Category — Politics

Right At Home blog dug into the 2nd Quarter fundraising numbers for Tennessee’s freshman Republican Members of Congress yesterday:

The [OpenSecrets.org] article goes on to list the top 10 and bottom 10 fundraisers in the second quarter, and none of the four freshmen from Tennessee made either list.

Just how did they fare?

Diane Black (TN06) and Stephen Fincher (TN08) both exceeded the average in Q2, with $297,929 (#22) and $271,728 (#28), respectively. Chuck Fleischmann (TN03) and Scott Desjarlais (TN04) fell considerably further down the list, with Fleischmann coming in at #60 with $147,041 and Desjarlais hitting #63 with $141,585.

For the first and second quarters combined, the four rank a little higher compared to their colleagues, but stack up similarly against each other:

#16      Diane Black (TN06)                    $556,561

#21      Stephen Fincher (TN08)          $521,874

#55      Scott Desjarlais (TN04)            $277,875

#56      Chuck Fleischmann (TN03)   $274,540

A major reason for Black’s being at the top of the TN heap appears to be her PAC fundraising – measuring PAC contributions as a percentage of her total fundraising, she really stands out from the rest of the TN heap. She has a significantly higher percent of PAC contributions that the rest of the Tennessee freshmen:

Black – 60%

Fleischmann – 38%

Fincher – 37%

Desjarlais – 35%

It’s interesting to see that Fincher has raised nearly as much as Black (93% of her year to date total), but is almost exactly the mirror image of her PAC to Individual contribution ratio. Is that a difference that matters to voters?

RAH poses the question, does it matter where the money comes from? Writing anecdotally, I think this really only matters to opponents. I haven’t ever seen a time when people really got fired up about fundraising data, except around reporting periods or if someone took money from some shady character like Hassan Nemazee.

As a numbers guy myself, I’ve dug into the state-level reports for the 2nd Quarter. Not much there at the moment because they only recently adjourned.

Clarksville Democrat State Senator Tim Barnes looks kind of weak with only about $6,000 on hand. State Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Sargent has nearly $77,000 on hand. Rutherford County State Representative Joe Carr has about $6,000 in the bank.

I’ll dig more into these numbers in a few days.

By the way, if you’re a Republican and you want help fundraising, drop me a line.

Well, well, well…

Jackson Democratic Party leaders, educators and other residents discussed national issues including access to education, unemployment, health care and crime as part of a national initiative to more tightly define the American Dream.

Jackson native Van Jones launched the grassroots agenda to find ways to make the American Dream more accessible to all Americans.

This weekend marked the beginning of about 15,000 American Dream house meetings held nationwide.

“It’s an opportunity to give people a chance to voice their concerns about policy,” said Angela Jones, a local organizer. She is the sister of Van Jones.

She said throughout the country, meeting attendees were ranking a list of priorities in solving some of the nation’s biggest issues based on online compilations of ideas.

As of Saturday evening, more than 25,000 ideas and 5.8 million ratings had been entered into the Contract for the American Dream website.

Meeting leaders throughout the country used those responses to frame contracts. Angela Jones said the idea behind the contracts is to use them as a platform to communicate face to face with legislators in a National Day of Action in August, when the legislature is not in session. She said the goal is to frame policy decision-making according to what everyday Americans believe.

“People are feeling like they don’t have a voice,” Jones said.

The Rebuild the Dream initiative seeks to give them a voice.

You may remember Jones very public resignation from the Obama Administration in mid-2009 for his past political activism and radical views.

Jones’ past support for cop killers, 9/11 Truth, and radical environmental policies are in no way in step with average Tennesseans. Tennessee Democrats’ alliance with Jones is proof the stomping they received from voters in 2010 was well-deserved.

National Review columnist Mark Steyn makes an excellent point this morning:

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

I recorded a program for Fairfax Public Television over the weekend, and at one point the moderator asked me about the debate over cutting spending in Washington and the refusal of conservatives to accept raising the debt ceiling without taking serious measures to curb spending.

I dug deep and was able to come up with something like this:

For the better part of 70 years, both political parties in Washington have been content to increase spending and create debt. During that time, only a small minority actually called for decreasing spending and actually meant it. Let’s say it was about 10%. But you can’t do anything with such a slim minority.

After the 2010 elections, Republicans took control of the House, and among their ranks are a substantial number of conservatives. They don’t make up a majority of the Caucus — I don’t think — but they’re vocal. And those who were elected last November “don’t know how Washington works,” so they’re less willing to accept compromise than Members who have been in Washington for several terms.

So, over the course of the last 70 years, we’ve had compromise, compromise, compromise… more spending, more debt. And where has that gotten us? Right here. In a mess.

And who’s contributed to the mess? 90% of the ruling class in D.C.

On this public access program, I was asked why conservatives wouldn’t give in and agree to raise taxes or accept any proposals from the Democrats, to which I responded — it hasn’t been working! True conservatives have been shut out of the debate for decades. As far as I can tell, conservatives who want to cut government spending have about 70 years worth of catching up to do.

The time for compromise on the right has passed. It’s time to make significant cuts to government spending.

And what’s with this notion of compromise for the sake of compromise anyway? To paraphrase Erick Erickson, sometimes the evil party and the stupid party come together to do something that’s both evil and stupid all for the sake of compromise and bipartisanship.

What good is it if both parties sell us down the river just so they can say they worked together to do it?

We’ve finally changed the debate in Washington from “What can we spend?” to “What can we cut?” — It’s the first time in probably forever that this sort of debate is taking place in Washington.

Conservatives should stand their ground and fight for their principles now more than ever.

The Atlantic has the scoop on Paul’s ads – old and new… but Ron Paul just picked up a huge chunk of TV time in Iowa and New Hampshire.

And the ad is damn good:

ABC News has the story, too.