A number of right of center organizations have contacted me to ask if they should weigh in on your behalf.
I’ve told them yes, but only if you commit to dumping your Chief of Staff in favor of a Republican after the election. Otherwise, absolutely not.
{ 88 comments }
Next Comments →
In six years, Sen. Saxby Chambliss has spent billions in taxpayer dollars and raised millions more for his own campaigns. But for Saxby, being a Senator doesn’t have to be all work and no play. Fortunately he can lean on his leadership PAC, the Republican Majority Fund, to spend a little on himself.
A new study and video released by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee show that ever since Chambliss took over the Republican Majority Fund leadership PAC, the majority of the $1.4 million he has raised has not gone to Republicans. Instead, Chambliss spends the contributions by a nearly 4-1 ratio on entertainment expenses and overhead. While the funds have gone to help Saxby’s colleagues like Ted Stevens of Alaska and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, the largest single recipient of Chambliss’ PAC money was the Ritz Carlton Naples resort.
The Ritz Carlton Naples describes itself as a “breathtaking beach resort with a tradition of unparalleled luxury and service.” Its website brags that Saxby Chambliss and his guests could “delight in the best of Florida’s Paradise Coast [and] enjoy dazzling views of the Gulf of Mexico, warm golden sunsets and three miles of pristine beach.” According to the resort’s website, Saxby and his guests “could choose from seven unique restaurants, indulge in our luxurious world-class spa, or relax and enjoy our pools and beach activities, including a wide selection of water sports.”
Second on the list was the Boca Raton Resort, “an icon of elegance,” according to its website, and closely behind was Caves Valley Golf Club in Owings Mill Maryland, just a a short drive from Saxby’s office in Washington DC – a mega-exclusive private club limited to just 600 members.
If Chambliss wants to spend $50,000 relaxing in the Florida sun, that’s his business. But all this money has to come from someplace. As it turns out, the bulk of Chambliss’ PAC money comes from corporate Political Action Committees and corporate lobbyists – many representing interests he oversees in the U.S. Senate. Prominent contributors include:
Fannie Mae PAC $12,500
Chicago Mercantile Association $10,000
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association $10,000
American Bankers Association $10,000
Bond Market Association $10,000
Chambliss’ PAC Took Over $500,000 In Special Interest Money Including Lobbyists and Wall Street Interests. According to FEC records the Republican Majority fund has taken over $500,000 in contributions from special interest PACs including lobbyists and Wall Street interests. [FEC.gov; Center for Responsive Politics]
During The 2007 – 2008 Cycle, Chambliss’ PAC Has Spent $207,955 Directly On Luxury Resort Getaways. FEC records show that Senator Chambliss used more than $200,000 to enjoy luxury and golf resorts across the country, primarily in California and Florida. FEC records also show that at times Chambliss’ RMF incurred the cost of using charter and corporate jets for travel to the golf resorts. [CQ Political Money Line, summary through 10/15/08, accessed 10/28/08]
Chambliss Getaways Are Rarely to Georgia. The Republican Majority expenditures include trips to Pebble Beach Resorts in Pebble Beach, CA; The Greenbrier in White Sulpher Springs, WV; The Breakers in Palm Beach, FL; the Ritz Carlton in Naples, FL; the Ritz Carlton in Greensboro, GA; Caves Valley Golf Club in Owings Mill, MD; Boca Raton Resort in Boca Raton, FL; Jonathan’s Landing Golf Club in Jupiter, FL.
Significant Chambliss PAC Entertainment and Travel Expenditures
Ritz Carlton Naples $57,894
Boca Raton Resort $34,595
Caves Valley Golf Club $32,210
The Ritz-Carlton Lodge $26,742
Ruths Chris Steak House $20,413
Pebble Beach Resorts $19,341
The Greenbrier $7,500
Belle Haven Golf Shop $7,087
Pasatiempo Golf Club $6,334
Jonathans Landing Golf Club $6,137
The Breakers Palm Beach $6,000
Monterery Peninsula Country Club $5,828
[CQ Political Money Line, summary through 10/15/08, accessed 10/28/08]
Erick why do you blame the Chief of Staff over the boss?
And, who is his Chief of Staff?
Good question Bill!
Charlie Harman I believe
Saxby also needs to commit to signing whatever pledge Buckley sticks in front of him, in order to gain his endorsement. That’s how Coverdell won HIS runoff, after the LP candidate forced Fowler into one.
Chiefs of Staff are, generally, trusted guide dogs for the elected member of Congress.
It is highly possible that Erick believes Saxby’s guide dog has led him down the wrong path.
Bill, I do and he did.
Erick,
Besides your gut feeling on this, do you have actual proof of some sort regarding witnesses to direct communications between the two (Saxby and the guide dog)?
Erick – In all seriousness, a sincere mea-culpa from the good Senator would be a good start.
I am lost Bill are you saying SAXBY needed a Chief Of Staff to tell him the Farm, Energy, Highway, Bailout, Drug Prescription, No Child Left Behind…… were bad legislation that would drive our deficit to an out of control level? And did he need him to explain that out of control debt would kill the dollar and hurt the economy?
John,
Part of that role is weighing the political implications, like what would the administration do to you, what will the Senate leadership do, what will the voters do, and then somewhere on the second or third page of questions, is it good for the country.
If a chief of staff makes bad recommendations, he is probably not the man for the job.
It’s not how I like government to work, but it is how it works, whether Republican or Democrat.
Doug Deal
All valid points I agree with you on. You post is the point I was trying to make. If Saxby made decisions on what was best for the Country he would not be in a run-off today.
The problem is our system was set up for people to serve for a temporary time and than live under the system like the rest of us. The system was not set up for life time office holders who think getting re-elected is more important than their country.
Saxby is a mere symptom of a much bigger issue!
John,
“I am lost Bill are you saying SAXBY needed a Chief Of Staff to tell him the Farm, Energy, Highway, Bailout, Drug Prescription, No Child Left Behind…… were bad legislation that would drive our deficit to an out of control level?”
SERIOUSLY…I don’t think Saxby Chambliss has the intelligence to FATHOM what you just wrote, John. he has no freaking clue.
I doubt he ever took one macro- economics class. Or, if he did, it was back in the days of Pass-Fail and you had to be caught sleeping with the prof’s daughter to get an F in the class.
I have never seen Saxby as anything remotely resembling a scholar of economics or finance.
So, no, John, Saxby didn’t have a frigging clue as to what his votes meant to the economy.
I agree with John K., Saxby is going to have to convince me that he’s done with pork barrel spending and voting to expand the federal government past it’s constitutionally authorized limits. I’m betting he will not make that pledge. Anybody want to take me up on that bet?
If he isn’t willing to give that assurance then I’m not sure it matters which one of the two sit in that seat for the next 6 years. At least you know what to expect from a liberal Democrat and I wouldn’t feel betrayed when he votes the same way Saxby undoubtedly will.
Erick has already thrown his support behind Saxby on the Martha Clinton Zoller show. His reasoning was to stop a Democrat majority in the Senate. Not once did he mention Saxby’s COS.
Make that “its” constitutionally authorized limits. oops
The only way to stop the seniority game is with strict term limit laws. Unfortunately the people that need to pass it in the form of a Constitutional amendment (since the Democrats sued to get the state imposed ones thrown out) are the same people who benefit from them.
It is like hazing rituals. If you only haze the underclassmen, there is no reason to change the rules once you get power as a Senior, since you do not have to suffer through the hazing anymore.
I would prefer to see a Senate where no member may run for re-election and a House, where you can only serve for 3 consectutive terms max. Oh, and also eliminate heath care and pensions.
6 years is about enough for a person to spend in Washington with people whispering in their ear how great and wonderful they are.
As it stands now in my opinion, the ONLY reason to vote for Saxby is if you’re worried about the Dems having a veto-proof majority and appointing lucifer or one of his minions to the SCOTUS. His voting record does not convince me he’s even a Republican as I understand the term, and I think I understand it pretty well.
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” – Barry Goldwater
ramblinwreck
You said it better than me!
I generally agree Doug but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that suggests term limits produces better government.
Because of that I don’t think it would be wise or a good idea to amend the Constitution.
Ramblin,
I could give a sh*t about the SCOTUS…I’m more worried about the taxes and the wholesale change in how people can earn and keep money.
If you and John Konop want to rush-off to La-La land and get married…oh wait…you can’t do that anymore in California….go to Maine and do that, that’s fine.
Heyyyy, Rugby! How you like that stock market now, eh?
Reelect Saxby? I guess it depends on how much truth you find in the following saying:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Are the results REALLY going to be different or are we just kidding ourselves. I can still be convinced but it’s going to require what a previous poster called a sincere mea culpa and a promise that he will go forth and sin no more. (Sorry Chris, the Jeasus Freak in me made me say that.)
“How you like that stock market now, eh?”
I’ve always liked it, why do you ask?
Dang Bill, try to remain calm. I don’t personally know John or you but I can see you’re a might touchy on this subject.
I don’t think your money or your opportunity to earn it is safe if you have a bunch of marxists on the SCOTUS that can vote to allow the feds to seize your 401K or any other retirement plan, assuming Obama and the D Congress can’t do it on their own.
All I want is someone who is actually going to obey his/her oath of office. If all of them actually did this we would have literally NO problems with out of control unconstitutional spending, and therefore no need for exorbitant taxes, that we have today.
Oh, so you like it going into the tank for millions of seniors who were relying on being able to withdraw some money in the next 1, 2, 3, or 6 monhs?
Spoken like a true socilaist whack-job, Rugby.
“All I want is someone who is actually going to obey his/her oath of office.”
AND…you actually believe ANY Democrat will do that? That they will pick the US Constitution over their allegiance to their party?
Are you going to be wearing white or pink for your wedding?
Ah, nothing brings Republicans together like an election. *grin*.
It seems like within the broader center-right camp there are two trains of thought:
1) Saxby Sucks, but Martin Sucks more. Therefore I’ll vote Saxby, and
2) Saxby betrayed me and what I stand for. He must be punished, despite the consequences.
Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve heard
3) Come on Guys. Saxby is a good (or even decent) Senator and you should vote for him.
I’m still trying to get there, Chris.
Some people actually occasionally expect me to do other things, and today it’s interfering with my blogging.
Besides fly to close to the sun, what exactly do you do?
rugby,
It isn’t about guarenteeing better government it is getting rid of concentrations of power that lead to bad government.
John Dingle has been in Congress for 52 years. Do you think that over the course of half a century that perhaps he has lost touch with being a private citizen? Also, over the course of that 52 years, don’t you think that one of the about 650,000 other people in that district might have something to offer?
Probably when he finally retires, perhaps his grand-son can take over and hand it off to his grand-son in 50+ years.
I think this practice is bad for the country.
Politicians are like diapers and should be changed for the same reasons.
Chris,
how about
4. Virtually every other Senator is a piece of manure, so why do we think Saxby should be any better? Everyone is just being uppity.
Chris,
Is that why you decided to not deny running against Isakson in 2010?
I’m currently forming an exploratory committee to explore forming an exploratory committee to run against Isakson.
And I’m naming you chairman of that committee.
Bad Choice.
Doug doesn’t go to bars.
The only other people who would be interested don’t go anywhere but bars.
BTW I am exploring going to happy hour tonight!
FYI
Exploratory committee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the election politics of the United States, an exploratory committee is an organization established to help determine whether a potential candidate should run for an elected office. They are most often cited in reference to United States Presidential hopefuls, prior to the primaries.
Exploratory committees may be governed by law. For example, the District of Columbia legally defines Exploratory Committees as (in DC Official Code § 1-1101.01(6)(B)(vi)):
Exploratory, draft or “testing the waters” committees are formed solely for the purpose of determining the feasibility of an individual’s candidacy for office. The activities of exploratory committees may include polling, travel, and telephone calls to determine whether the individual should become a candidate.
Ron Elving adeptly describes the use of exploratory committees in his article, Declaring for President is a Dance of Seven Veils, which aired on National Public Radio on December 5, 2006. He writes:
The exploratory committee has been around for decades, and technically it creates a legal shell for a candidate who expects to spend more than $5,000 while contemplating an actual run. Under the rules, exploratory money may be raised without the full disclosure of sources required of true candidates. Only when the candidate drops the exploratory label does the full responsibility of transparency apply.
Candidates use an exploratory committee as not only a transitional phase for their bookkeeping but as an extra claim on media attention. Some of the most skillful handlers like to leak word that their candidate is testing the waters, then leak word that he or she is thinking about forming an exploratory committee. Additional “news” can be made when the same candidate actually forms such a committee and registers with the Federal Election Commission. Yet a fourth round of attention may be generated when the word exploratory gets dropped from the committee filing.[1]
http://www.peachpundit.com/2008/11/06/yes-saxby-it-is-true/
Well, I took a poll, and it’s 100% in favor of Chris running.
AND, by the way…since it has been utered by someone somewhere on this blog at least once, please, please, please SHOW ME where (chapter and verse) in the US Constitution that Saxby Chambliss has violated his oath of office.
You up for the challenge, John Konop? Ramblin Wreck?
I won’t even waste my breath on Rugby since Rugby drives down the road with his car tilted-up so only the wheels on the left side remain on the ground.
Bill
I never said he violated his oath of office. But I will say he sold the future generations with out of control spending he supported. Do you disagree?
I will say on the few times I have met Saxby he is a very friendly likable guy.
If you’re voting to spend money from the federal government on projects that are outside the enumerated powers wouldn’t that be considered unconstitutional? I’ll tell you for sure after tomorrow night. The welfare clause in Article I Section 8 was never meant to give a blank check to congress. By my understanding the federal government is supposed to be restricted ONLY to those powers in Art I Section 8. A few really hideous SCOTUS rulings notwithstanding an allegedly conservative US Senator should know the intent, if not the actual letter of the Constitution. How many of the votes Saxby cast that involved Billions of dollars were on projects authorized in A1-8?
I am 1 of the 120,000 votes for Allen Buckley, I plan to vote for Martin but would vote for Saxby the Socialist if 3 things happened:
1. Saxby’s LOBBYIST son, Bo retire from being an ETHANOL Lobbyist & find a real job.
2. Like our 7 Real Republican Repesentatives Saxby needs to sign &keep his word on the no earmark pledge…..http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=CCAGWgetinvAdvocacy2007EarmarkpledgeIssuePage
3. Saxby needs to sign a legally binding contract that he will not run for re election in 6 years. AS it stands Saxby is not going to change, he will have a $8,000,000 war chest from selling our vote, & we will be stuck with him until he dies in office.
We all know this will not happen because Saxby is in this for Saxby not Georgia
I think he would do better if he dumped Tom Perdue
+10 points for Romegaguy
In general I favor the dumping of most Perdues
I am also one of the Buckley votes, and am likely to vote for Martin. Here’s why. I am a conservative. Neither Chambliss nor Martin is conservative. It doesn’t make sense to me to talk about folks being “more conservative” quantitatively if they are not conservative qualitatively. A person who is willing to vote to borrow $700 billion to fund a government intervention in the free market is pretty clearly not a conservative from a fiscal or governmental control standpoint.
Given the choice between two non-conservatives, it makes sense to vote for the one who is most likely to (1) generate conservative opposition in the future, and (2) to be weak enough to be beaten by a conservative when that time comes. A vote for Chambliss is unlikely to prompt the Democrats to run to his right in 2014. However, a Martin win opens the possibility that the Republicans will choose a conservative candidate in 2014, and may encourage primary opposition to Isakson in 2010.
So that’s my twisted, Machiavellian logic.
“I am a conservative… and I am likely to vote for Jim Martin.”
Are you kidding me?
I apologize for singling you out JB, but as you yourself said, that is “twisted.”
This ridiculous self-mutiliation being practiced by so-called conservatives (where we are somehow good conservatives by intentionally rooting for and helping accomplish the complete takeover of U.S. government by far-left liberals like Obama and Martin because of the so-called sins of GOP congressmen) has got to come to an end – and now. Martin was without a doubt known as the most liberal member of the General Assembly while there – an oddity even within the Democrat caucus – and you are going to vote for him?
It’s like being upset that the store sold you only 80% of the loaf of bread you bargained for, so you throw 70% of it into the front yard for the birds to eat – just to prove some kind of point.
“Twisted.”
I do favor term limits but not in the way one normally thinks of them. Limit their term from the first week in Jan. to March 31. Send their butts home to raise money on their own dime. Enforce the the laws prohibiting them from raising money on the Hill. Cut their pay by 2/3 and repeal all retirements for elected officials. When you factor in all the time they have off they only work about 105 days anyway.
I always find it interesting that the most prominent Democrat of the moment is always the “most liberal”.
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.