Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bleak Smeak, Let's Party

The party at Mellon Auditorium clearly demonstrates the resiliency of the Republican party. Why focus their energy on leading?
Why would they focus on the fact that they are losing credibility quicker than it took the Bush administration to lose $8 billion in Iraqi cash?
Why focus on all of the negatives surrounding their crumbling party? Instead surround yourselves with 250 folks who could afford to contribute $15,000 or more to the GOP and have a soiree to celebrate all that is great in this country thanks to the Republican leadership, most importantly, this administration.

The GOP will forever focus their attention on those who donate large sums of money and dismiss the poor and middle class. Why stop now?

Yesterday we reached one of the worst milestones in recent history. 2,000 dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq. We cannot forget the thousands of Iraqi's who have also lost their lives. A good time to reflect on our soldiers and the Iraqi peoples sacrifices and bravery?

Consumer confidence is at a two year low and the debt crisis in the U.S. is steadily growing. A good time to reevaluate the fiscal future of the United States?

According to Pew Research Poll, support for the GOP fell to it's lowest level in 13 years. A good time to shake up ones party to rid the GOP of the corrupt element that is damaging it's credibility?

White House officials are waiting for indictments to be handed down by Fitzgerald against senior officials. A good time to respond to the American people in a manner that raises their confidence in their leadership at a time when their confidence in this administration is rapidly shrinking?

Who has time to reflect, reevaluate, shake-up or step-up, when theirs a kick ass party to go to. Now that's a good time(For the wealthy anyway)

From the Washington Post:

"the Republican Party's biggest donors, men in tuxedos and women in cocktail dresses, dining on Asian spoon canapes, orange carpaccio and seared mignon of beef, and listening to the soothing tones of a jazz band and a keynote address by President Bush."

What's not to like about that line up?

"We should not be throwing parties at a time when we've got serious problems," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney."

Says who?

"RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, who, like Bush, had the political judgment not to dress in formal attire, took an innovative view of recent days. "This has been an incredible fall!"

No pun intended, I'm sure.

"Yaaaaay," a lone woman in the audience yelled."

Bush was not quite so ebullient, reminding the donors that "we face a brutal enemy." But he avoided most of the controversial issues, opting instead for timeless truths: "We stand for freedom. . . . We believe that democracy is the best form of government. . . . This is a land where you can dream the big dream."

Stirring, absolutely stirring.

"The donors greeted Bush warmly, but they struggled to rouse themselves to honor the applause lines. Bush earned only a smattering of applause for his usually reliable call to end "frivolous lawsuits." His boast that his economic plan "is working" garnered no applause. And his mention that "I've been talking about Social Security" was greeted with dead silence."

G.W. needs new material.

"When the president said he would "lay the foundations for peace for generations to come," a few donors jumped up to applaud, but most lumbered gradually to their feet and several remained in their seats."

O.K. so it wasn't a kick-ass party.

"Such a reception from Bush's friends is becoming familiar as his support slips (to 38 percent in an American Research Group poll yesterday) and Americans say the country is on the wrong track (65 percent, in yesterday's Battleground poll)."

Don't fix anything wrong with the country or your party just keep telling yourselves, I'm O.K., you're O.K.
38% of the American people still believe it.

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at October 27, 2005 7:51 AM
Comment #88276

As Bush already pulled his “wag the dog” trick in Iraq 18 months ago, it’s clearly time for another one. Reagan, after the Debacle in Lebanon, was wise enough to pick on a small, defenseless island — Grenada — to divert attention. But Bush just seems clueless about how to turn the public around. He’s out of tricks, dirty or not, as this report so clearly shows.

Posted by: Steve K at October 27, 2005 10:07 AM
Comment #88285

I believe they’re missing over 8 billion in Iraq funds.

Posted by: Patrick Howse at October 27, 2005 10:39 AM
Comment #88287

Re Rich donors

Kerry got more money in rich places, such as the fabled Beverly Hills 20190. In general Kerry got 57.8% of his cash from the rich; Bush only got 50.6%. You can make fun of the party if you want, but don’t talk to us about rich guys.

Posted by: Jack at October 27, 2005 10:45 AM
Comment #88299

I don’t think that’s the point, jack.

Posted by: brico at October 27, 2005 11:07 AM
Comment #88301

Jack, Your comment is not supported by your reference. The percentages are for zip code not individuals. Those zip codes correspond to high population areas, mostly on the two coasts.

Posted by: Jack K at October 27, 2005 11:10 AM
Comment #88309

Please take note:

Percent from wealthy zip codes (more than 24.6% of households making $100,000/year or higher, twice the national average)

This simply works out whether there are a lot of rich people around in that zipcode.

The information in the2004 Donor Demographics section at indicates something where you are wrong in making your assumptions about Kerry’s popular support.

Kerry’s campaign drew 31% of it’s funding from those contributing 200 or less. Roughly the same as the President. So, no big proletariat movement on Bush’s behalf.

The revealing numbers are begin to show up when you examine how many donors give to Kerry at 200+: 171,154 to Bush’s 160,952., a difference of a little over 6%. Not too impressive, but significant. It even gets more revealing when you gauge how many contributed to Bush as opposed to Kerry at the 2000+ level: 61,714 for Bush, as opposed to 35,891 for Kerry. Bush got seventy two percent more donors at that level than Kerry did. Additionally, 49% of Bush’s funds came from those donors, where Kerry only got 36% of his funding from that group.

If Kerry got 57% of his hard money funds from the rich zip codes, he wasn’t getting it from the richest of the rich, typically.

I think I shot down another one of these things in the red column under your Proudly Neocon entry: The Mona Charen 90% of rich people story.

Fact is, both parties get a lot of money from rich folks. But the numbers indicate a greater degree of reliance on grassroots level donations for Democrats, and greater reliance (to the tune of 49%) of Bush on the richest of donors.

It’s spin, really. And worse, it’s the kind that disorients rather than turns people’s eyes to a new perspective. Your party is trying to hide how much more it relies on the rich and the big corporation than its rivals, and the result is a mistaken perception that the right is a more populist movement, when it’s not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 27, 2005 11:41 AM
Comment #88311


Great Post! Let’s just look at it the same way a simple man like George Bush would. Who raised the most money? GW did… Who spent more money? GW did… Who raised more big business money? GW did…

Republicans have rasied more, and spent more in every election since I’ve been around. I can’t believe anyone would even try to question that.

Posted by: Rusty at October 27, 2005 11:59 AM
Comment #88316

It’s not that the GOP is “resilient.” What we are seeing is the begginnings of George Orwell’s INGSOC Doublethink. I.e. the ability to hold multiple and completely contradictory ideas at the same time without conflict. I wish the analogy collapsed quickly, but as I thought about it, it didn’t.
WAR IS PEACE => The ability to believe that by waging an interminable unilateral war overseas we are increasing the overall level of peace.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH => The belief that by believing anything Big Brother says as infallible makes one stronger by removing doubt. Losing knowledge of how the world really is in exchange for pure certainty of how you’re told it is. As examples, believing the claim that “I never made a mistake” and by arguing to give up scientific knowledge on Evolution and replace it by faith driven and factually void intelligent design.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY => By questioning through free will what is being told by authority, one becomes a slave to reality and doubt instead of having freedom from uncertainty. An example is the demonization of an independent and critical legitimate media who insisted that there were no WMD, etc… etc… etc… etc…

Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2005 12:22 PM
Comment #88318

Oh, and let’s not forget controlling the past. I.e. The war was for WMD (forget that), the war is against terrorism (forget that), the war is for democracy, blah blah blah..
We’re at war with east asia, no, eurasia, no, east asia, no, eurasia…

Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2005 12:25 PM
Comment #88342

Good article Andre,

While troops need body armour, armour for their humvees, medical attention, and relief (many are on their 3rd tour, and I think the reserves may be getting taken advantage of, because many of them are on their 2nd and 3rd tours).

Yes, this exemplifies the very tough choices that government makes. Should we buy more body armour and armour for Humvees and Bradleys, or should we throw a party? Well, you got your answer.

The level of pork-barrel, graft, and waste (not to mention other shady activity we know is going on…we just can’t get anyone to indict or convict them (they’d get a presidential pardon anyway)) is quite revealing.

What the hell is going on ?

Stephen Daugherty,
Did you know that 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most. That takes money. A lot of it. All that money makes government rotten. Government is for sale. They spend most of their time wallowing in that, rather than addressing our serious problems as they grow and grow in number and serverity.

It’s getting harder and harder to see how we’re going to be able to spend, tax, borrow, print money, or immigrate enough (all the things government is doing) to get out of this increasingly worrisome situation.

Please, someone. Tell us why it’s all OK and there’s nothing to worry about. Hell, I’d like to keep my rose colored glasses on and pretend that everything is peachy-king. But, damn, it’s hard when the federal government is so arrogant, so bloated, so wasteful, so irresponsible, and so deceiving, so unaccountable, and fiscally and morally bankrupt.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 27, 2005 2:06 PM
Comment #88356

“erry’s campaign drew 31% of it’s funding from those contributing 200 or less. Roughly the same as the President. So, no big proletariat movement on Bush”s behalf.”

Maybe so. But also no proletarian movement on Kerry’s.

But here is an actual question (not a polemic) because maybe you know and can comment.

My understanding is that the shape of the bell curve is different for Republicans and Democrats. Both have about the same number of supporter, but the Democratic curve has longer tails, with relatively more people in the richest end and the poorest end.

That is a problem for Dem fund raising, since the Republicans have more people with enough money to contribute even if the average wealth levels are similar.

Back to polemic. I don’t think it matters if Republicans get more money. The parties have different power structures. The Dems have more strength in organized labor and teachers unions, who can muster people to walk the streets because they are organized. They also have more of the poor, who have more time on their hands (I await the howls of indignation) to participate in marches. So Republicans and Democrats are similar in numbers and maybe similar in their contributions. It is just that the Dems can afford to contribute more time and the Republicans can afford to contribute more money. Everyone is contributing what they have more of. We all know that time is money.

Posted by: Jack at October 27, 2005 2:50 PM
Comment #88362

“The current Republican party is in its last throes.”

— D. Cheney

Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 27, 2005 3:13 PM
Comment #88364


Your somewhat correct. Nation wide, 41% of voters cliam to be Democrat. 37% claim to be Republican. 7% claim to be Idependant (but usually vote Dem.). The reamaining fall into the other political parties, or no party affiliation at all.

I guess that shows why Republicans need to somehow make Americans think they are middle of the road. Without 5% to 10% of Democrats voting Republican, Republicans would never be elected nation wide…
Democratic candates don’t need Republicans! We just need to somehow keep our own inside our tent.

Posted by: Rusty at October 27, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #88370


The FREC component of the GOP was overrepresented. It is not that too many Democrats voted for Bush, but that not enough Democrats got out to vote (or were inhibited from voting).
If you want a good source for statistics, Go here

Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #88428

We’re looking at different cultures among the poor and the rich, whose loyalties are much the result of cultural background, rather than strict economic condition.

Cultures can be changed, though, especially in times of great stress and upheaval. Unfortunately for your party, Bush has mishandled the legacy of the Republican party, a solid south that shifted it’s loyalties to the Republicans.

The Democrats and Republican raid amounts that were probably differen by about 10 to 15%. The difference, I think, is in the very organized corporate donation structure, and the patronage of many who know the Republican party almost exclusively caters to their interests.

But again, Bush has created problem here, problems that are bad for business.

I tell you what, it’s going to be rough decade or two to be in politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 27, 2005 10:38 PM
Post a comment