$27 million for Hillary in the third quarter?
posted at 9:10 am on October 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The siren is up at Drudge. She only did $26 million in the first quarter, which is typically the bonanza period.
The numbers I saw for the GOP yesterday were $10 million for Mitt (plus $7 million more out of his own pocket), around $9 million for Rudy, and $8 million. She raised as much money by herself as our big three did combined. Couple that with the fact that some pro-life grassroots activists are already promising not to volunteer if Rudy’s the nominee and I fear we’re looking at a very harsh reality:
It’s game over, man.
Update: Belated exit question — is the scourge of Hillary so awful that we should hope for the Goracle to take revenge and jump in?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
If you don’t vote you are worse than any candidate out there.
tomas on October 2, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I’m right there with you.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Thank you. This kind of
whiningtantrum is like a toddler bawling because mommy gave him a chocolate chip cookie when he wanted Mint Milano.Maybe we could have robots run for President, and program them to say and do exactly what we want at all times. That way, no candidate would ever disagree with us on any issue and we could all live happily ever after.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Drama queens
tomas on October 2, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Dude….the other guy WAS worse. Way worse.
Take a moment to think about where we’d be if it had been President Gore for the last 8 years. Or President Kerry for the last 3. Don’t beat yourself up for helping to keep those guys out of the White House. As much as you and I are justifiably disappointed in Bush, HE WAS AND IS BETTER THAN THE “OTHER GUY.” Don’t forget that. You should not be ashamed about taking the better option of the two that were presented at the time.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I see, so its your contention that Politicians are given a pass to change positions? To essentialy LIE to the electorate? To NOT tell us what they really believe?
And this is someone you want to make Commander in Chief?
Once again, goes straight to character… which to me is what the Presidency is all about.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Only problem with that is, despite the rhetoric, we’re not a conservative-majority country right now. The political trends don’t support that – Democrats hold the majority of both houses of the legislature in 22 states; Republicans control 15 states, and 12 states are divided. There are 28 Democratic governors and 22 Republican governors.
Those numbers are for state-level positions, which tend to better reflect the mood of an electorate than the federal breakdown by party.
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 11:37 AM
I voted for Bush both times. I didn’t hold my nose and vote for him. I proudly voted for him. I also voted for him as governor of my State. 2x. Proudly.
Sheesh…
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 11:37 AM
the crazy thing is Ronald Reagan was ‘pro-choice’ as governor of California, the biggest reason he got elected was the mood of the country had shifted our way at the time.
if Ronald Reagan held the same positions as he did in 1980 today, he would be called a flip flopper by our base on Social Con issues and not “ideological pure enough” and would not stand a chance of winning.
all because of some of the base appealing to emotion and moods over logic and reason.
jp on October 2, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I for one welcome our new Clinton overlords.
Not to jump into an argument, Romeo13, but how exactly is this the GOP’s fault that we don’t have the perfect candidate to satisfy you? This year is a far cry from 1996 or 2000 when Dole or Bush were the annointed ones before anything got started, we’ve got a true jump ball this year. It’s not like there aren’t socially conservative candidates in the field like Huckabee, Brownback, or Tancredo, they simply aren’t getting any traction because people don’t have seem to have any interest in them. The GOP isn’t somehow keeping their polling numbers in the
Dudley Smith on October 2, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Please.
It’s over a year until the elections, which is about a gazillion political years, and that means anything can happen.
To surrender this early isn’t pessimism, it’s just being extremely faint of heart.
thirteen28 on October 2, 2007 at 11:40 AM
tomas you are a strange dude. Very strange dude. People who don’t want to settle for RINO’s are drama queens?
Our founding fathers would be ashamed of you. They led a bloody revolution over a 5% income tax and people like you are fine with someone who is willing to just hand over to Mexico what it is they fought for and set us up with. Nice.
But we’re just drama queens. And I guess our founders were drama queens too huh.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 11:41 AM
politics is a team sport, the only thing we know for sure about Rudy is he’s a Republican and very pro-Capitalism and understands the war on terror.
He also has divorces on his record, as did Ronald Reagan, and has held pro-choice views while in office in one of the most Liberal parts of the nation. Had he held pro-life views he would never of had a political career and we wouldnt’ be discussing this.
the country is a Center-Right country, they can easily flip to the Left which the ‘mood’ of has taken them to.
My point is the ‘lesser of evils’ is apt and should be applied here, because anything that puts Hillary in office with a Dem congress to boot, makes the Federal Courts more Activist Liberal for years to come, and will result in more politically un-reversable Socialist programs as it did after the 1964 election….
jp on October 2, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Once again, the same arguement… vote for my guy because the other guy is worse…
Not because my guy is better, but because the other guys worse…
The GOP congress presided over the largest increase in US government size EVER. They presided over 3 years of WAR where they wouldn’t increase the size of the military. They spent and spent and didn’t accomplish crap. THEY created the subsidy for Ethanol (which is WORSE for the environment than oil based gas), THEY didn’t fix the environmental laws so we can USE the land (without abusing it), THEY presided over the US becoming MORE dependent on foreign oil… they didn’t use oversite to FORCE the administration to enforce border law…
The GOP IS part of the problem, and IS failing. If you look at the money numbers, they show a REAL lack of support ffor the current GOP candidates… and yet you all are back to the old Bushy arguement… of the other guy/gal is worse.
Won’t fly this time with a LOT of voters.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Yeah, basically. When the option of not voting for a RINO is a socialist.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Its not social conservativism that the Republican electorate is crying out for. We have that now. Its all about spending, illegal immigration, affirmative action, racial preferences, controlling our borders, being generally tough on crime, defining our enemies in the world and taxes. Its just common sense republican issues that will drive the electorate.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 11:48 AM
That’s fine. But don’t act surprised when it’s worse than you imagined when Hillary is president with a democratic congress.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Allah, why don’t you consider a career change! Maybe selling Avon!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 2, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Sue, it is primary season. We are not voting in the general yet. The first task is to elect someone to represent our party. If we elect a RINO we are going to get crushed by Hillary. If we elect a true conservative republican we may stand a chance. We need to elect someone who can distance themselves from our current RINO President if we want to have any chance at winning what-so-ever. Believe me, voters in the general election will not want to vote for another George Bush clone. Hillary is dying for us to elect another RINO to represent our party in the general. She is dying for it. Its the people like you and tomas who are willing to compromise for fear of losing who are the real drama queens handing the presidency over to Hillary.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 11:54 AM
::grin:: People like me who haven’t made up my mind who to vote for yet? People like me who will vote for the republican nominee even if it is someone I didn’t support in the primary? Yeah, I’m a drama queen, alright.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Again, how in the <expletive deleted to maintain posting privliges> do the DhimmiRATs get away with labeling the Republican Party the party of the “rich”?
steveegg on October 2, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Politics has BECOME a team sport. It wasn’t envisioned that way by the founding fathers. We have allowed the two partys to become entrenched to the point that other voices are not heard. THEY contol the money, and the campaign finance laws…
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton… think about that a second… George Washington is rolling over in his grave right about now.
Look at the Kennedys for God’s sake… an entire family of Profesional politicians… an aristocracy…
So, to use your Team sport analogy, what happens when BOTH teams suck? When the Coaches and people running the teams don’t do things right… fanbase drops off…
Kinda like the polls with more and more people calling themselves independants?
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Haven’t read all the posts, and don’t know a lot about fundraising, but I don’t understand the fear.
How could a commercial make somebody switch parties? It might influence your choice within a party, but switch? We’re not living in times when a lot of people’s affiliation is up for grabs. The lines are pretty much drawn, IMHO.
JiangxiDad on October 2, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I will continue to vote for the GOP candidate regardless of how liberal he is, just to keep the left from gaining control. (and make no mistake, they have moved far left)
Having said that, I fear that the only thing that will give us our conservative revolution that we all thirst for is for the libs to control and make a complete mess of things for several years. (ala Carter) It seems we have to bleed as a nation before enough of the nitwit voters wake up to conservative ideas and embrace them.
In the meantime you see real conservatives (like Huck) way down in the polls. There is a reason for this. Unfortunatly the whole “compassionate conserative” thing is the only way right now for a republican to get any traction. Rove understood this as did Bush and so do Rudy and Mitt.
conservnut on October 2, 2007 at 12:02 PM
My last post got cut off for some reason, but I want to ask the “GOP is keeping down the good candidates” posters who exactly they think are the true conservatives that would unite the party around them? I thought Fred! was supposed to be that guy, but so far he’s just one of the crowd. And if there is such a candidate(s) that you can name, how is the GOP keeping them down?
Dudley Smith on October 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I believe you went just a wee bit overboard with the use of hyperbole with those comments.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem here with any of our candidates. The only item on the list that is even debatable is immigration, but Rudy’s views on immigration have been misrepresented, and certainly neither Mitt nor Fred are “pro-illegal immigration”. McCain is the only candidate who fails that test completely.
So that leaves us with all the other issues you mentioned.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Only 27 million? the Chinese must be hedging their bets…
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 12:11 PM
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I’m sorry to say it that way but its primary season. Tomas calling us drama queens for not wanting to elect the wrong person and as a result destroy our chances of winning really got under my skin. You agreeing with him does not help. Tomas believes George Bush can do no wrong. He cannot bring himself to disagree with him on anything. Anything! He calls us drama queens on illegal immigration threads for taking a side in opposition to Bush. He is who Allahpundit mocks in his headline titles when he says, “We need to open them borders because we got elections to win!” Tomas believes that we should not critisize our president on any issue.
Tomas if you are still reading this thread I want to ask you one question. I know that you think George Bush is a great president. If he was running for re-election right now would you vote for him even though you knew he was going to get crushed? Would you stand up for your beliefs or would you turn your back on them and hold your nose and vote for someone other then Bush who has a better chance of winning?
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Oops. Lemme try that again.
I have to stop you there. Huckabee is not the real conservative in this race. Granted, he’s good on social issues (which might make Dobson $ Co happy), but he’s also an open-borders, big government nanny-stater.
No. Tancredo and Hunter are the most conservative in this race. Unfortunately they’re both doing worse in the polls than Huckabee.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Sigh… actions speak louder than words…
Rudy ran a sanctuary city at a time when there were more Unifomed NYC cops than we had men in the entire Border Patrol.
Rudy started a lawsuit to make it impossible to buy or manufacture a gun… destroying our second amendment right.
Rudy appointed Liberal judges.
These are ACTIONS… politicians lie all the time… but its hard to lie about what you have DONE… and I, for one, will judge you by your ACTs.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Rudy’s immigration stance is the only thing you see wrong with him???
Oh, my…
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Seriously? Now its just Tomas? And some issue you have with him at another site? Or another thread? But you said “you and Tomas” when you claimed I was a drama queen. I don’t care how much or how often you criticize Bush. But I do care that you will take your marbles and go home if the republican candidate isn’t pure enough for you. I wouldn’t care so much if Hillary! wasn’t on the other side in this war you declared against RINOs.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Kinda what I was thinking. Either that, or the money printer broke down….
aero on October 2, 2007 at 12:21 PM
You forgot Obamas 25 or so mill….
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 11:58 AM
In the process of forming your aristocratic dynasties rant, you are completely rewriting history. Here’s how it actually happened:
* Washington, John Adams, Jefferson and Madison became President of the United States, and King and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney were nominated as candidates for the office.
* Gerry served as Madison’s Vice President. John Adams served as Washington’s.
* Hamilton, McHenry, Madison, and Randolph attained Cabinet posts.
* Nineteen men became U.S. senators: Baldwin, Bassett, Blount, Butler, Dayton, Ellsworth, Few, Gilman, Johnson, King, Langdon, Alexander Martin, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, Paterson, Charles Pinckney, Read, Sherman, and Strong. Thirteen served in the House of Representatives: Baldwin, Carroll, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Madison, Mercer, Charles Pinckney, Sherman, Spaight, and Williamson. Of these, Dayton served as Speaker.
* Four men (Bassett, Bedford, Brearly, and Few) served as federal judges, four more (Blair, Paterson, Rutledge, and Wilson) as Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. Rutledge and Ellsworth also held the position of Chief Justice.
* Seven others (Davie, Ellsworth, Gerry, King, Gouverneur Morris, Charles Pinckney, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney) were named to diplomatic missions for the new nation.
Many 1787 delegates held important state positions, including governor (Blount, Davie, Franklin, Gerry, Langdon, Livingston, Alexander Martin, Mifflin, Paterson, Charles Pinckney, Spaight, and Strong) and legislator. And most of the delegates contributed in many ways to the cultural life of their cities, communities, and states. Not surprisingly, many of their sons and other descendants were to occupy high positions in American political and intellectual life.
I’ll tell you what, Romeo:
Why don’t you tell us who your ideal candidate would be and why?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I think I’ve talked to you about this before Buy Danish. I probably should have been a little more clear there. I was making reference to Social Conservatives like McCain and Brownback who are not going to gain any traction because the are weak on illegal immigration. Rudy and Mitt have tacked right on that issue in particular and I think that is primarily why they have gained popularity. Rudy has been misrepresented and that is why that critism does not seem to stick. If he loses though it will be because he is weaker on that issue then Mitt and/or Fred.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Lol. You people are incredible. You act as if Rudy’s only two or three flip-flops away from being “pure,” and those of us who are opposed to him are just overreacting. Newsflash: Giuliani is freakin’ liberal. He’s light-years away from even being close to “pure.” If you have no problem settling for that then fine; but don’t expect the rest of us to automatically feel the same way.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Thanks. I think I’m pretty incredible, myself.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 12:29 PM
what are the facts behind this statement? curious…
I know non-defense spending under Clinton was much higher than Bush. However, under Clinton and the false notion of a “peace dividend” he cut the military in half which technically ‘reduced the size of govt’ which was stupid in hindsight. Cut butter not guns now.
seems to me, as the baby boomers retire, the govt. will grow by default in terms of spending.
jp on October 2, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Why don’t you concentrate on what is happening to your party than worrying about the Shillary and the Democrats…jeez.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119127620102645595.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us
AprilOrit on October 2, 2007 at 12:33 PM
a “liberal” who George Will says ran the most Conservative Government he’s ever seen.
he is a Capitialist as oppossed to the Socialist that the left are.
you guys would not vote for Ronald Reagan if he was alive today
jp on October 2, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Seriously? Now its just Tomas? And some issue you have with
I linked you two together because it appeared to me that you were agreeing with him. You may not have deserved that though and if you were not agreeing with him then I apologize for putting you in the same category.
The point I was clumsily trying to make is that I will not stay home on election day. Most of us here will not either. I will vote for any republican candidate in order to avoid a Hillary victory. We are talking about primary election time though. Now is the time to critisize OUR candidates. Now is the time to differenciate between them. Now is the time to find the best combination between electability and strong conservative/republican beliefs. If we cannot admit that George Bush is not our ideal candidate we are going to get killed and the Hildabeast will be in the White House. Primary season is the time to point out the flaws George Bush has that have put our party into this tight spot. Now is the time to improve upon everything. Tomas cannot do that though because he cannot admit George Bush has a flaw.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I retrieved a inside communique from Hillarys top people concerning her media expenditures
Explaing why she dodged her Iraq vote: estimated media buy needed 10.5 million
Explaining why she dodged the Social Security Question: Estimated Media Campaign 22.7 million
Explaining why she dodged the Iran Question: Building Hillary up as a Commander in Chief 325 million
Explaining why she dodged the Health Care Plan: correcting the publics perception of her failed attempt 104 million
Looks like she has a long way to go
EricPWJohnson on October 2, 2007 at 12:34 PM
This is about the 10th time I’ve read this in the last few days…where did it come from? If it helps defeat H.C., I’m all for it, but it’s kind of the least of all reasons to be against her, IMHO.
She would be horrible for the military. And we need a strong military, not one dealing with cutbacks and whatever policy changes she would enact. I don’t want to see good people leave or get forced out.
MamaAJ on October 2, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Elections are won on turnout. With so few people caring, and relatively few of those not having a hardened opinion, the modern ‘Rat/LeftStream Media strategy is to suppress as much turnout they don’t/can’t control as they can. That’s the focus of negative campaigning, which S(l)ick Willie took to its ultimate success.
Morever, while the $5 million Clinton and $1 million Obama raised for the general election this quarter cannot be spent until one of them gets the nomination, the one that gets the nomination can use all of the “primary election” funds that weren’t spent in the primaries on the general election.
steveegg on October 2, 2007 at 12:39 PM
George Will is the end all, be all on what constitutes a conservative government?
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Its a little thing called the Department of Homeland Security.
It did nothing but take existing governmental entitys and place a HUGE bunch of beaurocrats over them… largest increase in size of the US Federal Government in history.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Zetterson,
You may be talking about primaries, but there are others here that I have been addressing that aren’t. And yes, I was agreeing with Tomas that those people are drama queens.
I’m glad you will not sit out the general election on the basis that the nominee might not be pure enough. Neither party will win with a pure nominee, but the dems are going to come closer this time than at any other time in history.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Romeo, Romeo, wtf art thou talking about, Romeo?
In all due respect, you are wrong on the facts. Moreover, I lived in NYC during Rudy’s tenure, and when he arrived it was a city under seige. When he left, it had been transformed back to the vibrant, beautiful city it had been before decades of liberal rule turned it into a garbage dump.
If pre-Rudy NYC is your vision for America, then you’re going to have to be prepared to live with the consequences. The bottom line is that if people like you remain so childishly intransigent and demanding about imaginary candidates who don’t exist, you will accomplish nothing but help Hillary get elected, just as the people who sat on their hands during the Congressional elections did nothing but put Pelosi and Reid in charge of Congress. I bet you feel so much better though!
It’s what’s known as a Pyhrric victory.
Pyr·rhic victory
n. A victory that is offset by staggering losses.
Think about it.
I was specifically referring to a list of Zetterson’s requirements for a suitable candidate.
Buy hey, I’ll give you the same challenge I gave Romeo:
Tell us who your ideal candidate is and why.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Actualy, I didn’t vote for Reagan… as a veteran of Beirut in 83, I felt he had betrayed the trust of us fighting men when he would not allow us to go after the guys who had bombed our barracks…
You know… the same guys still over there now making trouble?
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Ha. Well allright then. I think we aren’t as far apart on this as we initially thought. Its funny how these converations can get out of control. Just out of curiosity, who do you think we have a better chance with in the coming general election? I’m not asking who you are planning on voting for in the primary. I am just asking what “type” of candidate do you think we have the best chance of winning with? A Compassionate Conservative or a candidate more closely aligned with the base?
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Explain to me which fact I have incorrect?
Was NYC not a defacto sanctuary city while Rudi was Mayor?
Did he start the anti gun Lawsuit which is even now still in court?
Has his personal life been a mess?
Did he not appoint over 75% DEMOCRAT judges?
You can obfuscate, and explain, and spin, all you want, but I sure don’t see you challenging me on the issues I was talking about.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:53 PM
The bottom line is that if people like you remain so childishly intransigent and demanding about imaginary candidates who don’t exist…
Woops! Poor grammar alert. Where’s my editor when I need him? :) I meant to say – …if people like you remain so childishly intransigent and desirous of imaginary candidates who don’t exist…
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I haven’t decided, but I don’t think any of the candidates fit the compassionate conservative definition. I am not a single issue voter.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Oh, and PS… I did vote in the last election, just like every election.
And it was the REPUBLICAN party that lost the last election… don’t blame it on the voter’s… give us a good choice… not just we’re not as bad as the other guy.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Yep, the whole “take your marbles and go home if the republican candidate isn’t pure enough for you” cr@p is the epitome of narcissistic self-centered delusions of grandeur combined with a profound lack of understanding both of how the system of politics works and the dangers confronting America today.
There are issues which unquestionably need to be addressed, but while important they are not as critical as having a country in which those issues can be addressed. If we do not preserve our union now, we will not have a country to debate the other issues in.
Because the MSM and the democrats have deceived the American people regarding the threats facing America today people like Dobson are falling for the important issues while the critical issues which will decide our national fate are being ignored.
If the immigration issue isn’t dealt with now, not only will America’s security be at stake, but America will face the very real prospect of a civil war over this issue.
That is a critical issue, abortion is an important issue, but not one critical to America’s survival.
The War on Terror is a critical issue, not an important issue. America’s very survival depends on how we deal with the WOT. The democrats have clearly shown that they are willing to lose the WOT via the war in Iraq for the chance to gain control of America’s tax revenues.
Social Security and Medicare are important issues in and of themselves, but throw Hillary’s universal health care into that mix and they become critical issues upon which the survival of the United states balances.
When Thomas Paine said “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately” he could not have more accurately described the situation Republicans find themselves in today.
There will be no third party President of the United States, period, anyone who foolishly believe that need to get that absurd notion out of their heads right now, it isn’t going to happen. Anyone who does not vote GOP, regardless of who the GOP nominee is is in fact voting Democrat. If the Democrats win in 2008, the grand experiment of our founding father dies with the victory by the democrats. The America you all grew up in will cease to exist.
The Democrat/socialists are salivating at the prospect of this happening, George Soro’s isn’t investing BILLIONS of dollars in the democrat/socialists because he wants to preserve our founding fathers grand experiment, but because he wants to destroy it and replace it with a socialist/communist utopia.
Suck it up people, vote third party or stay at home and you are responsible for killing this great republic, no if’s and’s or but’s about it.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM
No, because I can actually see why people are giving Obama money. I cannot for the life of me wrap my mind around why anyone would actually want Hillary as their candidate. Therefore, I have to imagine that this incredible pile of cash she’s touting must be fake or illegal or foreign in origin or something.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 12:56 PM
the Department of Homeland Security is the “largest increase in the size of government ever”??? as in EVER? ever ever?
larger than LBJ’s Great Society?
Larger than the New Deal?
jp on October 2, 2007 at 12:59 PM
I think she agrees with you, dorian.
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 1:00 PM
It was never my intention to suggest that she does not.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM
It is amazing what an amusing thread a 5-words sentence can create. I call that power!
Entelechy on October 2, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Ah, sorry. Missed the first word. Go me.
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 1:06 PM
I wish I could say that you are being hyperbolic or melodramatic, but you’re not.
People on our side are apparently having a hard time distinguishing between issues that are important and issues that threaten our very existence and way of life. Winning on the economic and military issues means we continue to have the liberty and prosperity to continue fighting for the social issues. Losing militarily or economically (which will certainly happen under a Democratic presidency backed by a Democrat-controlled Congress) means we lose some or all of our ability to fight for the social issues we hold dear. (Don’t worry—abortion will end under Sharia Law. But I don’t think any of us opposed to abortion wants to “win” the fight that way.)
aero on October 2, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Spoken like a true Whig…
Actualy, LBJ’s Great Society wasn’t anywhere near as large when it started, but it has continued to grow at a HUGE rate which is unsustainable. It was politicly possible because it was essentialy a govenment run Pyramid scheme… but we’re now at the bottom of the pyramid.
The New Deal was a transiant entity… built for the short term, the Department of Homeland Security is here to stay…
“With over 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest cabinet department in the U.S. federal government after the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs”
Kinda says it all…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 1:08 PM
That makes me think of a campaign slogan for Giuliani, should he win the nomination: Better the liberal than the socialist!
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Except for one small bill that now takes up a huge chunk of the federal budget.
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Very well stated. This is a fight for the suvival of the republic. But how do we get that message out when our candidates refuse to articulate it that way?
conservnut on October 2, 2007 at 1:14 PM
What I am is a pragmatist who has studied the history of the nation I love. But you go ahead and vote your conscience, don’t worry your victory wont be Pyhrric, on the other hand Hillary will thank you. She will thank you with higher taxes, with socialized medicine, with a surrender to Islamic terrorism, with the introduction of sharia law in the United States with the loss of your second amendment and your first amendment rights, and when she is done thanking you you will wish your victory had been Pyhrric…
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Fred gets it, listen to his speeches its pretty much the way he is selling it.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 12:53 PM
NO. You are simplifying a complicated situation. The ICE and INS did not, and still do not, do their job. They were not deporting illegal aliens, except in minuscule numbers, and more often than not the ones who were deported were not the most dangerous offenders. NYC was a cesspool of crime and Rudy needed to get the most dangerous criminals off the streets, many of whom were here illegally. Reality being what it was, he had to make a compromise. He promised not to go after the illegal aliens who were law abiding in all other respects so that they would have an incentive to turn in the criminals.
If you want to complain about immigration law during Rudy’s tenure, I suggest you send Ted Kennedy a letter since he’s the one who started this mess back in 1965.
It is a misnomer to call it an “anti-gun” lawsuit. The lawsuit was a tort suit against gun companies who were manufacturing certain types of weapons in massive quantities that were not legal to own in NYC (or many places for that matter). These guns were flooding into New York and more often than not they ended up in the hands of criminals.
He has since stated that that lawsuit was a mistake.
Has his personal life been a mess?
How about you Romeo? Are you a paragon of virtue? His private life has been difficult, but unlike Billy Jeff, he has not assaulted anyone, suborned perjury, or lied to a Federal judge. But, if someone’s personal life is that important to you, Mitt Romney is your man.
Rudy was not appointing Supreme Court justices.
From the Politico story:
From Politico we also learn this shocking news:
One of the judges ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.
HORRORS!
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Good for you. I agree. Somebody needs to take on socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, etc. as embodied in Clinton.
Newt says a successful Rep. candidate needs to differentiate himself from Hillary, but that none have done that sufficiently to date. We shall see if any of our candidates really want to win. I have seen Rudy say he is the only person who can beat Hillary. True or not, he should say it every day, as should the others. Sucks when the electorate is more excited than the candidates!
JiangxiDad on October 2, 2007 at 1:23 PM
You’re making jp’s case, Romeo. Those programs were relatively non-threatening when they were put into place. The damage FDR and LBJ did was not terribly obvious during their time in office, or even for a few decades afterwards. We “survived” those socialist presidents and went on to eventually elect a couple of Republicans—who weren’t able to undo a bit of it!!!! These programs have grown and will continue to grow until they literally swallow the entire economy whole. As you pointed out, GWB and a Republican-controlled Congress added their own nightmare programs that will haunt our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. That was bad and wrong, and I’m furious that it happened. But I maintain that President Gore would have enacted even more damaging socialist spending programs concerning health care and the environment that would have destroyed our economy and productivity exponentially faster. I think GWB’s spending initiatives might still be reversible, at least to some degree. Unlikely, but possible. Gore’s would have been so huge and all-encompassing (on a global scale) that they would have been completely impossible to reverse or mitigate once in place. That’s what Hillary will do to us. Rudy is demonstrably a tax-cutter and a fiscal conservative. He would fight universal health care and similar nanny-state programs—you can bet on that. I think it was you who was talking earlier about actions being more instructive than words where politicians are concerned. Rudy cut taxes. Over and over and over again. That’s critically important at a time when we are staring at a complete economic collapse brought on by the Boomers’ retirement and the unsustainable entitlement system.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I like what Fred has to say, and you are right, he comes closer than anyone else to calling a spade a spade.
But frankly, he scares me. I could see him garnering a huge amount of support for his views and taking the nomination only to get blindsided by the Clinton machine for something stupid. (like the drivle seen often on this site) The media will run with that stuff like crazy, and I suspect that the only reason we have not heard about it from the Clinton camp yet is because they are holding it in reserve for that all important “throw crap at the fan a month before the general election” ploy that the democrats love so much.
conservnut on October 2, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 1:08 PM
DUH. That’s how it always happens. You can thank the 1994 Republican Congress for applying the brakes.
As for why the Republican’s lost last time around, a lot of it had to do with voters sitting home and not voting. It also didn’t help that George Soros illegally spent $70 MILLION dollars which helped elect Democrats.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM
I don’t particularly care for Rudy, but if he is the GOP nominee I will vote for him. I think our best hope is Fred Thompson. He understands the dangers facing us both here at home and abroad. We must stop the growth of government entitlement before they swallow the economy whole, we must protect our national sovereignty while we still have a country of our won and we must confront the Islamic threat that is trying to destroy us.
China and Russia are not our friends, they may not be our enemies per say, but they would take advantage of any weakness on our part to advance their own agenda’s and economies at our expense. For them to do otherwise would not be in their own best interests.
We must be extra vigilant right now if we are to survive, yes the situation really is that grave.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Allright. I wanted to ask that question because I believe it to be at the heart of our discussion at hand. Who has the best chance to beat Hillary? I think that it must be someone who differenciates himself from President Bush. The three areas that I predict that happening are the war, illegal immigration and spending. Its my opinion that, if we are to win, our candidate must distance themselves from Bush on those key issues.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 1:36 PM
One other point about George Soros. The $70 million was just what America Coming Together spent illegally and were fined for by the FEC. That number does not include Soros’s legal expenditures through groups like MoveOn.Org, the Tides Foundation, et al.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Whomever the GOP nominee is is going to have to run that gantlet, it wont matter if the Clinton’s have real dirt on the GOP nominee or not, they are perfectly comfortable with lying and making up false $hit.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM
And for which Republican candidate would that not be the case?
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 1:40 PM
According to Allah, the Clinton’s have the most dirt on Rudy. For some reason they (the Clintons) are completely ignoring Fred. They are either ignoring him because to attack him will flood the base to his defense. They are afraid an attack from the Clinton’s will be perceived as a good thing by Republicans, ie “the Clintons fear him therefore we should support him.” Or perhaps they are leaving him alone because they want him to win? I’m not sure. Who knows?
I think they have the least dirt on Mitt. What are they going to attack him for being too liberal on a few issues? I doubt that. They can go after the Mormon thing but I have a feeling that will backfire on them and they know it. I think the Clinton’s are most fearful of Mitt becoming the Republican nominee because they will have very little to attack him about. Just a guess though.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Ha! On second thought, that is an excellent point! Very true.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Ha! On second thought, that is an excellent point! Very true.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 1:50 PM
If any of you aren’t convinced that bad things happens when Democrats get control, read this Politico story about a fight Bush is having with the Senate over judicial appointees.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 1:52 PM
They’re already going after him for being a flip-flopper, and they’d continue to do so. They’d also have Hillary talk about her faith as a way to force Romney to talk about his own.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 1:49 PM
As I was saying.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 1:58 PM
True, can’t argue with that.
conservnut on October 2, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Gosh, you sound happy about that! That’s a very slippery slope that you’re willing to slide down there.
Romney can beat Hillary any time on the question of “faith” and how one it can positively inform how one leads one’s life, but what happens when, say, fundamentalists get questions about dogma?
Do we really want to go down that route? Or shall we continue to judge people by their character and commitment to the principles of our Representative Republic?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Or, I don’t know, you could quit shilling for RINO-boy Rudy McBradyBunch.
He really ISN’T the only candidate out there, you know.
Misha I on October 2, 2007 at 2:05 PM
True but I’m skeptical about how effective that strategy will prove to be. I think if a candidate is articulate enough they can make those attacks backfire on the Clintons. They just need to call attention to the double standards. For example, the press gives Hillary a complete pass as she contradicts herself and “flip flops” every day. Can you imagine what the press would do to Rudy or Mitt if they tried to pull off a phony Southern accent at a speaking event? The press would behave like a bunch of sharks with chum in the water. I think that if a candidate was articulate enough to point this double standard out to the American people while under attack it would resonate and could backfire on the Clintons.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Fortunatly Hillary has an enormous target paint on her by none other than herself. It’s called Campaign Finance Fraud. As a lawyer what Fred was good at was going after corruption. When he tried to get Bill Clinton on Campaign Finance Fraud all of the major witnesses either fled the country or plead the fifth.
Neither of those tactics will work for Hillary this time, you can bet that Fred hasn’t forgotten about Chinagate and is looking to settle the score on that case.
A lawyer who eats corrupt governors for breakfast and brings down sitting presidents for lunch is Hillary’s worst nightmare.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Right, because one should always unquestioningly take a candidates election season spin at face value.
Is that the same reason that his predecessors gave when they instituted NYC’s sanctuary city policy?
I’d also like to see some numbers on how many illegals who committed crimes were actually reported to the INS. He went so far as to forbid police officers from directly contacting federal immigration authorities.
He said he WANTED illegals in his city and put up roadblocks for them to be reported. He can spin it any way he (or you) wants, but the fact is that he protected illegals and encouraged them to locate in NYC. If they’d been reported and deported, he wouldn’t have to worry about whether they’d report crimes or not, now would he?
Simply blaming the feds for not deporting illegals he refused to report is cowardly scapegoating.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Ditto for me, but the reverse. I’m currently supporting Rudy because I think he has the best statistical chance of beating Hillary in the general. But I will happily vote for Fred if he wins the GOP nomination (I will vote for the Republican nominee, period). But I will even vote for Fred in the primary with enthusiasm if at any point I become convinced that he can beat Hillary in the general. I like what I’ve heard and read from him—he does clearly understand the stakes right now, and he takes a conservative approach to all critical issues. He’s the only one I’ve heard say that he will take the case for limiting or significantly changing Social Security and Medicare directly to the older Americans who so fiercely want to protect those programs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he has said he will do all he can to convince older Americans that they must make sacrifices so that they do not rob their own children and grandchildren of money and opportunities they would want them to have. That’s the only way entitlement reform will happen—someone has to convince the older people who have paid into this system their whole lives to walk away from it for the sake of their descendants and the country they love. I am very pleased that Fred wants to do that. I don’t know if he can succeed with it, but I’m impressed that he has the guts to broach the topic in the first place. After Islamic extremism, the entitlement crisis is the second-most critical issue threatening our existence and way of life.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 2:11 PM
They just need to call attention to the double standards.
So you’d have them get in a battle of who the worse flip-flopper is? Hardly seems like a winning strategy, and the MSM isn’t exactly going to attack itself on giving Hillary a pass.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 2:12 PM
More on what Rudy said:
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Spin vs. ACTION.
Once again you attempt to explain away as “reasonable” somthing which was inherently WRONG.
We were not asking him, or expecting him to round up illegals and bus em to Mexico… but when a FELON is an illegal, he should get deported. They were not even CHECKING! It was a de facto sanctuary city… he can spin his “reasons” all day… but the fact remains…
As to MY personal life… nope, not perfect, but I only have one X wife, not many… and my kids like me… and more importantly I’m not running for President. Character matters, and you personal life IS a reflection of your character.
The Republicans lost the last election because they had no platform except we’re not as bad as the other guy… and you all are perpetuating that platform…
Again and again you make the arguement that you lost because voters stayed home… well you gave them no reason to go out and vote!!! Take some dam responsibility here folks. The American voter gave the Republicans both the Presidency, and House, and Senate, and YOU DID NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! You became the overspending big government problem… you didn’t put in the agenda you were voted in to put in place… so the American voter is starting to look around a bit…
The FACT that the Left candidates have gotten TWICE or more of the amount of money as the right candidates should be a WAKE UP call that your tactic IS NOT WORKING!!! This constant complaint of its all the voters fault, and you’ll destroy the country by voting for someone else, is part of the problem…
BE FOR SOMTHING!!! Not AGAINST THEM!
Reagan won because he came out with a positive messege of hope.. and a belief in America… not because he ran on a platform of I’m not as bad as the other guy.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:18 PM
See my 2:15. You are scapegoating Rudy who was stuck with a Federal Bureaucracy who only deported 758 people a year.
Time for a reality check, Hollowpoint.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »