Posted on 04/05/2007 6:30:50 AM PDT by grey_whiskers
The latest buzz out of the punditsphere is the news of the campaign warchests amassed by the different candidates. For the Republicans, Duncan Hunter has merely half a million dollars, Giuliani has $15 million, Mitt Romney $20.6 million, and John McCain $12.5 million. It would seem from this that the RINOs do indeed have a commanding lead within the Republican party. For the Democrats, everyone expected a Hillary cakewalk, but instead Barak Obama is holding his own—she has $26 million and he has $25 million, and Obama has collected from far more individual donors than her, indicating a far broader base of support. In addition, the news from the parties’ national campaigns is far from comforting for conservatives; the RNC has collected $50 million in the first quarter of this year, compared to $80 million for the DNC. (Usually, this early on, the funding is reversed: in 1999, the RNC had collected $33 million to just $19 million for the Democrats).
Various reasons have been proposed for this, from voter dissatisfaction over the Iraq war, to voters’ rejection of the religious right, to the rise of the internet (Barak Obama has been said to be very effective in internet fundraising. But Internet fundraising did not give us President Howard Dean, did it?) All of these influences are interesting to talk about; but they seem to me to be misleading in two respects. First, they are all written as (if you will) agitprop designed to demoralize and defeat the “values voter” or “social conservatives” as though they were the reason the Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate in the most recent election cycle. The carefully crafted selection of “conservative” Democrats on a district-by-district basis by Rahm Emmanuel (Weasel – IL), the Mark Foley scandal, the Iraq war, illegal immigration, runaway Congressional spending, and the like had nothing to do with it, apparently.
And, oh yes, there is one other issue which directly impacts the funding, and through the funding, then the elections. McCain-Feingold, the so-called “campaign finance reform” bill, which was supposed to remove the corrupting influence of money from the campaigns. Human ingenuity (and for that matter, political sleaze) being what it is, it did not take long for resourceful people to find a way around it. Remember the 527-organizations? The favorite whipping boy of the left is of course the Swift Boat Veterans (who incidentally played a role in the appointment of Ambassador Fox); but there is an entire flotilla of 527 organizations on the left. A partial list of such groups can be found here; note that no matter how left-leaning the group, the title appears to have been carefully focus-grouped to play to the center or to peel off unwary voters from the right.
Are there any other shenanigans going on, besides the 527 groups? Why yes there is, and I think that some of them may have an explanation for the vast quantities of money sought by Hillary Clinton (I mean, c’mon, do we really expect Howard Dean, Al Gore, Al Franken, or Kerry and Edwards to make a real run for the White House?) There was a recent news story, in which Tom Vilsack (who? – IA) briefly announced his candidacy for President in November of ‘06, only to drop out of the race in March of ’07. (You may remember the pre-emption of the Anna Nicole Smith news stories to announce this.) In running for President, he ran up some $400,000 in debts. Hillary Clinton has announced that she will help reimburse these debts—with money obtained by trading cattle futures, I guess? No, Vilsack is from Iowa, it would have to be hog futures. And in a completely unrelated announcement, Tom Vilsack has announced his endorsement of Hillary for President in 2008. Clinton spokesman Mark Daley (any relation to another Democrat legend? I don’t know) went out of his way to quash the rumors, saying, “There was no quid pro quo.” And when a politician says that, you know something’s up. The last time the Clintons used this phrase, it was in connection with Marc Rich. (scroll down, it's really in there).
Not content with spreading her, ahem, "largess" around Iowa, Hillary also was rumored to have offered an ambassador posting to Bill Shaheen in New Hampshire. He has since joined the Clinton for President campaign as co-chair of the national and state campaigns. And a black legislator in South Carolina, Darrell Jackson (again, I don’t know of any connection to another famous Democrat of that last name), accepted a $10,000 per month consulting contract with the Clinton campaign, after having endorsed Hillary for President. All these obscure people in a position to help Hillary’s campaign; and all of them suddenly get new jobs, or get debts paid off, after endorsing her. That’s why I think of this practice as “this runt for hire.”
Oh, one last thing. McCain was reportedly offered a slew of positions in the Kerry White House, from Secretary of Defense, up to Vice President. But he still would not change parties. He declined. Might things have been any different if John Kerry had had a bigger campaign fund?
Not very cheery, I must say.
Good heavens! I think it's funny that Hillary is essentially buying endorsements.
This does not indicate a broad base of support.
And the more she gives away, the less she gets to keep as a "retirement fund" after the campaign.
Cheers!
That part is funny. The part about three RINOS being tops right now, ain’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
