“Oh jeez….. another post about Democrats. C’mon. When are you guys going to talk about the Republican candidates….?”
Yeah, we’ll get around to those guys here soon. Its just that they’re so… so boring. So boring and so… white. B-Daddy had his assessment here, but its so much more fun writing about the minority rock stars on the Democrat side, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hey, don’t look at us that way, Elizabeth Edwards agrees with us.
Besides, outside of Mike Huckabee perhaps (Mike who…?), none of those turkeys on the Republican side have really distinguished themselves from the others.
But hey… for another post.
Wouldya just look at all the money H-Rod and O-Back are rolling in right now? But rather than sounding the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform alarms of “money corrupting the political process” or “money unduly influencing the process…”, the press appears downright giddy in reporting out the millions that are now in the coffers of the two leading Democrats.
According to the article here, Clinton raised $22 million in the 3rd quarter for the primaries vs. $20 mil for Obama, although Obama still holds the overall edge in primary fundraising $74.9 mil to $72.6. The article doesn’t say whether Clinton’s totals include the millions raised by “disgraced Democratic fundraiser”, Norman Hsu, which she promised to give back or anyone else in Clinton Inc.’s “Asian Connection”.
We’re going to keep banging the drum on this but you will never remove money from politics by any degree until you remove power from politics by that same degree. Campaign donations are simply an effort to purchase influence or power in a certain candidate should that person win that election.
And to be honest, don’t know if we have a real problem with all that money Clinton and Obama are collecting. George Soros and Norman Hsu aside, isn’t that money a barometer of sorts for how much they and their ideas appeal to members of their Party? And conversely, doesn’t the relatively paltry amount of money raised thus far by the Republican candidates reflect how little the Party faithful are excited by their guys?
Certainly seems that way to us. We welcome opinions to the contrary.
Yeah, we’ll get around to those guys here soon. Its just that they’re so… so boring. So boring and so… white. B-Daddy had his assessment here, but its so much more fun writing about the minority rock stars on the Democrat side, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hey, don’t look at us that way, Elizabeth Edwards agrees with us.
Besides, outside of Mike Huckabee perhaps (Mike who…?), none of those turkeys on the Republican side have really distinguished themselves from the others.
But hey… for another post.
Wouldya just look at all the money H-Rod and O-Back are rolling in right now? But rather than sounding the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform alarms of “money corrupting the political process” or “money unduly influencing the process…”, the press appears downright giddy in reporting out the millions that are now in the coffers of the two leading Democrats.
According to the article here, Clinton raised $22 million in the 3rd quarter for the primaries vs. $20 mil for Obama, although Obama still holds the overall edge in primary fundraising $74.9 mil to $72.6. The article doesn’t say whether Clinton’s totals include the millions raised by “disgraced Democratic fundraiser”, Norman Hsu, which she promised to give back or anyone else in Clinton Inc.’s “Asian Connection”.
We’re going to keep banging the drum on this but you will never remove money from politics by any degree until you remove power from politics by that same degree. Campaign donations are simply an effort to purchase influence or power in a certain candidate should that person win that election.
And to be honest, don’t know if we have a real problem with all that money Clinton and Obama are collecting. George Soros and Norman Hsu aside, isn’t that money a barometer of sorts for how much they and their ideas appeal to members of their Party? And conversely, doesn’t the relatively paltry amount of money raised thus far by the Republican candidates reflect how little the Party faithful are excited by their guys?
Certainly seems that way to us. We welcome opinions to the contrary.
Posts
3 comments:
Demo,
Trying to reply post to these various topics, but have lost my password. Will try another route.
The Substitute
The RNC regularly calls and/or mails me solicitations for donations to "show my support".
As much as it offends some to see the Barbara Streisands and George Soros' of the world dumping golden wheelbarows into the war chests of their favorite Democratic Candidate... can you blame them? They want a different kind of change, but after watching the debacle of this administration, can you really chant "Four More Years" (of this course). Or even envision somebody with a 3rd grade education or better rubber stamping the next Elepahntine candidate to continue the good fight, as they arguably did with GHW Bush? On a Sidenote, that was also the last administration where SNL was watchable.
I am conflicted however. Certainly they oft represent the lesser of two evils, but not being a big fan of either evil, or Big Government in Conservative's clothing (The better to TAX you with my dear!)I have decided to send in a contribution commensurate with the level of satisfaction I have with "My Party" and their leadership over the past 6 or 7 years.
Anyone know how to enclose a Popcorn Fart in an envelope in such a way that it won't escape during transit?
Sincerely,
Orvil Redenbacher
Orville, As I stated in this post, I got no problem with all the jack that the two subject candidates are gleefully rolling around naked in - it is merely indicative of how much they are appealing to their Party's base.
And I don't think anyone around here has been or will be chanting "4 more years". In a sense we (conservatives) feel betrayed... as hard as it may be for some people to believe, Bush is NOT a conservative. Oh, that War in Iraq...? not conservative.
This blog has been consistent in its criticisms of both Bush and the Republicans of abandoning the core conservative principles that put them in office in the first place.
There is a sentiment among pundits and some conservatives that Bush "blew it" with regards to advancing a conservative agenda. We are dubious of this claim, because if he was never really a conservative ("say 'Compassionate Conservative' one more time and I'm going to slug you") in the first place, there was nothing to blow.
No advice on the envelope. We prefer the flaming bag of dog poop on the neighbor's front porch for expressing our displeasure. Thanks for reading and thanks for supporting the site.
Post a Comment