The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'd realized

My dad was a Rockefeller Republican. He was disappointed by the turn the party took in the 1980s and 1990s, and though he died before George W. Bush was selected president, I've always felt that he would have definitively made the break from the GOP during this decade.

At the same time, I've felt that the number of disenchanted Rockefeller Republicans (liberal on social issues and supportive of things like progressive taxation and the estate tax) is not big enough to cost the GOP much in the electoral arena.

Tonight I ran into a former colleague of my father's, whom I hadn't seen in a long time. It was an eye-opening conversation to me; the circle of Republicans who are disgusted by their party's standard-bearers is broader than I had realized.

More after the jump.

My dad worked with this man for about 20 years, so they knew each other well. The former colleague (probably now in his late 50s or early 60s) is your classic old-fashioned Republican: country club, Chamber of Commerce, mainline Protestant, pro-choice, very successful in his profession. I know for sure that he has been active in the Iowa Republican Party in the past.

When I ran into him and his wife, we chatted for a few minutes about what I'm doing, their home remodel, etc. Then I asked him if he had a presidential candidate yet.

"I don't have a party," he replied.

I mentioned that I'd watched a couple of the Republican presidential debates and wondered if my dad would even identify as a Republican today. He said with certainty, "He wouldn't." He added that he doesn't plan to support any of the Republican presidential candidates, and a lot of Republicans he knows plan to sit out this next election.

"You have no idea how big your victory is going to be," he said. The wife nodded. She is also disgusted by the current crop of candidates.

I mentioned having met a Republican who told me he would consider voting for Bill Richardson. The wife said she really likes him--he's solid, he's shown that he can get things done, and "I just love his ads. They are so upbeat." I asked if they thought there would be a big crossover vote, and the wife certainly seemed open to the prospect. The husband said he suspected that the Republicans he knew wouldn't vote Democratic, but would sit out the general election.

He repeated that the Democrats are headed for a huge victory. "You're going to have the presidency, the House and the Senate." The wife added, "And that's probably not a bad thing."

I was simply stunned to hear these comments. This guy is very plugged into business Republican circles. This isn't your Limbaugh/Hannity listening crowd, but this is an important part of the GOP's coalition (especially on the fundraising side). If he is right, and large numbers of those Republicans are going to stand on the sidelines this cycle, November 2008 will be ugly for the GOP.

We better not blow this historic opportunity for realignment.

Tags: 2008 elections, Iowa, Presidential, Republican Party (all tags)



Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

Thanks for the message.  You end by saying we better not blow this opportunity.  That's one of the reasons I'm supporting Richardson.  He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary.  Richardson takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.  All of these qualities will appeal to many independent and Republican voters fed up with the war and Bush.

The 2004 election demonstrated the fallacy of the argument that all Democrats need to do is line up behind a candidate, generate a massive turnout and victory will be ours. John Kerry received more votes than any other Democratic candidate for President in history, including President Clinton.  Yet Kerry still lost.  

On the other hand, as we saw in the 2006 Congressional elections, when Democrats attract votes from Republicans and Independents, Democrats win.  

Richardson has been the most successful governor at the ballot box in New Mexico history.  In a state evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Richardson won his first term in office by a 56 to 39 percent margin.  

Four years later, when the campaign issue was his leadership and performance, Richardson was re-elected by a phenominal 68 to 32 percent vote- more than twice his margin of victory in 2002.  Forty percent of the Republicans that went to the polls in New Mexico last November voted for Richardson.  

Richardson knows how to communicate with and obtain the support of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  That is precisely the type of candidate we must have to retake the White House in 2008 and expand on the Democratic majorities in Congress.  

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-21 02:07AM | 0 recs
Richardson fan here

I think that Kerry made a big mistake NOT choosing Richardson.  If he had, I believe that Kerry would now be president.

by dataguy 2007-07-21 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson fan here

Are you serious?

Kerry made a lot of mistakes but choosing Edwards over Richardson was not one of them.

Edwards had a great message, upbeat, yet progessive, that Kerry buried post-convention.  If anything, Kerry needed MORE Edwards.

In contrast, Richardson is TERRIBLE in public (much to my dismay, as I will readily concede that his resume rivals that of ANY Democrat of the past 20 years).

On TV he acts defensive and apologetic. He fails to stay on message.  He cannot articulate a vision.

The biggest criticism of Edwards that I had was that Cheney cleaned his clock in the VP debate.  But I am quite confident that Richardson would have fared even worse, as he is terrible at rebutting GOP talking points.  In fact, he often repeats them.

by space 2007-07-21 01:51PM | 0 recs
I don't agree about the VP debate

I don't understand why so many people around here claim Cheney beat Edwards in that debate. That certainly wasn't my impression, and it wasn't the finding of the insta-polling taking right after the debate.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't agree about the VP debate

The reason is that people around here are informed about politics and don't tune in to a debate to learn anything substantive.  They tune in to see how well the debaters are able to articulate their messages, attack their opponent's weaknesses, defuse their opponent's strengths, and avoid making gaffes.

Edwards is generally considered to have lost because he was debating from a position of strength:  He was more charismatic, Democratic policies were more popularly generally, and Cheney was responsible for many of the administration's largest mistakes over the past 3 1/2 years.

"Winning" in this context isn't about who a focus group though did better on the whole (I'm sure they preferred Edwards, generally.  Cheney has never been a popular fellow, even in his own party), it's about whether you walked out stronger than you were when you walked in.  On that score, it was a huge mis oportunity for the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Was Edwards able to defuse Cheney's strength of appearing as a sober and serious elder statesman of politics?  Not so much.  Was Cheney able to defuse Edwards' strength relating emotionally to people?  Yes.  Was Edwards able to attack Cheney's weakness of not being able to emote?  Not so much. Was Cheney able to attack Edwards' weakness of being "too young" and "too green"?  Yes.

by space 2007-07-21 02:36PM | 0 recs
polls showed that the people watching

thought Edwards won, as did I.

The right-wing spin and hate machines went to work furiously after the debate, aided and abetted by the MSM journalists who don't like Edwards (and didn't like Kerry either).

They created a conventional wisdom saying that Edwards did poorly, missed an opportunity, etc.

But the bottom line is that the people watching the debate, polled immediately after the debate, thought Edwards did better.

The collective memory saying Cheney won (or beat expectations, or defused Edwards' strengths, or whatever) is just an example of our side internalizing GOP spin.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: polls showed that the people watching

You are entitled to your opinion, but my opinion was in no way affected by the GOP spin.  I thought Edwards underperformed as I watched it live. And I do so now.

However, you raise an interesting point.  If candidate A "wins" a debate in the sense that, immediately after the debate, more people think he won, but then in the days following and leading up to the election, candidate B manages to convince the public that he in fact won, who cares what people thought about immediately after the debate.

What Republicans seem to remember and Democrats seem to forget is that the point of the campaign is to win the election.  The point of a debate isn't to win the debate.  The point of the debate is to win the election. The entire campaign is the "debate."  If the voters remembered Cheney winning the debate on election day then he won the debate.

Where we can both agree is that post-debate, the Bush-Cheney camp kicked the butt of the Kerry-Edwards camp.

by space 2007-07-21 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't agree about the VP debate

Space, you've analyzed this well and I agree with you.  I thought Cheney succeeded in making Edwards look at a pup.  Edwards thought he was making points but completely missed the fact that Cheney was making him look foolish.

by noquacks 2007-07-21 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson would have reversed

Bush's impact with Hispanics.  I believe that, single-handedly, he could have pulled NM and CO democratic, and then Kerry would not have need OH.

by dataguy 2007-07-22 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'
Richardson does have appeal as a practical, Western governor, would focus the party more on bringing in voters from the West instead of the South, but I think he's still struggling with your last point: "Richardson knows how to communicate"
I think he's not really ready for prime-time. Both Richardson and to a certain extent Obama too have had to have a steep learning curve in debates. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does give me pause about putting him at the top of the ticket. I'm glad the hazing is happening now in the primary, instead of Kerry having chosen Richardson in '04 and catapulting him into the national spotlight. I've heard rumors that this is exactly the reason Kerry's team passed up Richardson.
by psericks 2007-07-21 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

I agree here.  I have always said that "RICHARDSON is the WILD CARD", period.  He is the only candidate on both sides, totally experienced via resume, for this job.  And I gave to him first quarter, but have been disappointed in his debate performance.  Was totally disappointed in Obama, debate one, but it is apparent that Obama is being coached now, just from his last apperances, so I expect for him to be stronger coming up.  I think the NAACP Forum was a turning point for Obama.  I agree with Donna Brazile, what she wrote in the Hotline, he has found his groove.  He has.  He was point and spot on during that NAACP Forum, so expect him being even BETTER in these debates for the fall.  But Richardson, is making headway.  He is really a personable individual, and it seems to be clicking with folk.  Interesting fall, indeed.

by icebergslim 2007-07-21 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

There are a ton of debates coming up.  I'm confident Richardson will show marked improvement. He was recently on CNN and did a great job handling the hard questions. s/2007/07/16/intv.richardson.novp.cnn

Again, I maintain my view that with Richardson at the top of the ticket Democrats win in a landslide.   Republicans would have so much trouble against him.   Richardson would be strong in all the states Kerry carried, plus regions of the country that always go   Republican.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-21 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

You really thought Richardson was good in that CNN interview?

I thought that he exhibited the same weakness he's show in the debates: rambling and unable to piece together a sharp, coherent message in a timely fashion.

by hwc 2007-07-21 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

Not to mention that his proposal of having all 160,000 troops out of Iraq five months from now is disturbingly unrealistic. He might as well propose universal health care by next week.

by hwc 2007-07-21 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Worse shape than . . .

How long did it take for the U.S. to get 100,000+ troops into Iraq? Why should it take any longer to get them out? The Iraqis just might shower our troops with flowers as they exit the suffering country.

Repubs are cranking up hysteria about a bloodbath that could follow our withdrawal. Excuse me, we have a bloodbath now, with us stuck in the desert sands. So don't fall for that line.

After we left South Vietnam, how much bloodbath did we see? It was a terrible situation, with tens or hundreds of thousands of people leaving the country, and many more put in "re-education" camps -- but how many bled and died? (Was that figure greater or less than the total civilian casualties of the protracted war?) The others eventually got released. Some of them now own their own businesses and export to us, some others work for U.S. companies. We lost the war in Vietnam, but we won the peace.

In Iraq we have two (2) main causes of violence. One is the civil war among the ethnic and religious groups fighting for control over the others, or at least conrol of their own turf. The second is the apparently widespread Iraqi patriotic opposition to the foreign occupation of their country. But isn't it three (3) main causes of violence? The third being the ongoing efforts of the U.S. forces to control the country, and some say, its resources.

When we finally do leave, we will remove two of the main causes of violence in Iraq.

And withdrawal will remove on huge obstacle to a political settlement of the domestic strife. Currently the U.S. is insisting that the Iraqi government must come up with a "revenue-sharing" plan for the Iraqi oil reserves -- one that must include a fat share of the revenues for foreign (i.e., U.S. and British) oil companies. Once we are gone, the Iraqis can more easily decide how to share the oil revenues if they don't need to hand over a chunk to foreigners.

The sooner we get out of Iraq, the less violence there will be and the fewer people will die.

This is the one issue where Richardson is clearly ahead of any of the other candidates, perhaps as a result of his far greater experience in international affairs.

BTW I actually contribute to another candidate, but I like them all, and I really admire Bill Richardson on this issue.

by Woody 2007-07-22 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

Then Biden who has expressed the most caution of all Democrats on withdrawing from Iraq is also unrealistic:

"Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007"

That is part of Biden's plan for Iraq.

Now until January 20, 2009, I highly doubt there will be an order by the President to withdraw our troops from Iraq.  We're in Iraq for the next 18 months. Bush won't withdraw our troops.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-22 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

Richardson did well in his latest CNN appearance.  You're off target in your criticisms.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-22 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

You are correct, it was the first debate in my mind.  Obama is my first, but Richardson can easily be my second.  He is the best, overall, quailified person, period, if you want to look at resumes.  

by icebergslim 2007-07-22 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'
This might be part of the story about why the GOP fundraising has been so anemic.
by psericks 2007-07-21 03:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'
All of the talk has been about the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd being furious over immigration, but it might just be more fundamentally that the coalition of moderate businessfolk and social conservatives is just coming apart apart six years of Bush. Neither side is happy, and they both blame the other for their losses.
Maybe that's part of the story anyway, I know it's kind of a rough gloss on the people who make up the GOP.
by psericks 2007-07-21 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

This is exactly the reason.  There are more Republicans giving MAX to Obama, than any other Dem candidate.  I live in a swing district, and these Republicans have had it with this administration.  I live in the Lake Forest area, google it for MONEY, very rich here, these Republicans are NOT pulling thier checkbooks or wallets out, at all.  Many have given to Obama, which, I was shocked.  Really.  And many are disgusted and embarrassed the way this party is now.  They are not the O'Reilly/Hannity crowd, this is the pragmatic/Goldwater crowd, who has "sustained" the GOP by monies.  And they are not giving this organization any more.

by icebergslim 2007-07-21 09:12AM | 0 recs
that's interesting

A Clinton supporter told me she had heard about some Republicans for Obama in Iowa, but I hadn't heard about any giving him money.

I really wonder how many Republicans are going to change their registration to caucus on the Democratic side. Their candidates are so uninspiring.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: that's interesting

These groups are ALL OVER.  Michelle Obama is going to Peoria, Illinois for a luncheon/fundraiser.  Peoria, Illinois is RED as RED can be.  When I was at the Women for Obama Conference Call, there was a woman who drove up to our meeting from Peoria, and is fully supporting Obama.  She stated that he has big support in Peoria.  I was SHOCKED, really, I was.  Peoria is totally Republican.  So, do not think that ppl will not switch over to vote in the primaries or caucuses, I think they will.  I heard a woman on c-span who called in from Florida, who changed her party to Democrat from Republican to vote for Obama.

by icebergslim 2007-07-21 10:04AM | 0 recs
more power to him

if he can get large numbers of Republicans to cross over and caucus for him. That lays the groundwork for longstanding Republicans to open their minds about voting for other Democrats too.

I don't know how his field organizers will identify these people, though--it's hard enough to contact all the Ds and no-party people, let alone get in touch with the Rs to find out who is disenchanted enough to consider supporting Obama.

I do know of one Republican in my precinct planning to cross over and caucus for Edwards, but I only know about him because his wife is a D for Edwards. I haven't systematically called the Rs in my neighborhood.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: that's interesting
I was one of those peeple who made Peoria RED RED RED.
I started separating myself from the GOP in the 1980's shortly after Reagan (or as I often referred to him in LTTE's, "Mr. Hollywood" became President.
I think the worst thing about Reagn was the people around him.
This is the kind of things which helped undo the Democrats 40 years ago, if you'll pardon my independent observation.
by spirowasright 2007-07-21 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: that's interesting
How does voter registration work in Iowa? Is there a deadline before the caucus? Do you happen to know how early it is?

I buy that a Republican might walk into a voting booth during an open primary in New Hampshire and vote in the Democratic primary without having to change their registration --- but for Republicans in Iowa to change their registration in order to sit down for a caucus in a room full of Democrats for three hours... I'm not sure I can quite picture that.

We might see independents registering Dem to get the chance to participate. I dunno how big the numbers would be. A closed-party caucus has got to be the best way to discourage outside participation though...
by psericks 2007-07-21 10:26AM | 0 recs
you can register or change registration

the evening of the caucus, right there where people are signing in to go to the room. I've never seen a huge number of people do it, but we definitely had several re-register on caucus night in 2004 in our precinct.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 12:50PM | 0 recs

We better not blow this historic opportunity for realignment.

That's why we need Edwards. We need to pass lasting progressive programs when we have the chance, and 2008-2010 will be the best opportunity to do that. We'll pick up seats in the Senate and House, and in Edwards, we'll have a president who's going to push for the necessary changes, like energy independence, true universal health care, and economic reforms to lift the poor and middle class, and tackle global warming.

by clarkent 2007-07-21 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: realignment
That's right! and also why the corporate media disses him and Centri$t Dem senators promote Centri$t prez candidates. Follow the money...
by annefrank 2007-07-21 07:43AM | 0 recs
My dad
was just like yours, and I know he would have hated Bush.  He was one of the old MA Republicans.  He died in 1999 at 84.  We never discussed politics much, he was a staunch believer that politics and religion were off-limits.  I became a Democrat as soon as I left home.  
Right now in NH's 1st Congressional District, we are gearing up to protect Carol Shea Porter from a re-run by Jeb Bradley.  She is being attacked by a small but very vocal group who have relatives in the service (or so they say) and are using the "support the troops" mantra, if you don't support Bush and his war, you don't support the troops.  
Sununu can't break over the 40%s in the polls against any of the candidates who are declared or undeclared.  I suspect it may be too late for him to change course now - that would just open him up to charges of political flip-flops.
by bloomingpol 2007-07-21 04:07AM | 0 recs
the northeast was always the base

of the Rockefeller wing of the party. A lot of the progressive legislation of the 1960s and 1970s could never have passed Congress without those Republicans. The increasing irrelevance of the GOP in New England is a story of many thousands of people like your dad and my dad finally waking up.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: My dad

Does Sununu have a Dem challenger?

by annefrank 2007-07-21 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: My dad

Does Sununu have a Dem challenger?


Although the race is still in flux as it appears that former governor Jean Shaheen is likely to jump in.

by hwc 2007-07-21 08:04AM | 0 recs
The Republican Party is in worse shape

Yep. The Republicans have been pushing voters out of the their party for a while now. The whole Christian Coalition stuff has undermined their support -- the nonsense stuff like HIV-AIDS effort that don't include condom use, etc.

My lifelong Dad stopped giving to the Republican Party a few years back and actually voted for Kerry over Bush the last time around because of Bush's incompetence.

Like your guy, he's really struggling to find a candidate this year.

Their best candidate is (a well-packaged) Guiliani. However, like the netroots Dems, the red-meat wing of the Republican party won't accept centrist views on any issues, so I'm not sure he can get the nomination.

by hwc 2007-07-21 05:21AM | 0 recs
I didn't specifically ask about Rudy

but I would have thought that these people would be Rudy supporters, or perhaps McCain supporters who fool themselves into thinking he's really a moderate.

Instead, they were completely disinterested in getting involved with the Republican field. I didn't hear any "if only Gingrich would get in" either.

My dad stopped giving to the party in the 1990s. He was repelled by the fundie agenda.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't specifically ask about Rudy

...but I would have thought that these people would be Rudy supporters

That's why Rudy is leading in the polls. He's the closest thing the Republicans have to a "centrist" candidate in a centrist electorate.

by hwc 2007-07-21 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't specifically ask about Rudy
The odd thing is that in most polls I've seen Rudy is actually getting his lead from conservative voters enamored with the hero of 9/11 instead of moderates, but we'll see how that shakes down if McCain isn't viable anymore.
by psericks 2007-07-21 07:41AM | 0 recs
This didn't happen overnight

That's the problem with republicans - they won't take responsibility for anything. Their party didn't become "this way" over night. It's been going on for over thirty years. Suddenly, they're disillusioned? Nothing fails like complete failure, eh?

They won't vote in the next election? It would be too much for them to try and take back their party? Yeah, it's somebody else's responsibility. That's how they lost their party in the first place.

I have no sympathy. I greatly appreciate them sitting on their hands come the general election, but somehow, it's just a suspicion, I don't think they're going to be responsible enough to help clean up the mess that's the result of their inaction. There's a sign someone holds at the weekly protest on the Plaza in Kansas City: "Your Silence Means Consent"

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-21 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: This didn't happen overnight

That's an excellent point. Even in the Bush era, Republicans worked their asses to elect him to a 2nd term.

by clarkent 2007-07-21 06:18AM | 0 recs
a lot of them did, but

inspired by your comment, I looked up this guy on FundRace and couldn't find any record of contributions in 2004 from him or his wife.

I'm sure they gave in 2000, though. I agree with the general point that business Republicans were slow to realize that they lost control over the GOP base.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: a lot of them did, but

Some still are. Whenever I say to someone who tells me they are a Republican, but not in the way Bush is, I ask them name the rest of your leadership and tell me what they are doing that's different from Bush, and why you are supporting them.

by bruh21 2007-07-21 08:04AM | 0 recs
That's what I've been saying ...

2008 is the Democrats' best opportunity in a generation. I come from a very Republican family myself, and grassroots GOP disgust with DC is not a joke.

Nominating Hillary Clinton, obviously, would push 99% of those Republican malcontents back into the 1990's/2000/2004 trench warfare to defend a crowd that they have grown to despise. But they absolutely will.

There isn't one Chamber of Commerce guy who is going to support any woman who said, "It's not my fault if your business is undercapitalized" (if you didn't save up the money to deal with my healthcare mandate) Bet your life on it.

by jforshaw 2007-07-21 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: That's what I've been saying ...

There isn't one Chamber of Commerce guy who is going to support any woman who said, "It's not my fault if your business is undercapitalized" (if you didn't save up the money to deal with my healthcare mandate) Bet your life on it.


The CEO of Morgan Stanley, who was a major fundraiser for George W, has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Why? The major reason is several long policy discussions on health care reform he has had with Clinton. Clinton knows her stuff and impressed him and his wife who is on the board of directors of a major hospital in New York.

by hwc 2007-07-21 08:07AM | 0 recs

1: John Mack is no "Average Joe Small Businessman." He is the CEO of an investment bank, and he is a political player.

2: It's hilarious that you'd think a bona fide life-long Republican "captain of industry" on Wall Street would be "impressed" by any candidate who promised anything remotely close to health care reform. Much, much more likely, she promised him only symbolic "reform."

by jforshaw 2007-07-21 09:08AM | 0 recs
HRC is unelectable

Just my view, but that's where I stand.  She is VERY polarizing.

by dataguy 2007-07-21 08:38AM | 0 recs
Sitting it out

...a lot of Republicans he knows plan to sit out this next election.

I've heard the same thing, except out here they add that if the nominee is Hillary that they won't sit it out, but vote against her.  I've heard it enough to worry me.

by NvDem 2007-07-21 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Sitting it out

Yeah, me too.  I would LOVE them to sit it out, but if it is HRC, they WON'T.  If she gets the nod, hopefully she will be smart enough to offer Obama the VP slot.  He is the one who is not polarizing, he is the one who can go to all 50 states in this country and raise monies from everybody, he is the one who can help her with independents and moderate republicans.  But we will see.

by icebergslim 2007-07-21 09:19AM | 0 recs
Obama will not be VP

If Hillary gets the nomination, she will choose a governor or Wes Clark.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will not be VP

I don't know about that.  Obama is a formidable candidate and he "attracts" all across the board, this is proven.  He is the one who can go into the reddest of districts and fundraise or have rallies and thousands show up.  I don't know.  Plus, the AA community my be angered if he is not offered the second slot.  So, I do see this a slippery slope.

by icebergslim 2007-07-21 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will not be VP

There is a lot of hope riding on Obama for his supporters and Edwards for his, and if either one of them closes in on Hillary just falling short will be disasterous. There may even be a fight at the convention if it is close. Will things all come together at the end? Very hard to tell. The stakes are high and the fight will be really nasty. She is the only one who will not be able to take advantage of Republican discontent, even many dems will have trouble supporting her, and it will only become harder if she wins a down and dirty fight with their candidate.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-21 08:20PM | 0 recs

We'd have ham and eggs. If we had some ham, and if we had some eggs.

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-22 07:24AM | 0 recs
Sentiment echoed recently by Bob Novak

Who said Repubs in DC expect losses in the House and Senate and expect Hillary Clinton to be the next President.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-21 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Sentiment echoed recently by Bob Novak

u quoting "Novak"?.  Pahleaze, not him.  A man who has gotten it more WRONG, than RIGHT.

by icebergslim 2007-07-21 09:20AM | 0 recs
When it comes to Republicans

There is probably not a more connected reporter.  When he talks about what Republicans are doing or saying you can make bank on it.  

I take what he about Democrats with a grain of salt.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-21 10:45AM | 0 recs
The Republican Party is in deep _____

I like how you gave a personal experience to ellaborate how some people feel about their party, which I agree, has gone off the right wing and is swimming in the water somewhere.  

Right now we've seen detrimental fundraising from the NRSC, unimpressive fundraising from the NRCC, and steady but strong fundraising from the RNC.  

What I want to know, is if anyone has a good website, that shows fundraising records for state parties?  I know I've seen, like 3-5 months ago that the Nevada Republican party was desperate, obviously it's old news, but I'd like to know if it still rings true.  There are a few other states I think I remember reading the same about, but I'd like some reassurance, and to say the least, and maybe a list.  

Those are states where we should be gearing to give major blows in the state government and the US government.  Nevada for example has two US Representative seats we can fight for.  If their party is broke, we can capitalize.

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-21 10:13AM | 0 recs
The republican party always has money

...fundraising records for state parties?

I was going to write a diary on Missouri campaign fundraising. Things have gotten quite complicated.

Missouri republican Governor Matt "baby" Blunt is not doing very well in the popularity department. The Attorney general, Democrat Jay Nixon, is running for the office. The election is in 2008.

The republican General Assembly did away with campaign finance limits in the last session.

In the last quarter "baby" Blunt out raised Jay Nixon, with some serious money from single contributors. Including a few folks from out of state.

The Missouri Supreme Court just overturned the lifting of limits, and will be hearing arguments about candidates having to return the amounts over the old contribution limits. If they grandfather those in, "baby" Blunt will have a huge advantage.

The same law change now prohibits party committees from making direct contributions to candidates (the party committee limit used to be ten time the individual limit). So before the new law took effect, the exodus of dollars - committees liquidating their assets - was a sight to behold.

Let's see - the Missouri Ethics Commission shows some 2nd quarter, 2007 "baby" Blunt contributions:

6/28/2007 - $100,000.00 [that's not a typo] - RGA MO 2008 PAG 1747 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 250 Washington, DC 20066

6/11/2007 - $50,000.00 - AT & T Inc. One AT&T Center, Room 4216 St. Louis, MO 63101

6/29/2007 - $20,000.00 - Consultant Associates P.C. PO Box 414 Carthage, MO 64836

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - CNS Corporation 500 E 9th St Kansas City, MO 64106-2627

6/30/2007 - $15,000.00 - Leslie Carter

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - Jerry Clinton

6/29/2007 - $12,500.00 - Independent Stave Co. Inc. 1078 South Jefferson P.O. Box 104 Lebanon, MO 65536

6/29/2007 - $12,500.00 - World Cooperage Co. Inc. 1078 South Jefferson P.O. Box 104 Lebanon, MO 65536

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - BNSF Railway Company PO Box 961039 2500 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth, TX 76161-0039

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - Southern Union Company 5444 Westheimer Road Houston, TX 77056-5306

6/29/2007 - $50,000.00 - Gerald Cook

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - River Ford Corporation PO Box 11048 Springfield, MO 65808

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - Theodore Cutler Boston, MA

6/30/2007 $10,000.00 - DLH Services, Inc. PO Box 880 Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-0880

6/30/2007 - $13,750.00 - Landwide Development Corp. 211 N. Broadway Suite 1900 Saint Louis, MO 63102

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - Silver Eagle Distributors PO Box 2743 Houston, TX 77252-2743

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - Glazer's Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. 14860 Landmark Blvd. Dallas, TX 75380-9013

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - Prime Embroidery, Inc. 2740 N. Mayfair Springfield, MO 65808

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - John Ferguson

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - Rebecca Global Products 21 Cherokee Drive Saint Peters, MO 63376

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - Metro Heart Group of St. Louis 11475 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 200 Saint Louis, MO

6/29/2007 - $20,000.00 - Kathy Hollo

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - New Prime, Inc. 2740 N. Mayfair Ave. Springfield, MO 65803

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - Success Leasing Inc. 2740 N. Mayfair Ave. Springfield, MO 65808

6/29/2007 - $20,000.00 - Positronic Industries, Inc. 423 N. Campbell Ave. Springfield, MO 65803

6/29/2007 - $10,000.00 - William Kapp

6/11/2007 - $50,000.00 - Bob Perry Houston, TX

6/11/2007 - $50,000.00 - Doylene Perry Houston, TX

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - John L. Nau III

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - Roy Pfautch

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - Union Pacific Railroad 1400 Douglas Street Stop 1560 Omaha, NE 68179

6/30/2007 - $25,000.00 - CKE Restaurants, In.c 401 W. Carl Karcher Way Anaheim, CA 92803-4349

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - Ann Scott

6/29/2007 - $25,000.00 - Anne R Wells

I stopped listing the $10,000.00 contributions - I was getting tired of cutting and pasting. This list would have been really long if I had bothered to list the $5,000.00 contributions.

The short answer: republicans will always have the money they need.


by Michael Bersin 2007-07-21 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The republican party always has money

Since Missouri Supreme Court changed the laws back he has to return all that, right?  Fundraising limits are one think maintaining this Democracy.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-21 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The republican party always has money

Since Missouri Supreme Court changed the laws back he has to return all that, right?

T'aint neccessarily so:

The Missouri Supreme Court just overturned the lifting of limits, and will be hearing arguments about candidates having to return the amounts over the old contribution limits. If they grandfather those in, "baby" Blunt will have a huge advantage.

Fundraising limits are one think maintaining this Democracy.
Corporate personhood takes a big chunk out of that.

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-21 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The republican party always has money

Err.. thanks.  Anything over the contribution limits is what I meant... I must have been in a rush or somthing.  Thanks for the clarification though.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-21 02:51PM | 0 recs

Another personal 'polling' from our famous IA lady. What's next? Counting the Edwards signs in a red district?

by areyouready 2007-07-21 05:34PM | 0 recs
if you don't enjoy reading first-hand accounts

you are welcome to skip my diaries and stick to the rah-rah Hillary inevitability material you prefer.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-21 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: if you don't enjoy reading first-hand accounts

Keep up the good work.  If anyone thinks Republicans would not be incredibly motivated and turn out in mass to stop HRC from becoming President they are deluding themselves.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-21 08:39PM | 0 recs

If anyone thinks Republicans would not be incredibly motivated and turn out in mass to stop the Democratic party nominee from becoming President they are deluding themselves.

It's in their nature, but nothing fails like complete failure. The republican base is not a majority.

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-22 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party is in worse shape than I'

I think Ronald Reagan was the last straw for my ex-GOP grandparents.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-21 11:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Republican Party

It seems like they are in bad shape but we must never let down our guard.  The worst thing to do is under-estimate them because the minute we let down our defenses, they will take advantage of that and who knows what kind of turn-around can happen.

by reasonwarrior 2007-07-22 09:36AM | 0 recs
A Great Opportunity

I agree that we have a great opportunity, and this sort of ground-level annecdotal information is an early-warning system we should take quite seriously.

While complacency is certainly something to guard against, I'd rather not go negative on going slack.  I'd rather take an optomistic view, and say this is all the more reason to pour it on.

This time two years ago, I was one of the first wave of folks talking about a possible wave election, taking back the House.  And I think we can do as well or better this time out.  But nothing is guaranteed.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-22 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: A Great Opportunity

Paul, to give you an idea, we shot for about 50 seats in 2006 and got 30.  We have 48 seats that are worth shooting for again.  We have more to defend, but we've got the bigger homefield advantage, we're better funded than 2006, and we are better prepared.  

What I'm saying is that we can come pretty damn close to 30 if we don't hit 30 again.  It's all about getting the right candidate, and we're off to a hell of a recruitment start.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-22 11:22AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads