Happy, upset, have a question, want to make a point?

Debate* other people?

Here's the place - post your opinions by hitting the Comments link below.

*Debate = a reasoned exchange of ideas and facts. 

Vice President Joe Biden is today making an official visit to Israel to achieve two major goals.  First, to reassure the Israelis that the United States remains its closest, most steadfast ally.  And second, to convince the hard-line government of Benjamin Netanyahu to enter into good-faith negotiations with the Palestinians - and thereby defuse the perpetual ticking bomb of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Over the last year tensions have emerged between Washington and Jerusalem.  Frustrated by lack of any meaningful progress in bringing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a close, the United States has pressured Israel to stop any further development on Palestinian lands, a source of tremendous friction for the Arabs.

This pressure has come as a shock to the Israeli establishment.  During the George W. Bush years American policy had tilted away from the honest-broker posture of past Republican and Democratic administrations, to a noticeable pro-Israel bias.  The prospects for a lasting peace moved further and further into the future as Palestinians felt abandoned by the historic American referee that had guaranteed them over decades of negotiations a fair deal.

But now these two very close allies are getting even closer.  The prospect of a nuclear Iran, an Iran determined to be the regional superpower that checks Israel while dominating its Arab neighbors, has once again brought the U.S. and Israel into strategic confluence.

It has been reported that the Obama Administration is of the view that lasting stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved until a final peace is struck between the Palestinians and the Israelis. 

American policy in the region has therefore focused on a simultaneous pressuring for a final peace accord while stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israel has stated in the past that it will not wait indefinitely to respond - read unilateral military strike - to what it sees as Iran's hostile intent in developing illegal nuclear weapons capability. 

Israelis see a nuclear Iran as an existential threat - a threat repeated over and over again by the Islamic Republic's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an avowed Holocaust-denier.

The U.S. has also said that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.  The stage is therefore set for a confrontation with Iran.

If the United States is able to broker a final peace agreement between Israel and Palestine it will not only defuse the decades-long conflict, it will also create significant good will in the Arab world - and isolate Iran in the process.

It may even pave the way to a negotiated deal with Iran. 

Or even create the political space to militarily destroy Iran's dangerous and unacceptable nuclear program without sparking a regional conflagration.

CNN reports on the Vice President's trip:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden emphasized the close relationship between the United States and Israel as he met with Israeli leaders Tuesday, a visit that also touched on relations with Palestinians and Iran.

Biden, who arrived in Israel on Monday, first met with Israeli President Shimon Peres at his official residence in Jerusalem.

"The bond between our two nations has been and will remain unshakable," Biden wrote in the guest book. "Only together can we achieve lasting peace in the region."

Biden said he hoped the talks with Peres would be "a vehicle by which we can begin to allay that layer of mistrust that has built up in the last several years" between the two countries.

"There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security -- none at all," Biden said.

Peres began a long discussion about what the United States should do about Iran and the Middle East peace process. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel, he said, were a coverup for the "hegemony" it seeks in the region.

"The United States should lead the Iranian policy," Peres said. "There is nobody else in the world."

From Al Jazeera a report on the challenges for peace:

From the AP, here's Vice President Biden speaking in Israel:

Family-man, "traditional" marriage advocate, and strong supporter of Proposition 8,  is caught living his real, gay life.

To complete the picture, he is also part of the robustly conservative California Republican establishment, serving as a state senator.

In fact, he has voted against every gay rights measure that he could, standing in the way of equal protection under the law for gay people, and now he finds himself in the most awkward of situations.

State Senator Roy Ashburn, representing the 18th district near Los Angeles, was stopped by the Sacramento police earlier this week in his state issued SUV in the middle of the night. 

He is alleged to have been intoxicated while driving, he was accompanied by an unidentified man, and they were coming from a gay nightclub.

While his personal life would normally be irrelevant, the fact that he repeatedly used his elected office to advance the anti-gay agenda makes his personal life, well,  relevant.

Constricting some minority's civil rights has a long, dark history in American politics.

At different times, in different parts of the country, majority politicians of one sort or another have worked to deny equal rights to myriad groups: from African-Americans, to the Irish, to women, to Japanese-Americans, to gay people, to Latinos, just to name a few of the groups that were in some way oppressed.

So a closeted gay man that - for reasons that are frankly beyond the scope of this blog - decides to use his power to deny civil rights to other gay people sparks an ethical dilemma.

Can a person so obviously conflicted by his sexuality and who has acted on that pain by punishing other gay people in his official capacity ever hold the public's trust?

How is Ashburn any different from a politician that lies or uses his public office for personal benefit (in this case in order to seem straighter than an arrow)? 

To be clear, the issue is not about living a double life; that is his business. 

But when Ashburn used his political power to deny civil rights to gay people, he was in fact covering up his real self for personal benefit - at the expense of the gay community and its fundamental right to equal protection under the law.

This may simply be a case of hypocrisy and hubris.  Perhaps he thought that he could be a gay-basher during the day and a club dude at night and no one would be the wiser.  But whatever his thoughts on the matter, Ashburn's official anti-gay bias can be rightly questioned.

In matters of public service, personal gain (if that is what he got from being a gay-basher) is never acceptable. 

Personal gain in politics is unethical, if pervasive, and at the root of the pernicious forces that are chipping away at our democratic system.

If Ashburn ever hopes to redeem himself, he should do the right thing and resign.  He should get a really good therapist and work out his demons.   He should spare his constituents any more dishonesty.

Here's Ashburn's post incident admission that he's gay and still able to represent his constituency:

While some doubt that those very words were uttered, the sentiment was certainly correct. 

The U.S. invasion of Iraq plunged that country into sectarian and ethnic warfare - and kept the United States military tied down, spending blood and treasure, for years with no clear strategic objective to justify it.

Historians will continue to debate the wisdom of an invasion of a country that did not attack the United States - it is one of the most controversial actions by any President in American history. 

And the fascinating psychological dimensions of this war of choice - did Dubya do it to avenge or surpass his father? -will be analysed endlessly in years to come as well.

But yesterday's election, in which over 60% of the electorate participated in spite of threats of violence from what remains of the insurgency, could be an important turning point.

The United States' policy is to begin a draw down of military forces by next year.  Both supporters and critics of that policy looked to these most recent elections as a test: is Iraqi society fixed enough and its leadership focused enough on Democracy that an American pull-out is either possible or even desirable?

While the election was marred by sporadic violence, the high level of participation and initial results of the vote - no party emerged dominant, reflecting the diversity of the Iraqi people - is being pronounced a success by both Iraqi leaders and international observers.

Indeed, if stability continues to flourish across this very damaged, divided society, we could actually see the American timetable met - and our intervention in Iraq actually begin to come to an end.

ABC News interviews General Ray Odierno, the commander on the ground, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill:

The New York Times reports:

Iraqis defied a barrage of mortars, rockets and other bombs to show up to the polls in strength on Sunday, in elections that have been seen as a critical test of Iraq’s stability and a last milestone before American troops leave the country.

Official results of the elections are not expected for at least a few days. The Iraqi Election Commission said at a news conference on Monday that 62 percent of voters went to the polls on Sunday, according to news reports. That marked a rise in turnout from provisional elections a year ago, but a decrease compared with the at least 70 percent of registered voters who turned out for nationwide elections in 2005.

Insurgents here vowed to disrupt the election, and the concerted wave of attacks — as many as 100 thunderous blasts in the capital alone starting just before the polls opened — did frighten voters away, but only initially.

The shrugging response of voters could signal a fundamental weakening of the insurgency’s potency. At least 38 people were killed in Baghdad. But by day’s end, turnout was higher than expected, and certainly higher than in the last parliamentary election in 2005, marred by a similar level of violence.

The AP reports:

 The President praised the election:

Happy, upset, have a question, want to make a point?

Debate* other people?

Here's the place - post your opinions by hitting the Comments link below.

*Debate = a reasoned exchange of ideas and facts. 



Teddy Roosevelt established America as a world power even as he reformed the monopolies that were strangling American workers and the economy. 

Dwight Eisenhower beat the Axis in the field of battle, concluded the Korean War and stared down the Soviet Union across the globe. 

Ronald Reagan pushed the decomposing carcass of the U.S.S.R. over a cliff and ushered in the end of the Cold War.

These Presidents, Republicans all, stand as some of the most respected, consequential presidents in America's history.

Fact is, the Republican Party has produced some of the best leaders of this country, men who achieved great things for the people and nation. 

The dice throw of history gave us these different presidents in the times when the very existence of the Republic was in question.

We were lucky - and the voters of time, wise.

To say the obvious, leaders matter and great leaders are called for at all times when your country bestrides the world as the greatest power since Rome dominated the ancient world.

Our standard for the election of a President must therefore be at the very highest levels.  George Washington set the tone for greatness - and every one of his successors is measured by that exacting metric.

So as we now look at the prospects for the Party of Lincoln in the coming 2012 Presidential election, we are struck by the Sarah Palin juggernaut - the immense passion she has unleashed among the core of the Republican Party as they look for a savior from what they have termed Obama's "socialism".

There is among the GOP leadership and grassroots a search for a 2012 standard bearer who will vanquish the forces that they think will destroy America - even if they must vilify and caricature the current President of the Unitied States in order to be successful at electing a Republican President in 2012.

For such a lofty, crucial mission, one would think that the Party would turn to a proven leader, a person of such unimpeachable qualifications, temperament and intellectual vigor that his or her election would guarantee that the next GOP President will stand proudly among the Pantheon of Great Republican Presidents.

So how to explain Sarah Palin's enduring popularity, not to say adulation among the Party faithful?

When she cut short her term as Alaska's governor, theoretically her claim to executive experience, she offered a curious reason:  she could better serve the country by not being a public servant.

She also took the opportunity to slap the pesky press for her troubles in Alaska - a pattern that has been repeated over and over again as her very public mistakes have tripped her up.

Her recent book, a huge success, was seen as a classic pre-candidate move meant to test the waters of grass roots support for a run at the White House.

These opaque moves - why leave the Governorship even before finishing your first term? - have gained deeper meaning as members of the John McCain campaign have gone out of their way to reveal the real Palin behind the scenes of the staged managed campaign events. 

According to these McCain staffers, the Sarah Palin coming into the campaign was highly uninformed even about basic American history, international politics, economics or geography. 

Moreover, she was not a diligent student - or even a competent one - as they tried to give her basic Education 101 so that she would not look like an undereducated rube in front of the national and international press that covered the most important election in the world.

The McCain team now say that Palin was unqualified to be President of the United States.

And even some highly respected Conservative commentators have made the case that Palin is not of Presidential timber - that she is a lucky celebrity with a limited range of actual talent.

One is struck by Palin's contrast to the lions of the GOP.  Lincoln was an autodidact that became an intellectual able to grapple with the most complex leadership and moral issues of his time. Theodore Roosevelt was a voracious reader with a a defined, clear world view and plan of action.  Eisenhower represented the very finest of our country's military education system and managed one of the most complex human endeavors of all time - successfully leading American forces to victory over the Nazis.  And Ronald Reagan, who at times was derided for "just being an actor", was actually a fine writer who documented his deep knowledge of history and world events in a series of hand-written diaries that dispel the notion that he was anything but a brilliant man.

On the other hand, Palin has been called "horrifying" by one of Ronald Reagan's key advisors.  She was unable, now famously remembered, to answer the basic question of "what do you read?" from the menacing Katie Couric. 

She could not answer, perhaps, because "I don't read" would have doomed McCain's campaign.  She was left just looking more stunned than moronic.  But it was a moment of self-revelation that speaks volumes about Palin and her real self.

More recently, as Palin has emerged as popular speaker, leader of the Tea Party and active campaigner for the more radical-right members of the Republican Party, Palin has hinted broadly that she is ready to serve the country in some other, presumably more profoundly important capacity. 

The flirting with a run for President in 2012 is public and obvious.

For many listening, and there were many, Palin's performance at the Tea Party convention was powerful.  She gave a rousing speech that simultaneously attacked the Obama Administration and the traditional Republican Party establishment. 

She was received as a hero - the savior.

Now Palin is flying around the country giving speeches and supporting candidates that she deems worthy to take back the country.  This is classic favor bank building prior to a national run.

And while no one knows what are her real motivations (money, fame power, all of the above) , one can only think that the Republican mainstream party is looking to Palin with a bit of fear.

Although Palin's overall negative ratings have shot up, her support among core Republicans remains high.  According to February's ABC News/Washington post poll, "69 percent of Republicans see her favorably".  Could she use that popularity to influence the Republican primaries, pushing forth candidates so far to the right that they unelectable in a general election?

And as far as 2012 goes, party primaries are usually won by candidates that can motivate the base of their parties. 

With her proven ability of ginning up excitement and action on the part of her supporters - how hard will it be for Palin to get in front of the 2012 GOP hopefuls and drive the whole primary process into a "who is most the right-wing" debate - and fatally position the winning Republican as too Conservative for the mainstream?

Even as we speculate on Palin's future, she continues to apply her folksy charm to talk away even the most bizarre aspects of her public persona.  Remember the famous notes on her hands?  Derided as the action of a mentally weak, generally unprepared person unable to remember even her basic talking points - it was actually Biblically inspired.  Really.

Here Sarah Palin explains, at a Ohio Right to Life fundraiser, why God would approve of her hand notes:

Happy, upset, have a question, want to make a point?

Debate* other people?

Here's the place - post your opinions by hitting the Comments link below.

*Debate = a reasoned exchange of ideas and facts. 



Sure seems that way judging by the fevered, election-like pitch of the health care reform debate.

After a painful (pre-existing condition alert) year of bitter back and forth between both parties, Democrats have decided to push forward with a simple majority vote to approve their health care reform bill.

Republicans have tried everything but kidnapping Nancy Pelosi to stop the bill - and are now faced with the same approval process for health care that they've themselves employed to approve the Bush Tax Cuts, Welfare Reform and parts of the "Contract with America", among other Republican bills.

Ironically, if the Democrats pass the legislation (as is now generally assumed that they will do), Republicans will either have a tremendous defeat handed to them or a powerful weapon for the mid-term elections.

Democrats as well will be in a position to show that they can get Washington to work or, if the Republican narrative is successfully framed in the media and voters' minds, a huge vulnerability that the GOP will wield like a club as they head into this electoral cycle.

What's clear is that this mother of all battles, a fight to determine the fate of one of the signature issues of the Obama Presidency, will play out over the coming weeks - setting the stage for either a Republican takeover of Congress or Democratic dominance that could last a generation.

For President Barack Obama, the success of this final push will condition his ability to move forward with his lengthy agenda of reform and either position him for a 2012 re-election or fatally weaken him into premature lame duck status.

For the American people, the final outcome of this battle will answer the question of whether or not our government can address some of the looming, transcendent issues that threaten our long term prosperity and super power standing.

So all eyes on Washington as Obama and the Republicans battle it out for the future of the country.

Republican Congressman Congressman Parker Griffith, who recently switched from the Democratic Party, makes the case for why the health care reform bill "must be stopped":

But Griffith may not be exactly the best messenger for the Republicans' opposition to Obama.  CNN reports that his party switching has engendered an interesting reaction in his home district in Alabama:

Former Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith rocked the political world in December when he switched parties and announced he would seek re-election as a Republican.

And now, only a few months later, his decision has prompted an unlikely coalition to form that is opposed to his re-election.

Democrats, Republicans and politically likeminded groups aligned with both political parties announced they will protest a fundraiser scheduled for March 8, in Huntsville. The headliner: House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Huntsville Tea Party, Left In Alabama, Athens-Limestone Tea Party Patriots, AAMU Democrats Student Club, The Dale Jackson Show, North Alabama Healthcare for All, Madison County Republican Executive Committee, and the Limestone County Republican Executive Committee issued a joint statement Friday announcing their intent to protest.

The involved parties share a goal, but have vastly different motivations. The Huntsville Tea Party said they will use the event to send GOP leaders the message that Griffith isn't their first choice.

"We are sending a message to the national Republican establishment: stay out of our primary," said Christie Carden, founder of the Huntsville Tea Party. "We also want to support the true conservative candidates that Tea Party activists and the local GOP have gotten behind ... We're pushing back against the political machine."

On the other side of the aisle, the AAMU Democrats Student Club took a swing at Griffith for abandoning the Democratic Party.

While Republicans vow to make the health care bill the centerpiece of the 2010 mid-term elections, the AP reports that Democratic chairman Tim Kaine is not worried:

Democratic Party chairman Tim Kaine said Wednesday he expects the health care overhaul will be passed and he's not worried about Republican threats to make it a premier issue in this year's midterm elections.

In a nationally broadcast interview, the former Virginia governor said, "If they want to run a campaign of bring back the day of kicking people off because of pre-existing conditions, I relish it."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had declared Tuesday that Democrats will enact the medical system reset at their own political peril, vowing to make it an issue in every congressional race this fall.

Here's Kaine on the potential impact to the Democrats in the election:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republican objections aside, Nancy Pelosi says "we will pass the bill":

The Washington Post reports:

Obama has called on Congress to vote on the long-debated plan in the coming weeks. His Press Secretary Gibbs said he thinks the House is on track to approve the Senate-passed health bill by March 18, though action on a "reconciliation" bill to make adjustments to the Senate-approved bill could take longer.

Republicans accuse Obama of attempting to "ram through" a bill that the public opposes. In the Republican's weekly address, Rep. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.), a physician who switched parties in December, renewed the GOP demand for Obama to move incrementally.

"Republicans understand that the right way to fix health care is with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs," he said.

In his remarks, Obama criticized Republicans for demanding that he scrap the effort and start over.

"The insurance companies aren't starting over," he said. "I just met with some of them on Thursday and they couldn't give me a straight answer as to why they keep arbitrarily and massively raising premiums - by as much as 60 percent in states like Illinois. If we do not act, they will continue to do this."

Obama said that the changes would also require health plans to offer free preventive care to their customers, while ending limits on the amount of care people receive.

"If we act now, all of this will happen this year," Obama said. "Millions of lives will improve. Some will be saved. Many families and small business owners will have health insurance for the very first time in their lives. Doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions, and insurance company bureaucrats will have less. This future is within our grasp."

In his weekly address, the President  pushes for a "final" majority vote for the bill:

From the White House's web site, a list of benefits of the President's health care reform bill:

Here are a few more points about how health insurance reform measures will benefit Americans this year:
 
Hold Insurance Companies Accountable:

• Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all new plans;
• Prohibit rescissions of health insurance policies in all individual plans;
• Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
• Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs;
• Establish a process for the annual review of unreasonable increases in premiums, requiring State insurance commissioners to work with the HHS Secretary and States.

Protect Consumers:

• Provide grants to States to support health insurance consumer assistance and ombudsman programs to help consumers;
• Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
• Require all insurance plans to use uniform coverage documents so consumers can make easy comparisons when shopping for health insurance;
• Establish an internet portal to assist Americans in identifying coverage options;
• Prohibit insurers from discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees by charging them lower premiums.

Ensure Affordable Choices and Quality Care:

• Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
• Create a temporary re-insurance program for early retirees;
• Require new plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
• Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
• Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

Facilitate administrative simplification to lower health system costs.

Happy, upset, have a question, want to make a point?

Debate* other people?

Here's the place - post your opinions by hitting the Comments link below.

*Debate = a reasoned exchange of ideas and facts. 

The leaked document discusses the use of "fear" of President Barack Obama and stopping "socialism" as ways to motivate for donors.

But the document also asserts that Republican donors are interested to donate because of: "networking opportunities", "access", "wall of fame", "ego-driven", "extreme negative feelings towards current administration", and "reactionary" tendencies.

The strategy also contemplates that donors will be motivated by "tchochkes!!!!!" or trinkets.

Not surprisingly, Republican donors are less than happy at being depicted in this manner by the Republican Party itself.

Here's a particularly bizarre image from the presentation:

Politico reports on the Republicans' attempt at damage control:

Republicans, including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, are scrambling to put as much distance as they can between themselves and an RNC fundraising document encouraging operatives to use “fear” to solicit donations, but several veteran Republicans say the tone of the pitch is nothing new.

Steele also rushed Thursday to assure donors that the party respects them despite the assumptions behind the document. “Our donors are compassionate, concerned activists out there who support a party that they believe in. And we want that to continue,” he said on Fox News.

Nearly 30 Republican Party officials, committee members, strategists and top fundraisers were contacted Thursday by POLITICO to comment on the controversial PowerPoint presentation. Only a handful responded, and very few were willing to speak on the record.

“That a Beltway operative is supremely cynical is no surprise,” said Mark Hillman, a Republican National Committeeman from Colorado. “That he’s so foolish and naive as to air that crap publicly and distribute printed copies is just appalling.”

“It’s clear that the Obama administration’s far-left agenda is scaring a lot of people, and therefore it’s useful as a fundraising [tool], too. So I understand why they did it,” said Fred Malek, a prominent Republican donor and power broker who has aligned himself with the Republican Governors Association rather than the RNC.

“But I ... believe that it is always more powerful to state how we want to move the country forward, especially since our center-right agenda is where the country is as a whole,” he said.

Here's Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele bumbling his way through an explanation on FoxNews:

CNN reports on Steele's public reaction.  The disclosure of this document was "unfortunate", he said:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Thursday condemned a now-public internal party document that mocks GOP donors, but he would not say if disciplinary action is being taken against the official who created the presentation.

The powerpoint presentation, leaked to Politico on Wednesday, described high-level Republican donors as "ego-driven" and claimed they could be enticed with "tchochkes." The document included a slide - titled "The Evil Empire" - with cartoonish images depicting President Obama as the Joker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille and Harry Reid as Scooby Doo. Steele called the pictures "unfortunate."

"Those are images that were pulled off the internet, they've been out in the public domain for a while, and you know, a staffer was putting together a presentation for a small group of about nine or ten folks and thought that they would intersperse the presentation with humorous shots," Steele explained in an appearance on Fox News. "They are inappropriate shots."

Steele would not say who was responsible for the document, saying only that he has asked RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart "to get to the bottom of it." Bickhart is reportedly the staffer who made the fundraising presentation to GOP donors in Boca Grande, Florida last month.

The Washington Post describes the attempt to control the damage:

National Republican leaders scrambled Thursday to control damage caused by an internal party document that caricatures President Obama as the Joker and stokes fear of socialism to raise money in a critical election year.

The 72-page PowerPoint presentation reveals the blunt appeal to emotion that both parties use to motivate donors and prefer to keep private. But its release online and consequent cable chatter became an unwelcome distraction for Republicans, because the strategy it outlined fit squarely with Democrats' portrait of the GOP as the party of "no."

"You don't defend it," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele said Thursday in an interview on Fox News. "It was unfortunate. Those were images that were uploaded off the Internet. They've been out in the public domain for a while. A staffer was putting together a presentation for a small group of nine or 10 folks and thought they would intersperse their presentation with humorous shots. They're inappropriate."

Sen. John Thune (S.D.), a member of the Republican leadership, said: "There is no place for this. Obviously when you're fundraising . . . you want to make direct and succinct points, but using these sorts of tactics is certainly not something that any of us ought to condone."

Ironically, Republican fundraising for Congressional campaigns is running behind the Democrats' efforts.  Politico reports:

Republicans are feeling pretty good about the midterms. Prognosticators don’t laugh anymore when they talk about taking back Congress.

But while wind at one’s back is a good thing, cash in the bank would be better, and on that score Republicans are lagging behind. Their candidates have raised less than half the $84 million that experts estimate it will take to seriously threaten the Democratic majority in the House. The situation at the National Republican Congressional Committee is even bleaker.

In 2008, the committee spent more than $34 million on advertising and other assistance to candidates, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Today, the NRCC has a grand total of $4 million in the bank — and that is after one of its best fundraising months. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, by contrast, has about $18 million.

Overall, the Democratic Party committees combined have outraised their Republican counterparts significantly, bringing in $442,885,585 since last January, compared with $255,000,681 for the respective GOP committees. The Democrats’ $51 million in cash is also significantly larger than the Republicans’ $34 million.

In recent cycles, such disparities have become the norm for the Democratic Senate and House committees. A major difference this year, however, is the Democratic National Committee’s ability to keep pace with the Republican National Committee, which has dominated the fundraising world for decades.