There’s a great piece in the New York Times laying out the many woes facing NRCC chair Tom Cole, including this particular gem illustrating the lack of enthusiasm amongst the Republican base:
Many conservative activists have become so dissatisfied with the party’s heresies, particularly on immigration and government spending, that as Cole’s staff took over, the committee’s fund-raising pleas were being ignored and, on at least one occasion, returned in an envelope stuffed with feces.
Because, of course, stuffing an envelope with shit is one of those “conservative values” we hear so much about. It is a fascinating (if lengthy) read, and I’ll probably come back to it in a later post, but I just wanted to highlight the following tidbit regarding a meeting Cole held with an unnamed Congressional challenger:
Cole began to talk through Republican figures who might be brought in to help raise cash. If McCain were the nominee, Cole and the candidate agreed, donors would turn out for a fund-raiser he headlined. Cole mentioned Bush, but everyone thought that would be a mistake. “I think this cycle he and the vice president are going to be doing a lot of fund-raisers in the South and the Plains,” he said, and everyone guffawed in agreement. Even for an audience of Republican donors, in politically contested parts of the country, the president provokes complicated feelings. On another occasion Cole said to me, “I love the president, but his appeal isn’t universal.”
Huh. It would be “a mistake” to bring the President of the United States in to raise money for a Republican candidate. I wonder where they got that idea?
Back in August, when a coalition of national and local bloggers set an ambitious $100,000 fundraising target to help Darcy Burner counter President Bush’s funder on behalf of Dave Reichert, I was very clear about our objective:
Sure it’s a lot of money, but money seems to be the only political currency Republicans understand. Reaching our target will not only send a strong message that we want our troops out of Iraq, it will also teach other Republicans that bringing in Bush isn’t worth the financial and political cost, thus neutralizing the GOP’s most effective fundraiser.
In fact, we raised $123,000 from over 3,400 donors… and President Bush virtually disappeared from the Congressional fundraising scene. Mission accomplished.
I know there are some in the netroots who worry about turning their blogs into online ATMs, but I’m not one of them. The money we raise, and our growing ability to focus national resources into local races, is absolutely crucial to extending our influence and challenging the longstanding political hegemony of corporate America. We may never be able to get money out of politics, but at least we’re beginning to even the playing field. And the powers that be are beginning to take notice.
Speaking of which, it’s the end of the quarter, so please show Darcy some love.
“returned in an envelope stuffed with feces”
Typical Republican lack of class.
If they’re not happy with their party, why don’t they just torch the party office, like every other fascist mob does?
Here’s the NYT article in a nutshell:
“As the Democrats used small-dollar donations, largely raised online, to erase the vast money advantage Republicans had recently enjoyed, it became clear, Cole says, that the G.O.P. was operating from ‘a deficient model.'”
@2 Or instead perhaps act like every other leftist mob and shoot everyone? Historically, y’all do tend to go a bit overboard with that one, you know…
” … [M]any Republican operatives now worry that crucial segments of the electorate are slipping away from them.
“Republicans had traditionally won the votes of independents; in 2006, they lost them by 18 percent.
“Hispanic voters, who gave the Democrats less than 60 percent of their votes in 2004, cast more than 70 percent of their votes for Democrats in 2006.
“Suburban voters, long a Republican constituency, favored Democrats in 2006 for the first time since 1992.
“And Democrats won their largest share of voters under 30 in the modern era, a number particularly troubling for some Republicans, since it seems to indicate the preferences of an entire generation.
“‘What is concerning is that we lost ground in every one of the highest-growth demographics,’ said Mehlman, the former R.N.C. chairman and Bush political adviser ….”
Eat shit, GOP turdblossoms! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Hmmm … it appears the leader of the GOP’s congressional campaigns is writing off McCain’s chances:
“‘I don’t need the nominee to win; I just need him to be competitive enough that we can win behind him in the places that should be ours,’ Cole said. ‘I need him to be Gerald Ford.'”
Is this their platform? Are they going to campaign for McCain by telling voters he’s Gerald Fucking Ford?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Interesting note – Obama’s average donation is $107. Can you imagine the horror this strikes into the heart of the GOP? They have a few really big donors. And Obama has hundreds of thousands of them. This will turn into votes in ways the GOP can’t imagine.
War Profiteering:
Okay, here’s a project worthy of Richard Pope’s internet research skills.
It seems the military has contracted with AEY, Inc., to supply ammunition to the Afgan military in support of it’s fight against the taliban. That company, which appears to have received about a third of a billion dollars worth of government money, instead sent shipments of old, curroded ammunition, some of it from China, which is considered so unreliable the Afgan commanders are reluctant to issue it to their troops.
Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....han27.html
So who’s behind AEY, Inc.? The company President is Efraim Diveroli, who is only 22 years old. The company’s vice-president is also a registered masseur, according to the article. The company operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, Florida.
“Several military officers and government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the investigations, questioned how Diveroli, and a small group of men principally in their 20s and without extensive military or procurement experiences, landed so much vital government work.
“A lot of us are asking the question,” said a senior State Department official. “How did this guy get all this business?””
I did a quick FEC search and Diveroli’s name didn’t appear as a contributor, but that certainly isn’t conclusive. Could Diveroli or AEY Inc. have funnelled political contributions through third parties, or contributed indirectly rather than directly to a political campaign? Is AEY Inc. a shell corporation being used by someone else? Or is Diveroli a small operator who just happens to know some procurement officer with bigger responsibilities than brains, who pushed this through to benefit him?
And through it all, I can’t help but get Nicholas Cage in “The Lord of War” out of my mind.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/
9 rhp
Check the Heritage Foundation. Or Opensecrets.org.
Sorry, I didn’t grok your FEC search in time. Still, Heritage is the path many have followed.
By the way, I apologize for getting off-topic. But nothing galls me quite so much as to encourage soldiers to fight, then give them inferior ammunition and equipment to do it with, especially if the motive is just to make a bigger profit.
That, and the fact that I smell a rat somewhere there (and apparantly, so do a lot of other people, both inside and outside of the Pentagon.
rhp: Thanks for being the government watchdog that we don’t have. The amount of corruption and no-bid contracts from the Bush administration is staggering.
No matter what the right wingers say – they hate Bush too. He’s been a disaster of a President and if he appears with GOP candidates on the stump, in all but the crazy bat-shit right wing strongholds – he’ll guarantee a loss for the GOP candidate.
If the Dems don’t get this Obama-Clinton issue resolved by the convention, they stand a good chance of losing in November to McCain.
I actually like Obama (though I’d never vote for the guy). Hillary Clinton is Richard Nixon in drag.
13: I don’t deserve any credit, the media appears to have picked up the story. I just read the papers.
The New York Times has a much more complete story, including background on the company and some details about it’s officers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.....=1&hp
It might not be anything more than incompetent procurement, aided in part by the government’s rush to put out procurement contracts in Iraq, Afganistan, and in response to Katrina about the same time. Certainly, it was very sloppily handled.
But it reminds me of a phrase the Republicans used to use against the Democrats, when they accused the Democrats of “trying to throw money at the problem”. It seems to me that is exactly what Bush & Co. have been doing for the past eight years, except that their cronies have been the receipients of most of that money. The Republicans have proven that they have just about no skills at prooperly managing a large national government.
9 – Another place to start “following the money” is govermentspending.gov – which by the way we owe to the Obama/Coburn Government Transparency act.
Ooops – that’s usaspending.gov
BBG @ 8: “This will turn into votes…”
No guarantee of that. For one, a significant percentage (~20% IIRC) of Clinton & Obama supporters claim they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t get the nom. You also have the disenfranchised FL and MI voters, who could just stay home. Lastly, you have to remember that a lot of Obama’s support is from the ADHD Generation. They’re all gung-ho NOW, but will they actually go to the polls on election day? Or will some other shiny object capture their attention?
Sending back an envelope full of shit to the fundraiser for a party that’s full of shit? Touche’…
That’s a quantum leap beyond the old trick of taping that postage-paid return envelope to a brick, forcing the RNC or NRCC or whoever to ring up the hefty price of postage on five or six pounds.
YLB @ 17
There you go again… Facts are stubborn things, huh?
The bill was introduced by Coburn [R] and co-sponsored by Senators McCain [R], Carper [D] and Obama [D].
See: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 @ Congress.gov
YLB @ 17
There you go again… Facts are stubborn things, huh?
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 was actually sponsored by Sen. Coburn (GOP) and co-sponsored by Sens. McCain, Carper and Obama.
Go check the actual bill information at Congress.gov.
21 – You’re on a roll here Surreal – a ugly, mean-spirited roll.
As for facts, you know a lot about them. Like stating the Responsible Plan was authored in total by a Communications outfit without a single shred of proof beyond your vile losing resentment at the inevitable that’s coming in November.
My original post mentioned Coburn just like yours mentioned Carper (D).
All the way through to November, I look forward to future examples of your
right-wing resentment“centrism”.By the way you missed some other co-sponsors of the transparency act:
In addition to Sens. Coburn, Obama, Carper and McCain, there were 43 other Senators who co-sponsored this bill: [7] Lamar Alexander, George Allen, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, Maria Cantwell, Saxby Chambliss, Hillary Clinton, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Larry Craig, Jim DeMint, Mike DeWine, Chris Dodd, Elizabeth Dole, Dick Durbin, Mike Enzi, Russ Feingold, Bill Frist, Chuck Grassley, Chuck Hagel, Johnny Isakson, John Kerry, Jon Kyl, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Mitch McConnell, Bob Menendez, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid, Ken Salazar, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Olympia Snowe, John Sununu, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas, John Thune, David Vitter, and George Voinovich.
YLB @ 22 & 23
I only mentioned the ORIGINAL CO-SPONSORS (i.e. those on 4/6), of which there were only three.
Coburn was the primary sponsor.
My argument isn’t with giving Obama credit as a co-sponsor. It was your deliberate misrepresentation of it as the “Obama/Coburn Government Transparency act” and your omission of McCain as a primary co-sponsor.
It was Coburn’s bill. Period. McCain and Obama get equal second billing.
Vote John McCain 2008
It was your deliberate misrepresentation of it as the “Obama/Coburn Government Transparency act”.
There you go again.
I listed the two primary co-sponsors, the one’s mentioned in most of the press coverage.
Prove what I wrote was “deliberate”. You can’t.
There’s plenty of proof with the ugly stereotypes and the dubious “facts” you throw around here that you’re filled with inchoate resentment towards people who only want to be rid once and for all of a political party that has led this country to unspeakable disaster.
McCain and Obama get equal second billing.
There you go again. Be consistent. You left out Carper.
It was a bill, not a Presidential campaign.
YLB @ 26 & 27
Those may be the two people mentioned in Mother Jones or the Socialist Workers’ Weekly, but facts is facts.
Coburn, by himself, introduced the bill. Obama has no greater standing than McCain. Both, along with Carper, were original co-sponsors.
“Deliberate” in that you wrote it. You also made up the title of the act and even gave Obama first billing — something he doesn’t deserve.
Whether it is recent legislation or past history (civil rights, etc.) it is typical Lefty revisionist history.
Face it… The nutroots and the current Dem Party mark a resurgence in “machine” politics. The Party of Tammany Hall lives!
(And as for me being a “centrist,” that is absolutely true. You’re just WAAAYYY too far Left to see it.)
the two people mentioned in Mother Jones or the Socialist Workers’ Weekly,
There you go again. Stereotyping. You just can’t help yourself, can you?
http://www.countywidenews.com/.....20hall.txt
Hmmm. A “socialist” paper from OK.
The nutroots and the current Dem Party mark a resurgence in “machine” politics
Bullshit. Any serious reading of American politics agrees that Democratic party programs like Medicare and Social Security are unquestionably popular – witnessing the thrashing Bush took trying to “reform” Social Security.
The netroots are just people filtering out the spin from the doctors and pooling their money to elect people who will truly represent them and not fatcats. Witness Donna Edwards’ win over Al Wynn.
The internet can work for the right wing as well but it doesn’t because the right wing’s beliefs are mostly out of the mainstream.
The internet has changed things hopefully for good and the right wing sure doesn’t like it.
YLB and Mark – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ct_of_2006
YLB – I think what Mark was pointing out is the fact you left McCain’s name out of your original post on this issue…there in turn making it seem as though the two main sponsors were both dems. We all must give BOTH Obama and McCain credit along with the rest of the sponsors.
making it seem as though the two main sponsors were both dems.
There you go again Hannah. Supporting the right wing agenda. Way to go defending the right wing name-callers and stereotypers like Surreal Mark. I see you glad-handing and high-fiving them whenever you can.
Tom Coburn is a Republican, some would say from the fringe of that party. Mentioning him in my initial comment does not mean I was trying to paint him as a Dem as much as you would wish that to be so.
Obama/Coburn is mentioned in most of the news coverage. I I put Obama first. That ticked Surreal Mark off. Does that tick you off?
I bet it does.
YLB @ 31
To quote Roger
RabidRabbit, “HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR…”You just can’t help yourself, can you?
When Hannah simply points out the main point of my argument, you go into your “right-wing” BS. Relax. Maybe Roger can slip you some of the tasty medicines the friendly folks in white coats give him.
As for your newspaper source… What some Mudpuddle Weekly reporter says isn’t the truth. The actual Congress.gov record is… and I stand by that. Coburn gets the top billing and McCain, Obama and Carper get the co-sponsorship.
Explain how, in your reasoning, the netroots are any different than the “machine” politics of old.
When Hannah simply points out the main point of my argument,
Bzzzt. Wrong. She said I painted Coburn as a Dem. Not even close. She’s reading in stuff that’s not there just like you read in “deliberate”.
Explain how, in your reasoning, the netroots are any different than the “machine” politics of old.
Easy – Barack Obama is the candidate the people want not the choice of the corporate-connected, Democratic machines. The netroots have always been skeptical of Hillary although she’d be a huge improvement over the disaster we have now.
You wingnuts love to demonize Markos Moulitsas who is for Obama while ignoring the Clinton supporters that have left Daily Kos to support their candidate their way.
Fine – that’s democracy, something right wingers and people with money and a “my way or the highway” attitude seem to have a problem understanding.
YLB @ 33
You misread the primary point of Hannah’s comment — that you failed to give McCain credit. Her reasoning about the “two Dems” was incorrect, but the next sentence was right on: “…give BOTH Obama and McCain credit…”
You came nowhere near explaining how the netroots are different than “machine” politics.
As for “my way or the highway,” the Left is FAR more intolerant of divergent opinions.
I actually kinda liked Obama rev. 2004. Good speech. I have greater problems with him now because of idiotic plans like nearly doubling the cap gains tax. I also think he lacks backbone (e.g. “I’m against the war” vs. “my position is the same as President Bush’s”). I also don’t like that he’s gone from “never heard anything, wasn’t there” to “heard it, didn’t like it” on the Wright issue. Unfortunately, if you take the above and add it to the fact that he has trouble when there is no TelePrompTer, he’s much more of a pretty boy in a pretty suit — a hybrid of network news anchor and politician.
CNN is citing its own poll today that shows that whoever wins the Democratic nomination, 16% of the supporters of the other candidate say they are planning to abstain or not show up at the polls (elsewhere I’ve heard that if Clinton seizes the nomination through procedural thuggery, the majority of youth–Obama supporters on the whole–will stay home).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html
This will probably change after the Democratic convention, and after it becomes clear how dangerous/disastrous a McCain presidency would be. I have to say that if it comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, I’m going to have to stare at the ballot for a long time before voting Clinton, regardless of what kind of show the Democrats put on this summer.
YellowPup @ 35
So, we’re seeing numbers from different polls showing anywhere from 16% to 22% abstain/switch votes. That does not bode well for the Dems. More than just abstain, a good number have said they will vote for McCain.
Also… there is no saying that the Dem youth — the ADHD Generation — will actually show up on Election Day, regardless of the nominee.
Question: If superdelegates must vote the way of their state, what about Teddy K., Kerry, Richardson…? Their states went for Clinton.
Are you saying that the superdelegates should simply be a rubber stamp for the… delegate count? the national popular vote? or ??? If so, why not just eliminate their vote and call it a day? Wasn’t the point of the superdelegates so that the (uneducated) Dem voters didn’t pick someone with a lesser chance of being elected?
You misread the primary point of Hannah’s comment — that you failed to give McCain credit.
Yawn. I’m in the same company with most news coverage. I provided one example. I can find many others.
slip you some of the tasty medicines
There you go again. You just can’t stand people who try to have a little fun at the expense of those who are leading this country to hell in a handbasket. If we didn’t laugh, we’d have to cry.
came nowhere near explaining
Hillary represents the old machine politics. Obama is the candidate of the people who want change, not a return to the nineties – although that’s not too bad compared to what we’ve been through the last 7 years.
What’s about that is so hard to understand?
the Left is FAR more intolerant
Yeah, that Stefan Sharkansky would agree with you there. How many people has he banned? How many has Goldy banned? You maybe?
idiotic plans like nearly doubling the cap gains tax.
Short term capital gains? Maybe. I’d like to hear your plan to pay off a 3 trillion dollar liability on this winner in Iraq. I sure don’t want my kids to pay it.
A tax rate that is higher on flipping paper chits and other paper assets than the tax rate charged to a struggling working or middle class shlubb seems fair to me.
a hybrid of network news anchor and politician.
He’s better and more fit for office than the competition and leagues beyond the current disaster. A future with short fuse McCain is a dismal future. Like I said before, I’d rather have the 1996 Dole.
the Dem youth — the ADHD Generation
Ugly, mean-spirited – a perfect representative of a corrupt party whose time is running out.
The quality of the average post is not good enough. You want people to read the public’s comments, but, what can you do when so many of them aren’t useful, actionable, insightful, etc.? I think a lot of the posts on progresive blogs are *so* distracting and poorly written, they might as well have been written by provocateurs. Does it matter? the result being the same…. loss of readership.