|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
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.
|
tsty
|
|
response 356 of 536:
|
Nov 14 07:25 UTC 2003 |
maybe shoestring campaigns do better because they are closer to the
people who wear shoestrings ... sted loafers.... ????
|
scott
|
|
response 357 of 536:
|
Nov 14 13:38 UTC 2003 |
TS, your reverse-shoe-elitism is starting to get on my nerves.
|
gull
|
|
response 358 of 536:
|
Nov 14 14:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #354: The Clintons weren't trying to get people morally outraged
about the amount of money other campaigns were raising while raising
more money themselves. That seems to be what the Republicans are doing
at the moment.
|
bru
|
|
response 359 of 536:
|
Nov 14 14:57 UTC 2003 |
Where is that happening? I haven't seen any republicans showing moral outrage
at whet the dems are raising?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 360 of 536:
|
Nov 14 17:19 UTC 2003 |
Then take klg off your twit filter..
|
tod
|
|
response 361 of 536:
|
Nov 14 17:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 362 of 536:
|
Nov 14 18:17 UTC 2003 |
Do you think they are waiting for the right moment in the campaign to do that?
|
tod
|
|
response 363 of 536:
|
Nov 14 18:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
goose
|
|
response 364 of 536:
|
Nov 14 19:19 UTC 2003 |
I believe that GW Bush, Inc. would do *anything*, and I mean *anything*
(murder, treason, lie, cheat, steal, etc.) to get him re-elected.
So I find it easy to believe that they could be holding Sadam or Ossama
until just the right opportunity.
|
gull
|
|
response 365 of 536:
|
Nov 14 20:26 UTC 2003 |
I don't think they could keep something like that quiet. Too many
people would have to know about it.
|
klg
|
|
response 366 of 536:
|
Nov 14 20:55 UTC 2003 |
Outraged????
Who said that we were "outraged," Mr. mcnally?
Even if Mr. Soros succeeds in his campaign to make the Democratic Party
his wholly-owned we, quite frankly, do not care - so long as it is done
in broad daylight.
Among the problems of those who have a myopic concern with campaign
fundraising is that they believe it is possible to solve the "problem"
through legislation. In reality, it is not. First, because U.S.
citizens have a constitutional right to donate their money as they wish.
Second, despite whatever laws may be passed, human ingenuity is such
that they will be circumvented.
Thank you.
|
tod
|
|
response 367 of 536:
|
Nov 14 22:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 368 of 536:
|
Nov 15 06:08 UTC 2003 |
And the U.S. would leave when Saddam is found? I doubt that.
|
klg
|
|
response 369 of 536:
|
Nov 16 01:53 UTC 2003 |
Oh, Mr. rcurl!! You again disappoint us. Where is your liberal
compassion for the people of Iraq????
And on the mega-buck contribution front, the Democrats again score big.
Seems like their passion for fundraising limits only applies to
Republicans.
From The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer
By Stephen Koff
Plain Dealer Bureau Chief
November 12, 2003
WASHINGTON Peter B. Lewis, the Cleveland- based insurance billionaire
and philanthropist, has pledged more than $12 million to try to oust
President Bush from the White House.
|
jep
|
|
response 370 of 536:
|
Nov 16 03:45 UTC 2003 |
re resp:364: I think it's only possible to believe that if you're so
firmly against Bush that, no matter what he does, you're going to
regard it as wrong. A few people really do believe that way (about
the same number who felt the same way about Clinton, I would guess),
but they're not who I would go to if I wanted reasonable opinions
about politics.
It seems to me more of an indication of the divisiveness of modern
American politics than of realism about what a particular politician
might do.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 371 of 536:
|
Nov 16 04:07 UTC 2003 |
A $12E6 donation to the democrats is a drop in the bucket compared to
the $200E6 in Bush's bucket. It is the Republican's passion for fundraising
that requires the opposition's efforts. Why didn't Bush accept the original
fundraising limits? Greed?
|
jep
|
|
response 372 of 536:
|
Nov 16 05:04 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps the notion that he could do better in the election if he
didn't accept those limits?
|
bru
|
|
response 373 of 536:
|
Nov 16 05:59 UTC 2003 |
I doubt that all the republican money came from one source.
|
