Election Central Saturday Roundup
Fred Thompson In 1991: Abortion Lobbyist
The Los Angeles Times revealed last night that Fred Thompson accepted a lobbying job from Planned Parenthood in 1991. The assignment was to lobby the George H. W. Bush Administration to rescind or at least relax the "gag rule" preventing clinics receiving federal money from counseling women regarding abortion. Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo is denying Thompson ever did the work, but Planned Parenthood minutes from 1991, and the personal allegations of two people involved at the time, attest to it.
Hillary Leads In Congressional Endorsements
A review by The Hill finds that Hillary Clinton has a wide lead over the competition in terms of endorsements from current members of Congress. Hillary has an astounding 51 endorsements, while her closest Democratic competition, Barack Obama, has a mere 22 Congressional supporters. On the Republican side, John McCain and Mitt Romney are tied at 27 endorsements each.
For Now, Fred Thompson's Committee Doesn't Have To Report Donors
While the other candidates are reporting their donations and facing the good or bad news, Fred Thompson has found a temporary loophole. ABC News notes that Fred Thompson's "testing the waters" committee does not have to report its donors until such time as he officially becomes a candidate. As such, he is able to raise donations up to the $2,300 limit for the primaries, but does not have to report his totals, as he has not said outright that he is a candidate. If and when he does finally call himself a candidate, all the donations will be made public, including those raised in the "testing the waters" phase.
White House Attacking Dems On Spending — Dems Say It's Bogus
The Wall St. Journal reports that the White House is attacking Congressional Democrats on the grounds that they are "are looking for opportunities for increasing taxes, looking for opportunities to increase spending," as deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said yesterday. The language is sure to help shore up the White House's support among the conservative base. However, Dem aides say the attacks are empty, and that their spending proposals are not showing significant growth over the budgets from past years. "I have no idea what all this carping about spending is all about," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Harry Reid.
In Maine, GOP Congressional Candidate Reports For Duty In Iraq
Naval Reservist Charlie Summers, the first Republican candidate thus far to declare for the Democratic-leaning 1st Congressional District of Maine, reported yesterday for a tour of duty in Iraq\. His wife will campaign on his behalf until he gets back. "She will articulate my ideas for me. If all goes well, I will be back the first week of August 2008," Summers said. However, the primary is in June 2008 — meaning he will likely be unable to do any actual campaigning for the race, and his wife will effectively become the face of the campaign on the ground in the district. The seat has opened up due to the Senate candidacy of Congressman Tom Allen (D).
Spitzer Allegedly Calls Bruno "Senile Piece Of Shit"
The New York Post reports that in the midst of a heated argument, Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) called state Senate Majority leader Joe Bruno (R-NY) "an old, senile piece of shit." And just to add some more leverage, Spitzer made sure to remind Bruno of the current ongoing federal investigation against him, according to a Bruno aide.
OK -- Bush ran up the biggest budget deficit in the history of not just the United States, but any entity in the history of the world. He accomplished this with misguided, corrupt military spending, tax cuts for the rich and corporate, and "black-box" outlays for secret plans. For him to complain about spending is to reach a new personal best for mind-blowing hypocrisy.
And all Reid's office can say is they don't know what the carping is about. The GOP hands them another jackpot moment and they use it to break their own nose. I wonder how much the consultant that came up with that gem is getting paid? Looks like this is going to be a long and painful year.
July 7, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need more like Spitzer. Tell the Republipukes where they can go. As far as Hillary and the endorsements, so what? McCain has the Republican nomination all locked up because of it. Doh!! I forgot that Ron Paul has more COH than Saint McCain does. Like the little people give a crap what candidate a corrupt Congresscritter endorses. The Beltway media sure loves these idiotic exercises. Does anyone really care who Bill or Ben Nelson endorse? Or Dan Burton?
July 7, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
[From the link:]
Notice the Republicans avoided addressing the issue of whether the majority leader was a senile piece of shit.
Undoubtedly he is. :-)
Best, Terry
July 7, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep hearing, day after day, that the other mob is worse. Both sides are completely ignorant of the victims in this entire fiasco. It's the multitudes of former and current, everyday folks in this country who have vested their lives to help make this country what it is.
Listen to those clowns on both sides. They are up there lying, scheming, bragging about what they have done. What they have done is formed two mobs who have grown powerful enough to overthrow a democracy.
Were Clintons pardons worse than Bush's commute? I don't know. I believe both rapists and extortionists belong in jail. It doesn't MATTER which one is worse. Their BOTH WRONG!!!
We need to begin to take a good look at what we are teaching our children, and right now we are teaching them to always BLAME the other guy... that the other guy deserves punishment because his crimes are atrocious, but we always deserve better because our final goals are important... that being honorable is not necessary... that one's word is not important... that integrity is a detriment to success.
Well, folks, look around you. We ARE teaching our youth these exact concepts. What a legacy we are leaving. We will continue to need more and more prisons to hold the ever growing number missfits we seem to breed.
Ah, what good examples we are...
July 7, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Eric - you dissed Edwards again. Shocking!
>>>Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) also has collected 14 congressional endorsements. The 2004 vice presidential nominee has yet to receive the support of any senators but is backed by every North Carolina Democratic congressman.
July 7, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is that dissing Edwards? He pointed out how wide the gap is between Hillary and the next-closest candidate, which is standard. Edwards was not the next closest candidate.
July 7, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so glad to see that Freddy Thompson is a whore . . . selling himself for just about anything.
Over the last six years, he has been banner bearer and coach for just about every slimy appointment out of the White House . . . I was beginning to believe him to be a fascist plutocratic ideologue.
I am flashing back on his roll on Wise Guy during the 90's were his 'white power' leader character told Vinnie that you don't have to believe it . . . you just gotta be able to sell it.
July 7, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The effect of rape and exhortion are localized and personal.
Conspiracy to commit treason and treason harms every American . . . And in this case several hundred thousand Iraqis.
Yes, Bush 43's commute is worse than Clinton's idiocity . . . But both were reprehensible.
July 7, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think selling himself to the highest bidder will hurt him with the GOP. He's just following in the footsteps of the sainted Reagan.
July 7, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I was just commenting cuz I fear his present mindset a tad bit less.
I was much happier with Thompson when he was banging D-list actresses and table dancers while doing absolutely nothing for his Senate paycheck.
July 7, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
At one time only party leaders had votes and could select the candidate. A change was made some time ago so that primary voters selected their preferred candidates--and at least during initial rounds of voting for a candidate, these votes went to the candidate selected in their state's primary or caucus. But the votes of the party leaders did not go away--these folks still vote at the party convention.
These endorsements tell us who party leaders are supporting. It also means that, in a close result from the primary elections and caucuses, the party leaders, with their votes, can control the selection of the candidate. Endorsements matter.
July 8, 2007 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not totally true within memory but substantially so. Hubert Humphrey waited until the primaries were done before announcing his candidacy. Humphrey was not willing to be the war candidate against Eugene McCarthy but had no tools then to fight Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war.
Harry Truman denounced primaries as meaningless but they have been around a very long time.
No real argument but Hillary Clinton is far from the inevitable nominee I think. The war drums against the war are getting louder and louder.
For now even Fred Thompson is caught in a lie and every other Republican is tied to the disastrous Iraq War. Bloomberg could hypothetically be the anti-war candidate against a Hillary Clinton and whatever dirty bird might be chosen from among the current Republican stooges. It is now not quite so inconceivable the Republicans could find an anti-war candidate while the Democrats remain with the only hawk nominee. Ghastly thought is it not?
Think those endorsees would like that? Our fine party leaders have found a multitude of ways to lose and are hardly above doing it again.
Best, Terry
July 8, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was further reform in how the candidate was selected after Humphrey gained the Democratic nomination. Bit suspicious that the person leading the reform effort also got the nomination in 1972, eh?
I simply find it interesting that our party leaders managed to cough out such a high number of candidates who either voted for this misadventure or who supported it at the time. And, it seems to me, that there is an effort afoot to blur those facts to the benefit of ?
I don't think it necessarily means Hillary but I do believe we are having a split in the party that isn't been publicized at all. I think the last time the party faced the issue of the older party leaders and a new crowd of younger folks was with the Kennedy nomination. I also think the chaos with the nominations after Kennedy's term was a time of "passing the torch" and a fuss amongst the party leaders. That torch doesn't pass easily--and I muse sometimes that the failure to pass that torch is the reason our candidates apparently get older and older.
Just my weekend musings.
July 8, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, yes. It's as though the Dems can't be bothered to think of ways to win. They'd rather spend time day-dreaming about all the nice things they'd do for people, if only mean old Republicans would just play fair and stop beating them in elections.
You kind of have to wonder, though...if they can't beat the Republicans, how are they going to deal with Putin, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, China, or, for that matter, compete with Germany, France, Italy, and Britain? I mean, these people have their brains up their ass! If the Republicans weren't such obvious criminals and traitors, I'd be tempted to let the Dems take a hike.
July 9, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
"I never gave anybody hell, I just told the truth and it felt like hell."
Give 'em hell Spitzer!
July 9, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Nixon once refer to his little mole as a dumb shit? We need that quote again.
July 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink