Posted on 07/12/2005 10:33:32 PM PDT by RWR8189
"Six months into the 2006 election cycle, Senate Democrats have set a torrid fundraising pace and have roughly twice the available campaign cash their GOP counterparts do, soon-to-be filed fundraising reports will show," Roll Call reports.
"Senate Democrats’ fundraising has been buoyed by a variety of factors, including the high-profile battle over judicial nominations and the tenacity and New York fundraising base of DSCC Chairman Charles Schumer."
I stopped my donations to the NRSC after the "deal"
And the RNC has about five times the money of the DNC.
So when we go nuclear this fall on SCOTUS noms, you'll contribute again?
Gee, could the filibuster deal have anything to do with the funding raising problems? Imagine the problems the GOP as whole will have in raising money if originalists in the Scalia-mold aren't appointed to the Supreme Court.
I'd definitely consider it.
I agree completely. The GOP house has did most of the work. Only a few GOP senators are fighting for anything.
Why else do you think McCain made the comment earlier.
I have a feeling that until the GOP members of the senate decide to grow a spine, their fundraising will be weak.
Why else do you think the dems senat fundraising is so strong? Its because they are doing what their base wants to them to do - render America a socialist state and usurp power from the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I had a desperate phonebank person nearly in tears a week after "the deal" as they were getting the cold shoulder from a lot of contributors and the script did not prepare them for the counter arguments.
Holding back the contributions is a great way to get the attention of the Senate Republican "leadership". If they pay attention, there's still plenty of time to Nov'06 to catch up on the money.
What harm was done by the deal? W's picks got appointed. The dims can't filibuster w/o looking worse than they would have before the deal. Bolton? Not worth going nuclear. Looks all win to me. Unless stomping the dems into humiliation is the only way to "win".
Hard as it would be, we'll just have to carry on without you.
And when they DO filibuster, it's gonna royally hack off the seven GOPers who agreed with the original deal, making the nuclear option their only choice. MOO.
So when we go nuclear this fall on SCOTUS nomsThere are no indications of reviving that fantasy from the past...You're in for a HUGE disappointment.
It's not just the courts. Remember the BORDER, anyone? That's when I'll start donating again - as soon as some REAL FIX passes the Senate. Not amnesty.
The Republican party will be carrying on as a minority party if Bush breaks this promise. Any conservative with brain would a fool to support such party after it had failed to fix the judiciary, dramatically increased government spending and failed to secure the borders.
What a shock! Let's see, they get the unions, the porno industry, the Red Chinese, the sheik of Iran or whatever.....!
In your dreams.
What harm was done by the deal?The fact there had to be one is the harm.
W's picks will get on the Supreme Court. The Senate Republican's will go nuclear if the Dem's try to filibuster. Care to wager?
If winning is defined only by stomping your opponent into a humiliated heap, then the deal wasn't a winner. W got what he wanted without giving up anything. What exactly did the Dem's come out with? Face?
W's picks will get on the Supreme Court. The Senate Republican's will go nuclear if the Dem's try to filibuster. Care to wager?Not untill you tell me what W's picks are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.