause celebre" that is inspiring new jihadists and fueling anti-Americanism, Bush restated his position that the country is safer since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Absent the war, he said, extremists would find other excuses to attack Americans and other Westerners.
He said that leaving Iraq before that country is stabilized would embolden terrorists while exposing the United States to economic blackmail and the prospect of even-more-lethal threats.
At this point it's really unclear who these remarks are meant for. The people present at the fundraiser are very likely Republican to the core, the kind of people who cheered yesterday when the Republican-led Senate urinated on the constitution in the name of "defending the country against terror." Democrats aren't going to buy it, since the "cut and run" Democrat is a straw man created by Karl Rove. "Swing voters," if any still exist, should be paying close enough attention to realize that everything Bush is saying is in direct contradiction with facts. And in Bush's own words, the Republican leadership really does "understand the nature of the enemy" because they, well, they have a tendency to act in similar ways. Motivated by religious extremism, forcing repressive policies down the throats of ordinary citizens and happy to unilaterally use force to make a point. Hardly a convincing case for anyone but the already converted.
Bush's diatribe gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on, however.
"We didn't create terrorism by fighting terrorism," Bush responded. "Iraq is not the reason why the terrorists are at war against us."
Which terrorists? Why is it always "the terrorists?" Terrorists come in many flavors, whether it's the Tamil Tigers, Terry Nichols, the Irish Republican Army, Chechnyan separatists, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, or yes, al-Qaeda. They represent an incredibly diverse number of perspectives, political causes, and methodologies. To lump all terrorists together is to show that Bush truly does not understand even a sliver of what he claims to be fighting, which doesn't bode well for the state of the "war on terror."
And he's right, for the most part. Terrorists (of the radical Islamic variety, which we can only assume is what he was referring to in the first place) hated Americans for a variety of reasons before we even invaded Iraq, virtually none of which (like our support for nonelected dictators in the region, our stationing of troops in Islamic holy lands, and our unqualified support for Israel) have been addressed since the 9/11 attacks. But that doesn't change the fact that the government's own intelligence agencies, just this past week disclosed that Iraq is creating new terrorists and providing a cause around which they can rally against the US.
Either Bush is really cracking and has become completely divorced from reality, he's even dumber than we had feared in our worst nightmares, or he's being willfully ignorant and pretending that everything is OK to try and maintain party dominance in the midterm elections. I can't think of any other reasons why he would continue spouting out lies when he knows that everyone is listening.
Never Forget! Order Below!
I just saw a ridiculous TV commercial for new World Trade Center commemorative coins made using "actual recovered silver from Ground Zero." I'm amazed by involved nature of the design and materials used in this obvious, tacky cash-in on 9/11 sympathy:
This World Trade Center skyline can be removed and inserted into a slot on the face of the commemorative. The effect is dazzling -- it is literally transformed into a standing sculpture of the Twin Towers! The World Trade Center skyline is lavishly clad in gleaming silver that was miraculously recovered from a bank vault found under tons of debris at Ground Zero.
Photo Location: Um, it does what?
Yes, you read right: the towers are poseable.
But wait, there's more! The press release reads like a glorified excuse for looting from a disaster area, and the banner on the website alternates between reading "NEVER FORGET" and "ORDER BELOW."
Nice one.
Has the Mudslinging Gotten Muddier?
I can't remember an election year where commentators didn't say "this is the most negative campaigning we've ever seen." This year is apparently no different. With Democrats finally discovering their backbones (now that it's politically expedient to do so) and attacking Republicans on their failures over the past few years, and Republicans digging up every kind of dirt they can think of (including dropping the dreaded "L" bomb on some candidates) things are getting pretty rough out there. But how bad? Seems like more of the same to me.
At the national level, the two parties are battling over issues like national security and the war in Iraq. But Congressional races play out on local airwaves, and the flood of commercials amounts to a parallel campaign, one that is often about the characters of individual challengers and obscure votes cast by incumbents. Frequently lost in the back-and-forth are the protests of candidates who say the negative advertisements are full of deliberate distortions and exaggerations.
While Democrats have largely concentrated their efforts on the political records of Republicans, the Republicans have zeroed in more on candidates personal backgrounds.
Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said his investigators had been looking into prospective Democratic challengers since the summer of 2005.
These candidates have been out there doing other things they have never seen anything like this before, Mr. Reynolds said of the Democratic challengers.
We havent even begun to unload this freight train, Mr. Reynolds said.
Democrats are learning just how deeply the Republicans have been digging. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat who is running for a House seat, has spent much of the past few days trying to explain editorials unearthed by Republican researchers and spotlighted in new advertisements. Mr. Yarmuth wrote the editorials for his student newspapers, and in them he advocated the legalization of marijuana, among other things.
For the record, the candidate in question, John Yarmuth, graduated college in 1969. Similarly, more recent accusations about Macaca-man George Allen (R-VA) surfaced that he had used racial epithets... in 1976.
These kinds of stories make for great political hay, but do they honestly have any import at all on the election issues at hand? Allen's ancient past of racism is important if, and only if, it can be shown that this isn't something that has changed in the past 30 years. Yarmuth's school newspaper editorial written in the 1960's advocating legalization of marijuana is an important political issue, but only if he still feels that way. Is the next step going to be that candidates will be singled out for their anti-farmer positions because eyewitness accounts confirm they may have said "broccoli is yucky" in the first grade?
The New York Times is nice enough to host a bunch of these political ads so people can watch them for themselves and make up their own minds.
It's not clear whether the NYT decided to just cherry pick particular commercials to skew things in one direction or another, but from watching their offerings it seems that overall the Republican canididates are getting personal on the attacks while the Democrats are trying their damnedest to link their opponents with George W. Bush and the Iraq war. Based on previous campaign ads, however, the personal insults will likely be flying in both directions at full force by the time October comes around.
Rarely have I appreciated my TiVo more than after having watched a bunch of these ads.
Obama Hitting the Campaign Trail?
Barack Obama (D-Ill) made a big splash at the 2004 Democratic convention with his inspiring speech, and went on to a landslide 70/23 victory over his laughable opponent Alan Keyes. Since then he's become the champion of many who see him as the future of the Democratic party; an attractive, intelligent, progressive, politically savvy politician who isn't afraid to talk about religion and isn't afraid to stand up to Republicans. His name has been tossed around as a potential runner in the 2008 election, but right now most of the wonks don't think it'll happen. He's relatively young, inexperienced at the national level and, at least until this year, was presumed to be facing off against a Republican candidate in a Republican country. Of course, virtually the same argument could have been made about George W. Bush when he ran for president in 2000.
Obama's speech this past weekend suggests that he might have loftier ambitions than the Ilinois senate seat, however. Watch and make up your own minds.
He's certainly able to tap into the anger that many Democrats have been feeling for the past few years without having it spill over into rage. And that's a potent political weapon for any politician seeking national recognition, but also a potentially ephemeral one. Right now Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. If all that changes in a few months (which is looking more like a legitimate possibility) then an Obama '08 campaign will have to focus more on what happens when the Democrats retake Congress than what the Republicans have done wrong since they've had it, and that's an entirely different campaign than where his speech is heading.