Bush isn't on the ballot, but his influence is White House steers GOP in 2002 races

USA Today ^ | 4/29/2002 | Judy Keen

[gear]

WASHINGTON -- The White House is running the earliest, most elaborate political operation in 20 years, reaching deep into key campaigns across the country.

The effort was launched at an organizational meeting before President Bush's inauguration platform had been torn down. It is designed to elect Republicans this fall and lay the foundation for Bush's re-election in 2004. The operation is patterned after the political work of previous administrations, but the preoccupation with politics and Bush's re-election permeates the White House to an extent unrivaled by recent presidents.

[gear]

Bush has headlined 23 fundraisers since taking office and collected $66.8 million for the GOP. At the same point in his presidency, Clinton had appeared at half as many.

How does one refute this?

[eureka!]

Don't need to. Clinton raised $$ at the White House. Those aren't counted here....

[esarlls3]

Sounds like he's doing a great job on this front :).

[mombonn]

Clinton's aides sometimes had to fight to get him to fundraisers.

And, I'm the Tooth Fairy.

[Sonny M]

It might be true, that had to probably fight to get him off the interns and into doing some work.

[gear]

Don't need to. Clinton raised $$ at the White House. Those aren't counted here....

True. But how do you argue against the access that donors have received in developing public policy (i.e. oil companies and energy policy)? Or special perks like controlling Navy submarines? What about the sheer amount of money being raised? I don't think even Clinton was this successful.

[Wphile]

Don't you think oil companies should be consulted when devising an energy policy?

If you don't, then I guess educators shouldn't be involved in education policy, health care providers shouldn't be provided in health care policy, environmentalists shouldn't have a say in environmental policy, etc.

As for the sheer amount of money...hey, campaigns cost money. Would you rather the taxpayer pay for campaigns?

[eureka!]

"True. But how do you argue against the access that donors have received in developing public policy (i.e. oil companies and energy policy)? Or special perks like controlling Navy submarines? What about the sheer amount of money being raised? I don't think even Clinton was this successful."

You sure make some assumptions there. There is no showing of oil companies setting energy policy--the 'Rats and Clymers tried and it led to the fact of Demron buying Clinton off. As to the submarines, I hadn't heard. You have facts on donations = "controlling Navy submarines? I'll bet you don't. Finally, I think the "sheer amount of money being raised" is effin' fantastic. When compared to the leftist media, this is nothing. Also, lots of it are just for candidates, not W. I hope he raises oodles and oodles more....

[dead]

How does one refute this?

The article explains it quite nicely.

But his aides and Democratic Party officials didn't join forces in the same focused way for midterm congressional elections.

Notice how the author carefully speaks only to the money Bill Clinton raised for his party, not for himself.

Clinton was in the money-raising business for Bill Clinton. The little peons in his party were nice to have around, but only as they helped the furthering of the political scheming of Bill Clinton.

[gear]

Donations and subamarine control:
Salon Article

Energy policy: Judicial Watch/NRDC complaint
See also:Press Release

No assumptions here

[gear]

Some things are integrated

Energy Policy - Environmental policy
Health Insurance - Pharmaceutical industry
Taxes - Defense and services to promote the general welfare

As for tax money for campaigns, I would rather a person get elected based on their ideas than how much money they can get from corporations. Leveling the monetary playing field would do just that. I don't see any reason to be against it (unless one is afraid they would lose on their ideas alone).

[diotima]

Ping, here is some food for thought.

[eureka!]

Salon and JW? Okay. Whatever. If I can find it, I'll look for a piece on the dollar value of the Clymers, pressholes and presstitutes and their coverage which serve as mouthpieces for the DNC and 'Rats. Then, we'll be talking money...

[Wphile]

Nobody gets elected based on how much money is raised from corporations. In fact, corporations themselves are barred from contributing. It's individuals that make the contributions, the press just loves to say that since so and so works for X corporation, then the corporation is giving the money. Corporations are not some evil thing out there. They represent people and employees.

Leveling the monetary playing field? How does one do that? By limiting the amount one can contribute? That's being done already - currently at only $2,000 per person per election cycle.

I guess I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be here.