Posted on 07/25/2007 5:44:45 AM PDT by Valin
Politico's Jeanne Cummings has a story on the dollar gap that is opening between the Dems and Republicans. It is large and growing, and a complete turnaround from the ordinary situation. So, what is going on?
There are three answers.
First, the top tier GOP presidential candidates are equally matched and there's a lot of money on the sidelines waiting for the main event to begin. When a strong frontrunner emerges who begins to take the campaign to the Dems, especially on the war, the contributions will flow. If Romney is that nominee, expect some serious 527 efforts as well funded by his extraordinarily successful colleagues in the world of investment banking. Rudy Giuliani, too, will not lack for cash if he is the nominee.
The disparity in cash on hand between the campaign committees of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate are much more significant, and harder for the GOP to fix. The Dems are enthusiastic about adding to their majority, and recognize that if they can keep if through this cycle it will be theirs for some time. Though pressed by the anti-war fringe into absurd ploys and defeatist rhetoric, the Dems can count on their foot soldiers in the unions and the groups to keep sending in the small contributions, whether by payroll deduction or on a voluntary basis.
The Republicans have a double disadvantage.
Quick, name one GOP House candidate challenging a Democratic freshman. That's the first problem. The House GOP has done almost nothing to present the face of the comeback, and until it does, don't expect a lot of enthusiasm or contributions from the base. Show me 20 Republican challengers, including a bunch of vets with service in Iraq and Afghanistan who are running on a platform of victory, and the House coffers will start to fill.
The problem in the Senate isn't a lack of candidates, it is that some of the candidates are not merely old and uninpsiring, some, like Orgeon's Gordon Smith, have gone over to the defeatist ranks. Others like Domenici of New Mexico and Warner of Virginia sit on the fence. There is simply no way that even the most committed Republican activists are going to give money to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and see it work for Smith's re-election, or the re-election of other Republicans not committed to victory in Iraq.
When the GOP's senate challengers to defeatist incumbent Democrats emerge in Montana, Louisiana, Iowa, and Arkansas to join Bob Schaeffer in Colorado, there will be some rallying to them if they run on a victory platform, but not until then, and then only into the campaigns of the individuals. I got another e-mail from Senator John Ensign today, a good conservative who chairs the NRSC, asking me to contribute to the Committee to help turn back Hillary Clinton's assault on talk radio. Now, you'd think I would respond to that, right? Not a chance, because I know that my contribution would end up helping Gordon Smith. Keeping the Fairness Doctrine at bay means almost nothing compared to a loss in Iraq that allows al Qaeda to establish a new home base, and trying to appeal to donors in any way that ignores the debate over the war will fail. When the GOP caucus in the Senate serves notice that it won't be sending money to the defeatist rump in its midst, then donations will pick up. Until then, save the stamp, or the e-mail.
Yep - that’s one. Looks as if Thompson may be another. As for the rest...
Yes - that graphic has been my standard response to RNC beg letters.
We’re going nowhere until we get rid of Bush. I just hope the Republicans in the Senate hold enough seats for fillibuster.
I agree. No money for a party that supports RINOs. I give to individuals and it is too early for that.
One MUST "play by the rules". The 'RATS set "street-fighter" rules as the ones they choose to play by. A ruthless enemy always sets the rules giving their opponents no choice but to do the same if he hopes to "stay alive".
Here's what we're _really_ up against:
"..Envy is such an important but generally ignored concept, probably because people don't want to consider the sinister ways it operates in their own lives. But it is a key that unlocks many mysteries, particularly in politics. So strong and pervasive is envy, that you cannot have a political system that doesn't accommodate or find some way to manage envy. You might say that one party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones.
More generally, the international left does not attack the United States because they hate us. Rather, they hate the United States because they envy us. Precisely because they cannot tolerate our unparalleled goodness and success, they attack it and turn America into a uniquely bad, greedy and envious object. It is pure projection. In engaging in this projection of their own greed and envy, they damage what is good and conflate good and evil, but at least it helps to temporarily diminish the pain of their own envy. They do the same thing with Israel. ..."
"...to use one of Freud's most famous phrases, when it comes to the projection of envy and greed, "the one who smelt it, dealt it."
NO, we cannot survive Hillary or any other liberal. The GOP is the only thing standing between us and total surrender.
Waiting to domnate to Fred. The party gets nothing.
or Lincoln Chafee’ who singehandedly costs us the US Senate last time..
Naw. It probably has more to do with what she has on his _father_.
That's why I won't give to the GOP anymore - they're not really concerned about principles, only about what they think might win them a couple more votes.
I'll donate to an individual candidate, but not the Party.
I heard Chafee interviewed on “Fresh Air” after the election. He said he felt bad that his people rejected him but was somewhat comforted by the knowledge that the Republicans lost control of Congress.
Based upon what you posted, I would not contribute to Coburn.
I don’t support RINOs like JulieAnnie and McCainez. They are just as bad as Democrats - worse.
Better an infidel than a heretic.
How about posting examples of which comments you consider as low caliber and/or ignorant.
You sound a bit hysterical. If the country survived Carter it will certainly survive the Hildebeast. But we wouldn’t have to put it to the test if the GOP ran a principled conservative against her. This person must also be willing to take on her—or any socialist DIMWIT—in his or her own swamp. Bottom line: The GOP has the potential to beat her if it gets behind a principled conservative. I have almost concluded that the current GOP has been sufficiently infiltrated by the socialist DIMWITs that the it will never again be a viable conservation bastion. So, 1035rep, what have I said that isn’t correct or logical? Specifics please.
I’m not hysterical at all. I look at the BIG picture. We have at least 2 more SCOTUS judges to appoint in the next few years. I’m not willing to set this court back decades because the GOP is not conservative enough for me. GET IT?
Exactly. Fred will bring out the donors.
BTW, Thanks for signing up today just to tell us that we can survive Hillary. Not buying any of it, but nice try.
That sounds like a first-class plan: Let’s read people out of the party because you don’t like their style.
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.