Yesterday I questioned why every time Bush and money raising are mentioned, it is stated as if the act of fund-raising itself was evil, but when Democrat candidates raise money, it is proof of their viability as a candidate. From the NY Times, today:
Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor making his first bid for national office, raised substantially more money this quarter than all his more established opponents in the Democratic presidential contest, according to figures released today.
The result forced Dr. Dean’s rivals to reconsider how to deal with an opponent they had until now viewed as little more than an irritant.
To date, Bush has raised close to $30 million. According to the Times, the Democrats have raised $52 million among the top five candidates. Pardon me if I don’t buy into the lie about Democrats not being able to compete financially.
Russ
I still wonder which party will suffer the bigger bite-in-the-ass from Campaign Finance Reform. So far, neither side seems to be hurting too much.
(Or has CFR been beaten in court already?)
Watcher
I too am tired of the constant inference that somehow Republican money is tainted with the blood of the innocent. Are Democrat donations plucked from non-GMO money trees or something?