The Rivett Report 04.02.07

Posted by Joe Rivett on 04.02.2007

Fundraising results - Hillary and Edwards are rich. Plus Tommy Thompson is running for president and more!

Welcome ladies and gentlemen to another edition of the Rivett Report!

It's All About the Benjamins Baby!

The major Democratic candidates for president except for Obama have released their first quarter fund raising results.

Hillary Clinton raised 26 million and transferred 10 million from her Senate account to bring the total to 36 million. 4.1 million came from the Internet.

John Edwards finished in second with a very impressive 14 million with 3.3 million coming from the Internet.

Bill Richardson had to come in third and he did with 6 million and he has thus far only spent a million of it.

Christopher Dodd came in fourth with 4.5 million and transferred 5 million from his Senate account.

Joe Biden came in a disappointing fifth with 2 million raised and 2 million from his account.

And now for my analysis…

Hillary Clinton was no big surprise and she did break a fundraising record. Hillary will easily have the most money of any candidate. The money makes her a very difficult candidate to beat as she can spend money in larger states and hire staff everywhere whereas someone like Bill Richardson has to focus entirely on New Hampshire and Nevada.

I was impressed by John Edward's number. The last time around he raised 7 million, which was the most then. The last time around Edwards raised a lot from lawyers whereas this time I think he has a much broader coalition of support.

I think Chris Dodd and Richardson are the only two candidates that can catch fire and they now have the money to at least show that they aren't irrelevant. I think Richardson can catch fire with his resume of Congress, Governor, UN and Energy Secretary PLUS he is the only tax cutting Democrat running. Dodd also has the ability to catch fire as he is very smart and is adored by the Left. David Broder of the Washington Post reminds us that frontrunners can fall easy:

"History suggests that 90 percent or more of what is written now about the White House hopefuls will be forgotten once the first real votes are cast next January. Do you recall the Howard Dean boom of 2003? It existed mostly in the minds of political reporters looking for something to write about -- and it collapsed once voters became engaged."

Dennis Kucinich and Obama have not yet released their totals. Republicans have not released their figures either. Check back all week for the results.

Tommy Thompson is Officially Running

I hope he doesn't win for the simple fact that I can't stand his name. Why do parents do that? Anyway, here is the story from Fox News:

WASHINGTON — Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson on Sunday joined the crowded field of Republicans running for the White House in 2008. "I am the reliable conservative," he asserted.

Thompson, who was health and human services secretary during President Bush's first term, also said he is the only GOP candidate who has helped assemble both a state and federal budget.

Since announcing last year he was forming a presidential exploratory committee to raise money and gauge support, Thompson has lagged behind better-known rivals.

Asked Sunday whether he was running for president, Thompson said, "That is correct."

Thompson, 65, has focused his strategy on Iowa, which holds the nation's first caucuses for presidential nominees. He has made weekly visits to the state and sought to make the case that it will take a candidate who can carry the Midwest to win the nomination.

"I'm telling you, things are starting to coalesce," Thompson said Sunday, despite his single-digit polling.

He said his Iraq strategy would be "tremendously" different from Bush's and said he opposed the Democratic approach in Congress to start withdrawing U.S. troops based on timelines.

Now for my analysis…

I think he can be a credible candidate if he can come up with some different ideas than the usual Republican mantra. Being a Wisconsin governor and cabinet members should have given him the opportunity to see what needs to be fixed.

My Report Card

I could not participate in the Roundtable due to my busy lifestyle so here are some of my grades.

Hillary – A – Until she is dethroned as a frontrunner, she is doing everything right.
Obama – B – Impressive start but I think he can be a tad boring.
Pelosi – A – She helped take back the House and has been able to pass the legislation she has wanted.
Reid – B – Since becoming majority leader, the Democrats have been doing well, his only problem is that he has to figure out how to make bills that don't get filibustered.
Murtha – C – He finally got the timetable he wanted two years ago but he lost out on a leadership position and he has lost some credibility on the Hill.
Bush – C – The only thing that makes Bush relevant right now is the veto pen. I like the surge idea with a new general as Bush finally had to admit things were not going well. If the surge looks like a failure at the end of the year, expect an F.
McCain – D – His steadfast support for the war is killing what could have been an automatic general election. In addition, he lost his frontrunner status to a guy more to the Left.
Rudy – A – He is the frontrunner and bad news is not bringing him down. We'll see how popular he is when his opponents run negative ads.
Lott – A – I am biased toward Lott as he is one of my favorite Republicans. But this year he is now a whip and he proved that he was a much better majority leader than Frist and Bush made a big mistake messing with the man from Mississippi. In addition, he has kept the Republicans voting for the War in Iraq despite American opposition at home.
Alberto – F – Firing people is fine for their political views, just don't lie about your involvement dipshit! I don't trust anything that comes from this man. Bush needs to can him but won't because Bush has some weird loyalty complex.

By the way I gave the Democrats good grades because their Party had a good year. My grades are not based on if I agree with them but rather how successful they have been.

A Good Column To Read

Read my column on stupid Iraq viewpoints that the Left and Right use if you haven't read it already. It was on the homepage but not the politics page so some of you may have missed it.

One of the annoying things about the Iraq War is that a lot of stupid and purely ideological statements are made. These statements come from Left, Right and Center. It seems people want their viewpoint to win so they will create stupid catchphrases and points which in all practicality should never be used as policy. Therefore, I am going to take some comments I have heard about the Iraq War and tell you the reader why the comments are wrong.

Typical Wrong Iraq Viewpoint #1

The troops want us to stay

I really hate this argument. What it is saying is that we should base our war policy on how the troops feel. If they want to stay then we shouldn't cut and run right? Wrong. Ask yourself this, how many pitchers voluntarily take themselves out of a game when they are tired? Very rarely does this happen, that is why you have an objective coach to make the decisions, or in this analogy, the president. This approach also applies to another stupid viewpoint.

Typical Wrong Iraq Viewpoint #2

The troops want us to go home

Of course many troops are going to want to go home. Many of them have families, jobs and let's face it, sex lives to go home to. I couldn't imagine being away from my wife for that long. The bottom line is that the troops do not get to decide how long America stays in Iraq, the only voice they have is absentee ballots.

Typical Wrong Iraq Viewpoint #3

If we appeased Saddam, then we would have made the same mistake that we made appeasing Hitler

Wrong! Let me get this straight, it took four years and a super alliance of France, England, Soviet Union and the United States to defeat Hitler but it took the US and British forces three weeks to take Iraq? We should have known Iraq was little to no threat when it fell so fast. New Rule: If a country falls in three weeks, it was never a threat. The same could be said about Poland during World War II. I also reject the notion that Hitler was appeased, many countries' resources and economies were exhausted after WWI (Plus a Civil War in Russia) and the countries needed time to properly retool to fight a war. Had the Soviets fought Hitler right away after the mass liquidation of millions by Stalin, Stalin would have been crushed.

Typical Wrong Iraq Viewpoint #4

Protestors and anti-war Congress people hurt troop morale.

Wrong. My friend Joshua White was listening to the Denis Prager show which is very right wing. He was interviewing a soldier and asked the fellow, if morale is hurt by negative news reporting or the anti-war movement. The soldier said it did not impact troop morale. It makes sense if you think about it. If everyday you are going out in Baghdad worrying about getting shot, the last thing you give a damn about is what John Murtha said. If I was soldier, the last thing I would want to do is watch the news. Our troops are professional, they get orders and follow them.

Typical Wrong Iraq Viewpoint #5

The Iraq War is an illegal war so we should get out

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the notion that there are legal and illegal wars. You can argue moral versus immoral wars or necessary versus unnecessary wars, but there really isn't an accepted legal doctrine for war that is ENFORCILBE. There are legal and illegal ways to fight war according to the Geneva Conventions, but there isn't an accepted law having to do whether or not to go to war. If you want the US to get out of Iraq, there are plenty of decent arguments, this one just makes you sound like a left-wing wacko.

Typical Wrong Iraq Viewpoint #6

The troops need to have the best of everything, (Armor, Training, etc.)

As much as Donald Rumsfeld was chided for his comment: "You go to war with what you have, not with what you want", I think he has a point. Look, when planning a war, you have time to get ready. The Bush Administration should have had more armored Humvees when the war started. However, five years into this war, Murtha supports a bill that states if the troops aren't properly trained they cannot be deployed. What makes a soldier adequately trained to fight in Iraq Mr. Murtha? Speaking fluent Arabic is probably more important than how well you shoot. When the Soviet Union was attacked by the Nazi's, did Stalin only send out the properly trained soldiers? The army can always be better trained, equipped and managed, but expecting the BEST is almost impossible with an army that size. And let's be real, body armor is NOT going to win or lose this war.

I wrote this column because I am tired of the spin and BS I see our politicians and pundits use. This week Bush told us to be patient. That's great but why the hell did you have the Vice President go on Meet the Press to say the terrorists were "in their last throes" a few years ago? I would be more patient if I wasn't told we would be greeted as liberators. I would be more patient if I wasn't told it would cost no more than 50 billion. I would be more patient if other countries were bearing the cost. I would be more patient if somebody could find Osama.

To the Democrats I want to use a poker term: Either go 'all in' or 'fold'. Just stop with the non binding resolutions, the amendments to bills, the only can send trained troops, etc. Stop trying to come up with war plans because that is the president's job. Your job is to watch the purse.

Finally, leaving doesn't necessarily mean we lost. Maybe the Iraqis will get more responsible and their act together with a troop reduction. It is like kicking your kid out at 18, the kid will probably do some dumb things, but they will learn responsibility and accountability that they can't learn when you are paying their rent. Yes folks, Iraq is like a teenager, and the US is the parent that needs to decide what to do when the teenager graduates high school.