Category: 2008 election

Ron Paul is having Kucinich problems…

Dennis Kucinich dropped out of the Presidential race a couple weeks ago because he was worried he might lose his primary seat to a Democratic primary challenger.

Ron Paul has a couple primary challengers (story #1, #2) and it looks like he’s a little worried too:

Here is another way you can help Ron Paul continue to defend freedom and keep the movement alive. Under Texas law Ron Paul can run for President and Congress at the same time and he is doing just that. If you have already given to help elect Ron Paul President, you can also help him by giving to his reelection campaign to Congress. Go to his congressional web site starting TODAY and donate to make sure Ron also wins his reelection campaign for Congress. Let’s help reelect Ron to Congress and elect him President at the same time. Let the Establishment know that the movement will continue, whether in Congress or in the White House. The Texas Primary election is March 4, so time is short for Ron to fund this campaign.

[…]

Federal election laws make it impossible for Congressman Paul to use any of his presidential funds for his congressional race so long as he remains a candidate for president. That creates a real problem because as long as Ron Paul continues to have success running for President, he will have a hard time securing funds for his congressional reelection.

Christ, talk about delusions of grandeur…

And then there’s this even more interesting part:

This message paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul

[…]

Paid for by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee.

The email was sent through his Presidential campaign’s email address — not his Congressional campaign’s email (regardless of the message saying it was paid for by his re-election campaign). I’m pretty sure it’s against campaign laws to use a service bought with one campaign to solicit money for another campaign otherwise I don’t think he would have a problem putting money from his Presidential election into his Congressional campaign.

And before you ask, the only reason I’m getting a message from Ron Paul is because I’ve subscribed to all the surviving Presidential campaigns’ mailing lists.

(By the way, vote Mitt Romney!)

Reasons not to vote for John McCain: #254,903

From the Second Amendment Project: Key Second Amendment Races, 2004:

Arizona
Republican John McCain (*C/F-) posed as a strong Second Amendment during the 2000 Republican Presidential primaries. But in the next session of Congress, he sponsored the McCain/Lieberman gun show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show. And of course the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law is the most extreme Congressional assault on First Amendment rights since the Sedition Acts of the Woodrow Wilson and John Adams administrations.

(H/t: Ann Coulter)

Caroline man tries, fails to smear Albert Pollard.

From The Free Lance-Star: Pollard should be more experienced than this!:

Pollard should be more experienced than this!

Many of us have noticed that large “Pollard” signs have suddenly appeared around the district.

On closer inspection, it appears that these signs have been recycled from the previous state Senate campaign, with the lower portion cut off.

There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that in cutting off the bottom, those who posted the signs have also eliminated the mandatory authorization line, which must be part of any political advertising.

In Title 24.2 of the Code of Virginia, Chapter 9.5 includes instructions for including the statement “Paid for by [Name of candidate or campaign committee]” on campaign materials.

Those instructions also state that “any disclosure required by this section shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner.” Under 24.2-955.3 of the code, certain penalties are prescribed for violation of these laws.

These signs have begun to appear throughout the district. Just curious: How can someone with such vast experience in government service have overlooked such a simple requirement?

Jeff Gerau

Caroline

Amazing job there getting it wrong.

From § 24.2-955:

The disclosure requirements of this chapter apply to any sponsor of an advertisement in the print media or on radio or television the cost or value of which constitutes an expenditure or contribution required to be disclosed under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) except that the disclosure requirements of this chapter do not apply to (i) an individual who makes independent expenditures aggregating less than $1,000 in an election cycle for a candidate or (ii) an individual who incurs expenses only with respect to a referendum.

From § 24.2-955.1:

As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning:

“Advertisement” means any message appearing in the print media, on television, or on radio that constitutes a contribution or expenditure under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.). “Advertisement” shall not include novelty items authorized by a candidate including, but not limited to, pens, pencils, magnets, and buttons to be attached to wearing apparel.

[…]

“Print media” means billboards, cards, newspapers, newspaper inserts, magazines, printed material disseminated through the mail, pamphlets, fliers, bumper stickers, periodicals, website, electronic mail, and outdoor advertising facilities. If a single print media advertisement consists of multiple pages, folds, or faces, the disclosure requirement of this section applies only to one page, fold, or face.

“Radio” means any radio broadcast station that is subject to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§ 315 and 317.

[…]

“Television” means any television broadcast station, cable television system, wireless-cable multipoint distribution system, satellite company, or telephone company transmitting video programming that is subject to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§ 315 and 317.

Nowhere does it say that campaign signs (with the exception of billboards) have to have disclaimers on them. You can, of course, put disclaimers on them if you want but you don’t have to.

No local candidate had disclaimer information on their campaign signs on the side of the road in the last general election.

When Robert Wittman was running for reelection for his 99th House of Delegates seat his signs did not have disclaimers either.

After the general election, when Wittman was running for the Republican nomination for the special election for Virginia’s 1st Congressional District and after he won the nomination: he reused the same signs — ones that didn’t have disclaimers on them.

If this is the best that Lee Anne Washington supporters can come up with, she’s really in trouble…

Reason 2,428 to hate elections in Florida

From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Primary day glitches few but frustrating:

In northern Coral Springs, near the Sawgrass Expressway and Coral Ridge Drive, David Nirenberg arrived to vote as an independent. Nevertheless, he said poll workers insisted he choose a party ballot.

“He said to me, ‘Are you Democrat or Republican?’ I said, ‘Neither, I am independent.’ He said, ‘Well, you have to pick one,”’ Nirenberg said.

In Florida, only those who declare a party are allowed to cast a vote in that party’s presidential primary.

Nirenberg said he tried to explain to the poll worker that he should not vote on a party ballot because of his “no party affiliation” status.

Nirenberg said a second poll worker was called over who agreed that independents should not use party ballots, but said they had received instructions to the contrary.

“He said, ‘Ya know, that is kind of funny, but it was what we were told.’ … I was shocked when they told me that.” Nirenberg said he went ahead and voted for John McCain.

Am I the only one that thinks Florida should be expelled from the Union?

At the very least, Floridians should not be allowed to vote!

At least we get to see where John McCain’s real base of support is…

Bill Clinton: Please consult a history book…

Or the “internets”.

From Jake Tapper’s blog at ABC News: Bubba: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson:

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.”

This was in response to a question from ABC News’ David Wright about it taking “two Clintons to beat” Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can’t understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as “the black candidate.”

— jpt

For those that don’t remember back to 1984 and 1988, here’s a reminder of the candidates that did end up being the Democratic nominees for President (both images from Wikipedia):

1984: Walter Mondale

What happened to Mr. Mondale? He went on to lose in the biggest electoral vote landslide — ever (only 13 votes against Reagan’s 525). He also lost the popular vote with only 40.6% of the vote against Reagan’s 58.8%.

 

 

 

1988: Michael Dukakis

And what happened to then Governor [of Massachusetts] Dukakis? He lost the electoral vote with only 111 votes against George H. W. Bush’s 426 votes. He obtained 45.6% of the popular vote against Bush’s 53.4%.

 

So, Bill…are you saying that your wife is going to get stomped in the General Election?