Money Talks

By law, every Presidential candidate has to submit a quarterly report on fundraising activities, including donations, loans and expenditures. Cash is a critical tool for candidates, as it is needed to pay for staff, advertising and travel, but it is also a barometer for a campaign's health: more donations mean more support.

It should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody that Hillary Clinton generated the most cash. According to her campaign, between July 1 and September 30, she was able to raise about $27 million. This number dwarfs the next-strongest money maker, Barak Obama, and his $19 million. Republican candidates aren't anywhere close. Mitt Romney was able to raise $10M (and added about another $8M of his personal funds to the coffer.) Fred Thompson raised about $8M, and Ron Paul shocked everyone by raising $5M. This is significant because it gives him enough cash to campaign nationally for the early primaries. In contrast, Mike Huckabee has better poll numbers than Paul, but barely reached the $1M mark.

There is a definite correlation between campaign spending and electoral success. The GOP is in big trouble.

Which candidate should I support?

I just love the internet. I've taken a variety of "independent" polls designed to establish my political leaning and which candidate best suits my political beliefs, and the results were utterly unsurprising. These internet polls have informed me that the best match for my political leanings and stances on the issue is:
Rudi Giuliani. Or Ron Paul. Or Dennis Kucinich. Or Al Sharpton. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Mitt Romney.

I kid you not: various quizzes have mentioned each of these candidates as being "ideal" (or at least in the top 3.) How's that for definitive?

The road to totalitarianism

There's been a fair amount of recent discussion in the blogosphere about how the United States is headed down the path toward a totalitarian, fascist state. Supposedly it all starts with a "common enemy" that is some sort of vague, faceless danger (i.e. "terrorism" or "Jews"), then continues with the suspension of civil rights and an increasingly powerful executive. The warning signs are all there.

Well, not quite.

Some of the warning signs are certainly there. There is absolutely no question that Bush is running roughshod over the Constitution. There is absolutely no question that the administration is using whatever means they can to achieve their goals, ethical, legal or not. And it is essential that we resist unlawful attempts to seize power. At the same time, though, I feel it is incredibly important to point out exactly why it is far too soon to go into panic mode.

1. The Democrat Party is alive, well and healthy. The Bush administration has not silenced the opposition party, and the opposition party is still quite vocal.
2. The AP, Reuters, AFP, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and other press are active and independent. They may be biased one way or another, and their reporting may be shoddy, but they have not been silenced.
3. Elections are on pace for 2008. The administration has failed thus far to extend the 2-term limit. Furthermore, none of the candidates has close ties to the current administration. Some candidates have similar views, but this isn't the perpetuating of a small elite. Bush has no heir apparent.

I'm not suggesting things are good. I'm not suggesting we should not be vigilant and allow our rights to be trampled. But I am suggesting that most of the institutions that make this a democratic nation are still in place, and that for better or worse, things will return to normalcy. This isn't Venezuela. Congress still has power. Bush isn't president for life. No Enabling Act has been passed. We, the People, still have the final say. It isn't too late.