Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Democratic Party of the Rich. Party of the Big Contributors!

by James Denison / March 11, 2004 3:23 AM PST

I found this statement in middle of the story very revealing about exactly who it is that is still the party of the Rich, the party of the Big Contributors. Republicans raise their money from the people at the grassroots level, but those oily Democrats have to depend on big money contributors, you know, those rich dudes they are always accusing the Republicans of supporting and getting support from. Hypocrites and Liars are the Democrats.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-22-outside-groups-usat_x.htm

The loss of unlimited contributions hits the Democrats hardest.
For years, Republicans have been more successful in raising
smaller, limited contributions. In the past year, Republicans have
outraised Democrats, $183 million to $82 million, in regulated
"hard" dollars; that doesn't count the estimated $200 million Bush
is raising for his re-election. In the past, Democrats used big
checks from Hollywood, organized labor and trial lawyers to
partly offset the GOP advantage.

When the law banned those six- and seven-figure contributions,
it meant much of the activity they financed ? including TV
issue ads, grass-roots organizing and coordination ? was
threatened. "It became an urgent emergency on our side," says
Joseph Sandler, chief lawyer for the Democratic Party. The
only short-term answer was the creation of groups that could
take over some of the money and functions denied to the
national party....(see link)

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Democratic Party of the Rich. Party of the Big Contributors!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Democratic Party of the Rich. Party of the Big Contributors!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:Democratic Party of the Rich. Party of the Big Contributors!
by Josh K / March 11, 2004 3:26 AM PST
that doesn't count the estimated $200 million Bush is raising for his re-election.

Why doesn't that count? And everyone who thinks it will cap off at $200 million, raise your hand!
Collapse -
Probably because the article is ONLT about PARTY...

contributions and not various individual campaign contributions.

Contributions to Kerry weren't counted either if you read the article more closely Josh.

Seems like we discussed who was receiving the biggest percentage of their contributions from big donors just a short time ago.

Collapse -
Re:Democratic Party of the Rich. Party of the Big Contributors!

Hi, James.

>> Republicans raise their money from the people at the grassroots level<<
What's really rich is the level of distortion in your post. The Republican Party has far more money than the Democratic (last I heard, Bush's campaign chest was $104 million, Kerry's about $2 million), and the vast majority of "soft" corporate money goes to Republicans. Bush supposedly got $3.5 million in one night in Houston last week -- you don't get that sort of money in one night from "the grass roots!" The data for the current cycle aren't yet in, but here's a comparison of major corporate soft money contributions to Bush and Gore for 2000:
Bush's Major Contributors.
This pattern continues up and down the line -- for example, in Giulian's last campaign for mayor, his average contribution was $1,122 compared to $147 for his Democratic opponent, Ruth Messinger. The Republican party is the party of the "fat cats," both in terms of contributors and whom their policies favor!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
That kinda talk is not appreciated, Dave.
by Dan McC / March 11, 2004 4:00 AM PST

I have a cat that's fat and she resents the association.

Dan

Collapse -
Right Dave--that is why even the NYT is upset ...

about Democrit use of soft money http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/opinion/11THU2.html Soft Money Slinks Back

Can you name one Republican who matches or even comes close to the soft money contributions of Soros? No you can't, but I bet even you can think of yet another Democrat soft money contributor who comes close.

The VAST MAJORITY of the Republican Party and Candidate contributions are small amounts from many, many individual contributors--MOST of the Democrit contributions are larger amounts of money from individual contributors.

Collapse -
No bias in that link. You think there was a razor edge on the axe?
by Kiddpeat / March 11, 2004 5:11 AM PST

It looks like a site for the Democrat gullibles, and those who hope everyone will be gullible.

Collapse -
Gee, this sounds like a scheme to sidestep campaign, finance reform.
by Kiddpeat / March 11, 2004 5:15 AM PST
'It became an urgent emergency on our side," says
Joseph Sandler, chief lawyer for the Democratic Party. The
only short-term answer was the creation of groups that could
take over some of the money and functions denied to the
national party....'


It's a good thing the Democrats have the trial lawyers to help them figure out how to evade the law.
Collapse -
That was my feeling.

The loudest voices for "campaign reform" on raising funding for candidates have mostly been Democrats. I think they were trying to set it up as a trap against the Republicans under the impression that they would still try and sneak in some big corporate contributions. Now, it seems the Democrats may fall victim to their own trap. Something almost biblical about that, setting a snare for another and getting caught in it yourself.

Collapse -
Well, James...
by J. Vega / March 11, 2004 6:13 AM PST

Well, James, I don't know about "rich" but I started looking at Kerry's financial disclosure form. 82 pages, about 50 of them publically traded assets and unearned income sources. He's not hurting. He's into a lot of things, investment-wise.
If anybody else is interested, here's a link to his filed forms, I looked at the latest one. Warning, the most recent one is a 13Meg .pdf file. Link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.asp?CID=N00000245

Collapse -
Not just him. Take a look at his wife's fortune too. She's even richer! [nt]
by James Denison / March 11, 2004 7:45 AM PST
In reply to: Well, James...

,

Collapse -
What I wonder, James...

James, I noticed all those utilities and transportation in PA and the utilities in the Southwest. I wonder if he knows something. Wish I had a free buck or two to invest. But not in Merck, I don't like their recent performance. He did spot the Southern Company, though, somebody else I knew liked that one too.

Collapse -
I wouldn't want to be in...
by James Denison / March 11, 2004 12:50 PM PST

...transportation and utilities (nor airlines) at the present time due to the high cost of fuels.

Collapse -
Connections, connections, connections.

Teresa is one of the honchos of the Tides Foundation. Another of the Honchos is Ted Turner. These two positions go back to the beginning of the foundation.

One, the Heinz's and Kerry's cannot claim no association with Jane Fonda. John Kerry's wife and Jane Fonda's husband (then) are both on the baord and major directors.

Two, The firefighters union put a great deal of effort into smearing the first Bush campaign ad. At least until the major media picked up on the President of the union being on the podium at many of Kerry's campaign appearances.

Three, the other major group protesting the Bush campaign add is the Peaceful Tomorrows organization. They claimed to represent the victims of 911 families and it turns out that less than 1% of those families are part of the organization. Now guess where the organization gets its funding. That's right, the Tides Foundation.

Bo

Collapse -
That's an amazing Expose! [nt]
by James Denison / March 11, 2004 10:02 AM PST

.

Collapse -
Did anyone see Kerry on TV today, refusing to apologize for his remark?

While I was watching him NOT apologize for slandering his opponents, I noticed Ted Kennedy behind him nodding in approval at all Kerry had to say. Not only Teddy was there but somehow they manage to cram about 7-8 people behind him for camera opportunity. While I was watching Teddy nodding like one of those automobile rear window dogs I got to laughing, thinking "Poor Ted, always the bridesmaid, Never the Bride!"

Collapse -
Do you mean when, James..

James, do you mean when he forgot he was still wearing a mike and it picked up something he said off-camera.
Did you notice that in the recent thread about the language on Kerry's web site that type of thing was mentioned just before that story hit. As "Brother Dave" Gardner liked to say, "Ain't that weird?".

Collapse -
Definitely something odd with it all.
by James Denison / March 11, 2004 9:01 AM PST

You think the whole thing was deliberate and made to look happenstance so he could say that, but pretend it was supposed to not be public?

Collapse -
Re:Do you mean when, James..
by Josh K / March 11, 2004 10:31 PM PST

We were talking about profanity in that thread, J. If he'd said "f*****g crooks" then I'd see your point. Otherwise, I think history supports his statement.

Collapse -
Wrong, Josh....
by J. Vega / March 11, 2004 10:46 PM PST

Wrong, Josh, the subject of off-mike comments being used as a "political propaganda weapon" came up when you brought up a Bush-Cheney off-mike remark as a "what about this" counter.
Trying to "pull a Konkel" (grin)?

Collapse -
Nope, not wrong, J
by Josh K / March 11, 2004 10:57 PM PST
In reply to: Wrong, Josh....

The topic in that thread was "Kerry's website riddled with obscenities." The discussion was about Kerry's use of the f-word. I commented that Bush has used obscenities too, and you tried to distinguish it from Kerry's statements by saying that the "*******" comment was made as an aside.

The big difference here, J, is that I'm not trying to claim that Kerry's "crooks" remark should be off limits because he may have thought it was off-mic. He's said pretty much the same thing many times during his speeches. I'm perfectly willing to have these candid comments be open for discussion or to "change the rules" as you suggest. But of course that means Bush's "*******" comment is fair game too.

Collapse -
Bush's comment already was, Josh...
by J. Vega / March 11, 2004 11:14 PM PST
In reply to: Nope, not wrong, J

Bush's comment already was, Josh, you bought that past comment up. Now, when recetly it's Kerry, he gets the same. The other comment mentioned was the "what did you talk about" one. Let's consider that one again. Remember the time of it? That was before The current President was even Governor of Texas. Why should that have been given (and still is) such political "play"? Because of who his father was at that time, Josh. Another new rule, Josh? Does that same rule apply to the sons of John Kerry?
What did you think, Josh, that the other side would never "return fire"?

Collapse -
Re:Bush's comment already was, Josh...
by Josh K / March 11, 2004 11:24 PM PST

If Kerry's kids are asked what topics they like to discuss with their father, my guess is that "you-know-what" won't be among them (or as in Bush's case, the only one).

Again, the difference between Kerry's comment and Bush's is that Kerry is standing behind his words while the Bush people tried to dismiss his.

Collapse -
Re: Did anyone see Kerry on TV today, refusing to apologize for his remark?

Hi, James.

Why should he apologize? While it was impolitic to say so, the Republican Party borrowed the "big lie technique" from the Communists in the early 90's, and have been using it ruthlessly ever since. Look at just about any post here in the last couple of weeks with a link to a the name "Kerry" (or "Democrats") in it and you'll see the sleaze brigade in action at the other end of the link.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Sleaze Brigade

Some of what's been said may not be completely true, some may be twisted a bit, but a lot of what's been said in criticism of Kerry is true. Yes, one Hanoi Jane pic with Kerry is a fake, but the other is true. Yes, Kerry's website had obscenities on it, but they may not have been from him or his staff. There is no need for people to manufacture questionable things against the man, there's already enough of concern that's true we can concentrate on. Nobody but Kerry is responsible for things he's said at one time in support of Bush policy, and then compared to him saying the exact opposite now that he hopes it will prove politically expedient to him. His voting record on certain issues is a fact, not conjecture. I'm glad he will be the Democratic party nominee. I think he will have less chance of winning in November than Edwards would have. Edward's problem is the Democratic Party has become so polarized that a moderate won't get nominated, especially when most early primaries start off in the liberal Northeast states. The Democrats are so worried that a tough nominating convention would make them weaker, they are instead letting the first primaries pick their candidates who then basically ignore the latter primaries. The end result is they often pick losers, Clinton being the exception and that's due to him being from the South. They almost did it with Gore, also from the South, but failed. They will not win with a candidate from the Northeast. If so, I will be surprised.

Collapse -
Re:Sleaze Brigade
by Josh K / March 11, 2004 10:30 PM PST
In reply to: Sleaze Brigade
Yes, one Hanoi Jane pic with Kerry is a fake, but the other is true.

The one that's "true" only shows them at the same place at the same time. They are not sitting together or even acknowledging each other.

The other one was a deliberate and dishonest attempt to smear Kerry, exactly what he was referring to when he made his remark.
Collapse -
Communists? Is that what you guys are calling yourselves these days?

The left including the Democrat Party are masters of character assassination going back many, many years. It has been one of your most effective ploys, and continues with the unrelenting attack on President Bush. Who else would attempt to destroy the character of honorable men nominated to serve as the nation's judges?

Collapse -
Re:Communists? Is that what you guys are calling yourselves these days?

Hi, KP.

C'mon give nme a break -- if you want character assassination, just look back to when Clinton first took office. Look at Newt's candidate's manual. Heck, look at the title of your message, which uses the tactics promoted by Bush's candidate's manual. Why is it that you guys are supposed to get a pass for calling all liberals socialists and Communists, where if we dare call conservatives fascists all hell breaks loose? It's the typical conservative double-standard in action. And for the record, I was speaking of the Communist Party, subject of (homosexual!) J. Edgar Hoover's book Masters of Deceit."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
That took, gall, Dave...

That took gall, Dave. How many times have you mentioned Joe McCarthy in you political raving. Now you are screaming Communist about posts that bring up things that you don't want said.
Remmember the Bush DUI attack? And you say "sleaze brigade"? BTW, were are Kerry's service records?

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
icon
Laptops 19,436 discussions
icon
Security 30,426 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
icon
Windows 10 360 discussions
icon
Phones 15,802 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions

Tech explained

Do you know what an OLED TV is?

CNET explains how OLED technology differs from regular TVs, and what you need to know to make the right shopping decision.