McCain Has Record Fundraising Month
May 21st, 2008 at 08:57am Mark Noonan
Still far short of the vast amounts HillBama raise, but a gain is a gain:
Senator John McCain raised approximately $18 million during the month of April, according to a spokeswoman for his campaign.
That is the most that McCain has raised in any month of the campaign so far. But it is less than half of what the Obama campaign says it raised in the month of March, $41 million, and less than what Senator Clinton reoprtedly raised that month as well, $20 million.
The Democratic rivals have not yet released their April fundraising numbers.
The Arizona Republican, who is scheduled to receive the nomination of his party for president in September, has dedicated considerable time and resources to his fundraising effort in recent weeks.
McCain’s campaign, which needed a $4 million loan in order to keep operating at the end of 2007, has seen a remarkable turnaround in its fundraising prowess. At a New York City fundraiser in early May, McCain raised $7 million in one evening.
Under a new fundraising structure created by the campaign and the Republican National Committee, a donor can give up to $70,000 to the “McCain Victory 2008,” significantly more than the $2,300 individual donor limit set by campaign finance laws. If a donor gives the maximum amount the money is split into multiple funds that all benefit McCain’s campaign: the first $2,300 of that money goes to the McCain campaign itself, the next $28,000 goes to the RNC, and the rest is divided among four swing states the campaign plans to target in the general election. Those targeted states are: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico.
Interesting that this early on McCain is targeting Wisconsin and Minnesota - both States when for Kerry in 2004, and McCain is already trying to poach them…and I’ll bet he’s got a good shot at both. The bad news is that we’ve got to shore ourselves up in Colorado, which is becoming the most Democrat of the Mountain West States (though still, on balance, Republican); New Mexico is a State we lost in 2000, won in 2004…both by excruciatingly narrow margins, so it could literally go either way in 2008.
Anyways, a good month for McCain on a lot of levels - Democrats still battling, Obama on the defensive and looking absurd on foreign affairs, Democrats still spending money like water, McCain able to present a consistent message of genuine reform…and his fundraising is picking up. Now, how about you stop by and pony up?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
29 Comments
1. Dream Catcher | May 21st, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Under a new fundraising structure created by the campaign and the Republican National Committee, a donor can give up to $70,000 to the “McCain Victory 2008,” significantly more than the $2,300 individual donor limit set by campaign finance laws.”
Good thing McCain helped write campaign finance laws. It makes it easier for him to find loop holes in his own legislation.
2. Rana Quijotesca | May 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
It doesn’t really matter… McCain can’t spend any more because he accepted public funds… Unless he’s a hypocrite–in which case—why would you vote for him?
3. OhioOrrin | May 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Rana - funding don’t play in fly-over country cause we’re stupit inbreds who can’t comprende da experts & vote 4 hillary anyway.
’sides, iffin them experts knew anything, they’d be perts, not ex-perts.
4. Just Another Taxpayer | May 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Deleted - off topic.
5. Carl Gordon | May 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Deleted - off topic.
6. Retired Spook | May 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Oil’s 132 a barrel, likely to go higher.
And whose fault is that, JAT? From 2000 to 2007 (when Republicans controlled the House & Senate and the White House (except for 2000), the average price for a barrel of oil was $39.00. Even as recently as January, 2007, the price per barrel was around $50.00 and the price of regular gas was under $2.00/gallon. Can you tell me what happened in January, 2007? Take your time, I’ll wait.
7. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I just love the optimism of liberals. JAT clearly demonstrates the atttitudes that have made this country the great country it is today. NOT!!!!!
JAT goes on to tell us the “tipping point” may be here. This coming from the same liberal mindset that has misunderestimated this country time and time again.
8. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
6. Retired Spook | May 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Now that is just stupid.
I imagine that Democrats control the price of oil now? Bah! Rubbish!
In November all I ask Americans to do is look at their ballot and ask themselves, “Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?”
5. Carl Gordon | May 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Here! Here! [pounds on table]
9. Retired Spook | May 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I imagine that Democrats control the price of oil now? Bah! Rubbish!
Maybe not the price directly, Cav, but they have certainly controlled where we drill (or, more appropriately, where we don’t drill). The fact that we haven’t built a new refinery in this country in 3 decades can be laid squarely at the feet of radical, zealot environmentalists and their toadies in Congress. Tell me again what percentage of those folks are Republicans.
10. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Cav,
Why do you just dismiss Spooks argument? You lay the blame of everything at the GOP door, but when your loved ones are in charge and things go south, you spin, deflect and deny.
Typical liberal.
BTW, Obama is a charlatan and a fraud and stands ZERO chance of winning in November. So we can then eat as much as we want and keep our thermostats at 72, regardless if we live in the desert or the tundra. Whew!
11. Just Another Taxpayer | May 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Yeah, Spook, I’ll tell ya
Here’s what happened.
First, though, some background:
Any oil producers, whether co’s or nations, first priority is to make money for themselves. not make gas prices acceptable for you or spoldiers returning from service in Iraq where we are so highly reguarded, Bush is certain he can’t ask for one drop from them despite our the sacrifices we have made in money and lives. The Iraqis are as helpful to us now as they were in 2005 after Katrina. (Remember freedom fry France stepped up and helped convince the European Union to give us 2 million barrels of refined gasoline from
their reserves.) But I digress. Back to the market.
Bush failed to anticipate the rise of Asia, and the mid easts diversification of their economy leading many OPEC members to demand more of the oil they produce for their own use. This increased demand has not created kinds of shortages we saw in the late 70’s when OPEC ganged up on us, and Reagan lead the country to forget about the dangers of relying on others for your economic security, after the shortages ended.
So we went on using oil as if we were the SOLE market for most of the worlds oil. The other players have 2 advantages over us:1)They may consume as much oil as we do but use it for industrial purposes, to add value to products which are sold elswhere. Petroleum is not a dead end consumer item as it is for the most part here.
Pay at the pump for transport, and that’s about it. It takes the 70% of this consumer based economy, and moves it to where it can shop. Not a great way to add value to anything.
2) They, including Europeans, use it more effeciently in almost every application. European cars consume almost a quarter less gas per mile than American cars. At the same time, they and the Asians are developing the latest, fastest most effecient public transit systems, while we sit alone in our SUV’s complaining about how everyone else should schedule their lives so we can move more free of the gridlock that plagues our great cities.
For every gallon of gas used by a solitary driver in this country, the Europeans will move three people, and the Asians 10. They aren’t concerned about the cost of petroleum on a per capita basis as we are. They use it more effieciently, to benefit a greater # of people, and can spread the cost over a larger population. It doesn’t hit the individual consumer as hard there as it does here.
This leaves oil producers with an array of customers who are able to pay more for their product than we are without it significantly impacting their economy.
The Euro has gained in recent weeks on the strength of German consumer confidence reports with interest rates holding steady at 4%, as the fed weakened the dollar to stem the tide of losses from the Bush encouraged mortgage debacle(Angelo Mozilo, former CEO of countrywide Lending, called efforts to curb his 2006 pay package below the 103 million he thought he deserved “A left wing conspiracy of unionists, and the Anti buisiness left.” A Bushie if ever there was one. No doc, nothing down arms were first pioneered by his firm. When did Bush
speak out against that? Increases home ownership “Good for the country” Sean Hannity used to say. But again I digress.) to 2%.
Even the Saudis say that oil will soon be pegged on a basket of currencies instead of the dollar. An array of customers willing, and able to pay more, with currencies worth more than ours.
How does a consumer dependent economy that adds value to nothing, compete with industrial societies. It’s the market that’s driving the price.
This inability to compete with industrial societies extends to our education system: when Bill Gates has to go begging to congress for more H-1 visas because the American education system isn’t producing enough engineers to fill positions in his co, that’s a failure of incalculable proportions. A society built with marketing, distributing, and retailing goods made by others
can’t compete with the makers of those goods.
We could drill ANWAR, but the Bush loyalists in the oil buisiness would control over the price of the oil they produce. They’d sell to the highest bidder. That’s it. We’d still be paying market prices for oil, wherever it is produced. markets do not have national loyalties as you Bush socialists will learn in the next few months.
More refineries won’t help either as gas prices have gone up only half of the cost of petroleum. To make money refining gasoline, refiners would have to charge 5.50 or 6 dollars a gallon to make it profitable for them to do so. That’s why refineries are operating at only 85% capacity. That’s the one aspect of the oil buisiness that’s losing money for the oil companies, though they have been more than able to make up for it with production and distribution. Take note, they’ve been paying 8$ a gallon for gas in Europe for years. Refiners there are making money.
Nukes are subject to same pressures as petroleum as Asians looking for ways to get the fumes of their booming industries under control, look for cleaner sources of energy. We get almost all of our fuel for existing reactors from outside the country, and half of that from Russia. There’s a brother democracy for ya.
Increasing demand will make uranium 100 times more costly than gold. Then there’s the problem of what to do with the waste from reactors. Nobody knows what to do with that.
The solution is to move to an diversified energy supply, with no one form or supplier dominating. No combination of oil or nukes will by itself bring down the price of either. But we can, if we diversify, and conserve, bring down the cost of energy. Bush did nothing encourage either during his eight years in office, and that will be remembered as his single greatest failure, in an administration that has so many.
Bush socialist assumption that we could shoot democracy into the mid-east, and somehow get them to give their brother democracy here subsidized oil forever will plague liberals of all stripes for years to come.
So there you go, Spook.
Have a nice day.
By the way, Goldman Sachs anticipated recent oil price spikes back in 2005.
12. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
JAT,
Really hard to take you seriously when your posts are littered with BDS derangement and liberal talking points.
I know you think it may come off as “informed” but frankly, your posts are juvenile and embarrasing.
And when we are forbidded from domestic exploration and haven’t built a new refinery in decades, it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a liberal) to figure out why we are in such a predicament.
13. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Oh and your friends in government make more money off of each gallon of gas then Bush’s oil buddies do.
Just FYI
14. Tractatus | May 21st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
You lay the blame of everything at the GOP door, but when your loved ones are in charge and things go south, you spin, deflect and deny.
Typical liberal.
What was the end of that first sentence again?
you spin, deflect and deny
So, what do you say confronted with the rationale for dismissing Spook’s (stupid) argument (attempting to lay the blame of everything at the Democratic Party’s door–hmmm, wasn’t that supposed to be a bad thing to do?)? “Really hard to take you seriously when your posts are littered with BDS derangement and liberal talking points.”
In other words:
you spin, deflect and deny
Try again, neocon.
15. HeyHey | May 21st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Deleted - off topic.
16. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Tractatus,
Spook’s argument, which I support, DOES NOT lay the blame squarely on the Democrat controlled congress, hence his clarification in post #9 (did you miss that?). But it’s quite a coincidence isn’t it?
Much of the problem is the fact that we can not explore domestically nor can we build new refineries. Now which party supports those two positions?
Try again tractatus.
17. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Hey Hey,
Typical naive liberal post. Did you ever think that there might be more impedance to new refineries other than Democrat congressional members?
In the case of increasing the number of oil refineries and nuclear power plants, it means breaking down some of the bureaucratic burdens.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/leading_america_toward_energy.html
18. Just Another taxpayer | May 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Neocon,
Your still paying and will continue to pay, you and all your liberal friends, whether secular or religious.
Other than Rush or Bush, cite any other sources that say I’m wrong. Oil co execs say the price is being driven by fundamentals.
Have a nice day!!!
19. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Price is driven by higher demand and smaller infrastructure to handle that demand. We’re importing refined oil now, at a higher price. The other problem is the exchanges. Oil should not be traded, or speculated. It’s too valuable of a commodity.
Had we drilled 15 years ago in ANWR, when it was first being seriously considered, we’d have that supply today. We have failed to aggressively address this problem as a nation, both Democrat and Republican, for the last two decades and we’re paying now. But government is not the solution, our members of congress will sell us all down the road in a heartbeat.
Let’s explore and drill domestically, and let’s get really serious about alternative sources. There is plenty of crude still available, but it is a depleting source.
And why do I have to have a nice day? You liberals want to control everything. LOL.
20. phnx | May 21st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Carl your post #5 has has set a new standard for pedantic drivel. Congratulations.
21. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
phnx,
I think Carl is actually Ted Kaczynski.
Ted, is that you? You’re a nut. Loved the manifesto baby.
22. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 21st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
21. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Actually, neocon The Unabomber is a neoconservative. Virtually everything that he wrote in his manifesto is GOP and AEI doctrine chapter and verse.
I quote Mr Kaczynski,
“Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.”
” Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.”
That comes directly from his manifesto which reads like the Neoconservative Playbook.
23. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
10. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Any petroleum that comes out of the ground trades at market value for Light Sweet (West Texas Intermediate) the going price is 134/bbl. That is the price if it came out of ANWR or if it came from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Iran. Drilling in ANWR would increase supply but that would do nothing unless there was more refinery capacity. Even if you could build refineries in yellowstone the oil companies would not do it because they cost too much in raw materials not permitting to even begin to consider.
It is not where you drill or refineries people it is the supply drain of India and their 1.2 billons and China and their 1.4 billions all wanting to be US Style Middle Class.
24. Neologizer | May 21st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
“What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots…And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.” [President Bush, 1/26/00]
25. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
What’s your point Cav? Was that an argument against ANWR, becasue it was weak if it was. Our largest current supplier and most likely future supplier of oil is Canada. Their tar sand reserves are said to be equal to those in the ME.
And why aren’t liberals giddy about the high price of gas? That should help resolve global warming, right? Why aren’t you happy Cav?
And good job pointing to the obvious vis a vis Kaczynski. He was a wing nut, who just happened to be on the right side of the spectrum.
26. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“I’ve been in 57 states, (with) I think one left to go.” - Barack Obama; May 2008
27. phnx | May 21st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Nice try Cavalor. As twisted as Ted writings may have been, his luddite philosophy is more in line with the Enviro wackos, as well as muslim fundementalists who wish to reverse technological progress and return us all to a society devoid of any technology. All of his attacks were directed are industrialists or scientists working on technology. He has more in common with PETA, ALF, ELF, Earth First, Earth liberation Army, etc…all leftist terror groups.
28. neocon | May 21st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Actually phnx has a great point. Ted was such a freak that the political divide in terms of wing nut philosophy may have eluded him.
He spanned the divide. What a guy.
29. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 am
27. phnx | May 21st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
229. The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He
emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of
society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude
toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be
for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically
“enlightened” educational methods, for planning, for affirmative
action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He
tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often
finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of
using the common catch-phrases of the left like “racism, ” “sexism, ”
“homophobia, ” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism ”
“genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social
responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his
tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay
rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political
correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these
movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]–Theodore Kaczynski
And thus behold the grand delusion!
In a place where John McCain can raise 18MM and be cheered and Obama can raise 31 MM and folks can say his support is “slipping” is the only place where a Right Wing reactionary like ted Kaczynski can be called a left wing terrorist. It boggles the mind no matter what your species when confronted with the never ending stubbornness and desire to be right like a foot stamping eight year old girl who “has to be the princess!”
The Unabomber could have written all of Reagan’s speeches about the economy and all of Rush Limbaugh’s screeds about “Libruls” yet the dead enders here who for some reason cannot be bother with the constant smacks of the Salmon of Truth ever pummeling their cheeks and jowls with nugget after nugget of fact that their party has hosed up, committed a crime or just plain did not know what they were doing.
And this takes me back to McCain and his money problems. if this man is supposed to be The One who saves America from a perceived fate worst than Death at the hands of a socialist of the mark and make of Barack Hussein Obama I have a question: How come John McCain cannot raise 20 MM in a month?
And I know what the answers are going to be gentlemen but the time for smarmy retorts is long past. Friday night Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson will all be leading with one story that will dominate their news casts, “And tonight gasoline across the United States averages four dollars a gallon.” Knowing it at the pump in your locality will be one thing and you will grumble and pay the cost but to know there is nowhere virtually in the width and breadth of the America where you can find regular unleaded petrol for less than 4 dollars will become a psychological phenomenon we here in my bailiwick have not seen in decades. The last time there was such a demand shock because of lack of refinery capacity was during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when some pump prices went to 6 dollars a gallon based purely on greed by station owners. That last days and in some places people fought over petrol because the idea was the Colonial and Plantation pipelines were shut down.
This time the fuel will just be too expensive to bunker if there is the thought that drivers may curtail their driving. So now you have prices going even higher in the short term because the perception is that the pumps ore going dry which will spark a new run of people topping off or filling Jerri cans. Psychology will play against the markets driving the price of petrol in the US to five dollars a gallon by Labor Day. So where is McCain’s money from “white working class America” going the short answer is out of petrol nozzle and into the tank of an SUV. The long answer is to Saudi Aramco. PDVSA and the National Iranian Oil Company.
And before I part a bit from Theodore Kaczynski on religion:
“Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for
narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this
way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many
evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism
(fundamentalist Protestant sects, “cults”), or is simply stagnant
(Catholicism, main-line Protestantism). The nearest thing to a strong,
widespread, dynamic religion that the West has seen in recent times
has been the quasi-religion of leftism, but leftism today is
fragmented and has no clear, unified inspiring goal.”
Can he right about one and not the other? In the light of the 31MM dollars raised by the Obama campaign could he have been wrong about the Liberal dynamic? Is he wrong possibly about both and thus neocons errant decision to link the Unabomber somehow with Progressive thinking is a greater blunder of say the invade iraq when you do not have to ilk? Something to think about methinks on a slow Thursday.