Thread: Democrats outfoxed again by GOP

I think he should purchase a Saturn delearship with the funds he has now. You know, have his money making money.

I dont like Kerry(I dont like bush either, but not as much as I dont like Kerry, lol) But the financial differance seems a bit unfair. I would hope someday the electoral race will be limited to a webpage each, and it will just list their views, sides on issues, things they promise to try to pass, and things the promise to pass.. And anything they switch sides on will be followed by a heavy fine and nomination for impeachment. Grr, and need to have every word they say, everywhere they go recorded, and all of this because the parties nominate the 2 dirtiest sobs they have because they have the best chance of winning, and then we vote for one.. WHERES THE FUQ THREAD WHEN YOU NEED IT!?

But the financial differance seems a bit unfair.

I don't view it as unfair, I see it as an indication of who has greater support. Campaign contributions are limited to $2000 per individual and the average contribution is less than $100.

Yes, however, since Bush is already president, people/companies that contribute now would DEFINITELY be rewarded for their contributions.

It is all irrelevant anyway, the better man will win, not the one with the most money, although the one with the most money may coincidentally win.

Originally posted by austinite
I don't view it as unfair, I see it as an indication of who has greater support. Campaign contributions are limited to $2000 per individual and the average contribution is less than $100.

By that reasoning, you should be heartened to know that over the last month, the Kerry campaign has raised about $1 million a day - twice as much as the Bush campaign has brought in during that same period. That must be an indication of a rather dramatic shift in support.

If Kerry is elected I swear to God I will be so upset I will vomit. Bush is far from perfect but he's better than Kerry by a long shot.

Originally posted by austinite
Campaign contributions are limited to $2000 per individual

Didnt know that

Originally posted by kbm8795
By that reasoning, you should be heartened to know that over the last month, the Kerry campaign has raised about $1 million a day - twice as much as the Bush campaign has brought in during that same period. That must be an indication of a rather dramatic shift in support.

A shift in support, or a last gasp? That's why Kerry wants to defer the nomination, so he can spend all of that cash, but it might be too little, too late. Bush has had a rough couple of months, but this is a marathon, not a dash.

Originally posted by Chain Link
Didnt know that

Contributions directly to candidates are limited (hard money). Contributions to organizations (soft money) are not, that is why groups like Moveon.org make commercials that support Kerry but can't mention his name, similarly, the NRA makes commercials that indirectly support Bush, etc.

Originally posted by austinite
Kerry is now in a position where he may have to not accept the democratic nomination so that he can delay accepting federal funds. Once he accepts these funds he can't spend the warchest he's earned this summer.

Karl Rove smartly scheduled the republican convention 30 days after the dems.

Kerry will look like a flip-flopper again. "Is he the nominee or is he not the nominee?"

It's totally irrelevant. Both parties are doing this.

The R's did it by delaying the convention to be around the anniversary of 9/11 to tap into American emotions, and Kerry is doing it to preserve his campaign funds because he hasn't raised as much money as Bush.

You obviously don't know a lot about politics, and you appear to not be very well-read, nor educated.

Originally posted by Mr_Snafu
It's totally irrelevant. Both parties are doing this.

The R's did it by delaying the convention to be around the anniversary of 9/11 to tap into American emotions, and Kerry is doing it to preserve his campaign funds because he hasn't raised as much money as Bush.

You obviously don't know a lot about politics, and you appear to not be very well-read, nor educated.

It is absolutely relevant. The GOP planned ahead, the dems are reacting and panicking. I was wondering when you were going to result to personal attacks, it usually happens when a liberal runs out of credible arguments.

Originally posted by rockgazer69
If Kerry is elected I swear to God I will be so upset I will vomit. Bush is far from perfect but he's better than Kerry by a long shot.

Good girl.

Ive never casted a Democrat vote in my life. Liberals must die!!!!!!...........take care..........Rich

you appear to not be very well-read, nor educated

Is this your standard insult?

Originally posted by austinite
A shift in support, or a last gasp? That's why Kerry wants to defer the nomination, so he can spend all of that cash, but it might be too little, too late. Bush has had a rough couple of months, but this is a marathon, not a dash.

I was using your reasoning equating "support" with financial contributions. As has become the tradition, our elections will boil down to a race of the wealthy - not exactly the qualifications set down by the Constitution.

We should remember that the Republicans canceled a lot of state primaries this year, eliminating the possibility of any other candidate to mount a challenge within the party. It also meant that many other state and local office seekers were chosen by committee members rather than voters in those locations this year. In some states where the government foots the bill for elections, Republicans in control said holding primaries were too expensive for the government this year.

Originally posted by Rich46yo
Ive never casted a Democrat vote in my life. Liberals must die!!!!!!...........take care..........Rich

This could be my first year that I don't cast a vote for a single Republican candidate on any level. But then, I don't assume all Democrats are liberals, any more than all Republicans are "conservatives." But there do appear to be some growing issues between factions of the Republican Party this year.

Republicans seem to be showing signs of increasing conflicts between the rightwing extremists and the more moderate members in the Party. This seems to be playing out in state conventions around the country. One fist fight broke out in Louisville, Kentucky, between an evangelical delegate and a rival, who is a Moonie (I've seen a couple of accounts about Rev. Moon's infiltration of the Party going back to the first Bush Administration) which has resulted in a lawsuit charging discrimination based on religion.

In North Carolina, the Republican state chairman last week returned the deposit for a table from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group that campaigned pretty heavily for Bush in 2000. The chairman called them "not normal" and announced plans to denounce that group of Americans during the state convention.
But this came on the heels of a Republican National Committee announcement made a few weeks ago that the Party's "tent" was big enough for everyone - a statement made directly to that Log Cabin group.

In Ohio, some precinct committeepersons have aired concerns about the increasing evangelical tone of the Party on both the state and national level. In Illinois, an attempt by the Center Right coalition part of the Party was apparently unsuccessful at pushing their agenda, but the battle fed a growing unfriendly split among the Right and the moderates.

In Colorado, moderate and right wing Republicans in the state legislature are increasingly at odds with each other. One group seems to follow more traditional Party principles, while the other subscribes to a more radical agenda that has produced a dozen bills in the last session. The moderates end up voting with the Democrats to kill the bills.

The fracture was even more evident in the recent Republican Senate primary race in Pennsylvania, where incumbent Senator Arlen Specter, branded by right wing groups and Pat Robertson as a "Democrat" for not toeing their version of the Party line, was challenged by Pat Toomey. While Toomey was narrowly defeated, evangelical Senator Rick Santorium went against his own religious right supporters and endorsed Specter. President Bush campaigned for Specter, fearing that another right wing senatorial candidate would cost the Party a Senate seat and Bush the electoral votes in the swing state.

Originally posted by austinite
It is absolutely relevant. The GOP planned ahead, the dems are reacting and panicking. I was wondering when you were going to result to personal attacks, it usually happens when a liberal runs out of credible arguments.

No offense intended Austinite. Apologies.

I am a Libertarian, and have many far right-wing views.

I am not a liberla in any way, shape or form.

Why would you think I was a liberal?

A thoughtful post KBM. And more about politics then Ive read in a long time. I vote on two standard issues, #1, and most important "whats good for the country". #2, is "whats good for me and mine. I start with #1 because I once wore the uniform of my country and I consider it a matter of honor. I suspect most people, especially Democrats, skip right over to #2. I say that because military people and veterans are Republicans about 3 to 1.

I look at John Kerry and I absolutely fear for the safety of this nation. I think hes a two faced, backstabbing, wishy-washy mush head. and I dont care how many ears he chopped off in Vietnam. I felt even worse about Klinton and that battleaxe of his. I think they are both a couple of fairly educated shitkickers whos morals never made it out of an Arkansas trailer park.

And who was that nitwit that ran against Bush SR? Was it Dukakas? With the bimbo running mate who kept crying on TV? My first commander in chief was Jimmy Carter. A good humantarian man but soft as baby seal shit. He ran the military down too, as do all the democrats. Then a certain American hero named Ronald Reagan got elected and he basicaly saved the world for Deomcracy. Many youngsters today have no idea just how evil and dangerous the Soviets, and communism was.

If you could name a democrat thats not a liberal I'd certainly like to hear it. YaKnow this war isnt even close to being over. Its going to be a long one whether we fight it or not. Course if we dont a lot of us will be dead so it really wont matter to them who is president. Every one of these terrorist supporting nations is going to have to be dealt with.

Im a simple man with these things. I support our troops and our commander and chief in times of war. I'd even support Klinton is he was in, tho I'd ask him not to put 19yo kids on their knees, under his desk, when he has world leaders on the phone. I'd also graciously ask him to simply smoke his cigars without first dipping them into vaginas. That kinda thing makes us all look like schmucks on the world stage............take care.........Rich

Originally posted by kbm8795 As has become the tradition, our elections will boil down to a race of the wealthy - not exactly the qualifications set down by the Constitution.

You're ignoring the fact that contributions come primarily from individuals in amounts less than $1000. The only cases that I'm aware of where folks used their own money is Kerry (well, his wife's money) during the Primary and Senator Corzine.

I can think of just as many who spent their own fortune and still lost (Steve Forbes, Clayton Powell (I think that's his name, lost to Ann Richards in Tex Gov race) and Ariana Huffington's ex out in Cali.

Originally posted by austinite
You're ignoring the fact that contributions come primarily from individuals in amounts less than $1000. The only cases that I'm aware of where folks used their own money is Kerry (well, his wife's money) during the Primary and Senator Corzine.

I can think of just as many who spent their own fortune and still lost (Steve Forbes, Clayton Powell (I think that's his name, lost to Ann Richards in Tex Gov race) and Ariana Huffington's ex out in Cali.

The traditional campaign season is still just beginning. I'm not ignoring anything - but one party had presidential primaries, the other one didn't and, as the polls appear now, probably should have given voters a chance to look at McCain again. Obviously, that means one candidate could focus fundraising for the long term from the beginning.

Originally posted by kbm8795
The traditional campaign season is still just beginning. I'm not ignoring anything - but one party had presidential primaries, the other one didn't and, as the polls appear now, probably should have given voters a chance to look at McCain again. Obviously, that means one candidate could focus fundraising for the long term from the beginning.

This statement doesn't address what you said about having an advantage because you're wealthy. The fact that W was uncontested in the GOP is an indicator of his support. He earned that support. Support that Carter did not enjoy in '80 (opposed by Sen Kennedy) and Bush 41 did not enjoy in '92 (opposed by Pat Buchanan).

As far as McCain goes, he could have run had he desired to. He didn not. He supports Bush, has campaigned on his behalf. A lot of people like to talk about McCain running as a rep or as Kerry's VP. Fact of the matter is the GOP electorate chose Bush over McCain decisively in 2000.

Originally posted by austinite
This statement doesn't address what you said about having an advantage because you're wealthy. The fact that W was uncontested in the GOP is an indicator of his support. He earned that support. Support that Carter did not enjoy in '80 (opposed by Sen Kennedy) and Bush 41 did not enjoy in '92 (opposed by Pat Buchanan).

As far as McCain goes, he could have run had he desired to. He didn not. He supports Bush, has campaigned on his behalf. A lot of people like to talk about McCain running as a rep or as Kerry's VP. Fact of the matter is the GOP electorate chose Bush over McCain decisively in 2000.

If you examine the Constitutional requirements for a presidential run, and then compare the amounts of money spent on campaigns, there is an indication that most elections are increasingly being restricted to those who possess wealth. That doesn't necessarily mean "support." Voting rights in this country are no longer linked to property ownership. Still, when House and Senate seats in a state campaign can cost $5-10 million, it sets an alarming precedent.

As for Dubya, don't count your chickens too quickly before they hatch. The growing number of disputes among state conventions may indicate an erosion of his broad support. Moreover, since the party canceled primaries months before they were scheduled, it shut the door on other candidates who might have come forward, even late in the game or as a protest vote.

Bush has more recently had to walk a tightrope between extremist rightwing groups and more moderate Republicans, hence the increasing number of evangelical statements followed by doing things like campaigning for Specter instead of Toomey, who was the extreme right's primary candidate. He's beginning to have a more difficult time propping up two ends of a Party in which hostility is becoming more open.

Just this morning, the Charlotte Observer reported on the expulsion of the North Carolina House co-chairman by the state Republican Central Committee because he was a moderate conservative and didn't completely toe the tilt in the Party line. This battle seems to be waging in a large number of states, and will likely show up when the national platform is decided in New York. If the platform is too evangelical, it's likely to turn off more voters - a recent poll indicated that 77% of Americans did not like their church telling them how to vote.

Moreover, the increasing anti-gay rhetoric coming from state Party officials has already cost Bush the gay Republican vote - although they don't like Kerry, most are likely to skip voting in the presidential race. It is also causing some embarassment to Vice President Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian. While they haven't called on Bush to dump Cheney (at least not yet), some of their rhetoric has been pretty insulting to his family, and he hasn't said a word in defense in the issue. It also doesn't help that the Log Cabin Republicans are playing a commercial against that federal amendment featuring Cheney in swing states around the country.

The Bush campaign may have had a large number of benefactors early on, but if support begins to slip too far, a drop in contributions MAY follow - but the two are not intrinsically intertwined. As difficult as it is to win an election without a lot of money, it can happen. After all, Dubya has spent nearly $100 million now and his approval ratings are lower, although his commercials have had some effect at damaging Kerry's image. As I said, the campaign season is still young and it's a marathon - just because Pat Robertson told us that God informed him Bush would be reelected doesn't mean there has been divine intervention just yet - maybe just some people giving the Prez their tax refunds back in hopes of getting more later.

Originally posted by kbm8795

1) If you examine the Constitutional requirements for a presidential run, and then compare the amounts of money spent on campaigns, there is an indication that most elections are increasingly being restricted to those who possess wealth.


2) Bush has more recently had to walk a tightrope between extremist rightwing groups and more moderate Republicans, hence the increasing number of evangelical statements followed by doing things like campaigning for Specter instead of Toomey, who was the extreme right's primary candidate. He's beginning to have a more difficult time propping up two ends of a Party in which hostility is becoming more open.


3) If the platform is too evangelical, it's likely to turn off more voters - a recent poll indicated that 77% of Americans did not like their church telling them how to vote.

4) Moreover, the increasing anti-gay rhetoric coming from state Party officials has already cost Bush the gay Republican vote - although they don't like Kerry, most are likely to skip voting in the presidential race. It is also causing some embarassment to Vice President Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian. While they haven't called on Bush to dump Cheney (at least not yet), some of their rhetoric has been pretty insulting to his family, and he hasn't said a word in defense in the issue.

5) After all, Dubya has spent nearly $100 million now and his approval ratings are lower, although his commercials have had some effect at damaging Kerry's image.

Some good observations, but:

1) The money being spent on these campaigns is coming from political donations, most in small chunks, not from the pocket of the candidate.

2) You call it walking a tightrope, I call it inclusiveness. Bush does appeal to, and he respects conservative and liberal republicans. His selection of Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell to his two key cabinet posts demonstrates that.

3) Bush is unapologetically religious. We knew that since he announced that Jesus was his most admired philosopher during the 2000 GOP primaries. This is nothing new to the electorate.

4) Expressing support for traditional marriage in America is not gay-bashing. Most Americans agree with Bush on this issue and it is Kerry who is worried about appeasing gays without appearing too liberal. As far as Cheney is concerned, he has spoke out on it and acknowledged that he and W aren't in 100% agreement but he defers to the Prez.

5) Approval ratings are lower, as you might expect considering the very rough last several weeks, but guess what? The election polls remain tied, with W ahead in some battleground states that he lost in 2000. Kerry unbelievably has not gained any ground over this time.


Once we turn Iraq back over and bring in the UN and start to bring troops home, the mission will be recognized as a success, and Bush's numbers will climb. The economy is great, now if we can just do something about those gas prices...

It may be no coincidence that both Rumsfeld and Powell have been under fire or have been reported to have expressed dissatisfaction.

The economy is not great - rising gas prices could threaten the recovery, white collar positions continue to be outsourced and the nations largest employer is now Wal-Mart. Employment figures may be better, but there is more than unemployment figures that figure into strengthening the economy. Quality of jobs, national debt, long term recovery prospects in key industries, consumer debt and purchasing power are among many factors that figure into an economic recovery.

You apparently haven't read much of the rhetoric associated with the marriage equality issue in several states - especially from their state convention chairman and among delegates selected for the national conventon. The rhetoric isn't centered on the marriage issue at all. Besides the fact that there really isn't any such thing as traditional marriage except views of one party as personal property, there are many facets to that discussion that have turned into some pretty degrading public statements. Bush will most likely receive no contributions from Log Cabin Republicans.
The situation hurts Bush in a number of ways - it makes Cheney look bad because he hasn't defended his own daughter. No parent displays family values when he allows political colleagues to blame his daughers orientation on behavioral patterns (indicating fault with his parenting), nor does it seem appropriate for other party officials to call that group names.

While he has deferred to Bush on the issue, there isn't uniformity of opinion in the First Family. The First Lady remarked late last week during a visit to California that she thought people should talk about and debate the issue, yet she refused to say she supported the amendment, only the debate. Perhaps if the President had encouraged the debate without calling for a federal amendment, he would have looked less like he was pandering to one side and ignoring the others grievances. While you are right about public opinion polls on the subject, those same polls indicated a much larger degree of support for civil unions, and some overwhelming support when certain instances of marriage (like hospital visitation rights, immigration rights, rights to inheritance) are broken down. However, the President hasn't supported any of those, including employment nondiscrimination bills in Congress, and his more extremist religious base is adamantly against extending any kind of protection. Instead of supporting existing bills in Congress that would have provided a couple of those benefits with the support of the majority of Americans, he has said nothing.

However, in North Carolina, where an amendment has just been introduced, state party chairman Ferrell Blount launched into a personal attack on gay Americans that was started by some evangelical groups during the controversy in Boston. When he reneged on renting the traditional information table to the Log Cabin Republicans, he called them "not normal" and announced that the Party was going to denounce "homosexuals" at the convention. In Oklahoma, two Republican state house members called a move by the Democratic Party, which provided space to a gay democratic group, as "outrageous." None of these situations had anything to do with the marriage discussion, and these were the milder remarks.

Party purges of any group or official because they don't agree on everything in the Party platform is another situation that could quickly get out of hand. And I haven't seen much evidence that Bush has the upper hand in controlling the religious right. The rash of bills in Congress calling for allowing churches to endorse and campaign for candidates, establish a national hymn, pass a federal amendment about marriage rights that would exclude ceremonies performed by other faiths in this country and attempts to broaden the use of taxpayer money to support Pat Robertson's religious charities could become larger problems.


Yes, we all know that Bush is "unapologetically" religious. No one expects that he should apologize for having religious beliefs. However, certain policies have indicated a preference for particular religious groups, and this has resulted in the transfer of taxpayer monies to some "charitable" organizations with questionable records. It has also resulted in denial of other religious groups from obtaining approval for funds. His need to patronize the evangelical base has also turned our National Day of Prayer into an event run by extremist evangelical groups with a lengthy political agenda. This year, they excluded nearly all other faiths from participation in offical events.

He is indeed walking a fine line among moderates and conservative groups in his party, and I suspect has had to several times say and do some things to prop up the base. This has cost him support from the middle, and early indications are state party infighting, low level volunteers leaving the party (as in precinct committeepersons) and growing evidence of intolerance from extremists for more moderate opinions within the Party. Republicans tend to try to keep things in the family much more under wraps than the other party - but the small signs have the potential to translate into larger problems.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

It may be no coincidence that both Rumsfeld and Powell have been under fire or have been reported to have expressed dissatisfaction.

The economy is not great - rising gas prices could threaten the recovery, white collar positions continue to be outsourced and the nations largest employer is now Wal-Mart. Employment figures may be better, but there is more than unemployment figures that figure into strengthening the economy. Quality of jobs, national debt, long term recovery prospects in key industries, consumer debt and purchasing power are among many factors that figure into an economic recovery.

You apparently haven't read much of the rhetoric associated with the marriage equality issue in several states

"have been reported to have expressed disatisfaction" reported by whom?

the economy is indeed great, expanding at a record rate:

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/stor...7D&siteid=mktw

I have read the rhetoric. The fact remains that most Americans want to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage, and Kerry would be unwise to run against that sentiment, but I hope he does.

There is a difference between "preserving the 'sanctity' of traditional marriage" and not addressing the real issues involved. Attempts to vilify a group of Americans, which includes members of our heroic armed forces, with hateful buzzwords, comparisons with bestiality and religious fearmongering hasn't done anything but alienate some of our own citizens. While you are correct that the majority polled prefer reserving the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions, a larger majority favor extension of some rights and benefits. (One recent poll found that 90% of Americans believe these couples should have hospital visitation rights, though the Party doesn't seem to address that.) Since you've read the rhetoric, you've obviously noticed that the Party avoids discussing that issue or defering to popular opinion except in the marriage case. That's why Virginia passed a law that not only prohibits marriages or civil unions, but any sort of legal contract for any benefit (power of attorney, etc.) by two people of the same sex. I won't even go into the adoption issue.

As for reports of different levels of discontent by both Rumsfeld and Powell, you could see references to that in any catalog of press coverage over the last two months, especially transcripts of interviews with the two men. Try the wire services and avoid the Party's official news organization.

The economy is so great that we continue to see outsourcing as an increasing job producing export - the reasoning being that if we don't outsource, American workers will have to take significant pay cuts in order to remain competitive. When discount retailers are the boom market for employment, the economy may look better on paper, but the nagging problems of heavy consumer debt, corporate downsizing and outsourcing, loss of manufacturing jobs and white collar positions and lack of rapid growth industries puts us in a marginal situation. A larger percentage of new college graduates were without positions upon graduation and had to return home to their parents.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

As for reports of different levels of discontent by both Rumsfeld and Powell, you could see references to that in any catalog of press coverage over the last two months, especially transcripts of interviews with the two men. Try the wire services and avoid the Party's official news organization.

The economy is so great that we continue to see outsourcing as an increasing job producing export

Rumsfeld and Powell are independent, powerful men who made a sacrifice by serving on the cabinet. Either is capable of being president. They both support Bush, and will finish the first term. In two-term presidencies it is not unusual for major cabinet members to move on after one term. That may happen here, but they have been steadfast in their support of the President and service to nation.

What's wrong with outsourcing? In a global economy a successful business will maximize profits and dividends to shareholders by making smart, economical decisions like outsourcing labor where appropriate, just like they import raw materials when it makes sense. The firms that don't do this fail, and then many more are out of a job.