Why is it that when it is pointed out that Bush might raise a record number of dollars (mainly through individual contributors), this is what is said:
Bush’s fundraising goal is twice the amount for his first presidential race. All he has to do is show up at about 10 lunches, dinners and receptions over the next five weeks and the money will flow.
Deep-pocket Republican guests will pay $2,000 to attend most of the events.
It looks like payback time for those big-wad corporate chieftains who hit the jackpot with his new tax-cut-for-the-rich law.
When Howard Dean leads the Democrat nominees in fund-raising, this is what is said:
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has raised more money during the past three months than any of his rivals for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. It is the latest indication that Mr. Dean is becoming a serious contender in the 2004 race for the White House.
So when Bush raises money (again- mainly through individual contributors), it is merely the payoff for his tax cuts or proof he is a corporate shill. When Dean raises money, it is proof he is a viable candidate. Interesting.
By the way- has someone bothered to total up all the money that all the Democrats have raised and then compare it to Bush’s total?
Jonas
The average Dean donor is giving about $100. The Bush fundraising is $2000 to get in the door.
David Perron
You’re comparing apples and applesauce, Jonas. You’re comparing the average donor to those lunches with the average of ALL Dean donors. I think if you compare average donor to average donor, you’ll get a somewhat different level of mismatch. Or are you under the delusion that all Bush donors contribute a minimum of $2k?
Barney Gumble
“The circle is now complete. Once I was but the learner but now I am the master.”
I couldn’t help but notice the $2,000 events are just “lunches” to you–while during the Clinton admin there was so much outrage over “coffees”.
John Cole
Barney- The lunches are not being held in the White House with close personal time with senior administration officials while pretending they are not fund raising events.
These are absolutely two different things.
Dean
Speaking of Clinton:
IIRC, Bubba was considered one of the primo fund-raises for Dems, both the DNC as a whole, as well as for himself.
Just out of curiosity: How much did Bubba raise on HIS fund-raising circuits in, say, ’95 (one year out from the next election)? How does that compare (esp. after adjusting for inflation)?
Presidents raise big bucks—wotta surprise!
Barney Gumble
“White House”: It’s illegal to raise funds in the white house. I find it hard to believe Ken Starr would not have prosecuted that. Did he?
“…not fund raising events”.
They couldn’t have been, since they were for those who had already donated.
“close personal time with senior administration officials” Bush is a senior administration official. (Not in charge, but still.) Are you implying the high rollers do not get “close personal time” with Bush at these events?
John Cole
Barney:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/coffees/front.htm
They were selling the White House to donors- if you can not believe even this, you are hopeless.
Barney Gumble
“They were selling the White House to donors- if you can not believe even this, you are hopeless.”
Wow, that was a shocking list. I’m flabbergasted! I sure hope they prosecuted some one for that! Did they?
John Cole
I sure hope they prosecuted some one for that! Did they?
That is a great standard you have now established, Barney. Does this mean you will kindly shut the fuck up about any of your ‘perceived’ Bush administration malfeasances until they are prosecuted?
If so, I will drop the Clinton White House Coffees.
BTW- by your new standard, Bush has not been prosecuted for anything- unlike the myriad of prosecutions and convictions from the Clinton years. I guess, in your eyes, Bush has put together the ‘most ethical administration ever,’ despite Willy Jeff’s best efforts.
Barney Gumble
“myriad of prosecutions and convictions”
“myriad”? They got 1. Whatever. Oh right, they got Web Hubble for stealing FROM the Clintons. 2. Whatever.
Just found this fun exercise:
1. head over to the NYT nonfiction bestseller list
2. Look up what the little cross (+) after the #2 book means.
Tee hee!
Just Some Poor Schmuck
Barney seems to hung up on the “fat cat donor” meme. Not only is it not true that Bush and the Republicans are raising funds primarily from the big donor and Democrats depend on the little guy, but in reality the opposite is true.
There was a report that was put out by the Center for Responsive Politics, just a couple of weeks ago that shows that most of the funds that Republicans raise come from small donors and that it is Democrats that depend on the big donors.
I did a post about it in my blog on June 28 when it came out.
J
Just Some Poor Schmuck, I can’t speak to the entire Democratic field’s efforts, or the DNC, but the story revolving around Dean is that he was able to raise his money through the internet. Do big donors go through the internet? I doubt it. Some preliminary googling found an Iowa news article reporting the average Dean donor as giving $112.
The American Prospect reports, “Only 129 donors gave $1,000 or more, according to a report by the campaign; 18,422 gave less than $50.” On Bush, I found this,
“Rove often goes into a target state in advance to rally the lead organizers. Much of the money is raised by Bush’s “pioneers,” volunteer businessmen who collect at least $100,000.
This election, Bush created a new class of fund-raisers called rangers, who solicit at least $200,000 each. At least a half-dozen people have raised enough since Bush began his campaign in mid-May to earn the new designation, a Republican official said.”
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030706_705.html