Obey's FEC
2% of Dave Obey's First Quarter Fundraising Comes from Wisconsin.
Wow, that's an impressive show of grassroots constituent support!!!
98% of Dave Obey's nearly $272,000 in campaign contributions came from special interest PACs in Washington, DC as well as 39 other states. 69% of contributions were from special interest PACs and 29% from out of state sources.
Yet, no mention of the breakdown of this funding from our newspapers. How sad on both counts.
Wow, that's an impressive show of grassroots constituent support!!!
98% of Dave Obey's nearly $272,000 in campaign contributions came from special interest PACs in Washington, DC as well as 39 other states. 69% of contributions were from special interest PACs and 29% from out of state sources.
Yet, no mention of the breakdown of this funding from our newspapers. How sad on both counts.
posted by ObeyOut2006 at 3:36 PM
23 Comments:
From the previously (ignored) comments:
Anonymous said...
So you're saying that this site is in no way partisan and not part of the "disease to the form of politics we have here in America"? Explain that please.
Likewise, I and others wait breathlessly for you to explain in detail the "legit concerns" for us going into Iraq.
A simple request, I think....
12:34 PM
Please respond before changing the subject with another partisan tantrum...
Anything can be taken out of context, or with partisan intent intentionally lambasted.
Why would out of state PAC's offer to help him? Because these NATIONAL organizations are not based here. I looked at the record for Obey's voting history, at http://www.vote-smart.org/, which tracks voting records. Check out the evalutaions for Obey for the following years, and then compare them to donations (yes: including our own NRA):
2006 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in
2006, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Obey a grade of B+.
2005 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 67 percent in 2005.
2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Obey a grade of B+.
2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Obey a grade of A.
2000 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2000, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Obey a grade of A.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Representative Obey a grade of B.
2006 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2006.
2005 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2004.
2003 On the votes that the Disabled American Veterans - House considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Obey voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2003 Representative Obey supported the interests of the American Veterans 50 percent in 2003.
2001 On the votes that the Disabled American Veterans considered to be the most important in 2001, Representative Obey voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2005 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Personal Liberties on personal liberties 72 percent in 2005.
2005 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 44 percent in 2005.
2003 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus on personal liberties 45 percent in 2003.
2002 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 35 percent in 2002.
2003 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Non Commissioned Officers Association 75 percent in 2003.
2002 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Non Commissioned Officers Association 69 percent in 2002.
2001 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Non Commissioned Officers Association 60 percent in 2001.
2005 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Obey supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Obey supported the interests of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Obey voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2003 Representative Obey supported the interests of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging 50 percent in 2003.
2002 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2002, Representative Obey voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2002 Representative Obey supported the interests of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association 100 percent in 2002.
2005 Representative Obey supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 100 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Obey supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 100 percent in 2004.
2001-2002 Representative Obey supported the interests of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare 100 percent in 2001-2002.
2001 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2001, Representative Obey voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1999-2000 Representative Obey supported the interests of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare 100 percent in 1999-2000.
1999-2000 Representative Obey supported the interests of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association 100 percent in 1999-2000.
Whoa.... Food for thought.
But I would like to correct the liberal posing as a Republican: Nick Reid is NOT running again.
He has returned to the Heritage Foundation as "Regional Manager of Donor Relations" for 15 states (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/NickReid.cfm). Although I do not know what Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have in common, I assunme this is a cushy job given to him as a way of saying "Thanks for being a puppet" and shows that the "carpetbagger" title may not have been far off.
Sorry to tell you, but it's not that cushy a job that Reid landed.
Who cares about all those group ratings. Talk about a red herring. The point is, Obey demonstrated no support here at home. And, the NRA didn't endorse Obey in 2006.
Anonymous said...
From the previously (ignored) comments:
Anonymous said...
So you're saying that this site is in no way partisan and not part of the "disease to the form of politics we have here in America"? Explain that please.
Likewise, I and others wait breathlessly for you to explain in detail the "legit concerns" for us going into Iraq.
A simple request, I think....
12:34 PM
Please respond before changing the subject with another partisan tantrum...
6:05 PM
To the liberal still intent on personal attacks on Nick Reid; he was born in Superior, WI. He grew up there, Graduated HS from there, and purchased a house in Rice Lake where he lived from 05-07. (In case you didn’t know, those places are actually in the district) David Obey on the other hand, was born in Oklahoma, has lived in Washington DC area since the 1960's, and owns a mansion in Arizona. (Those places are outside of the 7th district)
Nick Reid raised 90% of his campaign funds from people here in the district last year, while Obey raised 90% of his money from people in NY, AZ, DC, and Milwaukee.
So seems to me that if you want to blast someone for not "being one of us," you should look at your own candidate. Or you could look at the leading presidential candidate on your side. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-IL, AR, NY, DC)
But of course the bottom line is that Mr. Reid is not running in the next election. He had the courage of his convictions to subject himself to the daunting task of confronting a machine politician, and facing personal and ugly attacks from cowards like you. You are so morally bankrupt that you can’t even represent yourself honestly but instead resort to the age old tactic of the seminar caller posing as a republican to seem more reasonable. From there your posts are simply cut a paste jobs, personal attacks, and bumper sticker slogans that fall flat when confronted.
By the way, where are you from? Madison or San Francisco?
To the extreme right wing poster who represents the spectrum of our party that cost us the last election nationwide, led us into Iraq with lies but without a plan, and continously pushes candidates in the 7th district with no chance of winning:
There is nothing personal against Reid. My question is what job has he had in the 7th district since leaving years ago that gives him insight into our neeeds and qualifies him to represent us? After interning and working for the Heritage Foundation and being placed in a job working for another far right congressman, he was hand picked, moved back, bought a house and ran for congress: THAT is your idea of a qualified candidate?
From the very beginning this site has offered nothing but attacks, first against Reids opponents then on Obey without offering any positive concepts or ideas. Negative. Negative. Negative.
This is EXACTLY what people are rebelling against. Period.
If your "little group" is on such solid ground with your convictions, why not simply identify yourselves, take pride in what you are doing and offer something positive rather than continuing to sling slime. To do otherwise continues to lower our image in the eyes of anyone that visits this site.
5:42:
Just who the hell should we choose to replace Obey? Petrowski from the Assembly? What's the difference?
I didn't notice that someone was responding to one of my comments. I don't visit this site more than once every week or two, so I apologize. I am the one who made the "disease to the form of politics we have here" comment.
The case that was made before the invasion of Iraq, could have been interpreted in two different ways: neoconservative and traditional conservative. It's an intricate and complex conversation given the nature of Conservatism, one that I do not claim to understand fully. After the invasion, the neoconservative arguement never changed. The traditional conservative arguement did, qualitatively, though I still think you can argue a traditional conservative position for staying in Iraq and not pulling out.
If you truly want to understand more about the nature of the debate, go find some Conservative figures who disagree with the war and read their stuff. (By the way, Andrew Sullivan doesn't count---he is not a Conservative, though he claims to be) I think you will find it fascinating, and far more profound than the hollow and idealistic anti-war arguements that are often pushed by the neoliberals who see themselves as protesting the "new vietnam."
An excellent place to get an overview of the different kinds of Conservatism is George Nash's excellent book with a somewhat long title: "Th Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945." Good luck, and enjoy the search. I sure did.
That, again, is not an answer to the aforementioned questions. And don't throw out Duffy either: way too much baggage.
The fact is we need someone moderate to run against Obey and take away the middle swing voters who vote for him on an identity only basis. I’d rather fight fire with fire than nominate another extremist who can’t win.
3:23 #1:
I will post this again, since you avoided my questions:
So you're saying that this site is in no way partisan and not part of the "disease to the form of politics we have here in America"? Explain that please.
Likewise, I and others wait breathlessly for you to explain in detail the "legit concerns" for us going into Iraq.
A simple request, I think....
Again, I am waiting...
I am not 3:29, but here are some reasons why we entered Iraq:
Saddam’s support of Terrorism: Husain routinely gave money and rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and the organizations that trained them. As terror organizations are interconnected a lot of that money went to terror orgs targeting the US. Also Saddam permitted terror training camps in Iraq, including a large one outside Bagdad. And of course Al-Qaeda leader Al-Zarqawi was given refuge in Iraq prior to the war.
Saddam’s defiance of the UN: After Saddam invaded and brutalized Kuwait in the 1990, and was defeated by the US and coalition forces, he agreed to several conditions in order to save his regime. He failed to live up to these agreements routinely firing on US jets protection No-Fly Zones, kicking out UN Weapon inspectors, and of course bribing UN officials in the oil for food scandal. At some point threats become hollow when not enforced.
WMD: This is the most controversial element of the argument, but it was used primarily because of the UN and British concerns. Saddam had used WMD’s in the 80’s and 90’s against civilians often times of his own country. And vowed to use them again, or pass them off to terrorists as documents recovered after the war showed he was prepared to do so. He kicked out UN weapons inspectors twice, and refused to account for where his weapons were. Some have been recovered in Iraq just not the amount we thought had existed. He may have shipped them to Syria as Israel has suggested or he may have destroyed them we do not know. What do know is that every leading democrat candidate for president in the last 20 years believed he had them.
Fundamental Change in Mid East: So long as the Middle East consists of corrupt and oppressive dictators, recruits and avenues for Islamic extremists will exist. If the War on Terror is ever to be over, we need to deal with the ideological threat and dominance of the Mid-East by extremists. The way to do that is to prop up a successful, moderate, capitalist democracy that will provide hope for young people in that part of world. Iraq was the best place began with the hope that once successful change will began to take place across the region
These may not be all of the reasons, and you may not agree with them, but the majority of American’s did in 2003, and again in 2004.
I am 3:23.
If you did not see the "legit concerns" before we went into Iraq, as Colin Powell was presenting them to the UN (concerns which turned out to be non-existent), there is NOTHING I can say that will convince you.
Furthermore, you wanted me to flesh out why I said that, and I told you that its a bit more complex than foxnews-like soundbytes can capture.
Just because you wait "breathlessly" doesn't mean I should waste my breath.
1:35:
You are rewriting history, just as the Reich did in the 1930's. Cheney stated that there was proof Saddam Hussein supported Osama Bin Laden (REMEMBER HIM?), 9/11 and world terrorism. Hussein was a pitiful dictator in a shit hole country that sat over lots of oil. Cheney and Bush lied: grow up and get a clue. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein, 9/11, Bin Laden and terrorism. None. Period. Ever. End of argument. The rest of your argument falls on the same faulty turf after that, nit.
2:36
Powell was a faithful, patriotic soldier who had the trust of the American public. He was used a tool and a puppet, lied to and followed the role of good soldier spouting the same lies he was told to. He fell on his sword for our president, then sent packing. Pitiful.
The "legit concerns" you stand by were lies fabricated by our party leadership, starting at the top. The fact that you use that term places you firmly in the wing of our party that still defends this modern version of Vietnam and the quagmire that just cost us another 9 more patriotic American lives and 20 serious injuries to other patriots that are being sacrificed because our leadership thinks nothing of their lives. To defend this makes you as low as any scum that slithers this planet.
Once again your true character comes out with your personal and nasty attacks that quickly devolve into bumper sticker slogans. Let’s start off besides your lying about being a Republican, with your second flat out lie. Please offer proof that Bush and Cheney knew Iraq didn't have the WMD's. You see young third grader; in order to lie you have to say something you know to be untrue. Just because we haven't found wmd's doesn't mean the hundreds of politicians who thought they were there lied. It might mean they were wrong, but not that they lied.
And, if they knew there were no wmd's how come the following liberals didn't know this: Clinton, Gore, Daschle, H Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Richardson, Schumer, and every other leading dem since 1996.
And lastly of course there is the fact that this debate is pointless, since we don't have a time machine. We are there now, we are fighting Al-Qaeda there now, and no amount of rewriting history will change that fact. The question now is what to do, and do we win it? Unfortunately for anti-American types like you, that isn't even a concern.
Typical obfuscation, but that is what is expected of the neo-cons that helped recruit Nick Reid: convolute the truth and rewite history.
We will lose the 7th district again, as more and more true Republicans like myself vacate to the growing middle, a middle swelling with true patriots disenchanted with the rhetoric of both sides. Please continue with your ridiculous diatribe, as it merely confirms the truth.
Bush Without a Script
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, April 20, 2007; 1:16 PM
I wrote in Tuesday's column about how Bush's public campaign to push back against Congressional demands for withdrawal from Iraq is becoming highly reminiscent of his failed effort two years ago to win support for a radical overhaul of Social Security.
That became even more the case yesterday when Bush took up the role of talk-show host again, in a town-hall style session held in front of a friendly, invitation-only audience.
As was the case during Bush's Social Security barnstorming, Bush has apparently read enough speeches on the subject now that he -- and/or his aides -- feel he can work without a script.
The main topic was the war, but unscripted Bush tends to wander all over the place, especially when he has softball questions to work with.
Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "Speaking at a 90-minute, town-hall-style meeting in a high school gymnasium, Mr. Bush said he would not buckle to polls showing opinion cutting against him on a variety of issues, and conveyed his belief that he would be vindicated by history."
Here's a short excerpt from the transcript (Bush's whiny answers to each of the questions he was asked were on average just under a thousand words long.)
Q: “Mr. President, I admire your stay-to-it-iveness -- (inaudible) -- not using polls and focus groups. But I have to ask you personally, with respect to economics, with respect to the war, with respect to the war on terror and Iraq, and immigration, when you go to bed at night and you see these polls -- everybody and their brother does a poll now -- how does it make you feel?
PRESIDENT BUSH: "That's an interesting question. You know, I'm -- I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times."
But of course the polls aren't going poof; they're going kablooey. They have been for a long time, and on the seminal issues of his presidency.
Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: " Strange things sometimes come out of
President Bush's mouth. 'Polls just go poof.'
'Remember the rug?'
"When Bush went to Ohio on Thursday to talk about terrorism, he ended up musing about marriage and chicken-plucking plants, the agony of death and his Oval Office rug, which resembles a sunburst."
Julie Mason, writing for the Houston Chronicle, speaks I am quite sure for many of the reporters who have to listen to everything the president says, when she asks Bush to “Stop telling the same stories over and over again”.
"Bush's speech made reference to both the amazing story of the president's friendship with former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, and the tale of how Bush ended up with a yellow rug in the Oval Office.
"Both of these hoary old chestnuts have been in the presidential repertoire for too long, and need to be neatly packed and stowed for transport to the GWB presidential library, immediately."
The Unraveling
Two of Bush's key arguments took big hits yesterday. Bush has long maintained that as the Iraqi army gains strength, the U.S. army can start to pull out. And recently, he has been insisting that a delay in getting war funding approved would have nearly immediate harmful effects on the army.
But Nancy A. Youssef writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.
"Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.
"No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. 'We are just adding another leg to our mission,' Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake. . . .
"President Bush first announced the training strategy in the summer of 2005.
"'Our strategy can be summed up this way,' Bush said. 'As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'"
And Andrew Taylor writes for the Associated Press: "The Pentagon says it has enough money to pay for the Iraq war through June, despite warnings from the White House that troops are being harmed by Congress' failure to quickly deliver more funds. . . .
"The Army is taking a series of 'prudent measures' aimed at making sure delays in the bill financing the war do not harm troop readiness, according to instructions sent to Army commanders and budget officials April 14."
Army Comptroller Nelson Ford "said the accounting moves are 'similar to those enacted last year' when [the Republican] Congress failed to deliver a war funding bill to Bush
WOW... deserved venom I think?
11:40 AM:
I will post this again, since you have avoided my questions three times already:
So you're saying that this site is in no way partisan and not part of the "disease to the form of politics we have here in America"? Explain that please.
Likewise, I and others wait breathlessly for you to explain in detail the "legit concerns" for us going into Iraq.
A simple request, I think....
Again, I am waiting... and again... and again
7:44,
I originally used "legit concerns." The use of the "legit concerns" is not a term that I abstract from time and history. It means that before the invasion, we had a body of information. Neoconservatives and Traditional Conservatives both looked at this body of information as legit, BUT when it turned out to be false, the real reason for going into Iraq did not change for Neoconservatives. The Old Conservatives regret going into Iraq, but argue that we should stay in Iraq for different reasons than the neoconservatives. The distinction is important. When you study the differences between the two, you find that Neoconservative foreign policy, as implemented by this administration, has become Clintonesque with streaks of realism.
For those who continue to maintain that it was all a big conspiracy: You are not helping your cause AT ALL. The best thing you can do is keep quiet. Those who think that Bush lied and that it was all orchestrated by some republican conspiracy would never support any kind of international action that would serve the US interest anyway.
In short, just like neoconservatives didn't care that when we invaded, that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, neoliberals wouldn't have cared if it turned out Iraq was oozing with WMD. To the Hilary Clintons and the Barack Obamas of the world, we are responsible for the existence of terrorism in the first place. Neoliberalism has no future. Neoconservatism has no future either. Making statements that assume one side (Bush lies, people die) or the other (you have the right to free speech, why shouldn't Iraqis?) is a waste of time. What really pisses me off is that people who perpetuate this bull shit are the same people who whine and complain about how pointless and far-removed politics is from the lives of individual citizens.
5:52: I doubt "we," will lose the 7th district again, as I doubt you will do anything to help any candidate or run yourself. Because you are a democrat hack.
Mullings
An American Cyber-Column
Investing in Failure
Wednesday, April 26, 2007
From the White County Lincoln Day Dinner
Searcy, Arkansas
Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) has declared “this war is lost” and has made a great deal of pretending to have decided when and under what circumstances US troops will effect their retreat from Iraq.
Forget, for the moment, the effect on the young men and women who are actually fighting this war that statement must have on their morale. Consider – as Democrats must surely be doing – the political effects of declaring “this war is lost.”
Harry Reid now has a reason to root against Americans in (what those of us who are not, like to call) “harm’s way.” He now needs to have his proclamation become the commonly accepted truth. He is invested in the failure of the war in Iraq.
If the Republican apparatus were up and running with any kind of efficiency, the RNC would be demanding of every Democrat in the nation running for (or serving in) any elected office to declare whether or not they agree with Harry Reid.
The RNC would, further, make it clear to all that not denouncing Harry Reid is the same as agreeing with him.
Second, it should be made clear that, although Harry Reid was talking about the war in Iraq, we are still fighting the wider war on terror; a war which has stayed off our shores for about five-and-a-half years, but which may revisit us with no warning, at any time.
One of the things we have learned from the action in Iraq is that weakness is seen by our enemies as … weakness. Our enemies are not looking for a path to peace to co-exist with the West in a Shangri La.
Our enemies celebrate weakness and will continue to exploit it. The nuances of Harry Reid’s statement might well be lost on them.
Reid’s comments splash over into the Democratic nominating process. The NY Times ran a piece yesterday by Raymond Hernandez which began:
Only a few months ago, the vast majority of black elected officials in New York were expected to support the presidential candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. But … in a series of interviews, a significant number of those officials now say they are undecided about whether to back Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.
If Hillary Clinton (read, BILL Clinton) believes the most basic constituency in the Clinton/Clinton cross-tabs is beginning to drift away to Obama, she (read, HE) will have no choice but to find some way to back away from her current stance on the war in Iraq and circle around to get to the left of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
Imagine the howls of outrage if, while US troops under NATO control in Kosovo, Newt Gingrich had said “this war is lost.”
In the long-term, the Democrats will be hurt by what Harry Reid is saying and what other senior Democrats are not saying.
As we move through the Presidential election cycle, Democrats risk a backlash from voters who may not be happy about the state of affairs in Iraq, but will not abide putting our service members at risk for political gain.
I find it interesting that the disenchanted "republican," on this site keeps blaming the "neocons," and the Iraq war for supposedly losing elections and dooming the part going forward. Yet at the same time nearly every poll out there on the 2008 Presidential race shows that the republicans McCain and Giuliani who both support the Iraq war, and the troop surge, beating democrats Clinton, Obama and Edwards who don't, easily. Including several showing those same results in PA, NJ, and Michigan to name a few. Funny isn't it.
12:55,
This is "Legit Concerns" speaking again. I am not blaming the "evil neocons" for losing the election and sending the party into a downward spiral. Read the article in a recent issue of National Review on how the word neocon needs to die because it has about as much meaning as the word "fascist" did near the end of WWII. I agree that this word is over used in pop-conversation about politics. But, to understand what I am saying, I am asking you to step outside of pop-conversation and have a deeper discussion for a few moments. If you cannot (or will not), that's fine; we simply will not understand each other. You will not understand what I am saying, and I will not understand why you choose to not have this kind of discussion.
Let me reiterate (again) the nature of the two cases for staying in Iraq. The Neoconservative reasons for going into and stayin in Iraq never changed. The realist or traditional conservative reasons for going into Iraq did change when we found no WMD. But, just because we found no WMD, doesn't mean that we should pull out. The neoconservatives still stuck to their nation-building stance (the reason for going into Iraq in the first place). The traditional conservative says that we should stay in Iraq for different reasons.
Post a Comment
<< Home