 |
|
Well, it’s official, ladies and gentlemen. Believe it or not, Rep. Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texan who hardly ever gets mentioned in Republican political news and the one-time libertarian who always gets the least time on TV debates if he isn’t barred completely, was, in fact, the most successful Republican fundraiser in the last three months of 2007. By a Texas mile. By the thousands Paul’s fervent followers donated $19.95 million to the "Ron Paul Revolution." He spent $17.75 million and at year’s end had $7.8 million cash on hand, making him the only Republican candidate to increase his fundraising totals in every quarter of 2007. According to his website, Paul’s Paulunteers have contributed another $4.1 million this month to… fuel the strict constitutionalist’s travels and advertising campaign. Compare that impressive financial success with, say, the late candidate Rudy Giuliani, who raised only $14.4 million from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31 and spent $18.2 million. Or the departed Fred Thompson, who collected $8.9 million and spent $13.9 million. Or even the newly-minted Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain, who raked in only $9.9 million, spent $10.5 million and had only $2.9 million cash in hand. Of course, McCain’s string of primary victories in January will have boosted his financial fortunes. Everybody loves a winner. Mitt Romney actually raised only $9.2 million from other people last quarter, less than half of Paul’s haul. However, the former Massachusetts governor — and if he keeps spending at this rate the quite possibly former multimillionaire — gave himself $18 million more of his own money last fall for a total of $27.2 million and $2.4 million cash on hand. The former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who’s had trouble raising money, issued an unusual statement Thursday night. "My presidential campaign," he said, "has defied the odds and will continue to do so, as we head into the Super Tuesday primaries, proving the power of of message over money and mechanics." The statement did not include any Huckabee figures for the fourth quarter. Which suggests that the winner of the Republican caucuses in Iowa didn’t have a very good fourth quarter. So a certain suspicious blogger, lead by the experienced hand of The Times’ campaign finance expert Dan Morain, went to the website of the Federal Election Commission and looked up Huckabee’s fourth quarter report. It seems he raised about $6.7 million, a third of Paul’s sum, while spending $7.08 million, leaving him on New Year’s Eve with cash on hand of only $651,300.68. No wonder he didn’t mention numbers in the news release. Now, this month Huckabee will have received some donations after his Jan. 3 Iowa win. But it does raise serious questions about how long the Arkansan can continue to compete after Feb. 5 or even how much he can do before other than get on as many free radio and TV shows as possible. Paul, who’s done well in some symbolic straw polls and little-noticed state caucuses until his best showing so far as a second-place finisher to Romney in the Nevada caucuses, has repeatedly disavowed a third-party effort if his bid to be the Republican nominee in St. Paul next summer falls short. His determined followers maintain that a news media conspiracy is holding down Paul’s success at the polls, although obviously word has gotten out to somebody for him to raise such sums. Paul’s outspoken stands, including withdrawal from Iraq and drastic downsizing of the federal government, run counter to each of his GOP competitors. As for Paul’s campaign, his loyal troops plan another "money bomb," a big fundraising day, today in honor of Ron and Carol Paul’s 51st wedding anniversary. One of the obvious gifts: the undisputed GOP fundraising championship for the last three months of 2007. –Andrew Malcolm
If you’ve been doing your share of rightwing monitoring, you know they’re taking Obama seriously. The just released their 27th Annual Vote Ratings for 2007, and lo and behold, Barack Obama has won first place as the #1 most liberal senator. And the news is spreading rapidly. And just in time for the election! What a coincidence! John McCain is totally salivating. Yeah, right. This is almost as far-fetched as Obama’s post-partisan narrative. Almost. Hillary Clinton came in as merely the 16th most liberal senator. Coincidentally, when John Kerry ran for president, he too had the dubious honor of being named the #1 most liberal senator. A lot of people use the ranking system of the wannabe social scientists at the ; it’s cited in otherwise reputable publications. I’ve used it myself. What a waste of my time. See Steve Benen for some details on the ’s really pathetic methodology. But somebody besides the Heritage Foundation has to make stuff up for the RNC. And it’s certainly been a fun week for the RNC wingnuts in charge of defining Obama. First Obama got the endorsement of the baddest liberal on the planet. Now he’s officially the most liberal senator on the planet. The scary videos are definitely in the works, if they’re not already over at Youtube. Maybe Obama will awaken from his post-partisan delusions and come down to earth and join us in the cultural war before they finish him off as , I can hardly wait for the movie. Chris Bowers plugs the Progressive Punch ranking system which looks considerably more realistic: “Progressive Punch produces very different rankings between Clinton and ObamaMaybe Hillary will get a break now that they have Obama to kick around. Graphic swiped from Wonkette
I’ve had a lot of people asking me who I’m voting for in next week’s Arizona Presidential Preference Primary Election. Ever since Bill Richardson proved himself too inept at basic progressive messages to deserve my continued support, I’ve been uncommitted. I’m not bowled over by Hillary Clinton. I like her well enough, she’s incredibly brilliant and, when not under the often-inexplicable tight controls of her advisers and consultants, is actually very warm and caring. A lot of people I know and like and respect very much are voting for Barack Obama. The enthusiasm with which they support the Senator from Illinois just baffles me. I have yet to see what they see. He talks a good game, but there’s always been something mostly intangible that kept me from really feeling like I could get behind his candidacy. Until this week. I figured it out. I’m looking for a fighter. I’m a red meat voter. As important as ideology and experience are to me, I want a nominee who will be a partisan pugilist. This isn’t just a short-term battle for an elected office. This has long-term, big-picture implications for how elections will be won for generations to come. Here’s my major beef with Obama: his “post-partisan” message does nothing to shift the center of mainstream political discourse in this country back to the left, where it historically sat. He praises Ronald Reagan. He says the Republican Party is the party of ideas. He defends a homophobic preacher who he allowed to emcee a fundraising concert on his behalf with the excuse that we have to accept all points of view. This is worse than failing to shift the discourse to the left; “post-partisan” just reinforces the current rightward tilt of the center of mainstream political discourse. Nothing will change with this as Obama’s message if he is the nominee, because the Republicans will not stop distorting and lying and attacking anything that would even remotely benefit the common good. This approach may be bringing a lot of new people into politics who have never participated before. But I would rather people be engaged because of the issues, and the fact that Democrats are, by and large, right on the issues, than by empty rhetoric about how mean everyone in Washington is toward each other. This is especially frustrating because it is the Republican Party who has been, by and large, wrong on the issues but never reluctant to attack their political opponents anyway. Let’s not forget that George W. Bush ran for President in 2000 by claiming to be “a uniter, not a divider”. Then he went on to become the most divisive and reviled and destructive president since the Civil War. Obama’s message is rhetorically identical, but the difference is he believes his own hype. I worry that he won’t fight back when he’s attacked because he’s so concerned about maintaining the moral high ground. Remember how John Kerry lost in 2004 because he seemed constitutionally incapable of fighting back hard enough or fast enough when he was attacked? We’ve seen Senator Obama and his surrogates willing to attack his primary opponents, but we’ve seen little evidence that he’s willing or able to attack Republicans or Republican ideas (the really dangerous ones that he actually seems to herald). I can find fault with Senator Clinton too, many of them in fact. But I know that when she’s attacked, she’ll fight back, hard and fast. She won’t cede any more of the political discourse to the reactionaries on the right. I believe that she, more than Obama, will move the country back towards the left where it needs to be, has historically been, and belongs. In other words, Obama supporters don’t seem to see the forest for the trees when it comes to the long-term implications of a “post-partisan” campaign. This is a primary competition, after all. Where’s my red meat? With all that said, I will enthusiastically support whichever Democrat wins enough delegates to secure our nomination. That person will make history as the first African-American or woman President of the United States.
|
Categories
Blogroll
|
|||||||
01/31/2008 
