Tuesday’s political round-up

October 16, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Barack Obama’s campaign distributed another email request for donations this morning, which wouldn’t be unusual except for how blunt it is: “The situation here is simple. We are $2.1 million behind. We must close that gap right now…. The fact of the matter is, we are still running an uphill battle. We’re running against candidates who take money from PACs. They take money from Washington lobbyists. So I hope that you make that extra in these last few weeks. If you do, then not only are we going to be able to get our message of change out to the country, but we’re going to be able to sustain that all throughout the primary, and lay the foundation for winning back the White House.”

* With Mitt Romney and John McCain having argued for several days who is the most reliably conservative candidate, Fred Thompson dragged himself away from home last night, just long enough to make the same argument. “I am the consistent conservative,” Thompson said to several dozen people at a gathering of the New York Conservative Party with former New York Sen. Alfonse D’Amato at his side. “I was a conservative yesterday. I am a conservative today, and I will be a conservative tomorrow.” Thompson, on Fox News, also took a more direct shot at Rudy Giuliani: “I don’t think that the mayor has ever claimed to be a conservative. He sought and received the Liberal Party nomination.”

* It may be early, but Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has already announced that she will not seek re-election in 2012. In fact, Hutchison, who easily won a third term just last year, suggested she might give up her seat before her term ends. “Is it better for Texas for me to leave early and give someone else a chance to start building seniority before the class of 2013? I think it probably is,” Hutchison said. Most observers in Texas expect her to run for governor in 2010.

* Mitt Romney unveiled a new TV ad today, called, “Not Fair.” In the ad, Romney says, “It’s not fair that you have to pay taxes when you earn your money, when you save your money, and then when you die. That’s why I’ll kill the death tax once and for all.” What a hack.

* And Josh Marshall, who recently suggested a Romney presidency was the worst possible scenario, explained that the danger posed by Romney “cannot hold a candle to the truly catastrophic foreign policy Giuliani would likely pursue if he got anywhere near the Oval Office…. The people he’s coalescing around himself as his foreign policy advisors are the ones who are going to help him learn as he goes. And they are simply the most dangerous, deranged and deluded folks you can find in American political and foreign policy circles today. It’s really not an exaggeration. Scrape the bottom of the ‘Global War on Terror’ Islamofascism nutbasket and you find they’ve pretty much all signed on as Rudy advisors.”

Scrape the bottom of the ‘Global War on Terror’ Islamofascism nutbasket and you find they’ve pretty much all signed on as Rudy advisors

True that. Just imagine Daniel Pipes, Norm Podhoretz or Michael Rubin as Secretary of State. (Shudder)

  • Mitt Romney unveiled a new TV ad today, called, “Not Fair.” In the ad, Romney says, “It’s not fair that I have more money than all of you combined and that I have to pay taxes on it just like you little people, and then it gets taxed when I try to make sure my kids – who have given such service to their country, after all – have dynastic advantages you’ll never have. Rich people are just more deserving than you. That’s why I’ll kill the death tax once and for all.”

  • I’ll be a character witness for sarabeth’s non-troll-ness.

    The 50 mil figure is misleading because she can only use 34 of it in the Primary, so that is the only number relevant re Obama.

  • “It’s not fair that you have to pay taxes when you earn your money, when you save your money, and then when you die. That’s why I’ll kill the death tax once and for all.”

    course mittens doesn’t realize that they’re not taxing the same money. you pay taxes when you earn it. you pay taxes on the interest you earn when you save it, not the original savings. you pay taxes when you die on the appreciation in assets, not on the amount you originally invested in the assets. always, simply paying taxes on what you have earned.

    same old stupid argument, repeated again and again until people believe it.

  • UnAware Fred is clearly unaware that in order to be consistent, he must first refrain form being inconsistent. However, I will be among the first to wholeheartedly agree that his inconsistency is, indeed, quite consistent. Schedule 10 campaign stops, show up for the first three, blow off the other seven due to scheduling conflicts, and then find the extra time to fly over to Foxnoise and blather on in a consistently-inconsistent manner.

    As mentioned in an earlier post, UnAware Fred reminds my of the Cowardly Lion from the classic 1930’s MGM edition of “The Wizard of OZ.” The moment things get turned up a notch or three, he wilts before the flame-breathing Wizard, flees in terror down the grand hallway, and flings himself—screaming incoherently, just like his “Fred08 Cult Site” does—through an unsuspecting window.

    Run, Fred—RUN!!! The unsuspecting window is that-a-way….

  • Romney’s disgusting for his absolute and almost proud lack of anything resembling “principle,” but I find him infinitely preferable to Giussolini. Mitt’s basically what Bush was supposed to be: a CEO president who has some management skills. He’d be odious on a daily basis, but the government would function better than it does at the moment and he’s got enough sense of budgetary realities that it’s unlikely he’d start any new wars.

    I also don’t think he’s as authoritarian or egomaniacal as Rudy, though pretty much nobody is. Not even Bush.

  • OK, so $34m (Clinton) minus $32m (Obama) equals… roughly $2 million.

    By my calc’s Clinton has 34.6m, Obama has 31.9m

    A diff of $2.7 million.

    Am I missing something?

  • “It’s not fair that you have to pay taxes… when you save your money…”

    Maybe I should move my aforementioned wealth into a checking account, since the goddamn IRS insists on taxing the interest from my savings account. The bastards! That interest is my money! I earned it… by doing exactly nothing!

  • “It’s not fair that you have to pay taxes when you earn your money, when you save your money, and then when you die. That’s why I’ll kill the death tax once and for all.”

    Can’t these people ever tell the truth about anything? Ordinary Americans pay no estate taxes. Period.

    As for the super rich, much, if not most of their estates accumulate tax free, because only realized capital gains are taxed along the way. Unrealized capital gains aren’t taxed – so if they pay no estate taxes, they get away with paying no tax at all on the lion’s share of their income. How fair is that?

  • In light of that, the pitch you quoted, Steve, sounds blatantly dishonest. Positively Bushian, actually. -sarabeth

    I’ve seen slightly different numbers posted in various places all morning, so isn’t it just more likely that Obama’s numbers differ from Politico’s?

    Calling him Bushian is hardly warranted for this.

  • Can someone explain to me what’s with people attacking me all over the place?

    Friday it was Tom Cleaver with what I regard as unspeakable obscenities.

    Today it’s Racerx in 4, with what I regard as fascist idiocy. I thought it was the other side who marched in lockstep goosestep, and not us? I thought it was the other side who could not tolerate any criticism of their dear leaders? If I think Obama is using Bush-like mis-speak, you bet your sweet patootie I’ll say so. And if you think that gives you grounds for insulting me, you better look at yourself in a mirror, buddy.

    As for disputing the numbers, you may have noticed that in 3 I linked to the Politico post. Here’s a radical idea: just go there and see why they claim both have $32 million.

    If you had thought to do that, you might have seen:

    In the end, Clinton reported raising $28 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 and having $50 million in cash-on-hand.

    Of that, about $34 million can be spent on the primary, while $16 million is for the general election. Clinton also reported carrying $2 million in debts, driving her ready cash figure down to around $32 million.

    Obama’s report, the last to go public, showed him raising $21 million during the third quarter and ending it with $36 million in cash.

    But he, too, has some debt and has raised money that must be held for the general election, which drives his primary cash total to about $32 million.

    Netting out the debt doesn’t sound unreasonable, does it?

    Sarabeth
    (accepting graceful apologies since last week)

  • Calling him Bushian is hardly warranted for this.

    What I said before was that if Politico’s numbers are true, Obama sounds Bushian to me.

    I still stand by that.

  • I don’t know that doing an “all hands!” fundraising call on a small difference is “Bushian” (right about now that is as harsh an insult as one can ascribe); I do however think the urgency of Obama’s plea is a little much given that the difference is a small, small fraction of what the two have raised. Then again, the entire fundraising industry is built on emotional manipulation and overwrought pleas, so I was rather nonplussed by the whole thing.

  • re 12: Yes, I didn’t audit Politico’s numbers. It didn’t strike me there was any need.

    What I said before was that if Politico’s numbers are true, Obama sounds Bushian to me. -sarabeth

    I hope you don’t consider this or my previous post as an attack on you. It is nothing more than a discussion, which is what the “other side” really shuns.

    Every quarter when fundraising numbers are released I see different numbers for each candidate all over the place, especially when calculating their cash on hand.

    I just think it’s unfairly jumping the gun to accuse Obama of being Bush-like if his numbers tell him he’s 2.1 million behind. I don’t mean that as a personal attack against you, just my observation of the general unreliability of fundraising numbers and a perfectly good reason to ‘audit’ or at least reserve judgment.

    I consider it a terrible insult to say that someone is Bush-like and it should be based on more than an appeal to supporters for money based on slightly different number than the Politico posted.

    I don’t think Obama is being deceitful, as the Bush comparison implies, I think he’s just desperate. He’s just behind Hillary (or even with, depending on where you get your numbers) in fundraising but she’s now polling over 50% in some places. That’s got to be confusing for a campaign.

    What I said before was that if Politico’s numbers are true, Obama sounds Bushian to me.

    I don’t see in your previous post where you qualified your assertion, unless you meant that by ‘In light of that,’ but I usually interpret that phrase more along the lines of ‘given these facts.’

    And for what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re a troll. We’ve had some pretty good discussions before.

  • Re 17: I only called out Cleaver for what he said Friday, and Racerx for the “troll” thing. I don’t consider anything else anyone else has said as anything other than a healthy discussion.

    And I’m perfectly willing to concede that anyone is entitled to regard “Bushian” as constituting extreme criticism. And to argue that it was unwarranted here. But to label me a troll because I said it is absurd.

    I don’t see in your previous post where you qualified your assertion, unless you meant that by ‘In light of that,’ but I usually interpret that phrase more along the lines of ‘given these facts.’

    Yes, to me “in light of that” = “given these facts”. But doesn’t that mean “assuming these to be the facts”?

    • Comments are closed.