Politics/Intel
Tancredo Is In But Out
Give Congressman Tom Tancredo some credit - he has made the difficult choice between running for President and keeping his congressional seat. We suppose the prospect of another two years of working in the Nancy Pelosi forum was just too much - Tancredo chose to continue his world leader aspirations. Unlike Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Colorado does not allow elected officials to run for two offices at the same time so a decision was coming at some point. A few weeks ago we speculated Tancredo would opt to keep his seat in Congress but it appears he will attempt to leverage his greater name recognition into a run for one of Colorado's Senate seats in 2010. His opponent would be Ken Salazar, a decidedly pro-immigration figure.While we disagreed with some of Tancredo's foreign policy statements (it probably wasn't necessary to broach the idea of bombing Mecca in retaliation for a WMD attack on the US, at least not at this time), Tancredo like Paul was not afraid to speak his mind and say how the Republican party had lost its way. He many times spoke to the fact that without serious entitlement reforms we were heading down the road to economic disaster. He also showed disdain for those who would "rewrite" the constitution to suit their policy du jour while never actually amending the document. We wish the Congressman good luck in the future.
Q3 Fundraising: Ron Beats Rudy
Well all the financials have been filed for Q3 and there are a few interesting observations to be made on the Republican side. First, from a purely financial standpoint, why are Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo and Hunter still in this? Combined they only have $988,000 cash on hand with the majority consisting of Huckabee's $651,000. Those look more like numbers fit for a congressional campaign, not a presidential run. We admit that the Huckster has gotten a lot of nice press of late and he is a likeable guy but even in his case we wonder if he can make it to January as most of his $1mm raised in Q3 probably came immediately after the Iowa straw poll in August. And when compared to what the back of the pack Dems have raised (Biden $1.8mm and Dodd $1.6mm) there is really no case to be made for Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo remaining in the race and only a marginal one for Huckabee. While it is true money should not be the only determination of the success of a campaign, at this stage all of these men should be showing higher figures and certainly a significant upward trend from Q2 as more people have begun to focus on the primary. They aren't.An interesting item (complements of the NY Times providing a very nice fundraising graphic) is that Ron Paul has out raised Rudy Giuliani in one donor category: contributions under $200. For the year to date, Rudy has raised $3.8mm in small donations while Ron has raised $4.1mm. If small donors are a measure of the breath of support for a candidate, Ron Paul certainly seems to be holding his own. Given that Rudy had a significant early fund raising edge both time wise (Paul began his exploratory campaign relatively late) and in name recognition, this is quite the accomplishment. What will be interesting to see in Q4 is how much more those small donors are willing to give - can Paul push them into the $200-$2,300 bracket? Given the Q3 trends and early indications for Q4, it looks quite possible that Ron Paul will enter January with cash on hand approaching that of the 'leaders', somewhere either side of $10mm.
Finally, Mitt Romney. How can he claim to be a fiscal conservative when he is apparently so poor a manager of his own campaigns finances? Romney has been spending well beyond his means - $21.3mm last quarter - and only remains 'solvent' because of his own loans to the effort. This sounds quite a lot like business as usual in Washington: spend the money you are unable to raise through taxes on all the 'goodies' and get a loan to cover the deficit from someone else, like China. Brilliant! And we might add that to anyone who played Missile Command as a kid, the NY Times graphic showing donor geographic distribution makes it look like the state of Utah has suffered a first strike. This is one very, very expensive ego trip for Mittens.
The Politics of Intervention
With seeming no ability to end the war in Iraq and no desire to address the many issues of domestic import, the US Congress has instead decided to stick its nose into Turkish and Armenian affairs. Leader Pelosi has promised to bring to a floor vote a measure just passed out of the foreign affairs committee:H. Res. 106, Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.Without getting into the was it/wasn't it and who's to blames, the fact is this event took place in 1915 - nearly 100 years ago and has been the principle cause of Armenian Americans ever since. And yet the good speaker and her Democratic colleagues seem to believe it is of critical importance for the US to comment on decades old events involving Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) and Armenia.
And what does this interference in the affairs of other countries (well, descendents of prior empires) do for the US? Does it improve our economy by promoting trade with other countries? No. Does it improve the security of the US? Most certainly not. After the measure cleared the committee, Turkey recalled their ambassador and this weekend the most senior general of the Turkish military said:
General Buyukanit called the passage of the resolution by the committee “sad and sorrowful,” in light of the strong links the two NATO allies have shared. Further, if it were to be passed by the full House of Representatives, “Our military relations with the U.S. would never be as they were in the past,” he said. “We could not explain this to our public,” he said. “The U.S., in that respect, has shot itself in the foot.” Source: NY TimesAnd the reaction from the House leader? Pelosi dismissed possible reprisals affecting Turkey's cooperation with the US military, as "hypothetical" that would not derail the resolution.
So "hypothetical" that the most senior member of the Turkish military says to effect - pass it and if you thought things were bad between us now, just wait. Turkey has been dancing a fine line on the issue of military intervention in northern Iraq to neutralize retreating members of the PKK (peoples worker party of Kurdistan) who they believe use this area as a staging ground for terrorist attacks within Turkey. While many Kurds would, as is usually the case, call these freedom fighters trying to liberate 'Kurdistan' from Turkey and not terrorists, the fact remains this has been an on-going problem in southern Turkey for many years with significant loss of life. Meanwhile the US, locked in at best a stalemate in Iraq, wants nothing to upset the relative calm in the Kurdish controlled north. The State Department has been strong arming Turkey for over a year not to launch military operations within Iraq. Well folks, that looks to be out the window now too, thanks to the efforts of Ms. Pelosi and her fellow Dems:
ANKARA (AP)--The Turkish government has decided to send a motion to parliament seeking approval for a military operation against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, a government spokesman said Monday. The government will immediately send a motion to the parliament, government spokesman Cemil Cicek said. He said he hoped parliament would vote on the motion this week. Source: AP wireNothing like poking a stick in the eye of your estranged friend to convince them not to aggravate your own plans. This whole fiasco proves once and for all that the Democratic party is equally as bad as the current Republican party when it comes to foreign policy. Neither party seems capable of putting America's best interest ahead of their own petty party politics. Somebody, please save us from these idiots.
Next Candidates To Depart?
With third quarter fundraising data starting to hit the wires, we have to ask - who will drop out next? Sadly for most, on the Democrat side it doesn't look like any will pull out before the primaries. Kucinich and Gravel are both in it to try to change the debate to topics more dear to the left and even with little money on hand, they will continue their missions. Joe Biden, who has raised order of $2 million, will hang on for two reasons - an incredibly large ego and the hopes he might be put on the ticket as VP. Much the same applies to Dodd who has slightly more money in the bank but equally poor Q3 money raised.Bill Richardson has been raising money at a reasonable rate, at least for past elections, yet still trails badly in national polls but less so in Iowa. He has enough money to stay in and is best positioned should the front runners slip up. Unlikely, but it really doesn't hurt him to stay in and he may increase his chances to be the VP candidate through increased name recognition. Edwards, though still raising money, has shown no traction at all. Considering he already had name recognition from 2004 and three years to plan for this race, we think his chances are slim. He won't drop out though and even were he to entertain the thought it is unlikely his wife would allow him. Perhaps they should read the AP poll showing Al Gore has more support (still) than Edwards?
However, on the Republican side we expect the field to thin shortly with the departure of Brownback and Tancredo. Brownback has not released Q3 figures, but judging by attendance at his events and his disappointing finish in the Iowa straw poll there is no realistic expectation for a surprise. Tancredo at some point must decide -more-
Romney Problems?
The Washington Post today had a short piece on Q3 fundraising efforts and this caught our eye:Republican candidates were equally coy about their third-quarter totals. Aides to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said last night he raised about $10 million in the third quarter and contributed $6 million to $7 million of his own money. None of the other Republicans released totals yesterday. Source: Washington PostIf we take the positive interpretation - that Romney raised $10 of outside funds and added $6 of his own, this will be bad news as it implies his burn rate remains extremely high and that his ability to raise new cash has declined by 50% from Q1. His own funds will now be about 25% of the total. Hmmm... can't wait to see the cash on hand figure. For a man that once said it would be very bad if he had to float his campaign, have we entered that danger zone?
[this has been edited to reflect additional reporting indicating Romney did get $10 mio of outside money]
