On Bush's millions, or how can the barrage of deception be countered?

[Stargleamer]

It seems that Democrats are usually outspent in campaigns at least 2 to one by Republicans, and it looks that Bush can raise more money on his own than from receiving federal funds. It therefore seems that he'll have millions and millions of dollars more than the Democratic candidate. Starting perhaps as early as next month, there will be a relentless barrage of negative ads directed to the Democratic candidate.

How much of an impact do you think Bush's millions will have on the election? I personally have found in the past to my huge disappointment that voters are influenced by TV ads, and that deceptive ads can reverse positive poll showings. So Bush's millions seem very ominous to me.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

1. He had more last time too

And Gore still won the popular vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Here is one solution

We all must pledge to give at least 20 bucks to the final nominee.

If we do that, and ten million Americans do give that, this is 200 million dollars.

We can raise as much money, even more

And yes I know that 20 bucks may be a lot of money for many of us... but the choice is simple, spend the money now, or watch them steam roll us again

Oh and with the anger in the nation, I still expect the connies to loose, but I am not sitting pretty, I am doing all I can to make a difference

[juajen]

3. Sometimes all that over-the-top spending gets candidates in

trouble. For instance, since I started out my political life as a republican (1970) and have lived in states that do not require you to change, I get all republican literature and phone calls. Believe me, Bush helped Mary Landrieu by overspending in Louisiana. Gets to be really maddening. I got one very expensive flyer mailed to my home for at least ten days supporting the pugs, and lots and lots of phone calls (recorded, of course) from George Bush, asking me to support Suzanne Heik Terrell. This is strictly overkill. They have so much money, they don't know where to put it. Yes, they will be up to the same ole dirty tricks, but I don't think having a ton of money gives them undue influence.

Remember, a lot of people are hurting, so a display of extravagant spending will be in rather poor taste in a lot of places. I'm depending on overspending disgusting a lot of people.

[CWebster]

5. Good point

"They have so much money, they don't know where to put it."


Some of this may have contributed to the demise of Dean---obnoxious and intrusive overkill.

[CWebster]

4. And here is the tragedy

Dean had a grassroots funded machine of enthusiatic supporters willing to participate and contribute. That all sort of got squelched with the onset of Kerry's insider operation and the media assassination of Dean. The reinvigoration through the Dean movement was a gathering storm threatening the status quo, so they put a damper on it right quick and promoted a corpse as the safe alternative for the herd that votes when they are told to do so, but little more. Those willing to go the extra mile based on their greater political consciousness, are increasingly resigned to politics as usual and begrudging will cast a vote, but little more. After the dirty tricks Kerry pulled with media compliance, should the media turn on Kerry induced by Smirk's millions, it would be difficult to rally in Kerry's defense. Guess he will have to count on his special interests and loans from his wife.