Yesterday, Matt Yglesias mildly chided me about fundraising (attacking my point that the Democrats are really not in fundraising problems, and that the GOP has the lead in House and Senate fund raising), and today comes this news:
Five months before the first ballot is cast and 15 months before the last will be counted, Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, spent the past four days being ferried from rally to rally in a chartered jet as though in the heat of a head-to-head national campaign rather than in the nascent chapter of a long-shot bid in a crowded field. He hit states like Oregon that have little to do with nominations but could be crucial in a general election and all but ignored his Democratic rivals as he roused rabid audiences against their Republican nemesis, George W. Bush…
Yesterday morning, the campaign took another audacious step, saying that it would broadcast television advertisements in six new states beginning on Friday, and that it expected to raise $10.3 million in the three months ending Sept. 30
Kimberley
It isn’t that he’s raising cash, it’s the ammount of cash he’s raising as an unchallenged incumbent. It’s obscene, the ammount of money he’ll be spending on this campaign. It will be unconscionable to accept federal funds on top of it.
Bush is a pig, Cole. He’s a pig.
Kimmitt
I’m not particularly irritated by President Bush’s success in raising money (though it does present some monumental tactical issues); it’s what he does with that money which bothers me. Political donors to the Bush campaign have a habit of appearing on commissions and legislative panels to the exclusion of those who did not donate to the Bush campaign. It’s something of a fee-for-service arrangement, and the country isn’t Mr. Bush’s to sell off to his friends.
Flippy
“Political donors to the Bush campaign have a habit of appearing on commissions and legislative panels to the exclusion of those who did not donate to the Bush campaign.”
Kimmit: How in the HELL is that different from what the Democrats have done in the past?
Kimmitt
I am trying to come up with words which express the binarity of this.
This took place under Gingrich and Dubya. This did not take place under Daschle and Clinton.
Clinton gave his supporters sleepovers and coffee. Bush gives his supporters Federal mining contracts and environmental/safety regulation.
HH
Yes Clinton supporters never ever got anything much… keep drinkin’ that Kool-Aid.
BigScaryBrain
Clinton gave James Riady a fortune by locking out the Utah coal fields from the American market. And Tyson did ok too. Oh and then there’s Denise and Mark Rich and the Chinese and …..
David Perron
Evidence, Kimmitt? Was there some company that didn’t support Bush that wanted the mining contracts, but didn’t get them? Or did Bush somehow withhold the contracts until someone forked over a large chunk of cash in campaign donations?
We could make it illegal for any company to benefit from any Federal contracts or laws, if they contributed to the RNC. But we’d have to make it apply to DNC contributions, as well. I could support that if the Supreme Court doesn’t have any issues with it.
"Edward"
I challenge Kimmit to come up with an actual example of what she’s talking about that wasn’t equally the case with Pres. Clinton. Let’s start by knocking off ambassadorships – anyone remember Ambassador Hormel who gave the maximum to Clinton in 1992 and 1996?
Kimmitt
Ooh, good point — there is a longstanding tradition of passing out low-effort Ambassadorships to political allies (and rivals), and I did not include either Bush or Clinton in that calculation, as I consider it part of How The Game Is Played. YMMV.
A recent example of Bush favoritism is in reference to Iraq; recently even Bechtel has been complaining about some contracts written to make Halliburton the only viable applicant.
link.
David Perron
One hobby of losers is to bitch about losing. The particulars of that contract are pretty well known, and it’s uncharacteristically…completely wrong of you to not be familiar with them.
KB&R was already in place due to an existing contract. Therefore, Bechtel couldn’t compete. The only way around this is to charge the taxpayers a hell of a lot more money just so someone else can get a piece of the pie. Is this what you’re advocating?
Just to give you an example somewhat closer to home for me, Boeing just recently (yesterday) won a 2.5 billion dollar contract, due in part to larger Boeing investment in testing. Now, Lockheed Martin will likely protest the award on some grounds or other. Whether LMT has a case or not remains to be seen, but I can practically guarantee you they’ll appeal the award. Bechtel’s case is nonexistent, though. If I were to bid on a contract on the other side of the world, I couldn’t hope to compete with a guy who happened to have all his assetts in place to service the contract.
Bechtel’s complaint is they couldn’t compete on cost or schedule. Would you have us stick it to the taxpayers or hold up the rebuilding effort in Iraq just so Bechtel can have a shot at the money?
Kimmitt
I prefer to have contracts come up for bid to multiple vendors. When only one vendor is capable of executing a given contract, the system of having private contractors breaks down completely, and the monopoly company becomes essentially an unaccountable arm of the state.
David Perron
I don’t know how to type this slower, so I’ll try using smaller words. It’s not that only one vendor was capable of executing the contract, it was that only one vendor was capable of executing the contract while doing better than breaking even.
So, given the precise scenario we’re discussing, what would you have done differently?
Kimmitt
Not engendered the situation in the first place, of course.
David Perron
No, read more slowly.
Given the exact scenario we’re talking about (see, I used some smaller words there), what would you have done differently?
Reading comprehension, Kimmitt. You might want to work on it.
David Perron
Ah, I see I fell for a trolling of opportunity. My bad.
Kimmitt
You’re asking, “Given that I already rigged the system to produce a consistently corrupt result, would I allow a corrupt result to take place?” Well, yes. Why would I change something which I’ve worked so hard to implement in the first place?