Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Remember those signs that 18-term incumbent Jim Oberstar of Minnesota might be in trouble?

First an internal GOP poll showed Republican Chip Cravaack, a former Navy and Northwest Airlines pilot, trailing Oberstar by just three points–42% to 45%. Then came a couple of surprising anecdotes: the AP reported a local union nearly endorsed Cravaack, and there was such interest in the campaign that the debate–scheduled at 8 a.m. on a Tuesday–had to be moved to a larger venue.

Well, no surprise here, but it looks like we have confirmation that the interest isn’t being generated by Oberstar supporters. Politico reports that the Obamacare and cap-and-trade supporting Oberstar had just one donor from his home district this past quarter:

With a potentially competitive race developing back home in Minnesota’s 8th District, Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar collected a contribution from just one resident of the district between June 22 and Sept. 30, according to a federal election report filed Wednesday.

Jane Robbins of Pine City gave Oberstar $500 on Aug. 22.

Other than that, all of his contributions came from political action committees, Native American tribes or individual donors in other districts and states.

In all, the veteran Iron Range Democrat, first elected in 1974, collected just $233,102 in receipts over the time period. By comparison, fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann, a Republican firebrand, pulled in $5.4 million between July 1 and Sept. 30.

native wrote:From Politico (NOT a conk rag):

"...Still, the campaign finance report suggests that if he’s [Oberstar] getting support back home, it’s not in the form of money.

Oberstar raised more money from individuals in each of the following parts of the country [NOT his own district]: other Minnesota districts; Alabama; Arizona; California; Washington, D.C.; Florida; Maryland; Michigan; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Oregon; and Virginia. He also collected $500 apiece from donors in South Carolina, Georgia, Illinois and Indiana.

Oberstar’s other in-district donations were $1,000 from Allete PAC in Duluth and $300 from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in Cass Lake."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z12o7RchUk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

travelinman67 wrote:

native wrote:From Politico (NOT a conk rag):

"...Still, the campaign finance report suggests that if he’s [Oberstar] getting support back home, it’s not in the form of money.

Oberstar raised more money from individuals in each of the following parts of the country [NOT his own district]: other Minnesota districts; Alabama; Arizona; California; Washington, D.C.; Florida; Maryland; Michigan; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Oregon; and Virginia. He also collected $500 apiece from donors in South Carolina, Georgia, Illinois and Indiana.

Oberstar’s other in-district donations were $1,000 from Allete PAC in Duluth and $300 from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in Cass Lake."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z12o7RchUk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cap's just joking. Donations are public record. It makes no difference if this was being reported by Rush or Rachel. The only difference is, liberals attempt to obfuscate the truth to conceal their inept policies and behavior.

Which explains why Cap, Dback, D1B, MJ, Hatecats, Kalm and Jellydonut are the leading hijackers.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Cap's just joking. Donations are public record. It makes no difference if this was being reported by Rush or Rachel. The only difference is, liberals attempt to obfuscate the truth to conceal their inept policies and behavior.

Which explains why Cap, Dback, D1B, MJ, Hatecats, Kalm and Jellydonut are the leading hijackers.

Yes, this is clearly just a Democrat problem.

Jack Abramoff.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:

Yes, this is clearly just a Democrat problem.

Jack Abramoff.

Getting desperate, are we, kalm?

The differences between Democrat and Republican corruption are both quantitative and qualitative.

Dems far exceed Repubs in the amount of corruption, as clearly indicated this week when Obama's misguided attack on the Chamber of Commerce backfired when it was quickly revealed that Dems have accepted more than twice the money from foreign PACs than Repubs. The three most absolutely corrupt cities in America are overwhelmingly Democrat: Detroit, New Orleans and Chicago. Los Angeles has become more and more corrupt under Democrat Villa Reconquista.

Also, the Repub base actually feels guilty and more often gets rid of their bad apples, unlike the Dems who only castigate their evil-doers for getting caught. Hell, my Dem neighbor in New Orleans didn't even consider political payoff to be corruption. He bragged about getting his share.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
Getting desperate, are we, kalm?

The differences between Democrat and Republican corruption are both quantitative and qualitative.

Dems far exceed Repubs in the amount of corruption, as clearly indicated this week when Obama's misguided attack on the Chamber of Commerce backfired when it was quickly revealed that Dems have accepted more than twice the money from foreign PACs than Repubs. The three most absolutely corrupt cities in America are overwhelmingly Democrat: Detroit, New Orleans and Chicago. Los Angeles has become more and more corrupt under Democrat Villa Reconquista.

Also, the Repub base actually feels guilty and more often gets rid of their bad apples, unlike the Dems who only castigate their evil-doers for getting caught. Hell, my Dem neighbor in New Orleans didn't even consider political payoff to be corruption. He bragged about getting his share.

What's hysterically funny is that I get the impression you actually believe this bull ****.

Both sides are crooked Nate, trying to prove which one is more so is senseless.

kalm wrote:What's hysterically funny is that I get the impression you actually believe this bull shit.

Both sides are crooked Nate, trying to prove which one is more so is senseless.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
Getting desperate, are we, kalm?

The differences between Democrat and Republican corruption are both quantitative and qualitative.

Dems far exceed Repubs in the amount of corruption, as clearly indicated this week when Obama's misguided attack on the Chamber of Commerce backfired when it was quickly revealed that Dems have accepted more than twice the money from foreign PACs than Repubs. The three most absolutely corrupt cities in America are overwhelmingly Democrat: Detroit, New Orleans and Chicago. Los Angeles has become more and more corrupt under Democrat Villa Reconquista.

Also, the Repub base actually feels guilty and more often gets rid of their bad apples, unlike the Dems who only castigate their evil-doers for getting caught. Hell, my Dem neighbor in New Orleans didn't even consider political payoff to be corruption. He bragged about getting his share.

What's hysterically funny is that I get the impression you actually believe this bull shit.

Both sides are crooked Nate, trying to prove which one is more so is senseless.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's hysterically funny is that I get the impression you actually believe this bull shit.

Both sides are crooked Nate, trying to prove which one is more so is senseless.

These guys are a couple of idots, kalm. And, I'll go further and say that the Conks have a much deeper corruption tradition than Democrats, by a country mile. All one needs to do is cite the lies that led to the immoral, expensive war in Iraqistan. WMD's, anyone?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's hysterically funny is that I get the impression you actually believe this bull ****.

Both sides are crooked Nate, trying to prove which one is more so is senseless.

These guys are a couple of idots, kalm. And, I'll go further and say that the Conks have a much deeper corruption tradition than Democrats, by a country mile. All one needs to do is cite the lies that led to the immoral, expensive war in Iraqistan. WMD's, anyone?

native wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

These guys are a couple of idots, kalm. And, I'll go further and say that the Conks have a much deeper corruption tradition than Democrats, by a country mile. All one needs to do is cite the lies that led to the immoral, expensive war in Iraqistan. WMD's, anyone?

Lie, deny, counter-accuse, personalize.... Right by the Dem/commie playbook! Alinsky would be proud of you, Cap, which makes you worthless as a human being.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

native wrote:
Lie, deny, counter-accuse, personalize.... Right by the Dem/commie playbook! Alinsky would be proud of you, Cap, which makes you worthless as a human being.

Man, you need to go back to school for a couple of years, Bucky. More bombs dropped in Afghaniraq and Iraqistan than in WWII and Vietnam combined, the Conk/fascist playbook. Worthless human being? On my worst day, I do more for humanity than you will do in your troll lifetime.

native wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Man, you need to go back to school for a couple of years, Bucky. More bombs dropped in Afghaniraq and Iraqistan than in WWII and Vietnam combined, the Conk/fascist playbook. Worthless human being? On my worst day, I do more for humanity than you will do in your troll lifetime.

You'd better get started. We're already near the end of the third quarter and you are behind 50-0.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:What's hysterically funny is that I get the impression you actually believe this bull ****.

Both sides are crooked Nate, trying to prove which one is more so is senseless.

What's even more hysterically funny is that we get the impression you actually believe you're an "independent".

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What's even more hysterically funny is that we get the impression you actually believe you're an "independent".

What's sad is you think someone who ridicules conks is automatically a Democrat.

Let's see, I've never contributed to a campaign, I've voted for both parties in every election, and will vote for neither party in the upcoming one.

Let me ask you a question Z. Are you that serious a supporter of the Republican Party or is it the Democrats that really get you fired up?

I'm guessing it's the latter just like me with Republicans and what's really funny is that you and I probably agree on 90% of the issues.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's sad is you think someone who ridicules conks is automatically a Democrat.

Let's see, I've never contributed to a campaign, I've voted for both parties in every election, and will vote for neither party in the upcoming one.

Let me ask you a question Z. Are you that serious a supporter of the Republican Party or is it the Democrats that really get you fired up?

I'm guessing it's the latter just like me with Republicans and what's really funny is that you and I probably agree on 90% of the issues.

The point of this thread was to underline the Dems have lost public support and are seeking life preservers from special interests, not that they were MORE crooked than Republicans.

But you missed that "nuance"...

...which isn't sad, it's pathetic.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's sad is you think someone who ridicules conks is automatically a Democrat.

Let's see, I've never contributed to a campaign, I've voted for both parties in every election, and will vote for neither party in the upcoming one.

Let me ask you a question Z. Are you that serious a supporter of the Republican Party or is it the Democrats that really get you fired up?

I'm guessing it's the latter just like me with Republicans and what's really funny is that you and I probably agree on 90% of the issues.

The point of this thread was to underline the Dems have lost public support and are seeking life preservers from special interests, not that they were MORE crooked than Republicans.

But you missed that "nuance"...

...which isn't sad, it's pathetic.

nu·ance   /ˈnuɑns, ˈnyu-, nuˈɑns, nyu-; Fr. nüˈɑ̃s/ Show Spelled
[noo-ahns, nyoo-, noo-ahns, nyoo-; Fr. ny-ahns] Show IPA

–noun, plural -anc·es  /-ɑnsɪz, -ˈɑnsɪz; Fr. -ˈɑ̃s/ Show Spelled
[-ahn-siz, -ahn-siz; Fr. -ahns] Show IPA
.
1. a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.

fail·ure   /ˈfeɪlyər/ Show Spelled
[feyl-yer] Show IPA

–noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.

Col Hogan wrote:



Cap and Sarah, sittin' in a tree....

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What's even more hysterically funny is that we get the impression you actually believe you're an "independent".

What's sad is you think someone who ridicules conks is automatically a Democrat.

Let's see, I've never contributed to a campaign, I've voted for both parties in every election, and will vote for neither party in the upcoming one.

Let me ask you a question Z. Are you that serious a supporter of the Republican Party or is it the Democrats that really get you fired up?

I'm guessing it's the latter just like me with Republicans and what's really funny is that you and I probably agree on 90% of the issues.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's sad is you think someone who ridicules conks is automatically a Democrat.

Let's see, I've never contributed to a campaign, I've voted for both parties in every election, and will vote for neither party in the upcoming one.

Let me ask you a question Z. Are you that serious a supporter of the Republican Party or is it the Democrats that really get you fired up?

I'm guessing it's the latter just like me with Republicans and what's really funny is that you and I probably agree on 90% of the issues.

Neither party, eh? So are you going the Libertarian route, kalm, or will it be The Rent Is Too Damn High Party?