Who Do You Want in Charge of Your Money?

It appears the profligate spending habit the GOP developed while in power isn't limited to the federal budget. They can't manage their own money, either.

In 2008, the Democrats have dramatically reversed the long-time Republican fundraising advantage. Not only are the two leading Democratic presidential campaigns shattering records in 2007 (Obama's Q2 $32 million dwarfs the $17 million Giuliani, the leading Republican), the Republicans are burning through their money much faster than the Democrats, providing the Dems a huge early advantage.

The news that the McCain campaign has a meager $2 million Cash On Hand as of July 1 and the resulting massive layoffs means the Republicans are in deeper trouble than anyone could've predicted at the start of the year. The financial mismanagement isn't limited to McCain. Romney, the GOP first quarter fundraising champ, lent himself over $6 million to boost his fundraising total in the second quarter.

Disappointing fundraising in one quarter can become a downward spiral, as donors tend to want to back a winner, and will flock to the frontrunner. The GOP chaos means the Democrats are amassing a huge lead in the money race - one the Republicans are unlikely to close in this cycle.

The cash story isn't limited to the presidential campaign. The money is also pouring in to the national committees, too. Overall the Dems' national committees (pdf) (DNC, DSCC, and DCCC) have closed the gap - raising 73.6 million - with the GOP (RNC, NRSC, and NRCC), who raised $75.8 million. The real difference comes in the cash on hand category, where the Dems actually have $10 million MORE in the bank - $31.1 million vs. 21.1 million, as of June 1, 2007.

This is a huge change, one that bodes well for the Democrats. Exacerbating the situation for the GOP is the loss of the Congressional majority which further hinders the GOP's ability to attract donations from lobbyists and special interests trying to influence committee agendas. Additionally, the GOP donor base appears demoralized and seems to have made the decision that donating to their party isn't a smart investment in 2008. If you were a GOP donor, would you trust these guys with your money?

GOP Insiders Disappointed with Freddy Already?

From today's Evans-Novak Political Report weekly "insider" email, Bob "Plamegate" Novak reports on a growing sense of unease within the GOP establishment about the 'yet-to-be-official' Fred Thompson presidential campaign:

Far more troubling are the fears among Republicans that there is less to Thompson than meets the eye. He could still seize the nomination and prove a disappointing candidate in the general election. In appearances across the country, from New Hampshire to South Carolina, his speeches have ranged from "pretty decent" to "quite underwhelming." He has not yet had the knock-out performance he will need in order to prove that he is worthy of frontrunner status.

Who might they turn to next, if Thompson continues to "underwhelm?"

Could Thompson pay the biggest political price for the Libby Liberation? Today's Boston Globe examines Freddy's self-proclaimed role as a "leaker" in the Watergate hearings. Will the country recoil from Thompson's partisanship? If the MSM is correct and the American electorate wants to move past all this bickering, Thompson's star may fade just as quickly as it burst onto the scene this year.

Had Enough? - A simple and brilliant idea

The Libby Liberation has ignited a firestorm among the liberal netroots community. For many, it's' the last straw. Will our elected Democrats understand the depths of the outrage? Other than Rep Conyers, who has scheduled hearings for July 11 and Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr's calls for impeachment, it looks like the leaderhip is going to give the Cheney/Bush Administration another pass.

But, for the many who have simply "Had Enough," Wes Clark, Jr has proposed a brilliantly simple protest campaign. He calls for all Americans who have "Had Enough" to gather every Sunday in their hometowns as a protest against the excesses of this administration.

The noise on the left is matched by a deafening silence among many GOP politicians, who appear to understand the precarious political position the president's snubbing of the judicial system - after all, this case was still under appeal - has put them in. The Las Vegas Journal Review quoted Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) as distancing himself from the Libby decision,

"Though the president has the power to commute a sentence or pardon someone convicted of a crime, "doing so has the potential to tarnish a legacy," Porter said.
Bush decided Libby's penalty didn't fit his crime, but Porter said that decision is best left in the courts."

I'm not sure why the widely anticipated presidential commutation was the last straw for so many. Perhaps its the sheer audacity of this decision. Or, have we just simply had enough?

Can America survive eighteen more months of the Cheney/Bush interregnum? Will the constitution and federal government be restored? How much more damage can a President with an approval rating plummeting toward the "Mendoza line" really do in a year and a half?

As Elinor Clift said on the June 29th, 2007 "McLaughlin Report",

"I mean, he's still got, what, a year-and-a-half left in office. He can do a lot more damage, unfortunately. And the situation that he is presiding over so fitfully can also grow worse. And this is basically a requiem for his presidency."

What will this requeim look like? As the WaPo reported this week, in an article, A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease, "Bush has virtually given up on winning converts while in office and instead is counting on vindication after he is dead."

No longer constrained by public opinion, Bush unleashed for the next year and a half could have additional devastating consequences for America. Already, the Bush legacy will linger for many years, if not generations. It is this generation's resonsibility to confront this Cheney/Bush abuses.

America deserves nothing less on this, its 231st birthday.

Had enough?

Nancy, May I Have a Moment?

Madame Speaker,

When does the madness stop? What line must be crossed before the Democrats decide "enough is enough?" I've been a defender of your pragmatic approach and understood why you had long ago decided to take impeachment "off the table." It's time to reconsider that decision. Libby's liberation changed everything. I agree with your denunciation of Bush's action as stated on your website:

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.
The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.

Honestly, words are not enough. In the 2006 midterms, Americans elected Democrats because they wanted to end this Administration's blatant abuse of power. As our leader, YOU are one of the few Americans who can uphold the rule of law. It is YOUR duty to defend the Constitution. YOU must hold this Administration accountable.

If you choose to take no action, you will have betrayed the trust of those who supported you. As one of your constituents, I expect you to do the right thing.

Respectfully yours,

A formerly loyal constituent

GOP Senate Retirement Watch - the Immigration Vote

Political observers are reading the tea leaves to determine which GOP Senators are contemplating retirement. In addition to Colorado Sen Allard, as many as seven more (nearly a third of the 22 seats they are defending in 2008) are rumored to be considering leaving Congress. They are: Cochran (MS), Craig (ID), Domenici (NM), Hagel (NE), Inhofe (OK), Stevens (AK) and Warner (VA)

Last week's immigration vote may have provided some clue as to who is calling it quits and who is gearing up for a campaign.

Of course, many of us will be watching the Q2 fundraising numbers as they become available in the coming weeks (the Senate still files paper reports, so they won't be immediately available as with House and Presidential amounts). If John Warner hasn't revved up the fundraising efforts over Q1 (when he deposited a grand total of $500), a retirement will be viewed as a near-certainty.

A look at how these Senators voted on immigration reform reveals two are likely to relinquish their seats, two others are gearing up for another run, while the plans of the remaining three remain too difficult to determine.

Leaving the Senate? Of the seven, only two (Hagel and Craig) voted for cloture. Both have already attracted primary challengers from the rightwing and this "YES" vote only serves to weaken them within the GOP base. I'd say this indicates both Senators are not planning reelection campaigns.

Stubborn Old Men: Domenici and Stevens, each tainted by scandal and ongoing investigations, voted against cloture. These votes represent a switch from their "YES" votes on the previous cloture motion. A reversal indicates they are being responsive to the demands of the conservative activists who are critical to their re-election efforts. Voting for cloture would have further weakened them back home, where both have watched their standing with the voters plummet in recent months.

Show Me the Money: Virginia's Warner is the third GOP Senator who switched his vote. Until we see his Q2 fundraising numbers, I'd hold off on making any prediction as to his 2008 plans.

The immigration votes don't provide insight into the plans of the remaining two, as both Inhofe and Cochran voted with the majority of GOP senators each time.

Independent Voters Revealed as "Anti-War Extremists"

Independent voters are often viewed as the decisive power brokers in national elections. The party who successfully courts these quintessential "swing voters," typically wins presidential elections. In 2006, an unprecedented 57% of self-described independents voted Democratic (this represents an 8 point gain over the 49% Kerry got in 04) handing control of Congress to our pals Nancy and Harry.

But independents are not a monolithic group. While many in the media and public view them as the 'moderate middle' searching for the noble compromise between two intractably feuding parties, this is simply NOT true. Independents (who make up 25-30% of the electorate) are located all along the partisan spectrum.

A recently completed Washington Post/Henry J. Kaiser Foundation/Harvard University survey profiling the independent voter's diversity was reported in Sunday's WaPo. The results are fascinating - and, despite what the MSM is saying, the independent voter agrees with the Democratic base when it comes to Iraq!

Political strategists and observers make a mistake by treating these voters as one voting bloc. The media, in their never-ending quest to simplify the complex, promote the "independents as moderate" meme, providing politicians cover and an excuse to govern without conviction. We've grown weary of the familiar refrain, "The Democrats can't move too far to the left and appease their "partisan" anti-war extremist base for fear of offending the all-important independents."

The full WaPo survey can be found here (pdf!!). The responses to the poll's three Iraq-related questions reveal that independent voters are aligned with the Democratic base and want action on Iraq.

The three critical questions:
#36/37: "All in all, considering the costs to the US versus the benefits to the US, do you think the war with Iraq is worth fighting, or not? Do you feel STRONGLY that way or NOT?

"NOT WORTH FIGHTING" Responses: Indies 67%, Dems 85%, GOP 28%, Overall = 62%

#38: "Do you think the goal of bringing stability to Iraq is still possible, or not?"

"NOT POSSIBLE" Responses: Indies 62%, Dems 73%, GOP 35%, Overall = 58%

#39: "Do you think (the US must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success) or do you think (the war on terrorism can be a success without the US winning the war in Iraq)? (answers rotated)

"WINNING IRAQ NOT NECESSARY" Responses: Indies 62%, Dems 70%, GOP 35%, Overall = 56%

On EVERY Iraq-related question, nearly 6 of 10 independents are in the "anti-war extremist camp."

It's time for the Democratic leaders to understand this and act. If they don't it's not only the Democratic base that will punish them, but they could find the all-important independents abandoning them, as well.


The Kaiser/Harvard poll uses cluster analysis to break down this diverse group into five distinct categories, the Disengaged (24% of indies), the Disillusioned (18%), the Dislocated (16%), Deliberators (18%) and Disguised Partisans (24%). The characteristics of each group are fascinating and reveal where the Democrats should focus their energies.

The Disguised Partisans. The Democrats within this group are indies mainly because they are frustrated and angry with the Democratic Party. The Post describes this group as:
"Walking and talking Democrats, these independents lean overwhelmingly toward the Democratic Party; two-thirds always or mostly support Democratic presidential candidates.
They are more tuned in to government and politics than rank-and-file Democrats, and 13 percent said they get a lot of information about politics from blogs (the most of any group)."
This group agrees with the Dems' progressive ideology and but there is danger lurking as 93% believe Iraq is not worth fighting. More than 75% indicating they would consider voting for an independent candidate in 2008, the risk of losing these voters increases with more Iraq capitulations.

The Dislocated: Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, 46% define themselves as "progressive." Clearly, this group leans toward Democrats (57% voted for Kerry, 60% voted Dem in 06), particularly in the wake of the recently deposed GOP Congress' uncontrolled spending. The way to keep these voters is to increase transparency - and it behooves Democrats to get out in front on the issue of earmarks. More than 8 in 10 view Iraq as not worth fighting. This group is more "anti-war" than the extremist base, too.

The Disillusioned: This group feels the system is broken and are not happy with either party. They're furious with Bush and Iraq. The WaPo defines says further:

"Bush and the war are crucial components of the disillusionment.
Three-quarters say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and just two in 10 think it is still possible to stabilize the country.
Fifty-seven percent call Bush the worst modern president.
For 2008, this group leans Democratic, but high levels of disenchantment could keep them home. They would also welcome an independent candidacy."

The Deliberators: These are the true independent swing voters - and note: they make up less than 20% of the 30% of the independent vote! They swung HUGE between '04 and '06 elections, as Bush received 66% of their support and the Dems won 52% in the midterms. Even a majority of voters within this group (55%) do not feel Iraq is worth the cost. This group will support the party and candidates that show competence.

The Disengaged: Forget about 'em. They represent 3% of voters and don't tend to vote.

Independents are Democratic-leaning voters. They are opposed to the War in Iraq. These numbers reveal that moderation isn't what a majority of independents want. They crave leadership, particularly on Iraq.

Are the Democratic leaders listening?

"Crazy Weather We're Having" as the Planet Lurches Toward the Tipping Point

Barely a month goes by these days when a weather related story doesn't include a comment along the lines of "the worst/most powerful/deadliest/costliest event since weather records have been kept." June 2007 was no exception: Cyclone Ganu struck the Persian Gulf threatening the world's oil supply. Devastating wildfires in Tahoe blazed for days, reinforcing a frightening new reality; the California fire season now lasts year-round. Dozens of towns in Great Britain and Texas were flooded due to unprecedented torrential rains. In Pakistan, 800,000 people were displaced due to a severe cyclone this past week. When aid failed to arrive, riots ensued.

These are precisely the types of climatological events scientists - and Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance - predicted would become commonplace as the planet's temperature rose. The costs of these disasters are staggering - both financially and socially. The flooding in Britain alone is estimated to exceed $1 billion pounds - and the rains haven't stopped yet.

Beyond the obvious fact that it's getting pretty expensive to do nothing about global warming, I wonder, is it too late to rescue the planet? Al Gore doesn't think so - and he believes you and I are the ones with the power to save the earth.

Gore, writing an Op-Ed piece titled "Moving Beyond Kyoto,"in today's New York Times, says the United States must step forward and provide the moral leadership needed to address global warming. And America must do it now. He begins:

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Gore calls on the American people to stand up and demand action of our political leaders. He proposes a new climate treaty aiming to reduce global warming pollution by 90%. He sets a two-year timetable - he envisions this new agreement completed by 2009. The need is urgent and requires immediate action. A consensus can - and must - be built. He writes:

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this
world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

Can Gore finally build the global consensus needed to achieve his vision? Despite sounding this alarm for more than fifteen years, far too many Americans remain in denial about global warming's dangers. Many others - including this writer - have not made the adjustments in our daily lives necessary to reduce our individual impact on the planet. Too often, the change is "inconvenient." In many homes and businesses, simply recycling newspapers, bottles and cans is considered too much of a hassle. Now, I'm no scientist, but reducing global warming pollution by 90% would likely require changes the average citizen would view as going far beyond recycling and carpooling.

When then-Sen Gore wrote Earth in the Balance it was a powerful expose on how human activity in the industrial age had dramatically - and negatively - impacted the earth's ecosystem. As a result, the planet - and human civilization - teetered on the edge of catastrophe. Addressing the situation required political courage and leadership. Gore wrote back then:

I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to the political winds and proceed cautiously.... [E]very time I pause to consider whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts [on the environment crisis] that continue to pour in from around the world and conclude that I have not gone far enough.... [T]he time has long since come to take more political risks--and endure more political criticism--by proposing tougher, more effective solutions and fighting hard for their enactments.

Sadly, our leaders did not take brave political risks. Instead, Congress failed to even ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The American people were not asked to fundamentally change their living patterns. Rather, we drove bigger, less fuel-efficient cars on longer commutes to our McMansions filled with an ever-expanding array of energy consuming electronic gadgets. I hate to say this but sacrifice and moral leadership may be characteristics of bygone American generations.

The book was controversial and many political opponents dismissed Gore's warnings as unfounded hysteria. Gore was roundly attacked by big business and their lackeys in the Republican Party. A coordinated and well-funded campaign to debunk the theory of global warming was so effective that the term itself became ineffective. This is why "global warming" has been replaced by the more innocuous "climate change."

But, let's be clear, the failure to act has been bipartisan. Democrats have undoubtedly been more receptive to green positions and have favored environmental regulations, but our leaders certainly have not been the risk-takers Gore demanded them - and himself - to be.

While the politicians dithered and the populace consumed, the planet kept getting hotter.

And the tipping point - the moment from which there is no return - approaches, more rapidly than the scientists predicted in the early 1990s. The Arctic ice sheets are melting faster than any of the models forecast. There are indications the North Atlantic Gulf Stream current is slowing down, which could have catastrophic consequences on Europe's climate in coming decades. Weather has become more severe and extreme. Droughts are drier and longer. Hurricanes are more powerful and more frequent.

In order to avert catastrophe Gore observes, "individual action will also have to shape and drive government action." Apparently, he has lost his faith in the politicians providing the leadership necessary. He goes on, "Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success."

This Saturday, on 7/7/07, the Live Earth concerts will launch Gore's global campaign of "individual action." Every member of the listening audience - an estimated 2 billion people - will be asked to sign The Live Earth Pledge (you can sign it now if you care to). It's the first step in the three year global campaign to unite humanity against a universal threat - ourselves.

Let's hope we're not too late.