Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

First quarter fundraising winners and losers

Yesterday was the official deadline for federal candidates to file their first quarter fundraising reports -- detailing their donations and expenditures for the first three months of 2010. With so many reports flooding in and what's contained in them likely to affect races around the country, we thought we'd dedicate our Morning Fix to a look at the early winners and losers from the first filing quarter. Away we go!

WINNERS

Pat Toomey: Toomey, the former congressman turned Club for Growth president turned Senate candidate, has been one of the most surprisingly strong fundraising performers of the 2010 election cycle. Between Jan. 1 and March 31 he collected a whopping $2.3 million although his cash on hand total -- $4 million -- was slightly less impressive. With two new polls showing him ahead of Sen. Arlen Specter (D), Toomey has to be riding high.

Robin Carnahan: After a strong fundraising start to her Senate campaign, Carnahan, Missouri's secretary of state, watched as Rep. Roy Blunt (R) surged past her in the cash dash. But, Carnahan reclaimed some of that ground over the past three months -- raising $1.5 million to Blunt's $1.3 million. Blunt still has a cash on hand edge of over a half million dollars but Carnahan proved in the last three months that she will be very competitive financially.

Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor raised $1.5 million through his federal PAC and six-affiliated state PACS, a total that dwarfed the cash collection of potential 2012 rivals like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty ($556,000 raised) and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin ($401,000).

Ami Bera: House Democrats don't have many chances to play offense across the country this fall but Bera, who is running against California Rep. Dan Lungren (R), is clearly a bright spot. Bera, a doctor, raked in $385,000 in the first three months of the year, closing the period with $977,000 in the bank. Lungren, by contrast, ended March with $650,000 in the bank.

Tom Ganley: The Ohio auto dealer who switched from the Senate race to a House bid earlier this year loaned his campaign $2 million in the first quarter of the year, an eye-popping total made all the more impressive when compared to the measly $281,000 Rep. Betty Sutton (D) had on hand at the end of last month.

Mark Kirk: Since winning his March primary with surprising ease, Kirk, a Republican who currently represents Illinois' 10th district, has done everything right in his bid for the seat being vacated by appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D). Kirk raised $2.2 million in the quarter -- roughly $1 million more than state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D). Kirk also has more than double Giannoulias's cash on hand number.

RGA: The Republican Governors Association started April with $31 million in the bank -- four million more than the entire budget for the committee in the 2006 election cycle. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the chairman of the RGA, is taking full advantage of the opportunity afforded to him by Mark Sanford's implosion -- collecting record sums of cash and building chits if and when he decides to run for president in 2012. (The Democratic Governors Association has performed well in its own right, ending March with $22 million on hand.)

LOSERS

Lee Fisher: There's no serious Senate candidate in the country who has performed worse on the fundraising front than Fischer, Ohio's Democratic lieutenant governor, who brought in a meager $551,000 between Jan. 1 and March 31, ending last month with $1.8 million in the bank. Lucky for Fisher, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner -- his primary opponent on May 4 -- has also proved incapable of raising any serious money. If Fisher wins the primary (and he should), he needs to solve his fundraising problems immediately. Former Rep. Rob Portman (R) raised $2.35 million in the first three months of 2010 and had $7.6 million in the bank.

Dan Coats: Coats, a former Indiana Senator seeking to reclaim his seat this fall, should walk away with the Republican nomination on May 4 but the $379,000 he collected since entering the race in early February doesn't make a terribly convincing case for him. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, who will be the Democrats' nominee to replace retiring Sen. Evan Bayh, brought in a far stronger $625,000 over the past three months and closed the quarter with $1 million on hand.

Charlie Crist: Even as former state House speaker Marco Rubio turned into a national star over the past six months, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist always had his massive fundraising capacity to fall back on. No more. In the first three months of the year, Crist raised $1.1 million while Rubio brought in a stunning $3.6 million. While Crist still has a cash-on-hand advantage, the trend line is very worrisome for the governor. And, with the resignation of former senator Connie Mack (R) as his campaign chairman, it's looking increasingly likely that Crist won't be running for the GOP Senate nod much longer.

Tom Marino: Marino, a former U.S. attorney, entered the race against Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Carney (D) to much fanfare. In his first three months of active fundraising, however, Marino raised just $111,000 and banked $74,000. Carney, on the other hand, ended the quarter with $665,000 in the bank.

Larry Kissell: For a freshman Democrat sitting in a swing seat in North Carolina, Kissell isn't doing much to ensure he doesn't get dragged under if a national GOP wave starts building. He raised a paltry $72,000 and banked just $326,000 at the end of March.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 16, 2010; 5:32 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  | Tags: Arlen Specter, Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey, Robin Carnahan, Sarah Palin, Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tommy Thompson says no to Wisconsin Senate race
Next: Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist and the politics of an independent bid

Comments

"TeaPartiers continue to accept Medicare, SS and VA benefits."

They ... and I ... object to people receiving government benefits who have not paid for them or otherwise earned them.

One example of a program that needs to be restricted to people who are physically unable to serve in the military or are otherwise unable contribute to their communities- The Federal Pell Grant Program that provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. THEY HAVEN'T EARNED IT!

Posted by: waltonr1 | April 18, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin lost me when she abrogated her responsibilities to the people of Alaska in favor of pursuing celebrity dollars. I associate her more with with Paris Hilton, Field and Stream and Playboy magazine than I do with serious politics. Sarah is out for Sarah.

Posted by: waltonr1 | April 18, 2010 4:54 AM | Report abuse

What you have in front of this Tea Party movement is a massive money grab -- entrepreneurial political entertainment. It will all be over by Labor Day.

Posted by: starthom | April 16, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

so zouk I presume that you condone constant posts starting with the words, blacks, race and inner city as civil and any mention of it must certainly constitue some kind of leftist conspiracy. That is sarcasm b/c I suspect that you know better if we could just get you to interact w/o using the word Lib.
How about just some civility here that is neither left or right. I have steered my postings today to the actual topics and
ask that others, either left or right do the same. How about discussing Goldman Sachs and whether today's revelations will either wreck
financial reform or cause another hicup to our already fragile economy. Jim Cramer does not think that Paulson did anything prosecutable but that he was only making a smart hedge against a portfolio of suspect mtg papers; what are your thoughts? I am for banking accountability but fearful that the SEC might overreach and cause unintended economic repercussions that we certainly don't need.
Personally that seems a lot more relevant to our lives than all the stupid name calling and unnecessary anger posted here.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"Tickets cost $5 for general admission and $20 for “seats around the Hannity set.”
----
That's about what it cost in the 90's to go to the circus.

Posted by: JRM2 | April 16, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

but at some point your continual use of race tainted verbage needs to come to a stop if this site is going to remain a place for civil discourse.

Posted by: leichtman1


Once again the finance whiz overlooks the obvious leftist imbeciles and only sees what he wants to see. you should work for MSNBC.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, National Journal raises questions as to whether Palin has followed through on her promise to donate to political causes the $100,000 speaking fee she received from organizers of the National Tea Party Convention. She hasn't given any money to any federal candidate this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And FEC records show she also hasn't given anything to her own PAC. "

==

She'll probably end up losing it all on fines and legal fees

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

37th: Do you understand that since some 90% of your posts use the words Race, Black, and Inner City, it might lead many here to suspect that you might have a real problem with AAs? I have absolutely no interest in wasting my time away from business pointing that out to you, but many here including me, who have tried to engage you in discussing the topics at hand
are really having problems listening to your
overuse of those words. You can use this site as your playground for venting whatever political problems that you might have, but at some point your continual use of race tainted verbage needs to come to a stop if this site is going to remain a place for civil discourse.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA CANCELS 2010 ELECTIONS


Washington DC (April 16, 2010) - Obama today cancelled the 2010 Congressional Elections, stating that there was too much racism in the electorate.


"We have to find a way to get rid of all these racists," Obama stated.


"In order to vote, all voters are going to have prove that they are not racist - and we are going to have to come up with some tests so that people can prove they are not racist."


"Did you hear what they were saying in Washington DC yesterday - carrying signs and all ? We know that when they talk about the trillion dollar deficit and high taxes, they really mean they are racist."


Obviously, African-Americans will not have to take the tests in order to vote - so "Maybe we will have a few elections with only blacks voting - just until we devise the tests for racism," Obama stated.


Obama has asked all the present Congress to stay on until he can figure out a way to get rid of all the racists so they won't vote. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that although it might be a hardship, they would be willing to stay in office past the expiration of their current terms.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"52% of Americans now recognize that Obama is moving the USA toward socialism"

Sarah Baracuda redistributed millions taken from Alaskan energy companies directly to
Alaskans, thousands per Alaskan household. What do her worshippers call that redistribution practice?

TeaPartiers continue to accept
Medicare, SS and VA benefits. The real
socialists/hypocrits need to step forward.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The most surprising person on this list is Marco Rubio, and the fact that Charlie Crist got outraised triple by him. Crist is still Gov. of Florida, and that should enable him to raise tons of cash. Apparently, Rubio really is running Crist out of the race for the Republican primary and into the GE as an independent. Crist has the blessing of a huge cash on hand advantage, however. Crist will be able to compete in the GE and possibly win. Rubio has to be happy that the GOP nomination is his!

Posted by: reason5 | April 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Stock market close today will be skookum medicine.

Gov. sues Goldman, an amazing move for what I have been chiding as the Obama Sachs presidency. But housing starts are up, BoA made money and GE beats expectations, sort of. The 11,000/1200 threshold is tested buyers brought the Dow back, S&P, we'll see...is this the new floor?

Oh, this is a political blog you say?

There is no greater political force in America today than the answer to the question, is this recovery real?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Stock market close today will be a big deal.
Gov. sues Goldman, an amazing move for what I have been chiding as the Obama Sachs presidency. But housing starts are up BoA made money and GE beats expectations, sort of. The 11,000/1200 threshold was tested and buyers brought it back...so is this the new floor? This is a political blog you say?

There is no greater political force in America today than the answer to the question, is this recovery real?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Maryland had one of the largest job losses in the nation last month, grim news that came Friday as BP Solar announced it is laying off 320 manufacturing workers at a sprawling plant in Frederick.

The U.S. Department of Labor counted 13,800 fewer jobs in the state last month than in January, a decline topped only by Virginia, California, Michigan and Pennsylvania. It was Maryland's largest one-month loss of the recession, which began December 2007.

Posted by: stephenwhelton | April 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Shallow. Racist. Confused. Stuttering. Bald. Zit faced. Cheap. Angry. Envious. Lonely. Pedantic. Annoying. Ignorant.

Welcome to Foxxy's Facebook page.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 16, 2010 8:15 AM


I'm not lonely, zouk,

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:16 AM

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"If Rove and his team do raise the cash they are boasting about, the RNC will run out of money and the old Bush team will be controlling the finances of the party, the official griped. That may leave top donors looking to American Crossroads and others instead of to the national party in future cycles.

"This is drawing [donors] away from the party and into something else, and its very formation is communicating to the donors nationally that there is no confidence in the Republican party," the former official said. He suggested this would allow the RNC's donor base to atrophy and put the next chairman in a position of needing to completely rebuild.

Several other RNC members and GOP operatives told me about similar concerns in recent days, and one specifically suggested that Gillespie is aiming to lead the next Republican convention in 2012."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/new-republican-group-sparks-worries-about-partys-future.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

According to a poll by the New York Times, 52% of Americans now recognize that Obama is moving the USA toward socialism.

Only the Kool-Aid drinkers and the furthest fringes of the left still believe that Obama is a centrist/moderate. The deniers defend his socialist-style takeovers of the auto industry and health care, as well as the student loan market -- and his pending takeovers of the financial sector and energy -- as necessitated by the grave situation he "inherited."

In other words, they claim he had to destroy the free enterprise system in order to save it.

"No, No!" insist the Kool-Aid drinkers. "Obama is not a socialist. If he was a socialist, ObamaCare would have outlawed the insurance companies. Instead, he's allowing them to exist in order to administer the government's health care program. Just like banks used to administer the... um... student loan program."

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of fundraising, here's an interesting development that exposes the deep fracturing in the R party now:

"There is growing worry that a mysterious new Republican political action committee formed by Bush-era heavyweights including Karl Rove could harm the Republican National Committee down the line. As we've been reporting about the RNC's woes and chairman Michael Steele's tenure, more and more GOPers tell me that Rove's new "American Crossroads" group spells trouble.

"That is very destructive to the party," a former very high-ranking RNC official told me in an interview today. The official said the group, which already has $30 million in donor pledges but does not seem to have an active Web site, will have broad implications for the RNC if it is successful during this election cycle."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"I suspect years of therapy will be needed. but is is likely too late, the damage has been done.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero"

LOL. there he goes again...

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

It is like an abscess, to protect the whole, the body walls off an infection it can't kill, then allows a fistula to form, which drains outside the body [before antibiotics, people would live with these "draining sores" for years].

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In fact the tea party is doing this to Liberals as we type.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Poor dribbl is having retrenchment issues. and after making so much progress in the last few days.

Two days ago it finally admitted it was annoying everyone here.

Yesterday it admitted it has no job and relies on others to pay all its bills.

We even got tacit approval of nonstop idiotic posting day after day, minute by minute.

but today we have had a reversal with continued and ongoing looniness.

I suspect years of therapy will be needed. but is is likely too late, the damage has been done.

the creature will Roar with imbecility to disguise the flaws, but like Berry, we are all on to the slick game now.

Prattle on dingbats.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The toxic assets are lying in state. They were made dead to the market by the actions of the government, but they are all around us. Everybody better hope they don't come to market anytime soon.

It is like an abscess, to protect the whole, the body walls off an infection it can't kill, then allows a fistula to form, which drains outside the body [before antibiotics, people would live with these "draining sores" for years].

If the toxic assets were valued for what they could be sold for today (as in a free market), we would be in a world of hurt, because they are not worth what the government paid for them. By artificially propping up the price of this poison, the government has protected healthy assets. But are they really healthy? Well is the body with a nasty abscess healthy? Yes and no. If it breaks open inside, the person dies of sepsis right away. If it can drain, naturally or incised, the body is saved.

So are we really getting healthy? Or are we just pretending...no one knows the answer to this question.

The governments action was designed to let the people with real money know that they could ignore all those empty office buildings because the government would back their value, as if they were worth a lot more than they are.

As well, in the housing market, banks are very reluctant to renegotiate deals, allow short sales and so on because then they would have to acknowledge the real value of their portfolio. They are trying not to crash the markets around their properties by letting people stay in default for astonishing amounts of time.

Someone I know is living in a nice house in Portland that went into default 18 months ago. The bank has stopped sending them letters and they are not making payments. They could get foreclosed and evicted next week or next year, who knows?

The idea is, the economy comes back, people get jobs, real estate values stabilize and then, slowly, carefully, all of what is now called toxic can be sold for what it is worth. Scary times. Everything depends on confidence, but it always did.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Fundraising or not, looks like Fiorina might be in trouble. Her past just keeps on catching up with her:

Yesterday I noted that Russia and Germany were investigating alleged bribery by HP executives back in 2003 when now-Senate candidate Carly Fiorina was the company's CEO. The alleged bribery was part of an effort to secure a major contract with the Russian government. Now comes news that the Securities and Exchange Commission is joining the investigation as part of their jurisdiction under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Journal says it's "part of a widening probe into the company's activities."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The WSJ blog translates.

The crux of the charges against Goldman Sachs relate to a financial instrument the firm developed through discussions with hedge fund Paulson & Co. (Paulson & Co. was not named as a defendant in the SEC charges.)

According to the complaint, Paulson paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing this security — called ABACUS 2007-AC1 — in early 2007. The security let Paulson & Co. make bets against the residential real estate market, which the hedge fund believed was going to tank....

In other words, Paulson had an incentive to pick securities that would have tanked, since he was then going to bet that the value of these securities would fall. While that may sound strange to people, in and of itself it isn’t a problem. The problem, according to the SEC, comes in the form of Goldman not telling the guys that invested in ABACUS 2007-AC1 the role that Paulson had played in its construction.

It's possible someone from Goldman will go to jail. There's short term pain for Goldman stocks and the Dow, but the for the potential of their being just a little bit of justice for the people who created this mess, this is a ray of light."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

" Securities and Exchange Commission announced Friday civil fraud charges against the Wall Street powerhouse and one of its vice presidents. The agency alleges Goldman failed to disclose that one of its clients helped create - and then bet against - subprime mortgage securities that Goldman sold to investors.

Investors in the mortgage securities are alleged to have lost more than $1 billion, the SEC noted.

"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"out of work, sponging moonbat

Posted by: Comrade_Zero"

Indeed he is. Always so adept with projecting, his single skill.

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote earlier that
"Palin on the other hand, is a cash machine."

I agree. MN Post reports today on Rep Bachmann's fundraising:
"The upgrade for Bachmann comes a day after she posted a staggering $810,000 haul in the first quarter, giving her $1.53 million cash-on-hand. That doesn't include the more than $500,000 she's said to have raised from the recent fundraiser with Sarah Palin, which counted for the second quarter."


This cool half million, of course, was raised at the fundraiser at which T-Paw was described to a T as more of an usher than headliner.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 16, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey finance whiz, any speculation on why the libs have no interest in presenting a budget this year?

could it be that the financial facts of their leadership are so distasteful that they dare not air them in public?

this is Lib leadership. Lies and subterfuge.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

If Obama really tries to push through Cap and Trade right now, he will only be VALIDATING the claims that he is TRYING TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY.


It is plain and simple.

The Tea Party will only get stronger too.

How stupid can he be?

At that point, the liberals should be demanding that Obama resign. Seriously folks, there is no other way around it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

drivl, after being exposed for the out of work, sponging moonbat that it is, seems to have completely flipped her lid.

why would I show you my resume kook? I have a job. and you are the last person who is in any position to offer employment to anyone. no one will talk to you, much less pay you for something.

why don't you stick to cutting and pasting from Kos. you seem to have that skill mastered.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

What happened to all the toxic assets...

asked 37th.

Well that is a GREAT QUESTION and I believe I know the answer. Lets see if I get time, but the answer lies in Zouk's point,

"There may be some sort of recovery in the works, but I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet. Right now, as a country, we're like a guy who lost his six-figure job, but instead of cutting back, we're keeping up appearances by taking out a third mortgage on our McMansion, maxing out our credit cards, and spending the kids' college fund."

Brilliant. This is just right.

You know, if you people stopped bothering to attack others (and you do that best by not bothering to defend yourselves) without all the flames, there would be more oxygen in the room.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Dream on - the government should have put them ALL into bankruptcy and seized ALL the "toxic assets."
-------------------------------
First, why would anyone want a bunch of credit default swaps on banks who were all going down the drain. There is no value there to get. That's like wanting to own all the insurance policies on London, while the entire city was burning down.

Second, the banks either were merged into each other or went bankrupt. The government bullied the stronger banks to merge with the weaker banks to avoid the entire system collapsing. Why we would want the entire system to collapse just to prove a point, and I'm not even sure what that point is, is a mystery to me. This would have put the country, and the world, into a calamity. Don't think for a minute I want to bail out the bankers, but that was the price of shoring up the financial system for all the rest of us.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 16, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

“Fox News never agreed to allow the Cincinnati Tea Party organizers to use Sean Hannity’s television program to profit from broadcasting his show from the event,” said Bill Shine, the network’s executive vice president of programming. “When senior executives in New York were made aware of this, we changed our plans for tonight’s show.”

The CTP is firing back, claiming that Fox News is lying. They said that not only did they work with Fox News staff on logistics for the event, but executives told CTP organizers Hannity wouldn’t be able to tape his show in Cincinnati because of a “personal emergency”:

Shortly after the scheduled book signing (which was canceled) Fox News producers onsite informed the Cincinnati Tea Party senior leadership that Mr. Hannity had to rush home for a personal emergency. The Cincinnati Tea Party expressed a statement of support and concern to Hannity and family."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

This is funny -- Hannity's greed even p8sses off FOX!

"Yesterday, Tea Party enthusiast Sean Hannity was set to headline the Cincinnati Tax Day Tea Party. The Cincinnati Tea Party’s (CTP) flier said that not only would the event feature a live taping of Hannity’s show, but the Fox News host would also be holding a book signing. Tickets cost $5 for general admission and $20 for “seats around the Hannity set.”

Media observers and longtime journalists criticized Hannity’s arrangement as unethical. “It violates virtually every rule of every ethical guideline that journalism covers,” said Frank Sesno, who spent two decades at CNN and is now director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. “The idea that you would support a [political] movement and ask your audience to pay for it.”

As recently as yesterday afternoon, Fox News was still promoting Hannity’s appearance. During his show — which was airing live from a Tea Party in San Antonio, TX — fellow host Glenn Beck was still promoting Hannity’s Cincinnati show later that night. However, shortly before the event, “angry” Fox News executives yanked Hannity. The LA Times reported:

But senior Fox News executives said they were not aware Hannity was being billed as the centerpiece of the event or that Tea Party organizers were charging for admission to Hannity’s show as part of the rally. They first learned of it Thursday morning from John Finley, Hannity’s executive producer, who was in Cincinnati to produce Hannity’s show.

Furious, top officials recalled Hannity back to New York to do his show in his regular studio. The network plans to do an extensive post-mortem about the incident with Finley and Hannity’s staff."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

By the way to all you trying to say the Tea Party is violent


YESTERDAYS SCORE:


Tea Party Violence: ZERO

Just Obama's hometown of Chicago: 19 shot, 7 dead.


THAT WAS YESTERDAY.


Case closed.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

WHRE'S YOUR RESUME ZOUK?

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

Must have been chilly at the playground this morning.

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

its the cause and effect analysis I disagree with. Hillary had lots of $2500 checks, but corporations are/were prohibited from contributing directly to a candidate. Those
$150 youth contributors were 1 time voters
who didn't show up in the Mass or Va elections
so I wouldn't put a lot of faith in their
being counted on.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Very interesting that your complaints never seem to be applied to the regular stooges, finance whiz. why is that?

in fact, have dribbl or Ped ever posted on topic or is this site simply an extension of their facebook pages? they don't even bother to stay on the general subject of politics, instead covering recipes, travel, haircare, car purchasing, etc.

but mostly just speculation about other bloggers. empty, mindless guesses about stereotypes they have in their small empty minds.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"It's pathetic how some people come here only to whine about other posters and rant about how stupid and mentally disturbed they are.

And I'm not just talking about Zouk."


Ditto.

And yes, he has been here for years.

Posted by: bsimon1


the banned one wearing thin.

But he retorts, I'm not that lonely.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon, you've pretty much got what I was getting at. But leichtman, the point of my conjecture is that money should be looked at as an indicator of electoral success and not a driver. I'm not really sure how Clinton and Obama did during the primaries, but let's assume that Clinton got big corporate donors and Obama got small donors. This doesn't negate the argument that Obama won because of his fresh face message or whatever. The point I'm trying to make is in this scenario, Obama got the small donors BECAUSE he had the better message and got voters excited.

What I'm saying is that Obama's fund raising and his electoral success both had the same causative factors such as his message or his youth or his race or whatever you want to attribute it to. Small donors aren't just going to write checks left and right. They will write checks for a candidate who excites them. And if a candidate has the skills to get lots of people to donate to him, then he's got the skills to get lots of people to vote for him. Now if Obama was a trillionaire and funded his own campaign, would he have had the same electoral success? Probably because Obama is Obama and we already know he's a kickass candidate. But part of it is a trial by fire. Politics isn't something just anyone can do. Very few people can do it. Successful fundraisers are using political skills to do so. Someone who is a self made billionaire has good business skills like Whitman or the skill to be born into a rich family like Steve Forbes, but that doesn't translate to political skills.

And I'm going to assume that everyone is a bad politician until proven otherwise. And self-funded candidates haven't proven this and thus, are likely to fare worse than good fundraisers.

This is making a lot of sense in my head, but I'm thinking not so much as I'm typing. You guys get what I'm getting at?

Posted by: DDAWD | April 16, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Indeed, National Journal raises questions as to whether Palin has followed through on her promise to donate to political causes the $100,000 speaking fee she received from organizers of the National Tea Party Convention. She hasn't given any money to any federal candidate this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And FEC records show she also hasn't given anything to her own PAC. "

==

She'll probably end up losing it all on fines and legal fees

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

But Rickher said the incident that forced Massa to leave was his attempt to set up a dinner date in February with a local male bartender he met on the sidelines of a funeral for a Marine. She said that incident was reported to leadership.

"There was a date set up which finally sparked a realization that this was a problem," she said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just like our Ped but with hair.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Here’s the thing: The stimulus package, for which Obama is being bashed, contained the biggest one-year tax cut in U.S. history. That’s right. The biggest one-year tax cut in U.S. history was pushed through by a Democrat"
it included a 2 year $282 billion tax cut for all families earning under $250,000 per year.

curious zouk what your lie has to do with today's subject matter. Some of us are trying to stay on topic today rather than making partisan unfounded stabs.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

slovelace


Why don't you go read Eugene Robinson, Colbert King, and Ezra Klein in the Post - you will be happy. I honestly believe they should be fired for complete stupidity - but that just my opinion.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse


"When you think of a volcano, you think of Hawaii and long words like that. You don't think of Iceland. You think it's too cold to have a volcano there."

No, Rick. We don't think that, because we're not stupid. On the other hand, since you were addressing a CNN audience, your assessment of what your audience thinks might well be correct.

After all, they also believe that Obama gave them a tax cut

I wonder if global cooling, I mean warming, causes volcanoes?

==

zouk's analytical skills on display.

what does this drivel have to do with f uck-all? You been skipping your meds?

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

GJJ, thanks for your OH analysis. I do think we understand better after you and Kurt posted.

StreetCorner, I am no friend of Goodhair, so please take my suggestion with an appropriate grana salis. You should submit the body of your Perry posts to his campaign. You might get remunerative work.

You also have taken BHO's explanation of why the USA must take little stuff in far away places seriously for its national security and maintain a presence, globally; and suggested that is a high crime subject to impeachment. I assume you are quoting from anti-BHO sources, but if you take that position on your own is it because you are a DK anti-war pacifist liberal?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 16, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Of course that was going on - as early as 2006 there were people saying that was going on - it is not really news.


Add on top of that the ACCOUNTING TRICKS - AND BASIC ACCOUNTING FRAUD.


One thing didn't bring Wall St. down - it was a bunch of crooks trying to steal from each other that caused the problem.

Case in point - the AIG people were basically selling "insurance" in their credit swaps - but they didn't have enough to back it up.


Goldman-Sachs basically boought that "insurance" and proceded to find it legal and ethically to burned down the building and try to collect on the "insurance."


If you hear Goldman Sachs- all they talk about is they bought the insurance, so they should be COMPLETELY WITHOUT BLAME.

Dream on - the government should have put them ALL into bankruptcy and seized ALL the "toxic assets."

WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE TOXIC ASSETS THE GOVERNMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE TITLE TO ???


Watch the money.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Looks like to me the Washington Post has become a Republican News Paper. Every thing they report is twisted that way. I have seen several reports on how bad the President is doning and how great the Tea Party and the Republican are doing. The Tea Party is only getting ink from the Washington Post. Washington DC needs a balance in reporting. It needs another news paper. I guess the Washington Post hasn't learned yet.

Posted by: slovelace | April 16, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"On Tuesday, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, called for the abolition of municipal fire departments.

Firefighters, he declared, “won’t solve the problems that led to recent fires. They will make them worse.” The existence of fire departments, he went on, “not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of burning buildings; it institutionalizes them.” He concluded, “The way to solve this problem is to let the people who make the mistakes that lead to fires pay for them. We won’t solve this problem until the biggest buildings are allowed to burn.”

O.K., I fibbed a bit. Mr. McConnell said almost everything I attributed to him, but he was talking about financial reform, not fire reform. In particular, he was objecting not to the existence of fire departments, but to legislation that would give the government the power to seize and restructure failing financial institutions."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Obamaganda: Recession is over. The economy is great. All praise to Dear Reader.

Reality: Foreclosure rates take biggest jump in 5 years.

Reality: Initial Jobless Claims Increase by 24,000 to 484,000 last week.

There may be some sort of recovery in the works, but I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet. Right now, as a country, we're like a guy who lost his six-figure job, but instead of cutting back, we're keeping up appearances by taking out a third mortgage on our McMansion, maxing out our credit cards, and spending the kids' college fund.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if most people understand that the Republicans are trying to kill financial reform at the behest of Wall Street?


"So proposed reform legislation gives regulators “resolution authority,” which basically means giving them the ability to deal with the likes of Lehman in much the same way that the F.D.I.C. deals with conventional banks. Who could object to that?

Well, Mr. McConnell is trying. His talking points come straight out of a memo Frank Luntz, the Republican political consultant, circulated in January on how to oppose financial reform. “Frankly,” wrote Mr. Luntz, “the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout.” And Mr. McConnell is following those stage directions.

It’s a truly shameless performance: Mr. McConnell is pretending to stand up for taxpayers against Wall Street while in fact doing just the opposite. In recent weeks, he and other Republican leaders have held meetings with Wall Street executives and lobbyists, in which the G.O.P. and the financial industry have sought to coordinate their political strategy.

And let me assure you, Wall Street isn’t lobbying to prevent future bank bailouts. If anything, it’s trying to ensure that there will be more bailouts. By depriving regulators of the tools they need to seize failing financial firms, financial lobbyists increase the chances that when the next crisis strikes, taxpayers will end up paying a ransom to stockholders and executives as the price of avoiding collapse."

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

in March 2008, where she was short of funds b/c of Mark Penn, but that only lasted 2-3 weeks. I have to disagree Hillary didn't lose b/c of money, Obama made the Change and Generational argument better, to my regret.

==

HRC lost me when she got chummy with Rove, calling him by first name, all friendly an' bipartisan an' stuff. I made my first Obama donation within 24 hours. Obama way too conciliatory as it is, I think HRC would have been more of a fighter but far too conservative. I see her as close to Romney politically.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Could CNN's Bad Ratings Be Because Their Anchors Are Idiots?

We know Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper suck at Jeopardy. But Rick Sanchez is possibly the biggest moron anchoring cable news today with the possible exception of Joy Behar... who is also on CNN.

While reporting on the eruption of a volcano in Iceland, Rickie had this to say.


"When you think of a volcano, you think of Hawaii and long words like that. You don't think of Iceland. You think it's too cold to have a volcano there."

No, Rick. We don't think that, because we're not stupid. On the other hand, since you were addressing a CNN audience, your assessment of what your audience thinks might well be correct.

After all, they also believe that Obama gave them a tax cut

I wonder if global cooling, I mean warming, causes volcanoes?

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 16, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

its the chicken v egg argument. Contributors want to give money to the candidate they view
as the inevitable winner;it does play a psychological invincibility argument but not much more. I disagree that raising lots of money from lots of voters
is the key to success. Each $1 dollar that
voter gives only refelcts that 1 vote not
electoral success. The media certainly plays
up how many actual contributors are involved
but in the long run the numbers of actual contributors is secondary to the message and political skills of the candidate.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, it's becoming quite clear that Palin is not at all interested in politics -- just raking it in from the rubes:

"FEC records first examined by National Journal show that Sarah PAC spent more than $233,000 on consultants -- including Randy Scheunemann, the neo-conservative lobbyist and former John McCain aide who worked closely with Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign.

By contrast, Sarah PAC spent just $7,500 on contributions to candidates running for office during the first quarter of 2010, National Journal reports. That includes $2,500 to Sean Duffy, who is running a long-shot campaign against Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI), and $2000 to Rand Paul, the Tea Party favorite running for the Senate from Kentucky.

Sarah PAC declares on its website that it is "dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation."

Indeed, National Journal raises questions as to whether Palin has followed through on her promise to donate to political causes the $100,000 speaking fee she received from organizers of the National Tea Party Convention. She hasn't given any money to any federal candidate this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And FEC records show she also hasn't given anything to her own PAC. "

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

10 years ago I visited Hanoi. After checking into a hotel, we went for a walk. On the one hand we were stepping around people cooking their evening meal in a bucket of charcoal on the sidewalk; then we cut through an alley to get to the main road & saw through an open door a room full of computers where kids were playing Quake. Its a pretty stunning dichotomy.

==

You get it.

Fast forward to 2009: Chau Doc province, extremely poor. Between two "houses" made of sticks and corrugated steel is a WiFi cafe with desktop PCs all manned and all on Yahoo. If you can get a few foreign penpals to send occasional money, you become wealthy enough to move out of sticks and into a house.

Then you're hearing a tiny monk telling how his father was beheaded right here (pointing to the floor) when a bunch of Cambodians came over the border in 1980 and killed an entire village. You can see how high the blood was by the color of the wall. A foot deep. An altar of bones. Things you don't photograph. Anyway.

In the upscale places we eat, that charcoal pot is in the middle of the table. Shellfish and okra grilled from raw, whole prawns on sticks, and banana flower salad. The cuisine here is simply incredible, simply incredible. MUCH better than Chinese. Real Chinese food is almost flavorless, the stuff we get in USA is SE Asian influenced even before the Big Chunks of Meat Amiericanization. Flavors here are rich and variegated.

Hanoi is pretty grim compared to the south; ruder, older, ugly, more dangerous. Even taxis get lost. I love it in Cần Thơ. Saigon is very crowded.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

leichtman writes
"I don't recall Obama outraising Hillary by much. Hillary lost b/c
of the youth vote and being framed as a
candidate of the past Obama the future.
Obama was simply the better candidate even
though not my choice, but I don t recall Hillary having fundraising issues."


That's the point: HRC didn't have any trouble raising big money, but Obama raised money from far more people. HRC courted the party movers & shakers, while Obama went after voters. Seems to be precisely what ddawd hypothesizes: raising big money from small numbers of people is not an indicator of electoral success if your opponent is getting money from larger numbers of poeple.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 16, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1 I don't recall Obama outraising Hillary by much. Hillary lost b/c
of the youth vote and being framed as a
candidate of the past Obama the future.
Obama was simply the better candidate even
though not my choice, but I don t recall Hillary having fundraising issues. There
was a brief time after the southern primaries
in March 2008, where she was short of funds b/c of Mark Penn, but that only lasted 2-3 weeks. I have to disagree Hillary didn't lose b/c of money, Obama made the Change and Generational argument better, to my regret.
Bill also made a few faux pas that no amount
of additional fund raising could fix.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2: I'd bet major Jack there are at least two, the denials are meaningless since the nut bar lies all the time anyway. The rational-wrong one tries to emulate the formatting of the all-cap goofball but everything else is different.

Look for focus. The nut job is extremely scattered, the r-w one can stick to an idea long enough to develop it, even if it is batsh*t.

Done this many years. Very few conservatrolls can reason even within their own rigid framework. "fly off the handle" is what they're all about.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

'In this case, I detect structural/linguistic and other semiotic differences between this the rational (though almost always wrong) 37th and the nut bar. I think I detect two different people,'

no question about it. a few people here think '37' is a georgetown frat house for pimply preppy rich kids. sounds about right.

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

noacoler writes
"As should at least be evident about your notion that I wouldn't have connectivity here, you don't know anything about this place. There is wider WiFi availability than in the US"

10 years ago I visited Hanoi. After checking into a hotel, we went for a walk. On the one hand we were stepping around people cooking their evening meal in a bucket of charcoal on the sidewalk; then we cut through an alley to get to the main road & saw through an open door a room full of computers where kids were playing Quake. Its a pretty stunning dichotomy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 16, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Shrink:

Are you familiar with the concept of rapid cycling?

Posted by: Bondosan | April 16, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

S.E.C. Accuses Goldman Sachs of Fraud on Mortgage Deals

"Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a deal that helped investors capitalize on collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers."

Breaking News, NY Times

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 16, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"Pat Toomey: Toomey, the former congressman turned Club for Growth president turned Senate candidate, has been one of the most surprisingly strong fundraising performers of the 2010 election cycle. "

why is this surprising? Hedge fund managers have all the money in the world and they don't want to pay a cent of it in taxes. who else would they support but the king of deadbeats?

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

ddawd asks
"Does anyone out there know of a study that correlates source of political funding with electoral success???"

Dem POTUS primary, 2008.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 16, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

self funded candidates with little name id or political skills are usually unsuccesful and why I have my doubts that either Whitman or Fiorina (of break Passover bread fame) will be succesful in Nov. The reason collecting a
$1 from a voter or having them putting up your sign or bumper sticker is impt is b/c it
psychologically seals the deal with that one
voter but not much more. Coakley and Brown
both had equal funds but Brown was viewed
as an authetic candidate, Coakley a phony.
Money is nice but money can't buy you love
ddawd.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Well there are the three faces of eve types, multiple personality disorder, supposedly.

In this case, I detect structural/linguistic and other semiotic differences between this the rational (though almost always wrong) 37th and the nut bar. I think I detect two different people, but, we'll never know.

A guy much smarter than I makes a nice living working on proving authorship of various manuscripts, letters, etc. for forensic purposes. He loads items of known provenance into a computer and, within parameters of course, seems to be able to detect whether the unknown document was created by the same person.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama said "Whether we like it or not, America remains a dominant military power"

Only one person - a really far leftist - has even tried to defend this statement.

So the conclusion must be that even the Obama supporters here are so HORRIFIED by Obama's statement that they don't even want to talk about it.

OR

Is the truth that the Obama supporters are FINALLY REALIZING that Obama is WAY OUT-OF-TOUCH with who we want as a President.

come on, let's hear the truth.


Obama showed his TRUE COLORS IN THIS STATEMENT - He does not like America - he does not like the AMERICA THAT WE ARE ALL PROUD OF.

I would even go further - and say that the support of individual rights and freedoms - WHICH MAKES US ALL AMERICAN - Obama does not care one way or the other about the Bill of Rights and individual rights.


Obama views the Constitution - with its individual freedoms and Bill of Rights - as the vehicle of slavery -


And Obama is obsessed with the slavery clauses - and the slaveholders who signed the Constitution.

Obama just does not RESPECT the Constitution.


Yea, this is the truth - and the sooner the liberals realize this about Obama the better for everyone.


Because right now we have a situation in this country in which Obama has pulled A MASSIVE FRAUD ON THIS COUNTRY - going around the country for two years claiming he was a bipartisan moderate and in fact he was a far-left liberal.

But the real situation is that EVEN THE LIBERALS don't really know where Obama and his little cabal of RADICALS stand.


Yea, just think about that for a moment because IT IS THE TRUTH.


We have a President who REALLY DOESNT CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT BECAUSE SOMEHOW HE VIEWS IT AS A WAY TO RE-DISTRIBUTE WEALTH.

And that probably is wrong all by itself -


AND we have all sorts of liberals who JUSTIFY OBAMA'S SPENDING BECAUSE BUSH SPENT MONEY IN IRAQ - AND THAT IS JUST STUPID.

So we have this crazy situation in which the budget deficit is going to be OUT OF CONTROL UNTIL REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN GET CONTROL.

How much is that going to cost the nation???

You can not raise taxes in a recession - the recovery is going to be choked off.

You see - WHAT OBAMA REALLY WANTS IS TO WIPE OUT OF THE WEALTH OF THIS NATION -


AND OBAMA WANTS TO START ALL OVER WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DISTRIBUTE OF WEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY - THROUGH THE TAXES.

THAT IS WHAT OBAMA WANTS TO SLIP IN - WHEN YOU AREN'T WATCHING THAT IS WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I am one person

Aren't you hanging in pit yet?

==

As should at least be evident about your notion that I wouldn't have connectivity here, you don't know anything about this place. There is wider WiFi availability than in the US, and no pit hanging.

Being a network/computer security geek, I see yet another way to avoid idleness here, and make money .. not only are routers unsecured, they still have the factory logins and passwords. Which of course i know. I could totally screw up about two dozen wireless routers sitting in my hotel room were I so inclined, which I'm not.

I'll be forming a company in a few months just for network security. It is SO easy to make money here. One guy came with $50K, bought two cars, started a taxi company, made it all back in four months, now he's rich.

Tell me again how nobody's motivated to work in Socialist economies, I need a bedtime story.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1, I think where the money is coming from is more important than how much money the candidate has. Suppose you and I are running for Texas governor and I raise three as much money as you. I get all my money from CfG and Focus on the Family and my own pockets while you go and get your money from donations from Texas residents.

I'd say you've got a huge advantage over me despite being outraised by so much because you're getting money from voters meaning you've got the skill to reach them. I don't.

I wish this was studied more extensively. Or perhaps it has. I'll try the Mark Method.

Does anyone out there know of a study that correlates source of political funding with electoral success???

Posted by: DDAWD | April 16, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I sympathize with Republican activists who want the party to be more conservative. I don't agree, but I sympathize.

Think back to the first half of the decade. The Democrats were pathetic. They ran the most generic, moderate candidates that they could find. I like Gore now, but in 2000 he was the blandest, most centrist Democrat in existence. And he lost. Activists wanted the party to move left, reasoning that the voters wanted an alternative instead of a center party and a center-right party. But the activists weren't successful, and we had a couple more unsuccessful election cycles with lame centrist candidates like Kerry.

It was frustrating to be a Democrat back then, because the party had no ideology. I admit that the analogy with the modern Republicans is weak. Today's Rs are far more conservative than the 2004 Ds were liberal, and the Rs are far more unified than the Ds ever are. But I still understand the frustration of party activists who think their party is too centrist and want to pick a candidate that actually reflects their views. It's the same impulse that led liberals to vote Nader in 2000. They want a candidate they can be excited about, even if he's not likely to win.

Posted by: Blarg | April 16, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"Pat Toomey: Toomey, the former congressman turned Club for Growth president turned Senate candidate, has been one of the most surprisingly strong fundraising performers of the 2010 election cycle. "

why is this surprising? Hedge fund managers have all the money in the world and they don't want to pay a cent of it in taxes. who else would they support but the king of deadbeats?

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1, I think where the money is coming from is more important than how much money the candidate has. Suppose you and I are running for Texas governor and I raise three as much money as you. I get all my money from CfG and Focus on the Family and my own pockets while you go and get your money from donations from Texas residents.

I'd say you've got a huge advantage over me despite being outraised by so much because you're getting money from voters meaning you've got the skill to reach them. I don't.

I wish this was studied more extensively. Or perhaps it has. I'll try the Mark Method.

Does anyone out there know of a study that correlates source of political funding with electoral success???

Posted by: DDAWD | April 16, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

So Andy Coats is going to walk away with the GOP nomination? This poll (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/13/seemingly-tight-gop-primary-fo) says if that's so, he sure is walking slow.

Coats 29 %
Hostettler 26%
Stulzman 18%

Posted by: sean4 | April 16, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"Shallow. Racist. Confused. Stuttering. Bald. Zit faced. Cheap. Angry. Envious. Lonely. Pedantic. Annoying. Ignorant.

Posted by: Moonbat" |

Welcome to projection-land.
"
the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way. "

where's your resume zouk? we're still waiting.

what's it like on the playground this morning, lurking? kind of chilly, huh?

Posted by: drindl | April 16, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Adding up all the reported totals of raised funds (as opposed to funds on hand) in your column I got about $20.3 million. I noted that you discussed the Republican and Democrat Governors funds, and so thought it was worthy to add that one potential candidate, Meg Whitman, "raised" that amount all by herself. If $20 million can fall out of Meg Whitman's closet onto the California Governor's race, and fundraising really matters in politics, then she has to be considered the frontrunner going into the 2012 Presidential race.

Posted by: mesondk | April 16, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"AND Rick Perry will beat Obama in California in the November election."

It's a little like that Star Trek episode where everyone was evil and Spock had a beard.

==

You almost made me need to change my underwear

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

37th, that's why size of party affiliation matters. In political theory, there is the idea of a death spiral for a party. Now primaries will lead to nominations of centrist candidates. Not centrist in the absolute sense, but in the sense of the party. And depending on the size of the party, that can be close or far from the actual center.

Now Republicans are getting a little better in terms of party ID size, but they are still pretty damaged from the Bush years. This means that their center is going to be farther away from the national center than the Dems. Think about the 2008 election. After Obama won the nomination, he made some adjustments, but basically kept on the same course. And what did McCain do? Well, he spent the entire post-nomination period trying to disavow all the stuff he said during the primary.

Much of the Republican success has been due to their ability to break out of that cycle. You don't really have prominent teabaggers in Massachusetts, and you got the liberal Scott Brown trouncing Coakley. While McDonnell is an extremist, he hid it well in the general. And to a lesser extent, Christie did the same in NJ. (less extremist, less hiding of it)

Those might actually be the exceptions. What do you think happens if Heyworth wins in Arizona or Rubio in Florida? Rubio is at least charismatic while Heyworth is just creepy.

I guess you can make both arguments. While the environment is so in favor of Republicans, why not get as conservative as you can get? Although the counterargument is that the environment won't be this good for Republicans forever and they need to snatch up as many seats as they can.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 16, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Shrink2


You owe me $50 - please go find a charity and donate the $50 in my name.


thank you

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

shrink2, it's not unusual to have someone who'll respond rationally to discussion while simultaneously copying and pasting functionally identical political screeds. I've seen multiple people do it on this blog and on other online message boards as well. That sort of person usually starts out 100 percent in troll territory, but once they actually start reading the discussion and getting some perspective and different viewpoints, they start finding places where they can actually contribute to the discussion. But no one goes from troll to reasonable regular poster overnight, so it takes some time for them to break themselves of their former habits.

I'm not passing judgment on anything 37thand0street may or may not be doing, but I am saying that someone who appears to be two different people may be one person with conflicting habits.

Um, or that I am easily fooled by multiple people masquerading as one person.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 16, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


I am one person

Aren't you hanging in pit yet?

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

What is clear...is that there are two 37th posters, one has a personality disorder and makes no sense, politically and otherwise.

The other is this person.

If you 37th, are really one person and I'd bet $50. you are not, what happens to you, why, or perhaps, how is it you lose your mind each day, then find it again the next?

==

The one who wrote that Perry will win in California (or for that matter, anywhere) is the one not playing with a full deck. Leichtman reports that even Texas, the four-syllable version, is sick and tired of Perry's nuttiness.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Ask POTUS Phil Gramm or Guiliani how far great fundraising gets you. Or perhaps Tony Sanchez or Huffington who outspent their opponents by more than 2:1 and lost by 20 points. Bloomberg spent close to $100 million to be re-elected Mayor and won by only a few points. Raising lots of money and being a lousy candidate is a recipe for failure. Being viewed as authentic and having a compelling message trumps fundraising every time.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 16, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

What is clear...is that there are two 37th posters, one has a personality disorder and makes no sense, politically and otherwise.

The other is this person.

If you 37th, are really one person and I'd bet $50. you are not, what happens to you, why, or perhaps, how is it you lose your mind each day, then find it again the next?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin, the Democratic primary for Ohio Senate isn't quite as low-energy as it seems from the outside -- a lot of the Democratic die-hards around here are really pulling for Jennifer Brunner and are taking shots at Lee Fisher every chance they get. It's hard to say whether that's because they think Fisher will fall on his face in the general or because they adore Brunner, who's got a serious take-no-guff air about her and who's probably the state officeholder who's had the most gumption to challenge Republicans when they bash the Democrats here. Fisher will almost certainly with the primary, and there will be a lot of Ohio Democrats grumbling about it when he does.

That said, none of the people pulling for Brunner now are going to vote for Rob Portman in the general if Fisher wins the primary, and I doubt any of them will stay home on principle, either. And I think that's been why fundraising has been so sluggish for both Fisher and Brunner, even though polls show both of them leading Portman. Potential donors are hedging their bets, waiting to see who comes out on top before they chip in. Any donations they make now have a sporting chance of going to the Fisher-Brunner battle, but if they wait until the nominee is determined, they can be sure their donations will go toward the general election -- and given Portman's tremendous capacity for fundraising, they know that's where the money will be most needed.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 16, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Mark, who knew? If you want good, in depth analysis, all you have to do is...ask!

Thanks, Kurt.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 16, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Kurt.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 16, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I know that the Lieberman analogy is being applied to the Crist- Rubio race. However, does it really hold ?

Lieberman really is still in flux - there are questions about how his next election is going to go - in the Senate, his relations with the democrats really are not the greatest and always subject to speculation.

Both parties have a major problem that the moderates are finding it difficult to find a home - AND history is going to have to view the Hillary-Obama primary split in 2008 as a part of this trend.

It sure seems like both parties are going to start nominating candidates from their far extreme wings -


This WILL result in those extremists - one or the other - being elected.

THAT WILL RESULT - either way - in the electorate gaining an increasing feeling that the elected officials are out-of-touch with them.

This is a center-right country - yet there is no center-right party anymore.

Obama and his people are in the middle of purge of the only people who can save the democratic party.


What is clear is that we are not at the end game - we are at the beginning game.

Crist would be making a mistake to take a look at these polls and make his decisions - he has to think a few years down the line.

Maybe Crist can switch to a Congressional race - is there any out there for him ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Of course. It was Gail Collins, in one of the 'chats' with Brooks. They were discussing who might be the next leader of the Repubs. While Brooks was grasping at straws (he seems to think Gov Daniels, who's doing nothing to establish a nationwide machine, is going join the fray), Collins effectively summarized the dearth of quality GOP POTUS candidates.

Gail Collins wrote:
"If Palin isn’t going to be the leader/nominee, you would think that the leader/nominee would have to be somebody who could stand on the stage with her and not completely fade into the background. I know you’re a fan of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, but I watched him at the rally with Palin and Representative Michele Bachmann, and he looked as if he was one of the ushers who’d accidentally wandered onstage."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/who-will-lead-the-republican-party/?pagemode=print

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 16, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"AND Rick Perry will beat Obama in California in the November election."

It's a little like that Star Trek episode where everyone was evil and Spock had a beard.

Posted by: Bondosan | April 16, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler,
I think that Crist will make the jump to run as an independent and I think he will use this education bill to do it. If he jumps straight into the general all the polls that they cite won't mean squat. I think Meeks best chance of winning are that Crist stays in the GOP primary and gets creamed by Rubio and then Meeks runs as the moderate (which he is BTW). He then picks up alot of the Crist voters who just can't stand Rubio's conservative purity stance. If Crist runs as an independent than I think he wins, but you never know.

Posted by: AndyR3 | April 16, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"Palin on the other hand,
is a cash machine. That little number there
is just a place holder."

The interesting number, if it could be compiled, would sum the take from events where she's headlined. Did a Bachmann event here last week; I should dig up some of the coverage which included a priceless description of T-Paw, who also attended. "He looked like an usher that accidentally wandered onto the stage."

Next POTUS? Really?

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 16, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

A great deal of old-line pols wait to get their fundraising in gear - and wait to get their campaigns going - the conventional wisdom is to get an early start, but some people just don't do that.


It is that simple.

I am looking at the Republican Predidential field - and the question glares out - if the electorate looks past Mitt Romney, where does it go ???

The presence of Romney is going to soak up a great deal of the moderates in the electorate - and if Romney does not pull it together.

The REMAINING portion of the Republican primary voters will choose the nominee - take a look at the field - and I like to discount the candidates who I don't believe will "excited" the electorate - and I have come to the conclusion that Rick Perry is going to be the one who wins.

This is going to infuriate the democratic left because of the Texas ties.


Scott Brown has a great deal of energy, however he is closely tied to Romney - and the only practical way would be for Romney to step aside - which is plausible given his negatives - and move to be the man behind Scott Brown.


Romney has interesting "pieces" in his campaign - for instance the Mormon connection gives him significant support in Arizona and Colorado - and his family ties gives him a significant advantage in Michigan. All that is very interesting - especially with swing state calculations - but it really doesn't add up to enough to put him over the top.

Rick Perry has a tough image - and he has the significant advantage of already having the conservative credibility and then he can reach out toward the middle.


Rick Perry and also claim two regions - which is really really important.


Rick Perry can go around the South and claim the southern crown - and in a way he has already grabbed it - even if it was by accident.

Rick Perry can also claim the West.

Are their any other Republicans coming out of big states ??? It's not that there are small state candidates - its that the small state candidates that there are have significant hurdles in front of them.


Also, anyone who has strength who is coming from OUTSIDE of Washington is going to have a significant advantate this year - and that narrows the set in a big way.


I just don't think you are going to have 5 Senators running this time, like in 2008. Are there any ??

I just think that Rick Perry is sitting in the right spot at the right time.

AND Rick Perry will beat Obama in California in the November election.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 16, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

And a lot of smart people just sort of become weird when it comes to these kinds of religious issues. Congressman Cao is a very smart guy, but when I was talking to him, he just turned into a brick wall on the topic.

==

exactly like Nixon on Communism, or Bush the Lesser on, well, everything

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"You really think the others want to read how much you hate me (and dirndl, and DDAWD, and all the others)? Day in, day out, punctuated only by extravagant boasts about yourself that NOBODY believes?"

Physician, heal thyself.

Posted by: Blarg | April 16, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Rubio is ideologicallyt unsavory. Expect most of the 41% no-opinion to break toward unfavorable once he starts enumerating his McDonnellesque beliefs. The race is Crist's to lose.

Meeks is doing better than I would have thought, though, but he could get it if Crist tries too hard to please the conservatives.

Clearly a pivotal race.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

In trying to find out how much money Meek raised, I found this...

April 15, 2010

Poll gives Marco Rubio 23-point lead on Charlie Crist; Crist even as indie

The latest Quinnipiac University poll:
Marco Rubio has opened up an elephant-sized 56-33 percent lead over Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida's U.S. Senate Republican primary, but in a three-way general election with Rubio on the GOP line, Crist as an independent and Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, Crist has a razor- thin edge, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Gov. Crist leads Meek 48-34 percent in a general election matchup, while Rubio's margin over the Democrat is just 42-38 percent...

... In a three-way general election:
Crist would get 30 percent of Republicans, 27 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independent voters;

Rubio would receive 64 percent of GOP votes, 5 percent from Democrats and 29 percent of independents;

Meek, a congressman from South Florida, would get 55 percent of Democratic votes, 15 percent of independents and no Republicans.

Meek is much less known than either of the Republicans with 73 percent of voters not knowing enough about him to rate him either favorably or unfavorably. Rubio is rated favorably by 36 percent; unfavorably by 22 percent and 41 percent don't have an opinion. Crist is viewed favorably by 48 percent, unfavorably by 35 percent and just 13 percent don't know enough about him to have an opinion.

tampabay.com

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Also for all the fanfare of Coats in Indiana, all indicators are that his prospects are going up like a lead balloon. Ellsworth may walk into the Senate in a way he never would have imagined two months ago.

==

maybe running as the "anti-Obama" has limited appeal. Y'think?

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Thank Kurt,
Your explanation makes a lot of sense. In addition, although Portman is up in the money race, Fisher and Brunner are in a dead heat with him in the cummulative polling. Also Portman is going to have to answer a few questions about his roll in the Bush economic policies that got us all in the mess we are in. I know the GOP is high on Portman but I think this may be a situation where Fisher pulls an upset, but he will definitly need more money to do that than he has now.

Also for all the fanfare of Coats in Indiana, all indicators are that his prospects are going up like a lead balloon. Ellsworth may walk into the Senate in a way he never would have imagined two months ago.

Posted by: AndyR3 | April 16, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

wino's = won't.

Darn iPad spellchecker winky winky winky

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor raised $1.5 million through his federal PAC and six-affiliated state PACS, a total that dwarfed the cash collection of potential 2012 rivals like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty ($556,000 raised) and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin ($401,000).

==

Since when is either a "potential" rival for the 2012 sacrificial goat? Palin is totally out of the running, too firmly tagged as nutty and scattered and stupid, even a majority of *Republicans* convinced she is unfit to be president. There is zero chance of a reversal of that kind of judgment. ZERO. Unpopular can change; unfit can't. Quit mentioning her.

And Pawlenty .. as many have pointed out, this is the only column on the planet giving ink to Drowsy Tim. He's not a rival. He's just a guy who wants the job and he wino's last as long as Tancredo.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

input this URL:
( http://www.shoptrade.us/ )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

Posted by: 898551828 | April 16, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin, I'll try to give you a little insight on the Fisher-Brunner primary here in Ohio.

I've known and supported Lee Fisher for more than twenty years. He will get my vote on May 4(and some more of my money).

But I'll confess to being surprised at his low fundraising total for the quarter, too.

Lee has a well-earned reputation as a prodigious fundraiser.

My take:

1. It's been a very quiet primary.

Jennifer Brunner, as Chris points out, has raised practically no money. She had a chance to spark her campaign at a recent Cleveland City Club debate and did not.

There are virtually no policy differences between them.

Lee did start his TV this week, reflecting that the race is close enough for him to have to spend money to seal the deal.

Recent poll has him up seven points among likely primary voters, but with 40% undecided.

I find this surprising, especially with these two very well-known Democrats.

2. There was a campaign staff shake-up a bit ago.

Campaign manager left/was fired. Others too.

Guessing this sapped some fundraising momentum during the transition.

3. People are waiting-and-seeing.

Tried-and-true primary behavior.

Both candidates are liked by Ohio Democrats, including me. So rather than upset either candidate by giving to their opponent, they're hedging their bets and not giving to either.

Anyway, that's how I see it from the shores of Lake Erie.

Posted by: kurtolandefeld | April 16, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

zouk, you find me more fascinating than I find myself. What does that say about your uh "life?"

You really think the others want to read how much you hate me (and dirndl, and DDAWD, and all the others)? Day in, day out, punctuated only by extravagant boasts about yourself that NOBODY believes?

Next time you feel a hate-faht coming on, write it on a piece of paper and burn it, maybe the Tibetans are onto something there.

Loser.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Back off topic:

I am typing with one hand and in the other holding a bundle pf cash,

185,000,000 Đồng ("downgm"), buying another piece of land tomorrow. Oh! if one it was as many dollars. Took me months to pronounce the ng and m sounds at the same time.

I'm not lonely, zouk, matter of fact time to myself is rare and precious. Funny how you do't get that. But hey, thanks for the friend request!!!

Back on topic and two-handed:

Hope we're done hearing about Dan Coats, the "ant-Obama." That was a sickeningly stupid blog entry.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Shallow. Racist. Confused. Stuttering. Bald. Zit faced. Cheap. Angry. Envious. Lonely. Pedantic. Annoying. Ignorant.

Welcome to Foxxy's Facebook page.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 16, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

As for remembering Dallas and Dynasty, I remember that they came on during my bedtime, haha. I'm aware of these shows, but have no clue what they're about.

==

Never saw them myself and I was pretty much done with TV by then, but they were basically nighttime soap operas about rich families, the nasty head trips they played on one another and the dazzling life of the obscenely wealthy. Middle class and poor people tuned in avidly. It was the final boil on the rear end of a loathsomely shallow decade.

TV audiences fawning over the lives of the wealthy. (spits)

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Poor lonely Ped.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 16, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

And they do it out of a want to help babies

==

Emphatic disagreement. If they cared about babies they would care about them when they *became* babies, instead of only caring about fetuses. I do think it is *exactly* like gay marrige, a desire to hurt people, specifically women and "immoral people spurning God's gifts," because lactating women aside, the concern drops to zero at birth and most prolifers don't give a damn if the baby starves to death a week later.

I acknowledge that Joe Cao may be an exception, but in 30 odd years of following this issue it's only lactting women among prolifers who actually do care about *babies*.

I see no coincidence in the political ascendance of the prolife movement coming at the same time as the ascendance of concern for overpopulation, and I think it's driven just like the other atroturf movements, by corporate business.

Forty or fifty million abortions since RvW is tat many fewer consumers of gasoline, cigarettes, Batman T-shirts and Whitney Houston CDs. This is my firm belief.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

And they do it out of a want to help babies

==

Emphatic disagreement. If they cared about babies they would care about them when they *became* babies, instead of only caring about fetuses. I do think it is *exactly* like gay marrige, a desire to hurt people, specifically women and "immoral people spurning God's gifts," because lactating women aside, the concern drops to zero at birth and most prolifers don't give a damn if the baby starves to death a week later.

I acknowledge that Joe Cao may be an exception, but in 30 odd years of following this issue it's only lactting women among prolifers who actually do care about *babies*.

I see no coincidence in the political ascendance of the prolife movement coming at the same time as the ascendance of concern for overpopulation, and I think it's driven just like the other atroturf movements, by corporate business.

Forty or fifty million abortions since RvW is tat many fewer consumers of gasoline, cigarettes, Batman T-shirts and Whitney Houston CDs. This is my firm belief.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I think Barbour really likes being a behind-the-scenes kingmaker and strategist. I'm not saying that he wouldn't like being President more, but I do think he enjoys what his job entails.

I also think he would be honest with himself as to whether he has a realistic chance of winning. (As opposed to a guy who I shall not name, but it rhymes with Schim Schawlenty). I think Barbour is too conservative to win a general election and I can see him coming to that same conclusion.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 16, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Why isn't Sarah Palin on the losers list? Her PAC raised less than half of what Romney and Pawlenty hauled in, and it still spent more on copies of "Rogue" and travel expenses than it did actually donating to GOP campaigns. That's an embarrassment.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | April 16, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the report, CC.

Is the OH disaffection on the D side a function of a low energy primary, where neither candidate is foaming and churning? Or is it a sign of no love for Ds at all?

OH people, please chime in. When I asked for FL people to help us understand the D victory the other day, by the end of the day a poster called LawyerMom provided the kernel of local information we needed to understand. I hope for the same result here. That is the value of this blog.

It is an irony to note that the RGA is apparently gaining from a R governor's implosion. It really does say something about Barbour as a fundraiser, at least for others. I think he will remain a power behind the scene in the R Party, and not succumb to the siren call of running for POTUS.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 16, 2010 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Noa, glad you liked my posts.

Actually, the abortion issue is one I'm relatively sympathetic towards. Now I don't think much of the politicized movement which is just to create a wedge issue than to do a damn thing to reduce abortions, but I do think that people truly feel strongly about it whether its religious or not. And they do it out of a want to help babies. This is different from something like being anti-gay marriage which is derived purely from a desire to hurt a group of people. And I'm not sure if people who are anti-abortion think about things like blastocysts. I have a feeling that a good number of them think that a fully formed baby is there from the moment of conception. And a lot of smart people just sort of become weird when it comes to these kinds of religious issues. Congressman Cao is a very smart guy, but when I was talking to him, he just turned into a brick wall on the topic.

As for HCR, it costs money, but it also has cost saving measures. For as much as Republicans claim to be such business experts, they seem to have a hard time understanding that you pay an upfront cost to try and make money later. Is that so hard to understand? Well, I guess if they can't wrap their minds around "jobs saved", we can't expect too much more than that. But we all know the CBO numbers saying that the bill will actually ADD about $2trillion back to US coffers over 20 years. Is this wrong? Probably. It's hard to predict over 20 years. But are they by far the best predictors we have? Yeah. They have studied it a lot more than say 37th has. And they could be wrong, but they could be wrong in either direction. But there's nothing that said that Democrats needed to make the law cost saving. However, that's something the Dems took upon themselves to do. Obama promised very early on that the bill wouldn't add a dime to the deficit. Will it? Well, the people who have studied the issue the most says it will actually save 20 trillion dimes. And it's pretty disingenuous for those who will disregard CBO simply because they don't like the results for health care and then turn around and use the CBO numbers for total deficit. Staggering numbers, to say the least, but the CBO could wrong on that too, right?

As for remembering Dallas and Dynasty, I remember that they came on during my bedtime, haha. I'm aware of these shows, but have no clue what they're about.

.

.

.

Obama rulez

Posted by: DDAWD | April 16, 2010 6:53 AM | Report abuse

"Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the chairman of the RGA, is taking full advantage of the opportunity afforded to him by Mark Sanford's implosion -- collecting record sums of cash and building chits if and when he decides to run for president in 2012."


Thanks for the morning smile Chris.
If Haley Barbour runs for President, ever, I'll be a monkey's uncle and
I'll eat my hat.

But wouldn't that be something?
From Bush to Obama to Barbour?
Kinda makes your head spin,
just thinking about it.

Crist is a surprise.
Sure we thought he wouldn't beat Rubio's, but that number is a disaster.

Pawlenty is nothing, except here.
Shouldn't his $ number qualify him to be featured down on the Losers list?

Palin on the other hand,
is a cash machine. That little number there
is just a place holder.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 6:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company