Thursday, July 20, 2006

Chet's money, what it means and why it matters

We learned a few more things about Chet's Gubernatorial campaign yesterday and today.

First, we learned that Chet's campaign really, seriously, just can't its stories straight. Remember last month when the Culver campaign got caught plagarizing a Jim Nussle release on education. Well, not content to lapse into just stealing the other guy's lines, so to speak, yesterday the Culver campaign said that their latest campaign disclosure statement would show that they received less than 18% of their contributions from out of state interests.

Even a cursory review of the July 18 Chet Culver Committee report shows the campaign's claim to be, not arguably but substantively and literally untrue. The numbers show the Culver campaiagn raised a total of $1,404,789.59 during the reporting period of which $789,185.00 came from donors who reported out of state addresses. Now I'm no mathematician but that's like a 300% margin or error. Throw in another $350,393.59 from in-state PACs that raise their money out of state, and you've got a guy with about 80% of his money flowing into and not up from Iowa.

This latest falsehood is important for two reasons. First, it shows that Democrats really just cannot tell the truth. Their party, their ideology, their political practices and their behavior are just so freakishly at odds with American culture that they can only politically survive through a pretty hefty dose of deception. Second, and more specifically, it provides great insight into the real Chet Culver.

For those of us who have listened to liberals call the President "Shrub", I'll take George H.W.Bush, (beloved No. 41) over John Culver. Have we forgotten the other Culver whose career was funded by East Coast ultraliberals? For those not old enough to remember, Washington, New York and Boston money put John Culver in the Senate-for one term-and what did they get: they got a guy so liberal that he was called "Massachusetts' third Senator"!

Iowa already has six times more government than its proportional share of the national population and the Democrats continue to demand more. Why do you think that the same report shows the Chet Culver Committee to have only 236 Iowa residents as donors? Its because there just aren't that many doctrinaire Democrats in Iowa. Chet Culver owes all of his loyalty to mostly out of state special interests and ultra-liberal PACs and not to the people of Iowa, and never forget it.

Coming tomorrow---a little love for Ako and maybe some Mauro as well.

In the mean time, please


Luis Rukeyser said...

your ending comment about Ako makes me anxious to read your post tomorrow, Ted. he is my most disliked D. he makes me sick...that guy is echoing what Russia and Koffi are saying to Israel...Ako will win most likely, and he will quickly become a maverick of their party...he will be even TOO liberal for them....well, too liberal until they want to put him on stage at some fundraiser...

Anonymous said...

He will only win, if we are so fearful of being called racists that we will not put the facts out there aganist him. He is a felon, he is a fraud, and he has his hand caught in the cookie jar. That is what needs to be said. and said and said. So what that he is black, we should be able to attack him, for who is, not for the color of his skin. And we need to, or this disgrace will be an elected official.

Anonymous said...

War Martin Luther King Jr who advocated being judged on the content of your character rather than the color of your skin.

MLK Jr would be a conservative republican if he were alive today.

That is how much the democrat party has changed with respect to race. They are now for segregation rather than integration, among other anti black agenda items that the poverty pimps, Jesse, Al and Louis Farakhan preach.

Don't let them intimidate you. Judge Ako on the content of his character - substantial items here and not worry about the color of his skin.

Only D's care about that.

Doug said...

I don't like big government any more than you do, but your number regarding government and the propertion of it to residents is misleading if not incorrect.