DNC coffers dry amid flood of Dem cash

Politico ^ | 5/2/2008 | DAVID PAUL KUHN

[Soliton]

According to the latest Federal Election Commission reports filed through the end of March, the RNC had $31 million in cash on hand while the DNC had only $5.3 million. The RNC has raised $36.5 million this year while the DNC has raised $17.7 million.

[Miss Didi]

Dr. Dean will be on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this weekend.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

A lot of wishful thinking going on at DNC these days...

[Fox_Mulder77]

Wasn’t Dr. Dean a fundraising wunderkind???
He’s fired!

[chrisser]

RNC’s take this year is a drop in the bucket compared to what they would receive if they stopped running RINOs.

They sure as sherlock didn’t get any money from me and haven’t since they screwed up running the Congress last time.

[Obadiah]

Ditto.

[Alter Kaker]

By contrast the Republican Congressional and Senate committees (the NRCC and NRSC) are bankrupt relative to the flush Democrat Congressional and Senate committees (the DCCC and DSCC) meaning while we might get our RINO into the White House, there’s no way in hell we’re going to pick up seats in Congress.

[tips up]

My thought too. If McCain was a real conservative, he could clean up in both contributions and votes.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

RNC’s take this year is a drop in the bucket compared to what they would receive if they stopped running RINOs.

Are you infering the RNC is recruiting RINOS for the sake of having more RINOS? I don't think so. Anyone can run. If you're unhappy with your elected representatives, either encourage more conservative to run in the primaries or run yourself. You're never going to agree with someone 100 of the time anyway. Maybe things are better than you think.

Even McCain can do some things right some of the time and I can guarantee Hitlery or Osama will never do anything right.

[Always A Marine]

It is a simple rule that you always get more of whatever you reward. NEVER give money to the RNC -- they will just give it to RINO candidates who betray your Conservative principles. ALWAYS give money directly to individual Conservative candidates who share your core values.

[cameraeye]

Amen to that brother!

[chrisser]

Are you infering the RNC is recruiting RINOS for the sake of having more RINOS?

Whenever there are two Republican candidates running for an office, the RNC backs the RINO over the conservative. They will support a incumbent RINO, no matter how lame and inept, over a challenging conservative.

Ken Blackwell is a perfect example of the former, Taft of the latter. Taft was so lame that Strickland, a Democrat, actually is more conservative on some issues and is a helluva lot better governor.

[Iowa Granny]

Whenever there are two Republican candidates running for an office, the RNC backs the RINO over the conservative. They will support a incumbent RINO, no matter how lame and inept, over a challenging conservative

Have you been in the room when these decisions on who to back are made? If so, please tell us how the process works. If not, please leave your speculation on the porch.

I've been involved in discussions regarding WHICH state candidates will receive money, and I can tell you it's a little more complicated than just giving the most conservative candidate the cash. Actually, issues polls are cross referenced with candidate popularity polls and name ID polls. Then party registration numbers are considered.

It's important to acknowledge that an Ultra Conservative cannot be elected in a district that leans Moderately Republican to Conservative D.

The candidate MUST mirror the tastes of the majority of that District's voters.

I will wait to read your post describing your experiences in making decisions like these.

[jmaroneps37]

A nice piece of good news for a change.

[chrisser]

I will wait to read your post describing your experiences in making decisions like these.

My experience? I decide when to open my checkbook, I decide how much to write and I decide to whom to send it.

What goes on behind the scenes in the party is frankly irrelevant. I am not, nor do I want to be, a party hack. The more I observe what happens in the party as you get closer to the top, the more disgusted I get. What matters to me are the results - what do we say we believe and who is going to best represent those beliefs. Electability as defined by polls should be used as a last resort to choose between two otherwise qualified candidates, not as a first resort to see who we can slip into office with an (R) behind their name, and then, if they half-heartedly believe in a couple of pieces of the party platform, well that's a bonus.
I really couldn't care less about the Republican party as an organization. I'd vote (D) in a hearbeat if they embraced conservative ideals. If they just pretended to, it would put them about even with the current Republican party, IMHO.


Opinion poles, popularity poles and name-recognition polls? The very fact that you bring these up indicates that you just don't get it, and your friends making decisions don't either. This is exactly why many like me have stopped sending our hard-earned money to the corrupted party organization.

The Republican party is a tool for advancing conservative ideals. I'm not voting because I want to see little (R)s on CSpan, I'm voting to advance an agenda - an agenda that the Republican party platform says Republicans believe in. If the candidates can't do that, then I'd much prefer they didn't run so the party and its platform don't get tarred with the failures caused by going against them.

A perfect example is the fiscal disaster when Republicans held Congress. The 2004 platform has plenty to say about lowering spending, spending responsibly, etc. So what good did it do to hold Congress for those two years? We sure as heck didn't demonstrate the superiority of Republican leadership. We didn't demonstrate our ideas were better - because we didn't even try them. Worse, we didn't demonstrate that we actually believe in what the party stands for, which throws the whole platform into suspicion and will likely cost us any hope for control of Congress for decades along with any further USSC nominations. So yeah, we grabbed control of Congress, and not only did it matter little, it made things worse for our agenda. Lets keep doing the same thing, because its working so well.

"The candidate MUST mirror the tastes of the majority of that District's voters."

Here's a crazy idea. Maybe you should sit down. If a Republican acting as a Republican doesn't mirror the tastes of a majority of that district's voters then he/she doesn't deserve to be elected and shouldn't be elected. If he has to be a RINO to get elected and the party is fine with that, then we had darned well better take a look at what our party stands for, because we obviously don't believe any of it is actually true.

One of the main reasons the party was founded was to eliminate slavery. Should we have compromised on slavery to get elected? We're supposed to be the party of limited government and fiscal restraint. What good does it do for us to run someone who doesn't believe in that - a major Republican idea? I don't expect to find someone who is 100% conservative, but we can't even get candidates that act like they agree with more than one or two major planks of the platform.

There are more than a few candidates on the other side of the aisle that we could elect that would be that conservative, so what benefit are we getting for keeping this RNC circus alive?

Better to donate to the individual over the collective, which oddly enough sounds more in alignment with conservative (and apparently formerly Republican) principles anyway.

[rob777]

“It’s a little nuts that we are spending so much money fighting each other instead of Republicans,” the official continued. “We should be doing things that start defining McCain our way instead of his way. And if we had more money we could do more.”


Sorry, but that is how it will be until an official Dem nominee is decided. The way things are looking, that will not happen until the convention in August. Enjoy the ride!

[SunkenCiv]

Clinton Can’t Win Popular Vote Race Without a Miracle
realclearpolitics.com | May 01, 2008 | Mort Kondracke
Posted on 05/01/2008 6:07:17 AM PDT by kellynla
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2009650/posts

[Iowa Granny]

Since you admit to never having been on the inside when those decisions are made, in order to protect your credibility, I would enourage you to discontinue implying that you know how decisions are being made there.

I’m glad you are still cutting checks to individual candidates.

[chrisser]

Since you admit to never having been on the inside when those decisions are made, in order to protect your credibility, I would enourage you to discontinue implying that you know how decisions are being made there

Yes we uppity party members should just let our massas make de decisions, shut up and send those checks. We're too stupid to actually look at candidates' records and statements and draw our own conclusions - we must trust the insiders in the party.

And you people wonder why those RNC mailers come back unanswered. Damn elitists. I guess we should be grateful you've come on down from the mountain to mingle with us mere voters.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

I understand the desire to have a totally conservative legislature. Wouldn't we all like that, but the reality is that we have to advance our agenda any way we can.

Liberals understand full well the necessity of advancing an agenda incrementally. Unfortunately, conservatives do not understand that.

If we wait until we have all 100% acceptable conservatives before we'll support them, we will be forever relegated to the minority and we will be drummed back into oblivion.