Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 27, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

LIVE BY THE SWORD....It's schadenfreude time:

A crucial GOP fundraising committee is nearly broke, according to its latest monthly filing with the Federal Election Committee last week.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) reported $1.6 million in cash on hand and $4 million in debts as of Aug. 31. The group helps bankroll House campaigns for GOP candidates.

Its counterpart, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, reported $22.1 million, more than 10 times its Republican counterpart.

....Senate Republicans are in a state of relative poverty, also. The National Republican Senatorial Campaign has just over $7 million on hand, according to the new filings. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has more than $20 million.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving crew.

Kevin Drum 12:43 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

aw, gee. it couldn't happen to a nicer organization. can you say bankruptcy?

Posted by: mudwall jackson on September 27, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

I guess they could make up the difference with all the money they stole, if they could explain where it came from.

Posted by: Swan on September 27, 2007 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

On the bright side, maybe Dick Wadhams will have to take an honest job.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on September 27, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

karma

Posted by: trublu on September 27, 2007 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

This must mean that the Dem members of Congress will have the guts to not support any measure on a issue (like an ad that criticizes a general) that Republicans manufacture to drum up support for the GOP. And that the Dems will not support a nominee who invented the art of Democratic voter suppression.

Posted by: gregor on September 27, 2007 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

We got a local chuckle, too - this idiot named Jeff Roe, who is basically a white-trash, trailer-park version of Karl Rove - is heading up an anti-stem-cells organization. (Apparently the tighty-righties don't think the Constitutional Amendment we passed in November oughta count...)

Anyway, this bird-brain is heading up the "Just say no to cures and show the rest of the country we really are inbred, scientifically illiterate hicks!" movement.

Fired Up! Missouri reported today that the movement filed their quarterly report (20 days late, which carries a $200 fine) and showed that they have raised all of $20.34...So they are actually in the hole $179.80! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 27, 2007 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of schadenfreude, anybody watch the Democratic debate? Think Kucinich will win the nomination?

Might have to wait another eight years for the coming peace-loving socialist paradise...

Posted by: harry on September 27, 2007 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

What's the matter, Harry?

Don't want to talk about the topic at hand?

Posted by: Wide Stance on September 27, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

You seem to suggest that the Republicans are having trouble raising money. But later in the quoted article, it says

"The RNC reported raising $57.3 million so far this year, with $16 million on hand, while the Democratic National Committee raised $36.8 million so far this year, with $4.7 million on hand."

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

Everett

Posted by: efarr on September 27, 2007 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

They still owe me for ecumenical pizza and chick track printings.

Posted by: clickety on September 27, 2007 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

Think Kucinich will win the nomination? -Harry

Probably not, but remember that Kucinich comes from a very red Bush state [Ohio]and was the mayor of cleveland. He may not have the Presidential look, but he is no dummy. Frankly, he's probably too honest to be President, and that sucks.

But, to give him a political boost, given his appearance, which reminds me of Carradine, if you dressed him up like Caine [Kung Fu] and played on that image he could probably round some pretty good support [Yeh, Im mostly joking, but people are, for the most part, sparkle box heads today]

Posted by: Ya Know... on September 27, 2007 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, there you go again misinterepresenting the facts. The GOP dollars are measured in Celsius. You have to double and add 30. SO the GOP actually raised 33.2 million dollars--50% more than the Demolosers.

Posted by: Al on September 27, 2007 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

Amen to that, Al. And speaking of voodoo economics, I love that the value of their pathetic cash on hand is being gloriously inflating away thanks to -- wait for it -- Republican brainpower at the helm of the barnacled U.S.S. Economy.

Only Republicans can commit triple bankshot own goals like these. It's a spectacle to watch.

Posted by: Old Hat on September 27, 2007 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

"Think Kucinich will win the nomination? -Harry"

for all his faults as a charaimatic personality, for me, kucinich is the candidate that most of us here ultimately agree with on the issues themselves.

wouldn't it be cool if the general election ended up being between dennis kucinich and ron paul!

back to the ROOTS, baby!

LOL...dream ON, mr. nil...

Posted by: mr. nil on September 27, 2007 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans are running out of money. Could this be a metaphor for the way they've been running the country?

Posted by: bad Jim on September 27, 2007 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

And who says market forces don't work?

Posted by: bago on September 27, 2007 at 4:29 AM | PERMALINK

Everett,

Maybe you should read the title of the article Kevin linked to: "HOUSE Republicans in the red, numbers show". To break that down for you: the article, and Kevin's post, were specifically about comparing the NRCC with the DCCC.

But assuming that Kevin should have reported on the big picture: why did YOU quote the last paragraph, but not the third-to-lastmone?

"Senate Republicans are in a state of relative poverty, also. The National Republican Senatorial Campaign has just over $7 million on hand, according to the new filings. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has more than $20 million."

Accusations of quote-mining backed up by...what else?...quote-mining!

FYI: adding all of the numbers up:

NRCC -$2.4M
NRSC $7M
RNC $16M
Total Repub: $20.6M

DCCC $22.1
DSCC $20
DNC $4.7
Total Dem: $44.8

Sounds like, yes indeed, the Republicans are having trouble raising money. Get the point now?

(I suppose that if we added in all of the republican legal defense funds you might have us beat. But that's not what the article was about.)

Posted by: Tom Ames on September 27, 2007 at 4:31 AM | PERMALINK

mudwall jackson: "aw, gee. it couldn't happen to a nicer organization. can you say bankruptcy?"

When it comes to the Republicans, I'd much prefer to hear the terms "RICO violations" and "indictments" used in the same sentence ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 27, 2007 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

Al: "The GOP dollars are measured in Celsius."

And are probably being converted to euros in offsore accounts in the Cayman Islands.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 27, 2007 at 5:37 AM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, who has the biggest pile of loot is a strong predictor of electoral victory, but that isn't how it should be. Having more money shouldn't stop the Democrats from pushing for public financing of national elections.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 27, 2007 at 5:53 AM | PERMALINK

"The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) reported $1.6 million in cash on hand and $4 million in debts as of Aug. 31. The group helps bankroll House campaigns for GOP candidates."

$1.6 - $4 = -$2.4, how is that "nearly broke", more gop math? wouldn't it be "beyond broke"?

Posted by: supersaurus on September 27, 2007 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

No one carries what is happening to its natural conclusion. As the Republican Party collapses, the U.S. will be left with one political party. The two scenarios are either that all of the previous Republican voters will start voting in the Democratic Primaries and act as a moderator on the Democratic Party. Or will no opposition party, the left side of the Democratic Party will become the dominate force and everyone else will basically quit politics.

Also, can the coalition that is the current Democratic party survive without the mirror of the Republican party to define itself?

Posted by: superdestroyer on September 27, 2007 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

Gregor said:

This must mean that the Dem members of Congress will have the guts to not support any measure on a issue (like an ad that criticizes a general) that Republicans manufacture to drum up support for the GOP.

Hmmm; let's take stock: the Dems control the House, have more than the 41 votes in the Senate needed to put the brakes on Iraq war spending, have a huge lead in polls for the 2008 elections, and have the campaign finances to support and expand that lead...

But no, Gregor, they will not have the guts to challenge their corporate paymasters.

Posted by: Tak on September 27, 2007 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

But assuming that Kevin should have reported on the big picture: why did YOU quote the last paragraph, but not the third-to-lastmone?

Sigh. Another chance to use "antepenultimate" lost, with nary a backward glance. This endangered multisyllabic is on the verge of extinction. Won't you help?

Posted by: DrBB on September 27, 2007 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

Slightly tangential to the main point, but in discussions of this kind phrases like "the corrupting power of money in politics" are often hovering about, irrespective of who has the lead. If I could make but one single tweak to the screwed up way we talk about politics in this country, that phrase would undergo a critical adjustment.

It's not the corrupting power of money. It's the corrupting power of television, which is the engine driving the bloated cost of campaigning for the last 40-50 years. And the power elites like it that way. They like it a lot.

Posted by: DrBB on September 27, 2007 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

Rank and file republicans could be cashing in; enjoying the fruits. If one gets a $200 tax cut, contributing a like amount back to the party is just stupid. The corporate donors realize that contributions would yield diminishing returns; the republicans aren't going to have enough political clout to get things done for them.

Posted by: coldhotel on September 27, 2007 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, there you go again misinterepresenting the facts. The GOP dollars are measured in Celsius.

Best. Al-troll. Ever!

Posted by: Tyro on September 27, 2007 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

When the Republicans controlled both houses, they sold everything in the cupboard to raise campaign funds and now the cupboard is empty.

Posted by: nonheroicvet on September 27, 2007 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

What's really funny is that the head of the NRCC, whose name I can't remember and am too lazy to check, has been sparring with Boehner over control of the group, according to recent TPM reports. Evidently the RNCC head thinks the five bucks or so he has on hand should be used to challenge safe Dem seats.

With that kind of reality-denying mojo, why hasn't this fellow been tapped to work in the White House?

Posted by: shortstop on September 27, 2007 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Leave it to the democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Watch Big Dog's condemnation of the Move On vote he gave to SNN's Anderson Cooper. That's how all dems should handle it. Rescumlicans can run ads smearing war veterans Max Cleland and John Kerry, and that's OK, but Move On takes out an ad and uses *gasp* a pun! And the "world's most deliberative body" used our tax money to waste time and vote for this crap. Harry Reid needs to go. Contact all of your Senators and condemn those who voted for this crap. If your Senator didn't, take the time to thank him or her.

And I don't include the cowards Barack Obama and John McCain, who declined to vote.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 27, 2007 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Schadenfreude time? Are you serious?

I'm not sure if you noticed lately, but I don't think it matters how much money the RNC crew has. The Republicans will still wipe the floor with the Democrats. They can be in the minority technically, and yet still control the Congress just as easily as if they were in power. That much has been made abundantly clear in the past week, don't you think?

Of course, that could change if the Democrats ever realized that they had the votes. Yes, they do. They just have convinced themselves that they don't.

And no, I don't at all trust that a Democratic President in 2009 will do anything to change the current policy. Excuses are already being made to "stay the course".

Posted by: Ferruge on September 27, 2007 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Come the general election, the real organs of the Party -- the NAM, the Business Roundtable, the US Chamber of Commerce, the ABA (Banking, not Bar), and their ilk and local offspring -- will simply levy tribute from their vassals, the bundling will commence, and the money will come. Maybe not to the Party organs, but to the individual campaigns, locally.

Faced with the prospect of tumbrels full of Toyota dealers and orthodontists and Realtors™ going to the scaffold, of grass growing in the Main Steets and shopping mall parking lots of suburban America, the Babbits of this day will step up and do what's needed to stave off Socialism.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 27, 2007 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

harry: . . . peace-loving socialist paradise . . .

Better chance of that than the "peace-loving conservative paradise" Bush predicted for the entire Middle East.

Posted by: anonymous on September 27, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kucinich has the quality most treasured by the clueless, Nader-apologist left: No chance of winning. And he was an absolutely awful mayor, ranked by some polls as the third worst in American history (another plus for the clueless left), driving Cleveland into bankruptcy.

Posted by: MaxGowan on September 27, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

You seem to suggest that the Republicans are having trouble raising money.

Given that the advantage of the RNC over the DNC is less than the advantage of the DCCC over the NRCC, and the advantage of the DSCC over the NRSC adds another half again that advantage, I'd say that's a fair description.


Posted by: cmdicely on September 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans are running out of money. Could this be a metaphor for the way they've been running the country?" Posted by: bad Jim on September 27, 2007 at 4:14 AM

And money is the lanquage of the GOP, so they should be able to understand the message being sent them.

Cheney will die on soft sheets in his mansion built of oil and human lives, but perhaps those who are learning bad lessons at his knee will not find the pickings quite as easy as our little Dick found them.

Posted by: Zit on September 27, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

OT: Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a stir at a Senate hearing this week when he repeated his view that gay sex is immoral and should not be condoned by the military.

On the other hand, I guess it is perfectly moral in Pace's world to torture and murder Arabs, put your nation at risk by denying its army all of the best and the brightest available soldiers, and impose your religious beliefs on others contrary to both the Bible and our Constitution.

Posted by: anonymous on September 27, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

This is why we need to expand the map, particularly in this year. I'm not saying we need to spend millions upon millions in Alabama, but in states that Democrats might normally ignore, like North Carolina or Texas, we need to seriously compete. We'll need even more money, but it looks as if the GOP is so broke, it's going to have a helluva time catching up.

Posted by: Brian on September 27, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK
… he was an absolutely awful mayor, ranked by some polls as the third worst in American history… driving Cleveland into bankruptcy. MaxGowan at 10:03 AM
The actual Kucinich record

…After Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light, Cleveland's publicly-owned electric utility, the Cleveland mafia put a hit on Kucinich. A hitman from Maryland planned to shoot him in the head during the Columbus Day Parade, but the plot fell apart when Kucinich got sick and missed the event. ... Kucinich's supporters say that Kucinich kept his campaign promise of refusing to sell Muni Light to CEI and was brave for not giving in to big business. Specifically, it was the Cleveland Trust Company that required all of the city's debts be paid in full, which forced the city into default, after news of Kucinich's refusal to sell the city utility. For years these debts were routinely rolled over, pending future payment, until Kucinich's announcement was made public. In 1998 the council honored him for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks and saving the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995….
Gutsy little guy.

Posted by: Mike on September 27, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

But, I have $9.11 - Where do I send it?

Posted by: stupid git on September 27, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

MaxGowan: Kucinich has the quality most treasured by the clueless, Nader-apologist left: No chance of winning. And he was an absolutely awful mayor, ranked by some polls as the third worst in American history (another plus for the clueless left), driving Cleveland into bankruptcy.

Kucinich at least has more clues than Bush and the neocons, who have been wrong about every foreign policy decision they've made in the last six and a half years, who have undermined the US economy and left it on a shakey foundation of trickle down economics that already exibited failure during the Reagan years, and who have thoroughly corrupted the entire breadth and depth of the federal government.

Kucinich may not be the best choice, but he stands head and shoulders above the current choices within the GOP.

Republican = DOA (Disasterous Oppression of America)

GOP = Goofy Old Party

Posted by: anonymous on September 27, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Git, but, when the war started that nine dollars and change was worth a lot more.

MaxGowan, having a bit of a problem with that light bulb in your head? Redi-Kilowatt take a dixie?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 27, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Tom Ames,

I appreciate the clarification. Apparently, it was too late last night for me to add up the numbers.

The first question was easy -- now let me pose a more difficult one. If, by your calculations, the Dems have a 2.2:1 advantage in funding over the Repubs, are you satisfied that Kevin reported the numbers fairly? Didn't Kevin make the numbers sound much worse for the Repubs than they actually are? Are you satisfied with that level of accuracy?

Regards,
Everett

Posted by: Everett on September 27, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

So then, Mike, why does he have a reputation as one of America's worst mayors? I mean that not as a polemic statement, but a genuine question. It seems like that sort of judgment ignores what happened several years after he was out of the mayor's office.

Posted by: Brian on September 27, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

If, by your calculations, the Dems have a 2.2:1 advantage in funding over the Repubs, are you satisfied that Kevin reported the numbers fairly? Didn't Kevin make the numbers sound much worse for the Repubs than they actually are? Are you satisfied with that level of accuracy?

LOL. No, not to anyone who can read, Everett, since Kevin's post specifically refers to two committees, the NRCC and NRSC. Suggest you abandon your desperately shifting goalposts now. Get off the computer and get out there and raise a few buck for the GOP...if you can.

Posted by: shortstop on September 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Everett on September 27, 2007 at 11:27 AM:

Didn't Kevin make the numbers sound much worse for the Repubs than they actually are? Are you satisfied with that level of accuracy?

Actually, Kev just excerpted the article. If you have a beef about accuracy, why don't you email Avni Patel, who wrote the original article on The Blotter?

Sheesh,
grape_crush

Posted by: grape_crush on September 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

The Republican party of today is a borrow-and-spend liberal party, and less conservative financially than the Democrats, so the liberals may be surprised when a more conservative Democratic regime is installed in Washington and many beloved spending programs of today have to be abandoned. Beware of what you wish for.

Much as real conservatives were shocked when the faux right moved in and turned out to be nothing but religious fanatics and big spenders.

Posted by: Luther on September 27, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on September 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Brian on September 27, 2007 at 11:37 AM:

So then, Mike, why does he have a reputation as one of America's worst mayors?

Because a historian named Melvin G. Holli ranked him poorly based on his polling, the methodology of which had its own issues as outlined here (.pdf)...and that people want to use that to smear Kucinich, hence the 'reputation', which I hadn't heard about before it was brought up here as a way to derail this comment thread.

Posted by: grape_crush on September 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK
The Republican party of today is a borrow-and-spend liberal party

"Borrow-and-spend", yes. "Liberal", no. Its still a conservative party, one that seeks to narrow the distribution of wealth and power and invokes religious tradition, militarism, and nationalism to do so.

You seem to think that "conservative" means "small government", which is ahistorical. Conservatives have occasionally, especially recently, used "small government" as a slogan, and certainly have always opposed those parts and uses of government which act existing concentrations of wealth and non-governmental power, but just as consistently have supported the use of government power in support to reinforce existing concentrations of wealth and power. "Small government" sloganeering, which never has had much substance manifest in conservative government, is simply a tool to attract naive libertarian support for authoritarian conservatism.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

It couldn't happen to a more deserving crew.

What could we do to put them out of their misery??

Posted by: pol on September 27, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

brian: "So then, Mike, why does he have a reputation as one of America's worst mayors? I mean that not as a polemic statement, but a genuine question. It seems like that sort of judgment ignores what happened several years after he was out of the mayor's office."

You anwered your own question. The positive long-term implications of Kucinich's decision to resist the sale of Cleveland's Muni Light to private concerns, highly unpopular with the public during his tenure as mayor, only became readily apparent to people long after he left office.

It's always easy to say or do what's currently popular. It's not necessarily popular nor easy to do what is ultimately right. The wisdom, judgment and fortitude needed to follow the latter course is what will distinguish select politicians from their peers as real leaders, rather than enablers or panderers.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Talk to some Democrats who live in Cleveland. Much as I love Wikipedia, it is hardly a bastion of objectivity, especially with current Prez candidates. And who did you vote for in 2000?

Posted by: MaxGowan on September 27, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Luther: Much as real conservatives were shocked when the faux right moved in and turned out to be nothing but religious fanatics and big spenders.

Your obvious problem is that you believe that conservatives really believe what they say they believe when we know that it is all a con game to get voters to give them the power to enrich themselves by fleecing the public - whether they do so through government-mediated transfers of wealth to the already wealthy or ensuring an economic system that exclusively benefits the rich, both being tactics that conservatives have used through time to secure their own economic, political, and social hegemony.

Conservatism is a racketerring operation which will employ whatever methods are convenient to their criminal enterprise, while falsely promoting that enterprise as serving a values system they neither believe in nor have truly adopted, but which is proffered merely as a delusion to con a foolish public into giving them power.

Posted by: anonymous on September 27, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

I still don't understand why big rightie moneybags like the Sciafe/Mellon/Moon/Murdochs etc. don't come up with the cash? They can't officially donate more than X as individuals, so maybe that hurts - a good argument for campaign donation limits.

Posted by: Neil B. on September 27, 2007 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Read the comments to the linked ABC News article. Half are from people who have stopped donating money because elected Republicans are too liberal....

Okay, you can stop laughing now.

Seriously, there are just too few wars and too many immigrants for these people to be happy.

Posted by: Larry on September 27, 2007 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Don't gloat at supposed Republican penury.

Why do you think oil prices are so high? The Republicans in Texas are going to recycle those profits to the Republican party in 2008.

Plus they've got almost all of am radio and Fox News.

Posted by: McCord on September 27, 2007 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly