Foley Raises $530k in Senate Bid

If you were one of the folks that thought Republican Tom Foley was just another Fairfield County businessman who wanted to get on TV and talk politics for awhile before riding off to Nantucket, hold on to your hat. 

Mr. Foley raised more than $530,000 for his U.S. Senate bid in the past month, according to a release from the campaign.

“Raising over $530,000 in less than a month is a very strong endorsement of Tom Foley’s candidacy, particularly given that Tom has never run for public office. People are responding very enthusiastically to Tom’s message about the economy and the idea of electing someone to the Senate who is not just another career politician,” said Gregg Keller, Foley’s Campaign Manager.

The Greenwich Republican and former Ambassador to Ireland has been something of an enigma to political observers who wondered just how serious the businessman was about running for the Senate.   Those questions are now gone.

Update 3:34pm: According to the Foley campaign, the $530k figure (also corrected post title to reflect proper number) does not include any money from the Ambassador himself. 

According to Capitol Watch, former Congressman Rob Simmons – who is widely viewed as the frontrunner for the nomination – said that he raised more than Foley’s number during the 2nd Quarter:

“We did a little better than that,” Simmons said in a cellphone interview as he was on a plane Tuesday to Los Angeles.

No word yet on his final numbers.

As for State Sen. Sam Caligiuiri, he told CW that he raised about $125,000 during the same quarter and blamed his ongoing work in the Legislature for the relatively soft numbers:

“We raised about $125,000 during the same period,” Caligiuri said Tuesday. “We didn’t start meaningful fundraising until after the session ended on June 3. That’s a very good number [for Foley], but not a surprising number for a Greenwich millionaire who was a top fundraiser for George W. Bush. That’s how he got to be Ambassador to Ireland.”

Caligiuri’s comments represent the first barb of the 2010 cycle amongst the Republican candidates.  He was also responsible for the second barb, noting that neither Foley nor Simmons have a job at the moment.

Advertisements

18 responses to “Foley Raises $530k in Senate Bid

  1. Saying Simmons does not have a job is a weak shot. Simmons has spent a lifetime in service to his country. As for his last job didn’t Sam cast a vote to eliminate his position?

  2. AndersonScooper

    $125,000? That’s not a lot of money, nor buzz, for someone who was supposed to be such an up and comer.

    So Sam’s all but done, and Schiff is proving himself a joke. Will the CT GOP get fully behind Simmons, or will it end up being Foley and his top-tier connections?

  3. I suspect that Foley had quite a bit of low hanging fruit to go after. While this $536k isn’t a shabby haul, the real test will be whether or not he can sustain it. I’m also curious to find out if that’s all money he’s raised or if he’s chipped in some cash himself.

    At the end of the day, however, Republicans need a candidate who will roll up his sleeves and do some ol’ fashioned politicking. The word on Foley is that he plans on running a paid-media heavy campaign and will do little field work. Basically Foley wants to maximize his wealth and minimize his voter contact. Does anyone know if he has gone to any RTC’s or made any public appearances as a candidate?

    Caliguiri better hope the budget mess gets solved soon or he won’t be able to compete.

    Re: barbs, isn’t Foley responsible for the first one with his “career politician” line?

  4. I took the career politician line to be a hit on Dodd.

  5. $125,000? That’s not a lot of money, nor buzz, for someone who was supposed to be such an up and comer.

    So Sam’s all but done, and Schiff is proving himself a joke. Will the CT GOP get fully behind Simmons, or will it end up being Foley and his top-tier connections?

    Scooper, glad to see you’re so comcerned with who the Republican party will choose..tell us, which Republican Senate candidate would you like to see beat Chris Dodd?

  6. AndersonScooper

    Career politician like Simmons, or career insider like Foley. Is there a difference?

    I mean Foley marries Frank Fahrenkopf’s daughter, was a Bush pioneer, an Iraq coalition insider, and a Bush-appointed ambassador, and he wants to pretend he’s from a different culture? Sheesh.

  7. Career politician like Simmons, or career insider like Foley. Is there a difference?

    Sure, there’s a difference. Neither one got a sweetheart deal on a mortgage or a cottage. That’s just for starters.

  8. AndersonScooper

    Puf–

    I’ll wager straight up against any of your proposed candidate, as they all have weaknesses equal or greater to Dodd’s perceived ethics problems. (That and this is still a blue state.)

    Also, if your guys are selfish enough to force a primary, I’ll go so far as to give you 2-to-1 odds.

    I still haven’t heard what your platform is.

  9. I’ll wager straight up against any of your proposed candidate, as they all have weaknesses equal or greater to Dodd’s perceived ethics problems. (That and this is still a blue state.)

    Scooper, I’m not quite sure what the tie is between ethics problems and blue states. Perhaps you mean that even a corrupt Democrat can win here because of party advantage. If that is your point, I may reluctantly agree with you.

    As far as platform for the Republican candidate…I say they should keep it simple…..Hello, I’m running for U.S. Senate and I’m NOT Chris Dodd.

  10. I’ll wager straight up against any of your proposed candidate, as they all have weaknesses equal or greater to Dodd’s perceived ethics problems. (That and this is still a blue state.)

    What about his real ethics problems?

    As far as platform for the Republican candidate…I say they should keep it simple…..Hello, I’m running for U.S. Senate and I’m NOT Chris Dodd.

    You mean, the Obama platform, the Lamont platform, or the Himes platform? (Same thing, really.)

  11. AndersonScooper

    Puf–

    You guys aren’t going to nominate a Republican who says they want to go to D.C. to help Obama enact his mandate.

    And Connecticut isn’t going to elect a Republican who is anti-Obama.

    So that’s your predicament.

    And if Dodd’s ethical lapses are so bad, where is your friggin’ indictment? Sure Foley or Simmons will run $5 million worth of nasty ads beyond the point at which we’re disgusted just with Dodd. But then what?

  12. “You mean, the Obama platform, the Lamont platform, or the Himes platform? (Same thing, really.)”

    And you can probably add to that the “Murphy” platform which now is clearly setting up for 2012. These guys are all Washington insiders, one way or another they are all ethically challenged, in that they want to perpetuate to a dumbed down electorate that this country can just go on as if this is just another bump in the road.

    The last two election cycles we made significant moves to the left, only to have dug ourselves deeper into a black hole as a result. As Tim White keeps pointing out here, we are now several trillion dollars more in debt as well. We cannot keep going this way. Are any of us now any better off than 4 years ago? 2 years ago? 6 months ago? What has changed besides the party that controls the leadership?

    IMO America did not become the economic giant it once was by claiming we were all entitled to anything we wanted simply because it was a God given right. We became who we once were because we once believed we had a God given right to work at being the best we could be, and as a result of our individual contributions then collectively be able to obtain, as well as more importantly afford, what we as a country wanted.

    It’s time to elect leaders who understand what needs to be done to put the private sector of this country back to work, and stop electing people who ask us to believe in a tooth fairy simply to forward their otherwise meaningless political careers.

  13. And you can probably add to that the “Murphy” platform which now is clearly setting up for 2012. These guys are all Washington insiders, one way or another they are all ethically challenged, in that they want to perpetuate to a dumbed down electorate that this country can just go on as if this is just another bump in the road.

    Really, Al? Not sure how any of this is fair. How is Murphy, or anyone else you mentioned, “ethically challenged”? The electorate is “dumbed down”? Don’t think the electorate will appreciate hearing that.

    As to the national debt, I would only remind you that cost of World War II — our golden age of the “greatest generation” — was borne by massive federal debt and 90% marginal tax rates. Yearning to return to those days when “believed we had a God given right to work at being the best we could be”? I think not.

  14. You guys aren’t going to nominate a Republican who says they want to go to D.C. to help Obama enact his mandate.

    And Connecticut isn’t going to elect a Republican who is anti-Obama.

    So that’s your predicament.

    Ok Scooper, you think people are going to elect the candidate that will help Obama accomplish his agenda. If that is the criteria, Yes the Democrat wins.

    I do question, will Obama will be as popular next November as he is today? He is already beginning to slip in the polls and by next November, you guys may be wearing bags over your heads and in for one hell of a surprise. Then again, you’re right…this is Connecticut. Who knows?

  15. mtown,

    You ask how are my comments fair? I ask how is bindingly going along with our elected officials as they mortgage our children’s future by piling trillions on top of trillions of new debt on top of already trillions of old and existing debt fair to our children?

    There is a huge difference between the significance of our national debt today and our national debt during “our golden age of the greatest generation”

    We emerged from WW2 as the only true world super power, with all our military and manufacturing ability intact. Today’s economic super powers of Japan and Germany were then in ruin, and China was at best a third world country.The ability to use our then unmatched manufacturing capabilities to supply not only what we needed, but what a large part of the world on both sides of our planet needed as well to rebuild itself, played a huge role in helping us deal with our huge national debt at the time.

    The ability to supply what we needed for ourselves, as well as the rest of the world provided millions of jobs at every level here in America. Those jobs not only provided security for many here at home but tax revenue to deal with that debt as well.

    Now several generations latter we no longer export our products and import the cash used to pay for those products. We export the jobs needed to make those products as well as the cash needed to pay for what we once made here. In fact our most valuable export probably is our private sector jobs.

    Is it really ethical to pretend we can keep exporting our ability to create real wealth at the rate we currently are while we spend ourselves into a black hole with no real idea how we will ever get out? IMO I don’t think so, if in your opinion you disagree with me, fine……. But can we at least agree that sooner or latter we will need to deal with the fact that we cannot keep getting something for nothing, sooner or latter we need to get serious on how to pay for all this?

  16. The ability to use our then unmatched manufacturing capabilities to supply not only what we needed, but what a large part of the world on both sides of our planet needed as well to rebuild itself, played a huge role in helping us deal with our huge national debt at the time.

    The fact that government cut spending by 2/3rds between 1945-48 probably had a little more to do with it. But we never really paid off the WW2 debt. Inflation adjusted national debt per capita was $5,443 in 1941. It hit $22,434 by 1945. The lowest it got in the post WW2 years was 1981, when it was down to $10,765. What is the debt/capita now, $36-37,000?

    For that matter, we never really paid off the WW1 debt, either. The national debt per person was $708 in 1916, inflation adjusted to 2009.

    Now several generations latter we no longer export our products and import the cash used to pay for those products. We export the jobs needed to make those products as well as the cash needed to pay for what we once made here. In fact our most valuable export probably is our private sector jobs.

    The US is still the largest exporter of goods and services. Net imports have no effect on the amount of employment, only its composition.

    Here’s how to look at imports and exports:

    Dollars are not wealth. Stuff is wealth. Dollars are just a medium of exchange. The more stuff a nation has, the wealthier it is. When we export a little stuff and import a lot of stuff, we have a net gain in real wealth. Those little green pieces of paper we send to China don’t do the Chinese any good. If the Chinese want to increase their wealth, they need stuff. In order to get stuff, they have to give us those pieces of paper back for something we make. If they don’t ever give the pieces of paper back, then they got ripped off, because we got all their stuff and they got little pieces of paper that we can print by the billions.

  17. JP,

    Thanks for your response. While I agree with a lot of what you say, I would like to question some of your logic here:

    ‘If the Chinese want to increase their wealth, they need stuff. In order to get stuff, they have to give us those pieces of paper back for something we make. If they don’t ever give the pieces of paper back, then they got ripped off, because we got all their stuff and they got little pieces of paper that we can print by the billions.’

    IMO you are assuming a few things about those little pieces of paper that are at the root of this problem.

    First, you seem to be suggesting those little pieces of paper which today are printing not by the billions, but by the trillions, are so meaningless we can literally just print as many as we like with no affect. If so why not then just print up a few million, hey why stop there, why not a few billion for every American and make us all instant billionaires? We can then each individually decide just how wealthy we want to be by just how much stuff we then decide to buy with those little pieces of paper.

    Second, it seems you are assuming that in order for the Chinese to increase their actual wealth they need to use those pieces of paper we send them to actually buy some “stuff” from us, and in that way increase their wealth. Well back after WW2 that is exactly what they would have needed to do, but here in 2009 they can get the “stuff” they want for those pieces of paper almost anyplace else in the world. As each day goes by there is less and less reason to return those pieces of paper back here, for our stuff.

    You also made this comment:

    “The US is still the largest exporter of goods and services. Net imports have no effect on the amount of employment, only its composition.”

    PERFECT!!!!!!!!!! Because IMO that is exactly the problem. THE COMPOSITION !!!!!!!!!!! We cannot all be Doctors or Lawyers, or other white collar workers. We are all not cut out for college. The very jobs we export the most, are the same jobs that once provided a very good living for so many of our hard working middle class that for one reason or another may not have had a chance to go to college. I contend that it was the exportation of so many of those jobs that was, and still is at the very core of the growing economic gap in this country.

    This all gets me back to what seems to me to be the problem with how so many of today’s politicians, young and old, appear to think. We don’t need to concern with how much stuff we actually make ourselves, as long as we still can print those little pieces of paper.

  18. First, you seem to be suggesting those little pieces of paper which today are printing not by the billions, but by the trillions, are so meaningless we can literally just print as many as we like with no affect. If so why not then just print up a few million, hey why stop there, why not a few billion for every American and make us all instant billionaires? We can then each individually decide just how wealthy we want to be by just how much stuff we then decide to buy with those little pieces of paper.

    If we print pieces of paper by the trillions, the Chinese will catch on. They will refuse to sell us goods in exchange for dollars because they will recognize that dollars are not a store of value. We will no longer be able to import anything at all and our standard of living will fall. That’s why a stable medium of exchange is important.

    We do not have a stable medium of exchange. If someone began working and saving 50 years ago, 86.6% of everything they managed to save from that year is gone. Just vanished, taken by the government when it destroys the value of the currency. I suppose you support eliminating the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws? You should, if you want dollars to become a store of value again as they were in the 1800’s. Actually, the value of dollars increased by 42% during the 1800’s. People were paid to save, and that eased the burden considerably in old age and during times of unemployment.

    Second, it seems you are assuming that in order for the Chinese to increase their actual wealth they need to use those pieces of paper we send them to actually buy some “stuff” from us, and in that way increase their wealth. Well back after WW2 that is exactly what they would have needed to do, but here in 2009 they can get the “stuff” they want for those pieces of paper almost anyplace else in the world. As each day goes by there is less and less reason to return those pieces of paper back here, for our stuff.

    That only holds true while American dollars are the world’s reserve currency. At the end of the day, American dollars only represent a claim on American goods. When the world realizes dollars are not stable store of value, all of those dollars are going to come back to the US in a hurry. And there are a LOT of dollars out there. We currently export most of our inflation. But when the dollars come back, our exports of goods and services will explode and our imports will tumble. Our standard of living will fall because we cannot produce all of the goods we are accustomed to at the price we can currently purchase those goods at. In other words, unemployment may go to 3%, but we’ll be paying a fortune for stuff.

    PERFECT!!!!!!!!!! Because IMO that is exactly the problem. THE COMPOSITION !!!!!!!!!!! We cannot all be Doctors or Lawyers, or other white collar workers. We are all not cut out for college. The very jobs we export the most, are the same jobs that once provided a very good living for so many of our hard working middle class that for one reason or another may not have had a chance to go to college. I contend that it was the exportation of so many of those jobs that was, and still is at the very core of the growing economic gap in this country.

    A common myth. The nation grows more wealthy when more goods are produced at a cheaper price. The nominal value of a wage may be lower, but if the purchasing power of the wage is increased, than one is better off, even with a reduced wage. There would be no doubt that we are better off now than 20 or 50 years ago, in terms of the range of products we can buy and their quality, if the government was not continuously destroying the currency.

    Most of the jobs we ‘export’ are actually destroyed by improving technology. India and China just make better scapegoats. In a free economy (not what we have) there is always more work to be done than workers available to do those jobs. For every job that is destroyed, either by outsourcing or technology, there will suddenly be demand for new jobs that couldn’t be done before because of the resources consumed by the wasteful job. But, there will always be economic inequality. Some people do work that is more valued by society than others. Stop destroying the economy through taxation, regulation, and inflation and the general prosperity will increase.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s