|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 331 of 536:
| 
Nov 11 06:12 UTC 2003 |
Another absurdity is klg drigging up this dirt while Bush sits on a
reelection chest of 200,000,000 of his political buddies contributions.
|
klg
|
|
response 332 of 536:
|
Nov 11 17:06 UTC 2003 |
We report. You decide.
|
richard
|
|
response 333 of 536:
|
Nov 11 19:48 UTC 2003 |
yeah its highly hypocritical for klg to not care how Bush raises his
money, but then get judgemental about how Dean is. And for the record,
the article is incorrect. Dean isn't taking large donations, he has
raised enormous sums over the internet of $250 or less.
|
tod
|
|
response 334 of 536:
|
Nov 11 21:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 335 of 536:
|
Nov 11 22:53 UTC 2003 |
That's a ridiculous statement - the Dem candidate has to compete with
BUSH. What do you want Dean to do, if nominated - lose? The slime,
incidentally, started from Bush, who set the lowest possible standard,
and "bad money drives out good".
|
klg
|
|
response 336 of 536:
|
Nov 12 01:29 UTC 2003 |
re: "#333 (richard): yeah its highly hypocritical for klg to not care
how Bush raises his money, but then get judgemental about how Dean
is.".............. Unlike How-weird, President Bush has always been
up-front regarding his fundraising intentions. (Go How-weird!!)
"And for the record, the article is incorrect."........ Call the WSJ &
tell them.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 337 of 536:
|
Nov 12 01:36 UTC 2003 |
Last time I checked the election went to the man with the most votes,
not the most dollars. (Hmm.. 2000 presidential elections excepted..
You know what I meant.)
Money is a powerful tool in presidential elections but at some
point the additional utility of each dollar diminishes.
Dean (or whoever gets the nomination ultimately) should be able
to compete against Bush without having to have as much money.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 338 of 536:
|
Nov 12 04:32 UTC 2003 |
Except: The money Bush is raising is to be spent during the primary season.
Who is running against him for the Republican nomination? What's that you
say? No one? Right. So what is he going to spend all that money on?
Trashing Democrats, right? So to start on a level field in August, the
Democrats really need to be campaigning against Bush in the primary season,
too, as well as campaigning against the other Democrats. And that takes
money.
|
klg
|
|
response 339 of 536:
|
Nov 12 17:09 UTC 2003 |
"To start on a level playing field in August the Democrats really need
to" first find a credible candidate. Where, we don't know. Apparently,
they have no idea, either.
|
flem
|
|
response 340 of 536:
|
Nov 12 17:15 UTC 2003 |
The democrats could nominate Charles Manson and I'd vote for him over
Bush.
|
klg
|
|
response 341 of 536:
|
Nov 12 17:20 UTC 2003 |
Just as we indicated. Apparently nobody has any idea of any credible
Democratic candidate.
|
tod
|
|
response 342 of 536:
|
Nov 12 17:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 343 of 536:
|
Nov 12 18:31 UTC 2003 |
So, you would prefer that Dean "kill" it for himself, instead? And, why
can't Clark join in the new game as well as Dean?
|
tod
|
|
response 344 of 536:
|
Nov 12 18:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 345 of 536:
|
Nov 12 19:17 UTC 2003 |
I thought Dean was raising his funds through internet sites. Clark could
do the same thing. They don't have to sink as low as Bush is willing to.
|
tod
|
|
response 346 of 536:
|
Nov 12 23:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 347 of 536:
|
Nov 13 19:01 UTC 2003 |
Re #337: I disagree, really. I think it's naive to ignore how much
money drives politics. It's all about how much ad time you can buy to
smear your opponent, now.
|
tod
|
|
response 348 of 536:
|
Nov 13 19:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 349 of 536:
|
Nov 13 19:45 UTC 2003 |
#346..yeah Dean is doing the vast majority of his fundraising through
the internet. His current fundraising advantage is directly
attributable to 500,000 people on the internet contributing $35-$75.
Dean HAS NOT had $100,000 a plate fundraisers like Bush has, or
anything of the like. It is much more of a grassroots effort. No
other candidate has ever harnessed the potential of internet
fundraising before, and the Dean model is going to be used by campaigns
for years to come. It is taking power OUT of the hands of rich donors.
And klg has yet to answer why Bush needed to raise $200 million for a
primary campaign where he has no opponent. It is excess just for
reason of excess. And because Bush has rich friends who EXPECT to give
large sums of money because they EXPECT and DEMAND preferential/special
treatment and extra influence. Bush is the candidate who is owned by
special interests.
|
klg
|
|
response 350 of 536:
|
Nov 13 20:04 UTC 2003 |
(Thank you. Were you, Mr. richard, aware that historically the
Republicans have a much better grass roots fundraising capability -
both in terms of participation and amount raised - than the Democrats?
Probably not. The Democrats prefer to use union and trial lawyer
money, in addition to the mega-contributions such as the $15 million so
far this cycle from the likes of Mr. Soros. Fortunately, these are
not "special interests," are they??? Furthermore, so long as you
Democrats make "Hate Bush" the basis of your platform, we Republicans
should not have much to fear a year from now. Go How-weird!)
|
twenex
|
|
response 351 of 536:
|
Nov 13 21:19 UTC 2003 |
Hate Bush? Withering Hates? Ba-Bush-ka? Don't Give Up, Cos I believe there's
a place where we Democrats belong?
|
tod
|
|
response 352 of 536:
|
Nov 13 21:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 353 of 536:
|
Nov 14 03:44 UTC 2003 |
klg you still HAVE NOT answered the question--- why does Bush need to
raise $200 million for a primary campaign where he has no opponent?
That is primaries money, not money that can be used in the general
election? The answer, and you know it, is that he doesn't need to
raise so much money, but he does because people want to buy favors and
have influence. He is selling the White House to fat cat oil men in
Texas and CEO's of rich and corrupt mutual fund companies. And klg you
don't even care. That is where your morality leaves you. You don't
care. You don't. So long as a conservative republican gets elected,
you don't care particularly how he does so or how many people he's
selling himself to. It just doesn't matter. Admit it.
|
jep
|
|
response 354 of 536:
|
Nov 14 04:23 UTC 2003 |
What do you suppose President Bush is going to do with all of that
money? He's going to promote himself. He's going to use it for
campaign advertising, to give himself as much of an edge as he can for
the election.
This is the same thing that President Clinton did when he and Al Gore
raised record amounts of money in 1994 and 1995 for their re-election
campaign. I believe you were here then, Richard. Where was your
moral outrage then? Did you care?
|
polygon
|
|
response 355 of 536:
|
Nov 14 04:31 UTC 2003 |
Actually, I agree that, by the time September-October-November roll
around, the cost of a marginal vote for a presidential campaign is
essentially infinite, or very close to it. Because media coverage
is intense, density of interest is high, and everybody is talking to
everybody else about it, the campaigns can do little but stir the
pot. The campaigns have no control over the situation.
The other truism about political campaigns: the more money a campaign has
to spend, the higher the proportion which is wasted. A well-funded
campaign stays in better hotels, eats better food, has a more spacious
headquarters in a nicer neighborhood, has lots of paid staff, and does
lots of useless tracking polls. None of these things make the slightest
difference to the outcome.
Shoestring campaigns beat well-funded campaigns all the time -- presuming
that the shoestring campaign DOES have a basic threshold of enough money,
and spends it wisely. The object is to get the message out, and depending
on the situation, that doesn't necessarily cost a fortune.
|
