Squirming in SCHIP

As many of you may have heard on the radio already, Second District Congressman Lee Terry has taken the step to get ahead of an issue on his own. With the debate about the mammoth expansion of the SCHIP program swirling around, Terry’s campaign has produced a radio ad explaining his position.

You can listen to it here:


This isn’t the first time Terry has gone on his own to address an issue, but it is the first one of the political season for him. As reported in the Omaha World Herald, this issue has been demagogued by the left with their standard claims of “he hates children!” (We get a kick out of the libs when they use these lines, because no one believes such a stupid claim. Not that they’ll ever stop doing it…)

As much as we admire Terry for going directly to the voters with this, we’re not crazy about the format of the “Lee Terry Report” with the faux female-interviewer. No one actually believes this is a “report” or an interview, so why not just say, “This is Lee Terry, and I want to talk about…” It comes off more honest and less gimmicky.

We give an A for the idea, B+ for message, and, well, a B- for format. But hey, it’s early!

***
While we’re looking at that Joe Morton OWH report on the politics of SCHIP entitled “Lawmakers squirm over kids’ health insurance”, we were surprised by the verb used in the headline. After we got past that, we noticed the goofy pic they used of Lee Terry in the online article (the print edition used Terry’s standard Congressional photo).

Under the “Squirm” headline, here’s the photo the OWH used online:
Well, it was up there for most of the morning on Wednesday anyway. After awhile, it looked like this: Of course this isn’t the first time the OWH has been shamed by their use of goofy looking photos. In the nascent days of Leavenworth Street, we offered you this post on David Kramer. Ah those thousand word photos

***
The third quarter FEC reports are out, and some of the rabid lefty sites are caterwauling about Third District Congressman Adrian Smith’s fundraising, in comparison to the ol’ cowpoke Scott Kleeb’s numbers.

Taking a closer look at Kleeb, who has announced his “new brand of politics” on his website, but not what office he wants to apply said brand to, we found some interesting stats:

Kleeb’s report says that he raised $19,561 in Q3 of 2007.

Oh, really? Well, lets’ look a little deeper.

When we do, we find that over $9,000 were refunds from his media buyer and printer. In other words, it ain’t a donation.

So, what were his receipts? Give or take $9,200.

[Update, 10/20/07: On further review, we are most likely incorrect about the $9,000 in refunds being part of the total contributions for the cycle. Instead, there are approx $10,000 in contributions that do not have to be itemized in the report. So where did those contributions come from? Grand Island? San Francisco? Chadron? Greenwich Village? Well, until the Kleeb campaign (for what???) tells us, we really don’t know…]

OK, well, then these were all from Nebraskans who wear jeans and cowboy hats, right?

Well, in a word…no. In reality, more than a third of the [itemized] receipts for the “hot rancher” come from out of state – namely California, Florida, Maryland and Connecticut.

There was $1,000 from Andrew Tobias, financial writer from Miami, a longtime supporter and former chairman of the NYC Gay Pride parade.

There was another grand from Daniel Esty, Yale professor of environmental studies, climate change activist, and former Clinton Admin EPA official.

And there are assorted receipts from “Act Blue” the fund-raising arm for all causes liberal. Kleeb is a favorite of theirs, and should he run for something…anything!…you will see the Act Blue dollars add up for the former ranch-hand.

What does all of this mean? Nothing really. We just thought we’d provide a little insight. For more number-crunching fun, you can go to the FEC’s webpage yourself.

***
Now, back to your regularly scheduled Tom Osborne related rumors! (Feel free to post any good ones here.)

24 comments

  1. bobby fidelis says:

    SS,
    Can you save us the pain of having to visit one of the caterwauling liberal websites and exposure to the latest strain of staph infection by giving a quick paragraph on what they’re “excited” about with regard to Smith and Kleeb $$$ ?
    As I see it Smith is up $86,000 cash on hand and ahead by $95,000 from individual contributions with $14,000 more in just the last 3 months alone compared to all of Kleeb’s (if I’m tracking the FEC website correctly).
    Which way are they trying to spin this?

  2. Street Sweeper says:

    Oh, they’re just saying the standard, “he gets lots of money from outside the state” mantra.

    After reading them, you’d think Kleeb’s money (for what???) came from school kids in Ord, who only donated Nebraska state quarters.

  3. Breaking News says:

    Kleeb filed his intentions with the FEC on 10/16 (wasn’t up until today). Office Sought: House of Representatives, NE-3.

    Also, not to beat a dead donkey, but Esch STILL hasn’t filed since last April, but everyone else is up to date, including Ms. Maxine at a whopping $450 in and $45,000 still in debt.

  4. Street Sweeper says:

    Breaking,
    Don’t jump to conclusions.

    Kleeb’s 6/4/07 FEC report ALSO had the X marked next to the House of Reps – NE 03. (This new Statement of Organization has a new campaign address.)

    If he is going to file the report (which technically he doesn’t, if he is still “testing the waters”) then he has to mark the X next to something.

    Kleeb could still run for Senate (or President) and use this donated cash for that campaign.

    (And who WOULDN’T vote for a “Hot Rancher” for President???)

    -SS

  5. Where's Esch's Report says:

    Why won’t Esch comply with the law and file his 2nd and 3rd Qtr reports? He had cash on hand in late March–unless he addresses this issue, much of that might go to pay FEC fines.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Sorry, SS, but you got your numbers wrong on Kleeb:

    http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00414656/307304/

    Under DETAILED SUMMARY PAGE
    Total Of Contributions From Individuals: 19561.01
    Offsets to Operating Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc): 10226.74
    Other Receipts: 2101.65
    Total Receipts: 31889.40

    The “refund” you talked about does not figure into the $19561. It’s separate.

    And as with any that files, you can only tell by the “Itemized” individual receipts where the money is coming from (ie, which state). Those are the donations over $200.

    Kleeb received $9250 in itemized individual donations.
    Of those, $6000 came from Nebraskans.
    That means 65% of his donations are from Nebraska.

    You referenced Smith. Of all his donations (and he gets PAC money), 60% of his money comes from out-of-state.

    Hey, you can criticize the libs all you want, but at least make sure you understand the FEC reports. It just gives fuel to point out your mistakes rather than just arguing the facts.

    You got the numbers wrong this time.

  7. Street Sweeper says:

    Now wait a minute.

    We said:
    “So, what were his receipts? Give or take $9,200.”

    You said:
    “Kleeb received $9250 in itemized individual donations.”

    We said:
    “more than a third of the receipts for the ‘hot rancher’ come from out of state”

    You said:
    “65% of his donations are from Nebraska”

    Just to help you out, if 65% are from in state, 35% are from out of state.
    And 1/3 = approx 33%.
    Since 35% is more than 33% (or 1/3), then more than a third of his receipts are from out of state.

    And, while not an FEC report expert, I can read who’s sending in the cash.

    So, my numbers were right.

  8. kid GOP says:

    Sweeper, you know it’s almost sad to see the Omaha World Herald become even more irrelevant. Perhaps that’s why they can’t afford to update their file photo.

    Have you tried to access their Web site lately? It’s impossible. Ad revenues must be slipping terribly.

    Johnny Gottschalk continues to allow the paper to gravitate beyond mediocrity…

  9. Anonymous says:

    SS,
    You still don’t understand the numbers.

    The $9250 are the itemized. The unitemized ind contributions are $10331. Those are small donations less than $200.

    His RECEIPTS (if you include the refunds along with contributions) are actually over $31,000. But actual donations are the $19,000 number. Your claim of his “receipts” being $9200 is false.

    You deducted a refund from the Ind Contributions total. That was false. That number is separate.

    And I noticed that you ignored the fact that 60% of Smith’s donations are from out-of-state……

  10. Street Sweeper says:

    Oh brother. Now you’re quibbling over the terms “receipts” and “donations”? Cute.

    Now what’s Kleeb going to do with all that sweet sweet Act Blue money anyway?

  11. snowblwr says:

    Rumor alert!

    I’ve heard from a very reliable source that Scott Kleeb is contemplating running for the Nebraska Legislature and the Dist. 33 seat currently held by Carroll Burling (R).

    Seems like a far cry from his congressional abitions, but perhaps reality has come home to roost at the two-child Kleeb household.

  12. King Soloman says:

    Anony and SS,

    First of all, you two are arguing different points.

    Anony is saying that technically, SK received $19,000 because technically, donations from his printer counts. Makes sense.

    SS is saying that a donation from an entity to which a candidate is going to make/has made an expenditure, is not really a donation. Makes sense.

    In any event, the most important number is that Mister Smith has about $90,000 more Cash-on-Hand than Scotty. It’s a whoopin’. Especially considering Smith has spent substantially more money already.

  13. One Out In The Third says:

    I wonder if Kleeb has been able to get a refund on the faulty Robo-Caller he used in ’06? Married life must be settling in on the Kleebs. Jane was on H&C a couple nights ago and she was dressed like a frumpy housewife from the 70’s and appeared out of her element. Times must be tough for the HC prof.

    Any updates on Cosmic Bob?

  14. Breaking News says:

    Just to make an obvious point, it is dishonest to raise money for one race that you have no intention of using. Therefore, all Smith supporters must take seriously Cowboy Scott’s clain that he is raising money to take another poke at the 3rd District (poke in the eye, that is!).

    It is too bad that the people giving money to the cowboy, don’t have any idea where his mind is. Seems like a wast of money to me. At least Hal was honest and upfront about his intentions last Spring.

  15. Anonymous says:

    The World Herald is mediocre but it isn’t irrelevant. It cannot be irrelevant because it is a monopoly on area print news. Being a monopoly allows it to remain mediocre.

    Voters deserve no better because as readers they demand no better.

  16. Bo Pelini says:

    SS,

    Please ask Lisa Hannah to put the numbers down and go back to rummaging through Adrian Smith’s trash can.

    FWIW, Kleeb outspent Smith 2 to 1 in the general election last year. How ’bout dem apples?

    Thanks,
    BP

  17. Another Anon says:

    Wrong. The refund from the printer is a different source of funding. he received DONATIONS OR RECEIPTS of more than $19,000. He only has to ITEMIZE those that were above $200 for a total of about $9000. Doing the math, that shows that there were $10,000 in UNITEMIZED DONATIONS or RECEIPTS.

    So you got this one wrong SS. You should issue a correction.

  18. mom at home says:

    Do the Dems know that this program was started in 1997 under Republican Rule? Realclearpolitics.com has an interesting article on this subject. Too bad the Wierd Herald can claim the same.

  19. Another Anon says:

    Does Mom at Home know that the bill Bush vetoed was the “bipartisan compromise”? 45 Republicans in the House and 18 or 19 in the Senate voted for this. This was the compromise – worked out by such liberal lions as Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley.

    Lee Terry can pretend he’s waiting for some OTHER bipartisan compromise and maybe Mom will believe him. But the 80% of Americans who support the Congress-passed bill know that the compromise already went down the tracks and Lee Jr. wasn’t on board.

  20. From One To Another says:

    It doesn’t matter what effort (alleged bipartisanism) you want to label the crappy SCHIP Bill with. Sending an over inflated Bill to a President that will absolutely be vetoed when you know for a fact that the veto override will fail has always been known as “playing politics”. In addition, the Bill was suppose to be a reauthorization, NOT a recreation! More than quadrupling the size of a Federally funded program is gross negligence of the Public’s trust and dollars. A good compromise is the new Senate version that fully funds SCHIP, allows for a slight increase in recipients, requires proof of legal status, and does not allow an adult to be called a child! If the Dem leadership in the House can let go of politics for ten minutes, they might actually accomplish something worthwhile in a bipartisan fashion that will get the President’s okie-dokie!

    Now that would be refreshing!

    BTW, Bipartisan means everyone, not less than 20% of a group with their finger in the air.

  21. Lisa Hannah says:

    Bo P – I rarely come here for a visit, but when I do it’s only when name has come up. You brought it up this time. Sorry. I have my own space. This is Street Sweepers space. I don’t agree with about 99% of what he posts, and he does get it wrong in my opinion most of the time (just as he probably feels the same way about me), but I let him be. If someone wants to argue with him, so be it.

    But’s it’s funny that some want to think it’s ME. I must be having an impact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.