There are only 40 State Senate districts in California—fewer than Congressional Districts, making them some of the largest districts in the nation. With 36 million or more Californians, each Senator represents about 900,000 folks.
By way of comparison, in Montana, a state of 955,000 souls, each of our 50 Senators represents just over 19,000 Montanans on average.
Each member of the Treasure State Senate wields the same power theoretically as his or her counterpart in the Golden State.
That’s a sobering thought.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Don't Fence Me In
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Gosh, that sounds pretty open-ended to me. But, then again, real first Americans didn’t erect it. Immigrants did.
And, now, we, a nation of immigrants, are building a fence between the United States and Mexico. A long fence, 2,000 miles. A big one. An expensive one. [And, just think: It can be electrified for as little as $362.0 million!]
Instead of debating and agreeing upon an immigration policy and setting realistic immigration limits, we want a fence to keep outsiders where they are, out. Fiscal conservatives, who are most often social conservatives, support the thing. No matter what the cost.
You hear the damnest things on the street.
Those who don’t like to spend tax dollars also don’t want no foreigners comin’ into our country unless they’re white Europeans. You know, the ones who look like us. And, now don’t you be going too far into Eastern Europe, because that’s where a lot of, well, you know, Muslims live. But, boy, them Croats and Serbs can sure play ball.
Oh, where have we recently invaded a country, those fleeing the melee we have unleashed must be bad. Don’t let ‘em. Yah never know.
OK immigrants
1. Anyone who looks to be of white Anglo-Saxon stock, although in times past we have taken a dim of Catholics, Irish and Germans. Right now, they’re OK.
2. Those wanting to come to the US from the Asian Subcontinent and the Pacific Rim are usually OK. Evidently their religions, Hindus, Buddhists and Shinto, is of no concern - - - they’re just smarter than the dickens. Computer geeks and forensic pathologists. [Oh, yeah. There was that Pearl Harbor thing and our internment camps . . .]
3. Chinese, although we’re getting’ nervous. We have a big debt. These folks could become the heavies when Beijing calls in the loans.
Not OK immigrants
1. Everyone else.
After all, the 19 hijackers of Middle Eastern descent who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon entered country legally and look at what happened.
Anyone from the western hemisphere who resides south of El Paso, Brownsville, San Diego.
They’re coming in hoards to take our jobs.
All of these folks are human beings. You think we are suffering because of the current recession and ailing financial markets? Walk a mile in these human beings shoes if you dare.
They are desparate.
The majority are unskilled and the ones, who are skilled, should be screened sufficiently in the hiring process to detect them. But, no. Businesses prey on these workers, in far too many cases, knowing employing them at a fraction of what they would pay a gringo, if a gringo would be interested in the job. And, costly benefits? Schmenifits.
Any idea as to how much $4.00 (US) a day means in Honduras? Guatemala?
They clean swimming pools and tend to the yards for bloated executives bailing out of Lehman Brothers. They make up beds. They work in the sweltering heat picking our food and cleaning up after us. And, then they disappear, for the night, fearful their dream will snatched away.
And, here all along, I thought we didn’t like fences and walls. After all, the “communies” built the Berlin Wall and fenced off eastern Europe ostensibly to keep western Europe from invading. Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the wall and the eastern Europeans (white in color, of course) did just that.
In a effort to save money on labor, we’ve given the world of the “good life” through free trade agreements. Until we send them more, they’re just aren’t enough to go around. And, so they come.
American workers, mostly white-collar, are seemingly caught in the midst of paradoxical thinking of the American business community. It argues that guest worker programs will keep jobs here and save jobs from being offshored. In reality, those programs are used to transfer knowledge and jobs overseas. The business community suggests, on the one hand, that outsourcing is good, and, then, on the other, uses the threat of outsourcing to effect immigration policy.
Seems like the faster we legally let them in, the faster we lose jobs to other countries.
What really is a tragedy is that we did not erect “fences” around ill-conceived free trade policies and treaties that resulted in the outsourcing and offshoring of hundreds of thousands of jobs that American workers actually wanted.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Gosh, that sounds pretty open-ended to me. But, then again, real first Americans didn’t erect it. Immigrants did.
And, now, we, a nation of immigrants, are building a fence between the United States and Mexico. A long fence, 2,000 miles. A big one. An expensive one. [And, just think: It can be electrified for as little as $362.0 million!]
Instead of debating and agreeing upon an immigration policy and setting realistic immigration limits, we want a fence to keep outsiders where they are, out. Fiscal conservatives, who are most often social conservatives, support the thing. No matter what the cost.
You hear the damnest things on the street.
Those who don’t like to spend tax dollars also don’t want no foreigners comin’ into our country unless they’re white Europeans. You know, the ones who look like us. And, now don’t you be going too far into Eastern Europe, because that’s where a lot of, well, you know, Muslims live. But, boy, them Croats and Serbs can sure play ball.
Oh, where have we recently invaded a country, those fleeing the melee we have unleashed must be bad. Don’t let ‘em. Yah never know.
OK immigrants
1. Anyone who looks to be of white Anglo-Saxon stock, although in times past we have taken a dim of Catholics, Irish and Germans. Right now, they’re OK.
2. Those wanting to come to the US from the Asian Subcontinent and the Pacific Rim are usually OK. Evidently their religions, Hindus, Buddhists and Shinto, is of no concern - - - they’re just smarter than the dickens. Computer geeks and forensic pathologists. [Oh, yeah. There was that Pearl Harbor thing and our internment camps . . .]
3. Chinese, although we’re getting’ nervous. We have a big debt. These folks could become the heavies when Beijing calls in the loans.
Not OK immigrants
1. Everyone else.
After all, the 19 hijackers of Middle Eastern descent who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon entered country legally and look at what happened.
Anyone from the western hemisphere who resides south of El Paso, Brownsville, San Diego.
They’re coming in hoards to take our jobs.
All of these folks are human beings. You think we are suffering because of the current recession and ailing financial markets? Walk a mile in these human beings shoes if you dare.
They are desparate.
The majority are unskilled and the ones, who are skilled, should be screened sufficiently in the hiring process to detect them. But, no. Businesses prey on these workers, in far too many cases, knowing employing them at a fraction of what they would pay a gringo, if a gringo would be interested in the job. And, costly benefits? Schmenifits.
Any idea as to how much $4.00 (US) a day means in Honduras? Guatemala?
They clean swimming pools and tend to the yards for bloated executives bailing out of Lehman Brothers. They make up beds. They work in the sweltering heat picking our food and cleaning up after us. And, then they disappear, for the night, fearful their dream will snatched away.
And, here all along, I thought we didn’t like fences and walls. After all, the “communies” built the Berlin Wall and fenced off eastern Europe ostensibly to keep western Europe from invading. Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the wall and the eastern Europeans (white in color, of course) did just that.
In a effort to save money on labor, we’ve given the world of the “good life” through free trade agreements. Until we send them more, they’re just aren’t enough to go around. And, so they come.
American workers, mostly white-collar, are seemingly caught in the midst of paradoxical thinking of the American business community. It argues that guest worker programs will keep jobs here and save jobs from being offshored. In reality, those programs are used to transfer knowledge and jobs overseas. The business community suggests, on the one hand, that outsourcing is good, and, then, on the other, uses the threat of outsourcing to effect immigration policy.
Seems like the faster we legally let them in, the faster we lose jobs to other countries.
What really is a tragedy is that we did not erect “fences” around ill-conceived free trade policies and treaties that resulted in the outsourcing and offshoring of hundreds of thousands of jobs that American workers actually wanted.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Tuesday's Election: Win. Win.
With Max Baucus and Brian Schweitzer leading the way with blow-out wins, Democrats running in Montana for statewide offices did very well on Tuesday, capturing statewide office except its Congressional seat. That comes next.
Precisely why Democrats did not fare better in legislative races is a matter of great debate and hand-wringing.
On balance, that was really the only bad news. After all, Obama consistently polled within the statistical margin of error. Disappointing? Sure. But, Sarah is still governor of Alaska. That’s the best news coming out of Tuesday.
Elections elsewhere yielded more, although less visible, victories for Montana, although it will take time to translate into tangible "wins."
With a combination of wins and losses, there will be a dramatic shake-up in the seniority in the United States Senate, a place where seniority means everything. Because both Max and Jon are both D’s, Montana stands to win, a lot.
Under Senate rules, seniority means everything: the more seniority, the more power. But, being a member of the majority party is advantageous. Most significantly, senators are given preferential treatment for committee assignments based on seniority.
As of this writing, Max ranks 10th overall in seniority. Those ahead of our senior senator include Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Joe Biden, and Pete Domenici. You’ve probably noticed: Their names have been in the news lately.
At worst, Max will move up two slots (Biden – elected VP; Domenici – retired). A Stevens loss, Max is 7th. [The Stevens-Begich race has not been called. If Stevens happens to win, depending on how the Senate deals with Ted’s felony conviction, Max could also move up.] Obviously, all Americans will watch Senator Kennedy’s recovery with great concern.
Jon Tester, moves up even more. OK. So, he was 100th after his 2006 win over Conrad and had no where to go but up. Right now, our junior senator ranks 98th.
These more senior senators have retired or have been defeated: John Warner; Larry Craig; Wayne Allard; Gordon Smith; Chuck Hagel; John Sununu; Liddy Dole. The farmer from Big Sandy moves up at least seven spots. #91.
Additionally, Barack Obama won an important election in his own right. Depending on the person appointed to fill this seat, the organic agriculturalist could move up another notch.
Norm Coleman’s race will be recounted. He currently stands at 77th overall. Lose and the former President of the Montana Senate moves up one spot.
It is likely that Saxby Chambliss (#71) will be forced into a run-off election in Georgia in December. Depending on the outcome of that race, Mr. Flat-top could move up one more place.
Best case: 88.
Couple this with names that have been rumored in conjunction with positions in the Obama administration and Jon Tester could rank in the mid-80’s.
Ok. So?
Max’s position as chair of the Senate Finance Committee benefits Montana immensely. In terms of seniority, he's just about maxed out. But, his committee can literally touch any legislation it chooses.
With Robert Byrd’s announced retirement as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, combined with a larger number of D’s who will serve on the committee because of a larger Senate majority, improves the chances of Tester winning a coveted seat.
Here again, Senators, who serve on the Committee and who leave to assume positions with the incoming administration, create even more opportunities. Members of the Committee who either retired or were defeated on Tuesday (or who may not return for other reasons) include: Stevens; Domenici; Craig; Allard.
During a campaign visit to Montana on Tester's behalf in 2006, Harry Reid sort of "promised" Montana that, if elected, Jon would serve on the Committee.
So far, that hasn't happened.
Be interesting to see how this plays out, after all Tester made campaign appearances on behalf of candidates in many of the states where D's picked up Senate seats.
Regardless, by turning back the McCain bunch and thanks to the electoral misfortunes and ineptitude of R's across the country, Montana won in ways it has not yet begun to appreciate.
Precisely why Democrats did not fare better in legislative races is a matter of great debate and hand-wringing.
On balance, that was really the only bad news. After all, Obama consistently polled within the statistical margin of error. Disappointing? Sure. But, Sarah is still governor of Alaska. That’s the best news coming out of Tuesday.
Elections elsewhere yielded more, although less visible, victories for Montana, although it will take time to translate into tangible "wins."
With a combination of wins and losses, there will be a dramatic shake-up in the seniority in the United States Senate, a place where seniority means everything. Because both Max and Jon are both D’s, Montana stands to win, a lot.
Under Senate rules, seniority means everything: the more seniority, the more power. But, being a member of the majority party is advantageous. Most significantly, senators are given preferential treatment for committee assignments based on seniority.
As of this writing, Max ranks 10th overall in seniority. Those ahead of our senior senator include Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Joe Biden, and Pete Domenici. You’ve probably noticed: Their names have been in the news lately.
At worst, Max will move up two slots (Biden – elected VP; Domenici – retired). A Stevens loss, Max is 7th. [The Stevens-Begich race has not been called. If Stevens happens to win, depending on how the Senate deals with Ted’s felony conviction, Max could also move up.] Obviously, all Americans will watch Senator Kennedy’s recovery with great concern.
Jon Tester, moves up even more. OK. So, he was 100th after his 2006 win over Conrad and had no where to go but up. Right now, our junior senator ranks 98th.
These more senior senators have retired or have been defeated: John Warner; Larry Craig; Wayne Allard; Gordon Smith; Chuck Hagel; John Sununu; Liddy Dole. The farmer from Big Sandy moves up at least seven spots. #91.
Additionally, Barack Obama won an important election in his own right. Depending on the person appointed to fill this seat, the organic agriculturalist could move up another notch.
Norm Coleman’s race will be recounted. He currently stands at 77th overall. Lose and the former President of the Montana Senate moves up one spot.
It is likely that Saxby Chambliss (#71) will be forced into a run-off election in Georgia in December. Depending on the outcome of that race, Mr. Flat-top could move up one more place.
Best case: 88.
Couple this with names that have been rumored in conjunction with positions in the Obama administration and Jon Tester could rank in the mid-80’s.
Ok. So?
Max’s position as chair of the Senate Finance Committee benefits Montana immensely. In terms of seniority, he's just about maxed out. But, his committee can literally touch any legislation it chooses.
With Robert Byrd’s announced retirement as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, combined with a larger number of D’s who will serve on the committee because of a larger Senate majority, improves the chances of Tester winning a coveted seat.
Here again, Senators, who serve on the Committee and who leave to assume positions with the incoming administration, create even more opportunities. Members of the Committee who either retired or were defeated on Tuesday (or who may not return for other reasons) include: Stevens; Domenici; Craig; Allard.
During a campaign visit to Montana on Tester's behalf in 2006, Harry Reid sort of "promised" Montana that, if elected, Jon would serve on the Committee.
So far, that hasn't happened.
Be interesting to see how this plays out, after all Tester made campaign appearances on behalf of candidates in many of the states where D's picked up Senate seats.
Regardless, by turning back the McCain bunch and thanks to the electoral misfortunes and ineptitude of R's across the country, Montana won in ways it has not yet begun to appreciate.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Out of Sight!
With all of the good news Montanans are expecting to come out of today’s election, there is one blemish. One that has avoided scrutiny for far too long because of a type of political Clearisil.
Montana is cursed by having only one seat in the United States House of Representatives. Mind you, one is bad enough. But when the incumbent is a low-life of the highest order, one is doubly bad.
Denny, the snarly, quarrelsome one.
Has he done anything to help working families and blue-collar Montanans? Reduce the number of American and Montanans without health insurance? Stop the senseless wars? Even conceded climate change?
Nope. Denny, you see, he has been pretty much in bed with the Bush crowd, a loyal spear-carrier, ready at any moment ready to spring to the defense of GW.
He and George assumed their respective offices at the same time, you know.
Regular cutie pies.
To be fair, Denny has crossed George two times within the past year.
After pontificating about the ‘socialized medicine’ nature of the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), he reversed course and voted to reauthorize it. But, that was only after being deluged by phone calls by thousands of Montanans.
And, he voted against the administration’s $700.0+ billion financial bailout several weeks ago. Heck, even his Democratic ‘opponent,’ John Driscoll, commended him and said he would vote for Denny because of that vote. One vote. Never mind the thousands of other lousy votes he has cast during his career.
You’ve had cover long enough, Denny.
Our lone Congressional seat is up for election all by itself only once every twelve years. The last time was in 1998. The next time is 2010.
Denny has never been one to shun the spotlight mind you. Why, he was front and center last summer during the House GOP dog-and-pony show energy escapade (Theme: We support drilling anywhere and promise it will bring gas prices down. Cross our hearts.), despite being present for a mere fraction of the forgettable proceeding.
But, he has managed to run for election initially and then re-election four times without our undivided attention.
Think about it.
In 2000, the marquee race was Burns – Schweitzer. To her everlasting credit, Nancy Keenan ran a hell of a race, but lost.
In 2002, it was Baucus – Taylor. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2004, it was Schweitzer – Brown (Bob) for the open seat vacated by the ever-so-popular Judy Martz. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2006, the Burns – Tester donny-brook. [Quick. Name Denny’s opponent.]
In 2008, you can double down: Baucus – Kelleher and Schweitzer Brown (Roy). While neither race is competitive, after winning the June primary, John Driscoll has waged a stand-on-some misguided perception that he can change–the-process-if-he-loses-badly-enough, lose-at-all-costs campaign. Besides we are preoccupied with the fear that Tim Fox could actually win the AG's race.
Enjoy it while you can, Denny. It’s about to end.
Chances are that even with a more viable opponent, he would have won this time anyway. [Although, it will be interesting to see what percentage of the vote Driscoll pulls.]
So, what will Denny have in the bank after this election? $500,000?
Plenty, I am sure. Enough to form the basis of a formidable war chest to cake walk though the 2010 election.
And, then 2012, what is it, Denny? Take on Jon Tester or to come back home and serve as Governor, the same office you so graciously refused to ascend to when Stan Stephens had a melt-down in 1992?
Yes, you did quite a job a Racicot’s lieutenant - - - behind the scenes: Magellan health care fiasco (that one faded away and out of the public’s consciousness, didn’t it?); electricity de-regulation; dismantling of tax laws and environmental regulation.
Oh, yeah, we remember what a prick you were during the 1980’s when you served in the Legislature and how you magically transformed into 'Mr. Mom' in the 2000 Congressional election.
You’ve flown under the radar long enough – we’ve heard nary a word from you. You and your awful record of 'service' deserve all of the publicity we can give it.
The chorus will be, "We'll make you spend it all, Denny!"
The only good news for the next two years? You and your failed caucus leadership will be buried by an even larger Democratic majority in the House.
Out of sight, but not out of mind.
Montana is cursed by having only one seat in the United States House of Representatives. Mind you, one is bad enough. But when the incumbent is a low-life of the highest order, one is doubly bad.
Denny, the snarly, quarrelsome one.
Has he done anything to help working families and blue-collar Montanans? Reduce the number of American and Montanans without health insurance? Stop the senseless wars? Even conceded climate change?
Nope. Denny, you see, he has been pretty much in bed with the Bush crowd, a loyal spear-carrier, ready at any moment ready to spring to the defense of GW.
He and George assumed their respective offices at the same time, you know.
Regular cutie pies.
To be fair, Denny has crossed George two times within the past year.
After pontificating about the ‘socialized medicine’ nature of the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), he reversed course and voted to reauthorize it. But, that was only after being deluged by phone calls by thousands of Montanans.
And, he voted against the administration’s $700.0+ billion financial bailout several weeks ago. Heck, even his Democratic ‘opponent,’ John Driscoll, commended him and said he would vote for Denny because of that vote. One vote. Never mind the thousands of other lousy votes he has cast during his career.
You’ve had cover long enough, Denny.
Our lone Congressional seat is up for election all by itself only once every twelve years. The last time was in 1998. The next time is 2010.
Denny has never been one to shun the spotlight mind you. Why, he was front and center last summer during the House GOP dog-and-pony show energy escapade (Theme: We support drilling anywhere and promise it will bring gas prices down. Cross our hearts.), despite being present for a mere fraction of the forgettable proceeding.
But, he has managed to run for election initially and then re-election four times without our undivided attention.
Think about it.
In 2000, the marquee race was Burns – Schweitzer. To her everlasting credit, Nancy Keenan ran a hell of a race, but lost.
In 2002, it was Baucus – Taylor. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2004, it was Schweitzer – Brown (Bob) for the open seat vacated by the ever-so-popular Judy Martz. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2006, the Burns – Tester donny-brook. [Quick. Name Denny’s opponent.]
In 2008, you can double down: Baucus – Kelleher and Schweitzer Brown (Roy). While neither race is competitive, after winning the June primary, John Driscoll has waged a stand-on-some misguided perception that he can change–the-process-if-he-loses-badly-enough, lose-at-all-costs campaign. Besides we are preoccupied with the fear that Tim Fox could actually win the AG's race.
Enjoy it while you can, Denny. It’s about to end.
Chances are that even with a more viable opponent, he would have won this time anyway. [Although, it will be interesting to see what percentage of the vote Driscoll pulls.]
So, what will Denny have in the bank after this election? $500,000?
Plenty, I am sure. Enough to form the basis of a formidable war chest to cake walk though the 2010 election.
And, then 2012, what is it, Denny? Take on Jon Tester or to come back home and serve as Governor, the same office you so graciously refused to ascend to when Stan Stephens had a melt-down in 1992?
Yes, you did quite a job a Racicot’s lieutenant - - - behind the scenes: Magellan health care fiasco (that one faded away and out of the public’s consciousness, didn’t it?); electricity de-regulation; dismantling of tax laws and environmental regulation.
Oh, yeah, we remember what a prick you were during the 1980’s when you served in the Legislature and how you magically transformed into 'Mr. Mom' in the 2000 Congressional election.
You’ve flown under the radar long enough – we’ve heard nary a word from you. You and your awful record of 'service' deserve all of the publicity we can give it.
The chorus will be, "We'll make you spend it all, Denny!"
The only good news for the next two years? You and your failed caucus leadership will be buried by an even larger Democratic majority in the House.
Out of sight, but not out of mind.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Trvial Pursuit
U.S. Election Will Cost $5.3 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Predicts
Published by Communications on October 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Permalink
2008 contests for White House and Congress add up to the most expensive
U.S. election in history
WASHINGTON -- The 2008 election for president and Congress is not only one of the most closely watched U.S. elections in years; it's also the most expensive in history. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates that more than $5.3 billion will go toward financing the federal contests upcoming on Nov. 4.
The presidential race alone will cost nearly $2.4 billion, the Center predicts. Already the candidates alone have raised more than $1.5 billion since the election cycle's start in January 2007. This is the first time that candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion, and this year's total is on track to nearly double candidate fundraising in 2004 and triple 2000.
Weeks before Election Day, the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion, $300 million more than the $4.2 billion that had been raised by the conclusion of the 2004 cycle. The overall estimated cost of the 2008 election would represent a 27 percent increase over the 2004 cycle. Looking at each party's growth, however, Democrats will have collected 52 percent more money for their congressional and presidential efforts by the end of this election cycle, compared to four years ago. Republican fundraising growth, however, has been a meager 2 percent since '04.
"This election will blow through historic records on a number of counts," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "We've marveled for years at the cost of elections, especially during presidential cycles, but this one is the first to cross the $5 billion mark. At the same time, it's encouraging to see more Americans than ever participating and offsetting the traditional dominance of special interests and wealthy donors who might be expecting payback. The only payback the small donor is expecting is a victory on Election Day. And that's healthier for our democracy."
The Center, which operates the award-winning website OpenSecrets.org and has been tracking the money financing federal elections since the 1980s, based its prediction of the 2008 election's overall cost on fundraising reported to the Federal Election Commission as of Oct. 21 by all candidates for federal office, political party committees and federally focused 527 committees. This conservative estimate also includes independent expenditures on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts by outside political action committees to support and oppose candidates, and it includes public funding for presidential candidates and estimated fundraising by the host committees of the major parties' summer nominating conventions.
Published by Communications on October 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Permalink
2008 contests for White House and Congress add up to the most expensive
U.S. election in history
WASHINGTON -- The 2008 election for president and Congress is not only one of the most closely watched U.S. elections in years; it's also the most expensive in history. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates that more than $5.3 billion will go toward financing the federal contests upcoming on Nov. 4.
The presidential race alone will cost nearly $2.4 billion, the Center predicts. Already the candidates alone have raised more than $1.5 billion since the election cycle's start in January 2007. This is the first time that candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion, and this year's total is on track to nearly double candidate fundraising in 2004 and triple 2000.
Weeks before Election Day, the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion, $300 million more than the $4.2 billion that had been raised by the conclusion of the 2004 cycle. The overall estimated cost of the 2008 election would represent a 27 percent increase over the 2004 cycle. Looking at each party's growth, however, Democrats will have collected 52 percent more money for their congressional and presidential efforts by the end of this election cycle, compared to four years ago. Republican fundraising growth, however, has been a meager 2 percent since '04.
"This election will blow through historic records on a number of counts," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "We've marveled for years at the cost of elections, especially during presidential cycles, but this one is the first to cross the $5 billion mark. At the same time, it's encouraging to see more Americans than ever participating and offsetting the traditional dominance of special interests and wealthy donors who might be expecting payback. The only payback the small donor is expecting is a victory on Election Day. And that's healthier for our democracy."
The Center, which operates the award-winning website OpenSecrets.org and has been tracking the money financing federal elections since the 1980s, based its prediction of the 2008 election's overall cost on fundraising reported to the Federal Election Commission as of Oct. 21 by all candidates for federal office, political party committees and federally focused 527 committees. This conservative estimate also includes independent expenditures on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts by outside political action committees to support and oppose candidates, and it includes public funding for presidential candidates and estimated fundraising by the host committees of the major parties' summer nominating conventions.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Hope Is a Good Thing
Is it just me or is this election dragging on and on and on to the finish line? This one, like no other I can recall, is wearing thin.
Perhaps it’s the anticipation of a real change.
There is a genuine sense of hopefulness that would endure with Barack in the White House. Perhaps it’s that everyone, including a lot of R’s, can hardly wait to run out into the streets and shriek to the sky, “It’s over! It’s over! It’s finally over.”
Deep down inside, D’s have to be bracing for yet another disappointment. Let’s get it over with and just win.
Been there, done that.
D’s have been disappointed before. Michael Moore penned a nice column a day before the 2004 election. Amazing how little things have changed, at least for the better.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01
The only thing worse than the hopelessness that would accompany a McCain win is the sinking feeling that within months after an Obama victory, the whole shebang will fire up again. Mitt and Sarah and Huck will from exploratory committees for 2012.
Look. GW blew it. He got exactly what he wanted for the first 6 years (and, frankly, too much during the last two) of his reign.
And, where are we now? Hmmmmm.
Is there anything that isn’t broken, anything that actually works, sort of, kind of?
Foreign policy?
Military preparedness?
Financial institutions?
Economy?
Health care?
Energy?
Housing?
Education?
Civil rights?
Infrastructure?
Are we better off in any regard than we were eight years ago?
When the right says Obama is a communist and a socialist, what does that infer about the goodness of Bush. He’s a proven loser.
"Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist," we’re warned. [Actually he’s a Protestant.]
But, George is the true terrorist.
Given his chance by the Supreme Court in 2000, he not only blew IT. He BLEW IT UP.
Our hopes, our country, our way of life, our future.
His economic policies, whatever they were, cannot even be labeled “trickle down,” because they didn’t even accomplish that. Instead, wealth was transferred in a unprecedented manner to the most wealthy amongst us. [Mind you, they don’t live by us. Certainly not. When they go home a steel gate clangs shut as they drive into their gated communities and the ocean tickles the sands on their own get-away islands.]
The richest nation in the history of the world is now the biggest debtor.
Americans, young and old alike, are fearful. They're worried, fatigued.
McCain is a shining example of Bush’s preferred crowd “have more’s.” He’s not certain how many homes he has. Many Americans are worried about how to keep just one.
Not many voters who supports McCain discuss their support openly. No one I’ve talked to who plans to vote for McCain has actually cited a reason to vote “for” John McCain, other than he is not George Bush. A ringing endorsement.
Shamed and departed are Rumsfeld, Tenet, Ashcroft, Scooter, Gonzales, Rove. Cheney will be joining them before long. Each flaunted the constitution and repeatedly broke the public trust.
Abramoff, Chalabi, and Haliburton were in it for the dough, the play, the kick-back, plain and simple.
George couldn’t always enunciate words and expressions correctly, but he and his minions gave clarity to ones to fear, e.g. water-boarding, presidential signing statements, healthy forests, clear skies, FISA, and FEMA emergency response
Guantonomo hasn’t been in the news so much since 1962 and the Bay of Pigs.
Along the way, did anyone keep track of how many times the apologists blamed failures of this bunch on Clinton? You know, Bill. The Clinton recession. The attack on the USS Cole. A budget balanced, yes, but by Newt Gingrich.
Many argued that we should get George. We tried in 2004 and failed.
Between election, we just couldn’t figure out the correct constitutional arguments. Perhaps we were simply too cerebral. Late last year, a car parked on Last Chance Gulch bore a bumper sticker: “Will someone please hurry up give Bush a blowjob so start the impeachment?”
Could it have been so simple?
Enough already.
It’s hard to imagine there are actually folks out there who fear giving the keys to the White House to Obama.
“All that we’re saying is give peace a chance.” John Lennon.
And, give hope a chance for a change.
Perhaps it’s the anticipation of a real change.
There is a genuine sense of hopefulness that would endure with Barack in the White House. Perhaps it’s that everyone, including a lot of R’s, can hardly wait to run out into the streets and shriek to the sky, “It’s over! It’s over! It’s finally over.”
Deep down inside, D’s have to be bracing for yet another disappointment. Let’s get it over with and just win.
Been there, done that.
D’s have been disappointed before. Michael Moore penned a nice column a day before the 2004 election. Amazing how little things have changed, at least for the better.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01
The only thing worse than the hopelessness that would accompany a McCain win is the sinking feeling that within months after an Obama victory, the whole shebang will fire up again. Mitt and Sarah and Huck will from exploratory committees for 2012.
Look. GW blew it. He got exactly what he wanted for the first 6 years (and, frankly, too much during the last two) of his reign.
And, where are we now? Hmmmmm.
Is there anything that isn’t broken, anything that actually works, sort of, kind of?
Foreign policy?
Military preparedness?
Financial institutions?
Economy?
Health care?
Energy?
Housing?
Education?
Civil rights?
Infrastructure?
Are we better off in any regard than we were eight years ago?
When the right says Obama is a communist and a socialist, what does that infer about the goodness of Bush. He’s a proven loser.
"Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist," we’re warned. [Actually he’s a Protestant.]
But, George is the true terrorist.
Given his chance by the Supreme Court in 2000, he not only blew IT. He BLEW IT UP.
Our hopes, our country, our way of life, our future.
His economic policies, whatever they were, cannot even be labeled “trickle down,” because they didn’t even accomplish that. Instead, wealth was transferred in a unprecedented manner to the most wealthy amongst us. [Mind you, they don’t live by us. Certainly not. When they go home a steel gate clangs shut as they drive into their gated communities and the ocean tickles the sands on their own get-away islands.]
The richest nation in the history of the world is now the biggest debtor.
Americans, young and old alike, are fearful. They're worried, fatigued.
McCain is a shining example of Bush’s preferred crowd “have more’s.” He’s not certain how many homes he has. Many Americans are worried about how to keep just one.
Not many voters who supports McCain discuss their support openly. No one I’ve talked to who plans to vote for McCain has actually cited a reason to vote “for” John McCain, other than he is not George Bush. A ringing endorsement.
Shamed and departed are Rumsfeld, Tenet, Ashcroft, Scooter, Gonzales, Rove. Cheney will be joining them before long. Each flaunted the constitution and repeatedly broke the public trust.
Abramoff, Chalabi, and Haliburton were in it for the dough, the play, the kick-back, plain and simple.
George couldn’t always enunciate words and expressions correctly, but he and his minions gave clarity to ones to fear, e.g. water-boarding, presidential signing statements, healthy forests, clear skies, FISA, and FEMA emergency response
Guantonomo hasn’t been in the news so much since 1962 and the Bay of Pigs.
Along the way, did anyone keep track of how many times the apologists blamed failures of this bunch on Clinton? You know, Bill. The Clinton recession. The attack on the USS Cole. A budget balanced, yes, but by Newt Gingrich.
Many argued that we should get George. We tried in 2004 and failed.
Between election, we just couldn’t figure out the correct constitutional arguments. Perhaps we were simply too cerebral. Late last year, a car parked on Last Chance Gulch bore a bumper sticker: “Will someone please hurry up give Bush a blowjob so start the impeachment?”
Could it have been so simple?
Enough already.
It’s hard to imagine there are actually folks out there who fear giving the keys to the White House to Obama.
“All that we’re saying is give peace a chance.” John Lennon.
And, give hope a chance for a change.
Perfection: Life Really is too Short
RAVENNA, Mich. (WZZM) - Teammates in his bowling league think after rolling a perfect 300 game Don Doane's heart just gave out.
"You get nervous shooting a 300," says teammate Todd Place. "The pressure keeps building," says bowling alley owner Jim Nutt.
Minutes after achieving the life long goal of a perfect game the 62 year old bowler collapsed and died at Ravenna Bowl in Ravenna. "Don just collapsed," says alley owner Nutt. " At first we thought he just fainted." "Then when I rolled him over I realized it wasn't good," says teammate Place.
The teammates say he was giving a high-five minutes before. They tried to revive him but Doane never spoke another word. He died of what was apparently a massive heart attack "He looked fine, reached across the table and gave me a high-five and he fell over," says Place.
"I think he died by the time he hit the floor." Don Doane was a member of the "Nutt Farm" bowling team at Ravenna Bowl for 45 years. His teammates says its strange not to see him on league nights.
"It was like a book, a final chapter," says Place. "He threw his 300 game with all of his friends, gave each other high-fives and it's like the story ended. He died with a smile on his face."
"Don will be a legend," says Nutt. 'It's something that will never be forgotten as long as people bowl here." Ravenna Bowl is planning a memorial ceremony for Doan's' wife Linda and son Chad.
"You get nervous shooting a 300," says teammate Todd Place. "The pressure keeps building," says bowling alley owner Jim Nutt.
Minutes after achieving the life long goal of a perfect game the 62 year old bowler collapsed and died at Ravenna Bowl in Ravenna. "Don just collapsed," says alley owner Nutt. " At first we thought he just fainted." "Then when I rolled him over I realized it wasn't good," says teammate Place.
The teammates say he was giving a high-five minutes before. They tried to revive him but Doane never spoke another word. He died of what was apparently a massive heart attack "He looked fine, reached across the table and gave me a high-five and he fell over," says Place.
"I think he died by the time he hit the floor." Don Doane was a member of the "Nutt Farm" bowling team at Ravenna Bowl for 45 years. His teammates says its strange not to see him on league nights.
"It was like a book, a final chapter," says Place. "He threw his 300 game with all of his friends, gave each other high-fives and it's like the story ended. He died with a smile on his face."
"Don will be a legend," says Nutt. 'It's something that will never be forgotten as long as people bowl here." Ravenna Bowl is planning a memorial ceremony for Doan's' wife Linda and son Chad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)