NC-11 Congressional Fundraising Race July 27, 2011 Update

This is the first fundraising report of the 2012 11th Congressional Race. I expect to be filing these every quarter, more often if the situation warrants.

The Republican candidates are announcing for this office much earlier than they traditionally have in the past, perhaps spurred on by the promise of a newly redrawn district that is favorable to electing a Republican coupled with the realization that announcing in September doesn't really give a campaign time to train, equip and deploy an effective team of campaigners and fundraisers. With that being said, I'm not sure that any of the Republicans will be able to assemble a team anywhere as effective as Congressman Heath Shuler has...primarily because of sharp ideological divisions in the local Republican Party in the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina has left the Republican political talent of the district in opposing camps.


Leaving ideologies alone for the moment, here is how the race looks from a fundraising standpoint, from records provided by the Federal Elections Commission:






Congressman Heath Shuler
Amount Raised in Quarter: $48,050
Cash on Hand: $248,338.84
Debts: $0





Dr Dan Eichenbaum
Amount Raised in Quarter: $0
Cash on Hand: $89.74
Debts: $100,000 (loans made by candidate to his campaign during 2010 primary)





Cecil Bothwell
Amount Raised in Quarter: No data available from FEC
Cash on Hand: No data available from FEC
Debts: No data available from FEC




Spence Campbell
Amount Raised in Quarter: Had Not Filed Run During Quarter
Cash on Hand: Had Not Filed Run During Quarter
Debts: Had Not Filed Run During Quarter

Jeff Hunt (candidate appears to not have a website at this time) 
**7.38pm** CORRECTION: He does have a website.
Amount Raised in Quarter: Had Not Filed Run During Quarter
Cash on Hand: Had Not Filed Run During Quarter
Debts: Had Not Filed Run During Quarter


The race is young, and we'll have clearer picture of things in three months, and an even better one six months from now.


The current standing of the money ace:


$245,338.84 Congressman Heath Shuler (Democrat)
$0 Cecil Bothwell (Democrat) He filed first, so until more data becomes available, I'm listing him first
$0 Spence Campbell  (Republican) 
$0 Jeff Hunt (Republican)
$-99,910.26 Dr Dan Eichenbaum (Republican)  


Here are PDFs of the FEC Reports filed in the 11th District Congressional Race for the April 1 to June 30 Quarter:


Shuler FEC Report April 01 to June 30, 2011


Eichenbaum FEC Report April 01 to June 30, 2011

Read More

Rucho-Lewis 2 Congressional Map Released, Even More of Asheville Now in 10th Congressional

For more Information on this proposed map, see Rucho-Lewis Congress 2

Joint Statement of Senator Bob Rucho and Representative David Lewis
regarding the release of Rucho-Lewis Congress 2


On July 1, 2011, we released for public comment our first proposed Congressional Redistricting plan called “Rucho-Lewis Congress 1” (“Rucho-Lewis 1”).  We believe that Rucho-Lewis 1 fully complies with all applicable federal and state legal requirements. On July 7, 2011, we held public hearings on Rucho-Lewis 1 and received many comments and suggestions regarding our initial proposed plan.


Today, we are pleased to release “Rucho-Lewis Congress 2” (“Rucho-Lewis 2”), which constitutes a revision of our original plan.  We have made several changes in this second proposed Congressional plan based upon comments received during the public hearings, comments on the General Assembly’s website and feedback from members of Congress. One of our goals is to create more competitive Congressional districts.  In fact, John Dinan, Professor of Political Science from Wake Forest University, prepared an unsolicited report explaining how our initial proposed plan creates more competitive districts than the existing 2001 Congressional plan. Dr. Dinan’s report is available for review on the General Assembly’s web page and its redistricting link.


As explained by Professor Dinan, claims that we have engaged in extreme political gerrymandering, similar to what exists in the current versions of the Thirteenth, Second and Eighth Congressional Districts, are overblown and inconsistent with the facts.  For example, based upon the results of the 2008 General Election, Democratic Attorney General Candidate Roy Cooper would have carried twelve of thirteen districts in Rucho-Lewis 1 and all thirteen districts in Rucho-Lewis 2.  In both of our proposals, registered Democrats are a majority in three congressional districts.  There are no districts in which registered Republicans are a majority.  In both proposals, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in ten districts.  Finally, in both proposals, the combination of registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters constitute a majority in all thirteen districts.  Thus, in both of our proposals, there are three strong Democratic districts.  There are also ten districts in which Democratic candidates have the potential to win, without a single Republican vote, provided they convey a message that appeals to their own registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters.


The changes found in Rucho-Lewis 2 stem in part from comments we received regarding our initial proposal for Congressman Butterfield’s First District.  Changes we have made to the First District have had a rippling impact on most of the remaining districts. Some of our critics have suggested that the First District be eliminated from any new redistricting plan because of it shape.  Those who have made this argument fail to understand that the 2011 General Assembly inherited the First District from prior General Assemblies and that prior General Assemblies enacted the First District in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  For example, some of these same critics are apparently unaware that the shape of the First District has been approved by a federal district court as compliant with the minority population “compactness” requirement for districts drawn to avoid liability under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  Cromartie v Hunt, 133 F.Supp.2d 407,423 (E.D.N.C. 2000).


It would be legally imprudent to dissolve this district.


However, we cannot keep the 2001 version of the First District because of two flaws.  First, the current First District is under-populated by over 97,000 people.  Second, it does not include a majority black voting age population (“BVAP”), as required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  See Strickland v. Bartlett, 129 U.S. 1231 (2009).  Thus, any revision of the First District requires the addition of over 97,000 people.  In addition, added population must include a sufficient number of African Americans so that the First District can re-establish as a majority black district.


Prior to our release of Rucho-Lewis 1, we discussed both of these problems with Congressman Butterfield.  We believe that he understood and agreed that his district would be drawn into either Wake or Durham Counties to cure the district’s equal population and voting rights deficiencies.  We understood that Congressman Butterfield preferred that his district be drawn into Wake County instead of Durham.  We also discussed with Congressman Butterfield that drawing his district into Wake County may result in the withdrawal from his district of one or more counties covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Our understanding of Congressman Butterfield’s preferences was reflected in our initial version of the First District found in Rucho-Lewis 1.


During our public hearings, several speakers expressed concerns about our decision to withdraw the First District from several counties covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Despite these complaints, we have received only one other proposal that would bring the First District back to a majority black level.  This sole proposed alternative drew the First District into Durham County instead of Wake.  This proposal also included all of the Section 5 counties currently found in the 2001 version of the First District.


Following the public hearing, Congressman Butterfield issued a statement disputing our understanding of our prior discussions with him.  Thus, as we now understand Congressman Butterfield’s position regarding revisions to the First District, it appears that he may have no preference between drawing his district into either Wake or Durham Counties.  We also assume that Congressman Butterfield would support keeping the black population in Section 5 counties at similar or higher levels as compared to the amount of black population in Section 5 counties under the 2001 version of the First District.


Based upon this feedback, in Rucho-Lewis 2, we have drawn the First District into Durham County instead of Wake.  There is historical precedent for a district that combines Durham with counties located in eastern North Carolina.  Moreover, our revised version of the First District brings it up to ideal population with other districts and re-establishes it as a majority black district.


While our initial version of the First District was fully compliant with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, our second version includes population from all of the Section 5 counties found in the 2001 version of the First District.  Moreover, the total BVAP located in Section 5 counties in Rucho-Lewis 2 exceeds the total BVAP currently found in the 2001 version.


Some of our critics have complained about the appearance of our proposed Twelfth District.  Again, these critics fail to understand that we inherited District 12 from prior General Assemblies.  Further, this district has been approved by the United States Supreme Court as a district lawfully drawn to elect a Democrat.  Easley v Cromartie, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (2000).  The District has also been precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on at least two prior occasions.


In adopting the Twelfth District, we intended to accommodate the wishes expressed to us by Congressman Watt, as we understood them, to continue to include populations located in Mecklenburg, Guilford, and Forsyth Counties.  Our revised version of this district makes it more compact and continues the district as a very strong Democratic district.  Our revision of the Twelfth District is based upon whole precincts that voted heavily for President Obama in the 2008 General Election.  We have been accused of illegally “packing” black voters into the Twelfth District and illegally “diluting” the “influence” of black voters.  We have repeatedly asked our critics for any case law that supports these arguments and none has been provided.  By continuing to maintain this district as a very strong Democratic district, we understand that districts adjoining the Twelfth District will be more competitive for Republican candidates.

###

Here are a few more maps detailing the changes in the 11th Congressional District:

The 11th Congressional District of North Carolina

Map of Asheville with Congressional District lines noted in pink

If you'll note, per comments made at the recent public hearings, more of Asheville is kept together, only in the 10th District.


here are a couple of maps with a little more detail on that:

North Asheville

West and South Asheville

Read More

The Shuttle Era Is Over. Will the Next Man on the Moon Be Chinese?

Hat Tip: @jacklail


Glenn Reynolds is The Blog Father.
Jerry Pournelle blogs at Chaos Manor

Commentary

I think that a $10 billion X-Prize for something like a lunar colony is not enough. I think that perhaps $100 might make it a worthwhile target for someone.


The problem with man in space is affordability. A lot of money and time will be needed before that can happen, and that won't happen unless corporations realize just how much wealth is available in space for the taking once it has been mined and processed. See PERMANENT for more information on what I believe our next step in space should be focused upon...mining and processing raw ore from the asteroids.


Another source of great wealth is Helium-3 on, and in, the surface of the moon. It has excellent properties for nuclear fusion reactors, as well as in other industries.


we currently lack the will to make the next step, and as Jerry Pournelle pointed out in the above video, "There's not enough opportunity for graft to get Congress involved". That may be the most concisely accurate statement regarding how the United States Congress operates than any I've ever heard.

Read More

NRCC Launches New Website

Today, a new website was launched that will focus on 11 freshman Democrats. One of them is Heath Shuler. From the website:

Shuler voted for the Pelosi-Murtha "slow bleed" scheme to choke-off funding for American troops in harm's way. (House Roll Call 186)

By voting yes, Shuler voted for a date-certain for retreat and defeat in Iraq and voted to hamstring the mission by allowing Congress to micromanage the war.

Ignoring widespread criticism from the American Legion and major news publications from across the country, he made it clear that he believes politicians in Washington can better execute the military's mission than the commanders on the ground.

The bill he supported had been labeled "something of a trick" and an "unruly mess: bad policy, bad precedent, and bad politics" by news publications typically allied with the House Democrat agenda.

---

Dang, the NRCC stole a march on me, as I have been working on a similar website devoted to just Heath. Now, I'll have to scrap that whole thing.
Cross-Posted at WNC Citizens Blog

Update:

Ahem, I forgot to link to the website.

Main Page

Heath's Page

It's a good thing I sent it out on my newsletter list, or I would have had a hard time finding it again. Google certainly wasn't cooperative.

Read More

Heath Shuler Votes for Troop Withdrawal

Like it or not, Congressman Shuler will have to defend this vote in light of the success of the surge of troops into Iraq, and has posted on his Asheville Citizen-Times Blog an explanation.

Of course, the House, nor Senate have a two-thirds majority to over-rule a Presidential Veto.

The US House has just given GREAT AID & COMFORT to our enemies, and as another blogger put it:

Al Qaeda is celebrating in their caves and huts (and Saudi palaces) today; all they have to do is hang on for another year and a half. That’s nothing, compared to 14 centuries of jihad.

And then there is an Iraqi Blogger, who has posted the following: [The link is now fixed]

Al-Qaeda and its supporters are using most of the capabilities of their propaganda machine to cover their effort in Iraq, and so is the case with financial resources. All evidences indicate that most of the money is used to support the terror activity in Iraq.
Let's not forget recruiting networks that are discovered constantly in many European and Arab countries; we rarely, if ever, hear that those networks were sending recruits to Afghanistan because recruits are being sent to Iraq all the time. Even more telling, some of the prominent lieutenants of al-Qaeda left Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. One example I remember was Omar al-Farouk who escaped from Bagram to be later captured in Basra!

Al-Qaeda itself boasts about the great "sacrifices" of more than 4,000 "martyrs" to emphasize the importance of the war here. And the hundreds of suicide bombers preferred to blow themselves up in Iraq than anywhere else should remind us that if al-Qaeda considers this the main war then why talk about redeployment?
Walking away from the main war is not redeployment, it's quitting.

But why Iraq became the main front?

Iraq can simply not be equated with Afghanistan which the bulk of al-Qaeda largely abandoned after few weeks of battles—that doesn't sound like al-Qaeda!

Iraq, weak after a war that toppled the regime but rich-relatively-with resources and scientific base is a greater temptation than Afghanistan, and at the same time the possibility of a democracy arising in Iraq posed a great threat to the ideology of caliph state. Therefore al-Qaeda and whoever is backing it directly or indirectly felt they had to move the front to Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan.
Let's imagine that the world left Iraq alone before the country is able to defend itself and let it fall in the hands of extremists, what would happen then?

Can we compare the opium fields with the massive oilfields of Mesopotamia? Can we afford to leave these resources in the service of the terrorists?

The other point is scientific infrastructure, especially when it comes to military technology such infrastructure almost doesn't exist in Afghanistan while Saddam celebrated 17 years ago in launching a rocket to space. The same "accomplishment' Iran claimed to have made just days ago.
This infrastructure, while still humble compared to advanced countries, could be very dangerous if captured by terrorists.

For the other side of the coin, check out Drama Queen's post at Scrutiny Hooligans.

Bush Slams Democrats Over Iraq Timetable

Read More