Vanity: An Open Message to the Republican Party Cheerleaders on this Forum...

12-10-03 | Vanity

[ambrose]

Vanity:

An Open Message to the Republican Party Cheerleaders on this Forum...

[PhiKapMom]

What is with these people that want to teach us a lesson -- I certainly don't need a Dean or Hillary lesson -- we had 8 years of Clinton -- what more do they want?

Four years of Hillary and we might not have an election in 2008!

[Rebelbase]

" and affirmed by a Republican-controlled Supreme Court."

And just how do you justify that?

[NormsRevenge]

you wouldn't happen to know who's adding keywords, by chance? ;-) LOL

[Orangedog]

People constantly violate previous campaign laws, and the most that happens is a fine, and even that is rare.

There won't be any violations of the restriction on political ads before an election. The TV and cable networks will not chance having their broadcast lisences pulled for breaking that part of this law. The real issue isn't the campaign contributions, it's the hit that the 1st amendment took because of this law.

[PhiKapMom]

Stow it! Did I say that Bush was the greatest conservative since Barry Goldwater? No I didn't! Did he say he was -- no he didn't!

Quit putting words in my mouth! You already stated you will vote for Dean so that makes you a DemocRAT so please do not post to me in the future as I don't carry on conversations with RATS!

[TheAngryClam]

Newsflash yourself: I prefer truth in advertising. I know that Dean will screw me, ruin my country, and generally advance liberalism.

That's exactly the same thing Bush is doing, but no one will stand up to him, becuase, well hot damn, he's got an R after his name!

Like I said, I prefer the knife in the chest, where I know what's about to happen to me, to the one in the back.

[PhiKapMom]

ROFLOL!!!!!!!!! Until your post I hadn't read the add-ons but they are sure funny! I am sitting here laughing!

[TheAngryClam]

Do you even comprehend the difference between the statements "At this point, I'd almost like to see Dean win" and "In November, I will punch the hole next to Dean" or have you been too busy worshipping at the altar of W?

[Howlin]

I knew that was a lie when he said it because I heard Chris Wallace ask him about it.

Liar!

[Stew Padasso]

Remember this photo? Too bad this kind of passion was lost on conservatism.

[rock58seg]

I wholeheartedly support your position. While I am not truly happy with some of the things our elected Republicans have done, voting for the opposition is like the alternative to growing older.

The place to have these fights and make changes is in the primaries, Not the general election.

[sandlady]

:^)

[ambrose]

7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents.

[NormsRevenge]

I know, for a change, I finally have a few tears from laughing instead of crying today.

We must pray for our country and all those who seek to end our form of government as it was originally intended to be implemented.

[Mo1]

No they didn't .. and I'm thinking it about time some on the USSC think about retiring soon

[gatorbait]

What is with these people that want to teach us a lesson -- I certainly don't need a Dean or Hillary lesson -- we had 8 years of Clinton -- what more do they want?

Four years of Hillary and we might not have an election in 2008

Precisely my point. As for your question? I really don't know, their own brand of utopia, I suppose.

[PhiKapMom]

This just came across the AP wire:

Campaign Finance Ruling Gives GOP Edge

By SHARON THEIMER
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling gives the Republicans, who raise far more in small donations, a big advantage in next year's elections for the White House and Congress.

Democrats will have to try to make up the difference through outside groups exempt from most of the new restrictions.

Several Democratic-leaning groups are already in action, raising millions in corporate, union and unlimited ``soft money'' donations that the national parties can no longer accept under the new law.

With an eye toward unseating President Bush and taking control of Congress, they plan to finance the get-out-the-vote drives and political issue ads that their party has underwritten in the past with large soft money checks.

Republican activists had largely held off on forming new outside groups, waiting to learn the law's fate while the GOP and Bush built a commanding advantage in raising the limited donations permitted under the law. With the justices' ruling, Republicans are now aiming to match the Democratic soft-money groups dollar-for-dollar.

``If the other side is going to raise tens of millions of dollars in soft money and if the Supreme Court says it's OK to spend that on political activity, then we would be foolish not to play by the same rules,'' said Frank Donatelli, a GOP consultant and co-founder of Americans for a Better Country, a pro-Bush group. The group is vetting its plans with the Federal Election Commission before going ahead.

Meanwhile, congressional and presidential candidates and the national political parties must abide by the new restrictions that took effect after the 2002 elections and have now been upheld by the high court after months of legal uncertainty. The law lets candidates collect twice as much from each individual donor - $2,000 - as they could in the last election.

``It has forced elected officials to reach out to more people for smaller contributions,'' said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., a sponsor of the campaign finance law who along with his colleagues must run for re-election next year.

Republicans have long raised more than Democrats in so-called hard money donations, which come from individuals and political action committees and are limited in size. But Democrats made a push in the 1990s to narrow the gap by raising corporate and union donations aggressively. The GOP also raised lots of soft money.

With that gone, Republicans enjoy an instant advantage.

The Republican National Committee and its Senate and House counterparts together raised $173 million in hard money through the first 10 months of the year, compared to just $75 million for the three national Democratic committees.

Bush has already raised more than $100 million for his re-election, compared with the top Democratic presidential fund-raiser, Howard Dean, who had about $25 million at the end of September.

``Today's ruling breaks the Democrats' back,'' National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds boasted.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe disagreed, saying his push to enlist more small donors is paying off. The DNC has gone from 400,000 direct-mail donors to more than 1 million over the past several months, and has eliminated its debt.

``I'm sitting here with $10 million in the bank,'' McAuliffe said. ``We have transformed the DNC from a soft money committee to a hard money committee.''

McAuliffe said he intends to raise $185 million for get-out-the-vote drives and other activities in presidential swing states. That's the same amount the DNC had to back 2000 nominee Al Gore, but now it must do without the $105 million in soft money it had then

Special-interest groups also must operate under new rules. In the month before a primary and the two months before an election, they cannot use corporate or union money for ads targeting candidates.

Groups whose finances include corporate and union money say they'll still find ways to play a part in next year's elections.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it will spend on phone banks and direct mail, among other activities. The AFL-CIO has said the law won't prevent it from spending millions trying to get its members to the polls.

The National Rifle Association plans to ask each of its 4 million members to give at least $20 to its political action committee, money it could use for direct candidate support, including ads calling for candidates' election or defeat.

``It's not going to shut us up,'' NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre said of Wednesday's ruling. ``And we're up to the task, so stay tuned.''

But with the legal issues now settled by the Supreme Court, the big test of the new system will occur with the new outside soft money groups that are cropping up.

``I think it clearly underscores the need to do what we're doing,'' said Harold Ickes, a former Clinton White House official who has formed one such group called the Media Fund which intends to raise $10 million to help elect Democrats next year.

EDITOR'S NOTE - Sharon Theimer covers political fund raising and special-interest lobbying in Washington.



12/10/03 17:36 EST

[.cnI redruM]

I hadn't thought of subtly adding new keywords...

[FatherFig1o155]

Who really knows, though, what strategy Bush/Rove/Cheney/Frist/Hastert are really working under?

It could be that they ARE just trying to get along. It could also be they're giving Democrat and Independent voters enough reasons to re-elect the President, and give us at least a 60% majority of the Senate next year.

If that were the case, and we get 4 years of veto-proof control, it will be very interesting to see where they take us. A conservative Supreme Court for the next 10-20 years? A hugh roll-back of programs that should never have been managed by the federal government in the first place? Even bigger and better tax cuts?

Fact is, we and the other side and the media can only speculate.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[NormsRevenge]

When Justices who swear an oath to honor and interpret our constitution ( I think that's what they swear, not sure) look to other foreign courts for insight, then I agree, it is time for them to just MoveOn.now