Skip to comments.
Early 08 fund raising has clear blue tint (NYT Suddenly Money in Politics is Glorious)
The New York times ^
| April 5, 2007
| Adam Nagourney
Posted on 04/04/2007 7:24:21 PM PDT by lonestar67
DES MOINES, April 4 For anyone looking for a sign of the health of the Democratic Party going into the 2008 presidential campaign, it came Wednesday with the last of the fund-raising figures reported by the major presidential candidates.
With the $25 million reported by Senator Barack Obamas campaign, closing in on Senator Hillary Rodham Clintons $26 million, the Democratic presidential candidates collectively outperformed the Republicans, and by a substantial amount: Democrats raised a total of about $78 million, compared with just over $51 million by their rivals,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: buyingthewhitehouse; clinton; fundraising; obama
Dems raising $78M versus $51M by Republicans draws elated cheers from the NYT which in any other year would have dourly called for more campaign finance laws. Suddenly, money is speech and the clear expression of Truth. Now we know that America really loves our Looney Leftist Views.
To: lonestar67
Well at least Hillary will beat Rudy. That should make some on FR thrilled.
2
posted on
04/04/2007 7:29:42 PM PDT
by
zarf
(Her hair was of a dank yellow, and fell over her temples like sauerkraut......)
To: lonestar67
To: lonestar67
Adam Nagourney is a real pimple. Out of curiosity, I just googled him and find that he is co-author of a book called "Out for Good," a history of the Gay Rights Movement.
Apparently he is incapable even of pleasing his own clientele, because here is the top reader review of the book from Amazon (LOL):
 |
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful: Inaccurate, mean-spirited and boring., October 26, 2000 Reviewer: A reader This is an unsatisfactory book, mean-spirited and inaccurate. The authors reduce the homophile (pre-Stonewall) movement, the Gay Liberation Front, and the Gay Activists Alliance to a series of petty squabbles. They utterly fail to appreciate the courage and magnanimity of the pioneers in the struggle for gay rights. They fail to convey the radical vision of GLF or the political savvy of GAA. The most important publications, activities and demonstrations are not even mentioned. People who willingly sacrificed their careers for the movement are denigrated in crass physical terms -- as "roly poly" or looking like a "string bean" or a "turtle", or having a "nasal" voice, or sounding like a "foghorn", or being "tight little-old-mannish". There are dozens and dozens of mistakes. The authors seem unaware that Morty Manford was a President of GAA. They don't know the year of the GAA fire (1974), or that GAA continued on a smaller scale for a number of years after that. Above all, the book is BORING. And whatever else you can say about the gay liberation movement of the '70s, it was not boring. |
4
posted on
04/04/2007 7:37:09 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: lonestar67
Aw, come on - EVERYONE knows that campaign cash for Repuglicans comes from satan, Halliburton and Big Oil, while Democrat funds come from school kids, working moms and granny’s last jingle in her change purse.
/s
5
posted on
04/04/2007 7:43:15 PM PDT
by
SquirrelKing
("When a coin in the carbon pot rings, out of global warming hell a soul does spring." - Timothy Ball)
To: lonestar67
Where is the NY Times BARF ALERT?
6
posted on
04/04/2007 7:59:31 PM PDT
by
Agent Smith
(Fallujah delenda est. (I wish))
To: Cicero
Apparently he is incapable even of pleasing his own clientele, because here is the top reader review of the book from Amazon: Ouch. Pretty bitchy.
That put me in the mood for a quick "you go girl" before I head out for an iced cappuccino.
7
posted on
04/04/2007 8:05:17 PM PDT
by
Condor 63
To: Condor 63
Yes, actually, “Inaccurate, mean-spirited and boring” pretty well sums up all of Nagourney’s work that I’ve read.
8
posted on
04/04/2007 8:23:16 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: lonestar67
And yet, according to Chris Matthews, Mitt Romney’s donors are all “rich, fat cats.” Go figure.
To: lonestar67
It’s only glorious if it goes the DemOLSHIVIKS and Commissar Comrade Clinton. < / vile repulsion < clean keyboard and screen of vomit from even mentioning that name
10
posted on
04/04/2007 8:48:40 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: lonestar67
Yet as the numbers were tallied and Republicans found themselves staring at a $27 million gap, it was clear that the disparity between the two parties this spring was about more than money. Written by a registered democrat.
11
posted on
04/04/2007 8:49:40 PM PDT
by
Phlap
(REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
To: lonestar67
Can someone breakdown where and from whom the funds came from for both parties?
12
posted on
04/04/2007 8:54:56 PM PDT
by
bubman
To: zarf; All
But did she really raise more than Rudy?
And, therefore, did the Ds raise more than the Rs? Consider the following:
1- missus clinton's been out on the hustings forever. Rudy has only just begun. On a dollars-per-day basis, Rudy hammers hillary.
2- And then there is the clinton-machine fuzzy math:
- Funny Money
[more clinton-machine fuzzy math]
13
posted on
04/04/2007 9:10:17 PM PDT
by
Mia T
(Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson