The always excellent Marc Abinder brings us a preview of the October fundraising numbers. This of course will have tremendous implications for the direction of the GOP primary.
Romney has loaned himself nearly $9M, which, when subtracted from his $12M cash-on-hand, would suggest that receipts in have not kept pace with disbursements, generally, which have totaled more than $32M. Romney donors said that they had been told that Romney was prepared to spend another $5M to keep his campaign's budget intact. They give a range of $10M to $12M for individual contributions in the third quarter.
John McCain will raise between $4 and $5M; Fred Thompson will probably raise around $6M.
If this is true that Fred Thompson is barely ahead of John McCain in the fundraising department, it certainly does not bode well for Team Thompson. Even considering that Thompson has not revved up the engine throughout the third quarter, he should have been able to reach out and tap the primary network of contributors for a big initial flush of cash. Either his network isn't very big, or the enthusiasm with which his campaign has been received will receive a cold shower.
Earlier this week, I posted an article that explains what is now conventional wisdom: Hillary cannot be stopped. This week, in protest to that popular meme, several bloggers argued that it was still way too early in the process. This post by Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics is typical:
Again, to Jay's point, the polls right now dictate the chatter, but they hardly give any indication about where we're headed. Let's take a quick look back at the trajectory of the '04 race in Iowa. In late October 2003 - still another four weeks from where we are in this year's race - Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt were running neck and neck, with John Kerry a distant third and John Edwards a very distant fourth. The race remained frozen in that position through the beginning of January as shown by an Iowa Poll taken just two weeks before the caucuses. Another Iowa poll taken just days before the vote picks up on the significant movement occurring as people focused on the race. And we all know how the final results looked...
That certainly is true, in 2004 things did shift enormously, at least two times on the Democratic side. We had the collapse and rebirth of John Kerry, we had the collapse of Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt.
But my argument is not based on the idea that Hillary is unassailable because she is so far ahead. Rather she is so far ahead because her challengers are fatally flawed candidates. In other words. She's unstoppable because there is no one running who can stop her.
Both Edwards and Obama have a huge experience gap with the potential Republican nominee. They both have gotten where they are through good messaging and hard work. I don't want to shortchange that, but it can only get you so far. Earlier this year I speculated that Richardson might rally the anti-Hillary vote. But he is just too goofy, to put it nicely. Whatever it is that defines being "presidential" Richardson does not have, not even an ounce. Which is too bad for the Democrats, but that's another story.
Harry Reid pulled the plug on an effort to get the DREAM act passed in the defense authorization bill:
"We will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here. I"m going to do my utmost to do it by November 16," Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said last night.
The proposal faced strong opposition from Republicans who objected to mixing immigration with the defense bill and who vowed to filibuster to defeat the measure if Democrats insisted on bringing it up now.
The atmosphere around any kind of immigration reform is extremely poisonous. The flaw of this bill is in the proof of residency, as this Heritage report tells us:
There is no upper age limit. Any illegal alien can walk into a U.S. Customs and Immigration Services office and declare that he is eligible. For example, a 45 year old can claim that he illegally entered the United States 30 years ago at the age of 15. There is no requirement that the alien prove that he entered the United States at the claimed time by providing particular documents. The DREAM Act's Section 4(a) merely requires him to "demonstrate" that he is eligible-which in practice could mean simply making a sworn statement to that effect. Thus, it is an invitation for just about every illegal alien to fraudulently claim the amnesty.
There might be a good law waiting to be made around the idea of a pass to illegal aliens who broke the law through the actions of their parents and not on their own accord. But this isn't it.
Reid and the other Democrats may give this another go, but without key Republicans and the White House on board, it's probably a lost cause for them.
67-29 which is a veto sustaining majority in the Senate. President Bush has already declared an intention to veto, with some extremely masterful language:
Today, the Senate passed a State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill that fails to focus on poor children, and instead creates a new entitlement program for higher income households. In fact, the bill specifically eliminates the requirement that states enroll 95% of children in households under 200% of the federal poverty level.
The President will veto this bill because it directs scarce funding to higher incomes at the expense of poor families.
We encourage Congress to send the President a continuing resolution extending SCHIP so coverage for the children who rely on the program will not be threatened. We should take this time to arrive at a more rational, bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization bill that focuses on children in poor families who don't currently have insurance, rather than raising taxes to cover people who already have private insurance.
When the bill passed the House, it did not do so with enough votes to sustain a veto in that body. I would expect that the Democrats would want to put it up for another vote, just to increase the pressure "for the children." This issue is just too easy to demagogue, they won't give up that opportunity.
On the merits of the bill, I'm with the president completely. If the politicians want to do something to help working class families around health care, how about full tax credits for health care? How about coming up with a comprehensive solution to the portability problem? In my opinion this is all about fixing a problem that largely does not exist for the opportunity to beat your political opponent about the head and neck.
Pass SCHIP as it was last year and move on to a real issue.
Considering what we've been talking about this is probably the most significant story from the latest Democratic Debate held last night. None of the top three candidates, apparently, will guarantee an Iraq exit should they be elected:
Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."
Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."
Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."
Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others did step up to make a commitment, but I find it the weasel wording here very telling. We're not leaving Iraq, not for a long time. It does not matter who is in the White House. The circumstances in the Middle East will essentially force their hand. An Iraq that devolves into a stateless area like Somalia would be a disaster for everyone in the region, and us as well. So it's not going to happen.
This doesn't mean that the Democrats won't continue to wax rhetorical about how Bush needs to start the withdrawal. Why not take him and the Republicans down a few notches? It's an easy target. But as far as doing the practical things to force a withdrawal? As everyone can see with their own eyes, the Democrats have had the majority for nine months now and it hasn't happened yet. The leading candidates won't commit. Connect the dots.
Marc Cooper writes about a huge miss for the John Edwards camp at the Huffington Post:
The top leadership of the SEIU met all day Monday in Chicago to consider who to back in the Democratic primaries but decided to postpone any formal endorsement. For at least two years Edwards has been laboring to line up union support which his strategists see as crucial to any realistic chance to capture the Democratic nomination. "John had been counting on the unions as a sort of super-charger, an after-burner," said a California operative of the Edwards campaign. "But now we are in danger of a flame-out."
And that this is all a huge bitter blow considering all the work Edwards has done since 2004, when he was the labor nominee:
Since the conclusion of the failed 2004 Democratic campaign, Edwards had been meticulously trying to build a solid, national union base. He walked endless picket lines, attended dozens of labor rallies and built strong personal relationships with top union leaders like Stern. His honed economic populist program was sweet music to union ears and six months ago an SEIU endorsement of Edwards seemed almost a slam dunk.
But that the SEIU is not about to get burned again:
SEIU officials are openly concerned that their once-favored Edwards is running a distant third in most national and state polls (with the exception of Iowa) and may no longer be a viable candidate, no matter how many union resources are poured into his campaign.
Elizabeth Edwards is showing twice or three times the fight of her husband, as Hotline recaps:
-- She emerged from WH '04 w/legions of admirers, and drew respect and warm condolences from every corner 3/22 when she announced her cancer had returned. But since then she has evolved into her husband's chief attacker, launching salvos at HRC and Obama that others (esp. would-be first ladies) wouldn't dare. -- In today's NY Daily News, she continues to hit Clinton: "She's wrong on how it is we get univ. health care, and her own experience should have taught her that." The Clintons "lost the fight" in '93, she said, because they used their "pol. capital" on NAFTA. Their "stick-to-it-iveness ... wasn't there." -- Quite notably, the NYDN says, Camp Clinton "declined to respond to Edwards' broadsides."
She is the campaign's biggest asset, and I believe may even be the major force driving her husband to continue what has to be, at this point, a hopeless exercise. Lightning will not strike twice and Edwards will not be picked this time for a VP slot. It's hard to tell with John, but for Elizabeth the motive is transparent. She's a true believer in the liberal cause. She doesn't just say this stuff to get a few percentage points or because it will get more campaign cash. She's been lurking on Democratic sites since forever (what other candidate or candidates wife does that?). She wants to win.
Mark my words, at some point she will run in her own right. Senator from North Carolina, maybe a move to a friendlier state? Maybe we'll call it Hillary II.
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.Self-identified liberals were evenly divided-45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that "stunts like the MoveOn.org ad" hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) of moderates and 57% of conservatives say that these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote.
Of course this seriously smacks of all the polls on negative political ads. The ones where folks are asked how much they hate negative ads, and they say "A lot!". But they listen to them and vote according to negative ads anyway.
It's an amazing sweep. MoveOn managed to unite most of the country -- against MoveOn. Eli Pariser planned on making this into a series of ads, but he'd do better by burying the Betray Us theme and hope everyone forgets about it -- and quickly
Let's recap, it did absolutely nothing to help Democrats on Iraq, or to stop the war, but it did embarrass a lot of Democratic candidates who were put in a tight spot of having to renounce the organization that has been a major source of funds. Well done!
James Dobson does not speak for the religious right, says another card-carrying member:
Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer contends that conservative Christians should seriously consider supporting Thompson if they want to avoid a "nightmare scenario" where they are forced to choose between two pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidates – Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
"He (Thompson)'s obviously against same-sex marriage. He doesn't support quite the same constitutional amendment that some of the others of us do, but he's been talking with us about it, and has been moving closer and closer on the amendment," said Bauer, who is president of American Values, according to OneNewsNow.
"So I hope that we can, as a movement, be very wise about this, and not savage candidates that we may very well have to support in 2008 if they're running against Hillary Clinton."
As I suspected, Fred Thompson has not suffered at all from Dobson's attack, and indeed the collective blogosphere opinion was to think even more highly of Thompson. And with this latest defense it appears that Thompson can get the support of both the religious right and the libertarian elements of the GOP. It's the best of both worlds!
This is in answer to the title of Dan Balz's post at The Trail:
The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.
She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.
The question was also answered by David here a couple of days ago. But yes, Hillary is unstoppable, and it is now probably too late to parachute Al Gore in to save the party, even if the Democrats had an inclination that the party needed saving (which they don't). Hillary's got it in the bag, and it isn't even October yet.
With apologies to "Star Trek," let me just say this about John McCain's presidential aspirations: "It's dead, Jim".
Over the weekend, David Freddoso at NRO traveled to the Michigan GOP confab at Mackinac Island where just hours earlier John McCain lost his Michigan chairman. Yes they were both there:
If heintended to embarrass Sen. John McCain, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox could not really have done it more effectively than he has. His announcement Monday that he was stepping down as McCain's state chairman came just in time for this weekend's Republican retreat here, which every major GOP presidential candidate was scheduled to attend.
That's a pretty big hit. Some of us recall that in 2000 John McCain won a surprising and huge victory in the Michigan primary If he has any hope at all (and he doesn't) he needs to do the same thing in 2008. That's not going to happen when your main man in Michigan decides to jump ship. But then again, McCain was able to convince a lot of Democrats and independents to come over and vote GOP (and for him) instead of the boring and decided Democratic nomination. This year, Hillary Clinton is not quite anointed yet, and Democrats will probably choose to vote on the Democratic side.
McCain still has some potent Republican fundraisers on his Michigan team, but many of them acknowledge that it's tough to excite donors to write checks.
He has lost his campaign plane and has to travel commercial, making him less mobile -- and less able to cram in fundraisers.
Huge differences. Keep in mind that the straw poll is of party activists that paid to attend a conference, while the voters are just voters. So, we can tell that in Michigan, (and other places) there is a huge difference between what the party establishment wants, and what the rank-and-file want. Mitt Romney spent a lot of time in Michigan, his dad was governor, he has a lot of organizing money so it's not surprising he would do well.
- John McCain's support is nonexistent outside of the establishment - In fact it's so bad that Duncan Hunter is doing better. - Mike Huckabee is not breaking through anything, in fact did not attend. - Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani both do much better with the voters than the establishment.
Michigan has moved up it's primary and will be a significant factor in choosing the next president. McCain and Huckabee need to worry about that. The others, not so much.
Hillary Clinton spent some time on Fox News Sunday and told us that she would rather not be talking about MoveOn.org:
WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.
President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid - his word - afraid of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?
H. CLINTON: No, he doesn't. But I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.
I did vote for a resolution that made it clear I do not condone and do condemn attacks on any American, impugning their patriotism, and that includes people like Senator Max Cleland and Senator John Kerry.
I think we need to call a halt to any kind of attacks, from wherever they come, that would go after anyone based on their service to America.
Pretty standard so far, but at this point she does a perfectly disciplined Jane Hamsher pivot and attack.
But you know, this is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about how we end the war in Iraq. That's the debate that I want to be participating in, and I think a lot of people on the other side don't want us to have that debate.
Is this the real deal or a publicity stunt? Right in the middle of a speech to the NRA (of all people), Rudy Giuliani takes a cell from the Mrs.
"Wait just a second," he told the perplexed crowd. "This is my wife calling, I think."
"Hello, dear," he said in a syrupy voice.
"I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello?" he said to confused chuckles.
"I love you, and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished. OK, have a safe trip. Bye-bye. Talk to you later, dear. I love you."
According to the rest of the article, there was disbelief, outrage and skepticism. This has to be a stunt. Politicians don't do this, no one does this, not in the middle of a speech. I'd bet you bottom dollar that this is the hare-brained idea of some campaign aide, or even Rudy himself to try to appear more "real" in front of a normally hostile crowd. It didn't work. And how does the NRA feel about Rudy now? Well, let's ask Fred Thompson.
It's apparently a slow news day because the wire services are trying to manufacture a controversy:
In a speech defending his administration's Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.
"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.
So it's not the most artful way to get the point across, but Warner Houston at Newsbusters makes it clear that Bush was using Mandela as a stand in for a generic peacemaker, and not saying anything specific about Mandela himself or his current body temperature.
Could it be any more obvious that Bush is saying that there aren't any Iraqis filling the same sort of role in Iraq that Nelson Mandela filled in South Africa? Could it be any more clear that Bush was saying that Saddam "killed all the Mandelas" of Iraq?
