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?