The Wallet-to-Wallet Chasm

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

Yeah, the RNC has those rich Hollywood elitists like Michael Moore and George Soros... wait, wrong party.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

Yeah, the RNC has those rich Hollywood elitists like Michael Moore and George Soros... wait, wrong party.

Just as many Hollywood elitists donate to the RNC. Oh wait, those were facts... I'm sorry, did I hurt you?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Campaign donations from corporations, special interests or private donors should be against the law...period...each party should either be allocated a set amount, or limited to the amount they can spend on the campaign trail...or more specifically, restrict the use of campaign money for the misinformation campaigns that both parties are guilty of.

That will never happen - just because it is a 1st admendment issue.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Just as many Hollywood elitists donate to the RNC. Oh wait, those were facts... I'm sorry, did I hurt you?

I'd have to disagree. A quick Wiki browse shows a larger list of Democrats in Hollywood (big surprise) ... [Edit: That is, Hollywood donors to Democratic causes and the DNC itself.]

Of course, if you've got facts, please, speak up.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Just as many Hollywood elitists donate to the RNC. Oh wait, those were facts... I'm sorry, did I hurt you?

I'd have to disagree. A quick Wiki browse shows a larger list of Democrats in Hollywood (big surprise) ... [Edit: That is, Hollywood donors to Democratic causes and the DNC itself.]

Of course, if you've got facts, please, speak up.

And there's just as long a list for Republicans on that site too. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

Yeah, the RNC has those rich Hollywood elitists like Michael Moore and George Soros... wait, wrong party.

I wasn't aware that Soros was involved with Hollywood. I thought he was a currency speculator; a manipulator of money. The Repubs would be on their knees in worship of this tremendous wealthy man if Soros was championing Republican causes.

And Hollywood does donate to the Repubs.... the businessmen, the corporate owners... basically anyone who has money and isn't an actor donates to the Repubs.

Hollywood movie and TV studios are Big Business like anything else. Big Business in Hollywood, like Big Business elsewhere, has a vested interest in keeping startups from gaining any traction and threatening their market hold. Hence, they vote Republican, friend of massive, predatory business.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

And its sad that running for office and being a politician is a fundraising contest.

Kerry should make a record donation. We all know he has a multiple of what the republicans have.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

And its sad that running for office and being a politician is a fundraising contest.

Last time I checked the Dems take more donations of $100k or more than the Reps do. So who has all the filthy rich donors?

I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs have more total $$$ from over the over $100k donors than the Dems.

The implication I got from your post was that the Reps had an exclusive lock on the big money donors. As it turns out... they don't.

In reality it looks like you can blame Dean for the money gap. Once he took over and started flapping his gums the money seemed to dry up for the Dems.

Don't fret though... If it comes down to it, Soros and Co. will fire up a battery of 527 groups and pump MILLIONS into them. (Just like last time...)

Plenty to fret about there we know what kind of results those 527s got in 2004.

Actually, they did quite well, Rove's front group, the Swiftboat Liars, successfully derailed Kerry's admittedly pathetic campaign and convinced many Americans that a cheerleader was more courageous than a war veteran.

Actually, I was refferring to the Soros and Co. 527s. When I saw the swift boater ads come out I knew at that point it was over. The Cambodia ad was just killer though.

The sad thing is that it shouldn't have been over. Kerry's campaign team should not have allowed Rove to reframe the debate like that. An election with an incumbent, like in 2004, should be a referendum on the incumbent, but Kerry's team forgot that. Idiots.

Kerry framed his own demise when he decided to run on his Vietnam record at the DNC.
The guy shouldnt have been tooting his own horn but instead actually framed the debate about Iraq.

The problem was they didnt have a footing on Iraq because their plan was an exact replica of Bush's. So why did they attempt to fight him in an arena they couldnt differentiate themselves with? Only the brilliant minds of the DNC can answer that. They should have fought Bush on domestic issues but didnt and they lost because of it.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

And its sad that running for office and being a politician is a fundraising contest.

Last time I checked the Dems take more donations of $100k or more than the Reps do. So who has all the filthy rich donors?

I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs have more total $$$ from over the over $100k donors than the Dems.

The implication I got from your post was that the Reps had an exclusive lock on the big money donors. As it turns out... they don't.

In reality it looks like you can blame Dean for the money gap. Once he took over and started flapping his gums the money seemed to dry up for the Dems.

Don't fret though... If it comes down to it, Soros and Co. will fire up a battery of 527 groups and pump MILLIONS into them. (Just like last time...)

Plenty to fret about there we know what kind of results those 527s got in 2004.

Actually, they did quite well, Rove's front group, the Swiftboat Liars, successfully derailed Kerry's admittedly pathetic campaign and convinced many Americans that a cheerleader was more courageous than a war veteran.

Actually, I was refferring to the Soros and Co. 527s. When I saw the swift boater ads come out I knew at that point it was over. The Cambodia ad was just killer though.

The sad thing is that it shouldn't have been over. Kerry's campaign team should not have allowed Rove to reframe the debate like that. An election with an incumbent, like in 2004, should be a referendum on the incumbent, but Kerry's team forgot that. Idiots.

Kerry framed his own demise when he decided to run on his Vietnam record at the DNC.
The guy shouldnt have been tooting his own horn but instead actually framed the debate about Iraq.

The problem was they didnt have a footing on Iraq because their plan was an exact replica of Bush's. So why did they attempt to fight him in an arena they couldnt differentiate themselves with? Only the brilliant minds of the DNC can answer that. They should have fought Bush on domestic issues but didnt and they lost because of it.

I agree with you on both points. Kerry's campaign was horrible.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

And its sad that running for office and being a politician is a fundraising contest.

Last time I checked the Dems take more donations of $100k or more than the Reps do. So who has all the filthy rich donors?

I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs have more total $$$ from over the over $100k donors than the Dems.

The implication I got from your post was that the Reps had an exclusive lock on the big money donors. As it turns out... they don't.

In reality it looks like you can blame Dean for the money gap. Once he took over and started flapping his gums the money seemed to dry up for the Dems.

Don't fret though... If it comes down to it, Soros and Co. will fire up a battery of 527 groups and pump MILLIONS into them. (Just like last time...)

Plenty to fret about there we know what kind of results those 527s got in 2004.

Actually, they did quite well, Rove's front group, the Swiftboat Liars, successfully derailed Kerry's admittedly pathetic campaign and convinced many Americans that a cheerleader was more courageous than a war veteran.

Actually, I was refferring to the Soros and Co. 527s. When I saw the swift boater ads come out I knew at that point it was over. The Cambodia ad was just killer though.

The sad thing is that it shouldn't have been over. Kerry's campaign team should not have allowed Rove to reframe the debate like that. An election with an incumbent, like in 2004, should be a referendum on the incumbent, but Kerry's team forgot that. Idiots.

Kerry framed his own demise when he decided to run on his Vietnam record at the DNC.
The guy shouldnt have been tooting his own horn but instead actually framed the debate about Iraq.

The problem was they didnt have a footing on Iraq because their plan was an exact replica of Bush's. So why did they attempt to fight him in an arena they couldnt differentiate themselves with? Only the brilliant minds of the DNC can answer that. They should have fought Bush on domestic issues but didnt and they lost because of it.

I agree with you on both points. Kerry's campaign was horrible.

Well I had my theory as early as June of 04 regarding Kerrys campaign. I always felt he was a stoodge they put out there so they could get Hillary into the Oval office in 08.
If they put somebody out there who could actually win then Hillary wasnt in until 2012.

I was quickly attacked and dismissed but if you watch his campaign you know it was seriously run afoul from within.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EatSpam
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.

And its sad that running for office and being a politician is a fundraising contest.

Last time I checked the Dems take more donations of $100k or more than the Reps do. So who has all the filthy rich donors?

I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs have more total $$$ from over the over $100k donors than the Dems.

The implication I got from your post was that the Reps had an exclusive lock on the big money donors. As it turns out... they don't.

In reality it looks like you can blame Dean for the money gap. Once he took over and started flapping his gums the money seemed to dry up for the Dems.

Don't fret though... If it comes down to it, Soros and Co. will fire up a battery of 527 groups and pump MILLIONS into them. (Just like last time...)

Plenty to fret about there we know what kind of results those 527s got in 2004.

Actually, they did quite well, Rove's front group, the Swiftboat Liars, successfully derailed Kerry's admittedly pathetic campaign and convinced many Americans that a cheerleader was more courageous than a war veteran.

Actually, I was refferring to the Soros and Co. 527s. When I saw the swift boater ads come out I knew at that point it was over. The Cambodia ad was just killer though.

The sad thing is that it shouldn't have been over. Kerry's campaign team should not have allowed Rove to reframe the debate like that. An election with an incumbent, like in 2004, should be a referendum on the incumbent, but Kerry's team forgot that. Idiots.

Kerry framed his own demise when he decided to run on his Vietnam record at the DNC.
The guy shouldnt have been tooting his own horn but instead actually framed the debate about Iraq.

The problem was they didnt have a footing on Iraq because their plan was an exact replica of Bush's. So why did they attempt to fight him in an arena they couldnt differentiate themselves with? Only the brilliant minds of the DNC can answer that. They should have fought Bush on domestic issues but didnt and they lost because of it.

I agree with you on both points. Kerry's campaign was horrible.

Well I had my theory as early as June of 04 regarding Kerrys campaign. I always felt he was a stoodge they put out there so they could get Hillary into the Oval office in 08.
If they put somebody out there who could actually win then Hillary wasnt in until 2012.

I was quickly attacked and dismissed but if you watch his campaign you know it was seriously run afoul from within.

You could very well be right... but we'll see what Clinton does in the next couple years. It almost seemed like Kerry took a dive.