The Party & Money

6:11 pm EST November 14th, 2005 | Politics | 5 Comments

Much hay is being made over where the DNC is in the money race for 2006. I don’t have much of an opinion on the current pace, though it seems we’re doing okay without multibillion dollar business interests that can just pour money into the party at will like the GOP has. But quite frankly, Terry McAuliffe raised a lot of money in 2002, 2004… and we got our asses kicked. Money is important, but not the magic key. I’d much rather have a cohesive movement that stands for something than a well-monied beast that falls apart at the first sign of resistance [insert bit here about Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt].

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

5 Responses to “The Party & Money”

  1. SaveFarris says:
    November 15, 2005 at 8:11 am

    without multibillion dollar business interests that can just pour money into the party at will

    How quickly we forget Hollywood, Lawyers, Labor Unions ….

  2. nawoods says:
    November 15, 2005 at 8:11 am

    Yeah, that line made me laugh.

  3. Damek says:
    November 15, 2005 at 12:11 pm

    Aaaaahhhahahahahahaha! Hilarious to see Republicans pretending they’re not the party of deep pocketed donors who are as far from regular people as anyone can get. Maybe you can easily forget your elites base, but I’m pretty sure your RNC leaders are quite aware of who is most important to them.

  4. nawoods says:
    November 15, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    I can’t speak for SaveFerris, but I am not a republican, Damek. It made me laugh because OW, and apperantly you, are rather naive. Both parties are beholden to big money groups, be they businesses, unions, or even wealthy individuals (celebrities, George Soros, ect…). You folks who cheer for the democrats can claim no moral superiority in that regard. Just take a look at the personal finances of elected members of both parties. For the most part they come from the same well-connected, wealthy class of society.

  5. Damek says:
    November 15, 2005 at 8:11 pm

    I think it’s naive to suggest they’re just the same people contributing to both parties. Of course both parties have wealthy donors, but to suggest that the fact of a similarity means you can’t make any distinctions is beyond misleading.

    And if you look at what Dean is doing, going after smaller donors, I think you’ll find it’s a healthy change from the recent past.