Is the national GOP cutting and running from Sen. Mike Dewine (R-OH)?

Looks like from the dollar numbers on the ground that the national Republican committees really are preparing to scale back from the Ohio Senate race.

Hastert confidante and leper-fibbing evangelist K.A. Paul announces new Hastert publicity grab, disappointed that Hastert bagged on promise to God to resign.

Foley fingers molester priest, accepts counseling from the Church.

Mike Tyson: I’ll box women and campaign with Michael Steele.

Just a thought. And I know I’m not the only one or the first to think about it.

There are a handful of Dems out there gearing up to run for president in 2008. Some are even running for office this year. And, as they must, they’re building up huge warchests to finance those 2008 campaigns and demonstrate their credibility as candidates.

Right now though there are a perhaps as many as a few dozen House races around the country who don’t have a lot of money but are suddenly in races they might actually be able to win. This is what James Carville was talking about a few days ago when he said the Dems should go to the bank and outright borrow money to pump a few hundred thousand dollars into each one of those races.

Now, this occurred to me because I just got an email from a reader who’d gotten a campaign solicitation from a 2008 aspirant pleading for money for a race this year they’re running away with. Clearly that money is going to socked away for 2008.

So, of all the worthies now in the field for 2008, how much are they giving to those House challengers who, just maybe if the wave is big enough, could actually win? There’s the standard donations. There’s also hitting up their network of big givers. There’s lot of stuff that can be done.

So who’s doing what? If you know, let us know. Now’s certainly the time, if the interest in Democratic majorities next year.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) keeps it real on Foleygate. From The Frontiersman …

The news media didn’t escape criticism from Young, who said Wednesday the destruction of those in public office by newspapers and television is a disgrace. He added that most media these days will stop at nothing to find fault with an individual in public office or running in an election.

“A person can be the cleanest individual, but has a brother who likes to run with sheep,” Young said, adding that those who haven’t grown up on a farm might not know what that means.

After Young’s speech, he clarified his statement by saying television media deserves most of the blame for scaring people out of running for public office. The constant barrage of news is something Young said distorts peoples’ view of what is going on in the world.

TPM Reader SR says no help from the biggs …

There are two key reasons why I would be surprised if any of the 2008 hopefuls with plenty of campaign cash were to give very much to house candidates who may need it to get over the top. The first is the fact that there is no mechanism to punish the stingy. 15 months from now, primary voters will be thinking about what candidate most represents them or is most electable. The fact they didn’t help their fellow dems in time of need will be well-forgotten if it was ever noticed in the first place.

The more important point is that astute strategists will feel at best ambivalent about a dem takeover of congress knowing that chances for a dem to reach the whitehouse with the same party ensconsed in congress is reduced to say the least. Smart hopefuls will write moderate chaecks, show up for campaign events and pray that the reps still manage, with late inning disingenuousness, to squeak by and retain their majorities. In that scenario, the dem primary would probably will almost assuredly produce our next
commander and chief.

All true, unless there’s a high degree of transparency about who was there for the final push in 2006. Then that mechanism for punishing stinginess might exist.

What do you think should happen? We’re discussing it over at TPMCafe.

TPM Reader MB says John Kerry’s doing his bit …

I don’t like being a homer, but JK has been working his ass off for both Senate and House candidates. You can see the money he’s raised and given here (scroll down): http://www.johnkerry.com/ .

For example:
Patrick Murphy — $145,000.
Darcy Burner — $25,000.
Tammy Duckworth — $185,000.

Honestly, I can’t think of any sitting member of Congress in my lifetime who has done as much for congressional candidates, whether in an off-year election or not. Is it all selfless? No. But he’s doing it. And there are a number of other high-profile ’08 contenders who are sitting on their hands.

A few points. First, I don’t have any dog in this fight. So by all means, all the candidates let us know what they’re doing for the House candidates. Second, we know that the big feet are out campaigning with challengers, out of mix of public spiritedness and an effort to collect chits. (Okay, mainly to collect chits.)

All true. But what are they doing now? Not before today, but in the final three weeks. The picture is very, very different right now than it was as recently as two or three weeks ago.

Let’s get all the facts out there. And if you want to discuss this, join us over at TPMCafe.

From the Hotline …

The DSCC’s optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.

While the DNC doesn’t have $10M to just toss around to another campaign committee, the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt to come up with the extra cash DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has been pleading for from DNC Chair Howard Dean. The actual amount of the loan the DNC is taking out is not known as the committee holds out hope they can raise nearly everything they need before the election. But a line of credit has been opened.

More?

From someone on the inside …

Kerry’s been great in terms of being a surrogate and making campaign appearances, and it can’t be overstated how important that is to getting a candidate traction and legitimacy locally. On money, it’s been non-stop raising money for candidates for more than a year, which again is great but it should be noted that most of it came from an email list left over from a presidential campaign, a bit of an unfair advantage in this comparison. You’d have to check how much money he’s sitting on himself and how much of that he’s given to make a real judgment.

Feingold’s done the same email-wise, though he doesn’t have the list or the warchest Kerry does, and has helped some key campaigns. Edwards has been a great surrogate in some cases, and has done the email thing – could have done more perhaps, though instead he was working on poverty which is hard to hold against him. I’ve followed Clark, and he’s done the email/ online community fundraising thing, but he’s also the perfect surrogate – disliked by few and gravitas on national security.

Clinton is certainly the sore thumb. She does some great stuff for NY candidates, but she certainly could have done more. Now she doesn’t have a huge email list, and in moderate or Republican-leaning districts, where most competitive races are, she might not always be the perfect surrogate, but the sheer amount of money she is sitting on and can direct is enormous. She recently shelled out $1 million for the DSCC and I think $250K or so to the DCCC, but out of how much?

Next question, how many safe House incumbents are sitting on money and how much?

More thoughts? That last question is a good one too.