Anyone wanna bet?

The Drudge Report had this interesting tidbit up today. No article, just a teaser:

KERRY RAISES $175 MILLION, BREAKING BUSH RECORD

FLASH: Kerry campaign will announce Thursday it has raised $175 million, breaking the record that George W. Bush set in 2000 of more than $130 million…

Wow! The Kerry Money Machine!

How much do you think the press will bitch about the huge money intake of the Kerry campaign?

Since the election season got rolling, all we’ve heard about is the massive Bush Bankroll, the huge financial advantage, and the bottomless funding of rich conservatives.

How much deriding do you think the Kerry campaign will get and when do you think we’ll hear about how his money raising and enormous bankroll is a bad thing?

I’d say we never hear it, and the media will almost universally cream themselves over this extraordinarily good news.

This entry was posted in Unfiled. Bookmark the permalink.
  • james

    I have a serious question, what happens to the left over campaign cash that the presidential canidates do not spend??

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Well, just a few months ago, Al Gore donated a bunch of his campaign funds to either John Kerry or some other charity; I can’t quite recall, so I guess the answer is that they get to keep it.

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com nathalie

    you also won’t hear bitching about kerry’s billionaire-backed elitism. how many times did we hear about the “priviledge” of W in 2000? as a middle class American (the type that kerry allegedly REALLY REALLY cares about), I have NOT ONE thing in common with the elitist, gold-digging asshole.

  • http://http:/www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Tell me again why it’s newsworthy that Kerry has raised more money in 2004 than W did in 2000?

    Where’s the Drudge Report on Bush raising over $200 million (source), also breaking his own record from 2000?

  • http://http:/www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Are you kidding, Nathalie? That’s a standard talking point about Kerry. He’s CONSTANTLY getting jabbed by the right for his east-coast elitism.

    Both of this guys are children of privelege. Both guys make oodles more money than most Americans can ever imagine.

    If you want to look at an interesting graph of where the money’s coming from, click here. About half of Bush’s donations have been sums of $2,000 or more. About half of Kerry’s donations have been $200 or less. Says a little something about “billionaire backers,” doesn’t it?

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Yeah RKB. The difference is Rush LImbaugh brings up Kerry’s privileged life. Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw and the likes of them are the ones criticizing the Bush funding “juggernaut.”

    I’m sure you see the difference…

  • http://http:/www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Difference shmifference. :)

    Some might argue that Rush has a much larger audience, and is much more influential with his audience than those talking heads on TV. It’s only anecdotal evidence, but I’ve had many more conversations with people who have prefaced a statement with “well, Rush said…” then “Tom Brokaw believes…”

    Rush is as mainstream media as it gets.

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com nathalie

    nope, I wasn’t kidding. I hated bush in 2000, so I joined in on the screeching. as far as those fundraising numbers, I’d like to see the ones that include PAC contributions. I’m curious what those numbers are, not that it even matters. the $$ required to run a campaign is out of control in general.

    how influential can rush be considering he is a known rightie and speaks to an audience that already agrees with him?

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com Vinny

    how influential can rush be considering he is a known rightie and speaks to an audience that already agrees with him?

    AMEN!!!!!!!

    That’s what I’m saying.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Rush Limbaugh has 20 million listeners, on average, at most points during the afternoon give or take a few million popping in and out as the show progresses.

    As of May, 2004, the ratings for the Network News (not counting CNN and MSNBC who you could easily see don’t match Limbaugh’s views, NPR, or Public TV):

    NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw 9.16 million viewers watching a man whose biases are not espoused.

    ABC World News with Peter Jennings 8.59 million viewers watching a man whose biases are not espoused.

    CBS Evening News with Dan Rather 7.16 million viewers watching a man whose biases are not espoused.

    That’s a total of 25 million people, most of whom watch the half hour broadcast start to finish, of people who espouse on every topic under the sun under the guise of being “journalists” or “reporters” or “anchormen” as opposed to 20 million people (most of whom agree with him anyway) listening to Rush who bills himself as a conservative commentator and whose views are the centerpiece of his show.

    The idea that you could call Limbaugh mainstream (ratings don’t make you mainstream, acceptance of views does) cracks me up.

    As Nathalie said, Limbaugh preaches to the choir. Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather preach to everyone else.

  • http://http:/www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    A couple of thoughts, Vinny:

    1. The 25 million viewers of various evening shows and the 20 million listeners of Rush’s show are not mutually exclusive. Any number of people listening to Rush who ALSO happen to watch the evening news probably enter those 30 minutes well prepared to disregard much of what “the liberal media” has to report. I’d even be willing to bet that there’s a good chunk of his listeners that don’t get there news from any source other than Rush.

    2. As you said yourself, there’s 30 minutes of national news. How long is Rush’s show? Two hours? Four? Where he’s pretty much the only voice, and his opinions are the only ones that are shared, anywhere from four to eight times as long as the other guys.

    3. Tying it all together, I agree that he is preaching to the choir. But like a minister on a Sunday sermon, preaching to those who already believe, he doesn’t just reiterate old news. He’s topical. He stays current. He introduces new concepts to an audience of eager listeners, just as you might walk away from a Sunday sermon giving more thought to a topic you hadn’t paid any attention to before, or some issue you never knew about.

    This is why I think he’s very influential, ESPECIALLY because he preaches to the choir. He helps shape the opinions of well over 20 million people — many who accept everything he says as if it were the gospel truth — and you don’t think that’s mainstream?

    The first hour of his broadcast his played every day on the Pentagon’s American Forces Radio, and he’s not mainstream?

    What is he, then? I can’t imagine he’d be called a “fringe” voice from the right, especially when he’s had the sitting VP of the United States as a guest on his show.

  • http://http:/www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    More on the original topic I also think that the headline and content of this AP story is pretty amusing:

    Kerry War Chest Hits Record $180 Million

    Ten paragraphs on Kerry campaigning, finances, etc, then this paragraph near the end of the article:

    Bush is setting an overall record for presidential money raised and spent. He has collected more than $220 million and is on track to surpass $250 million by the time of the GOP convention in late August.

    Oh. Umm. Okay. So it’s a record war chest for Kerry even though it’s $40 million less than what Bush has raised. Wouldn’t a biased liberal media replace the word “Kerry” with “Bush” in their headline, so they’d at least be more accurate?

    Also note that this headine was on the front page of Yahoo! News, with the sub-heading of “Coast-to-coast stops on the presidential fund-raising trail paid off for Democrat John Kerry in June as he collected $34 million and boosted his record total to more than $180 million.”

    Further proof that John Kerry is nothing more than an snobby, elite, wealthy, money-grubbing cork-nut.

  • james

    I have a serious question, what happens to the left over campaign cash that the presidential canidates do not spend??

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Well, just a few months ago, Al Gore donated a bunch of his campaign funds to either John Kerry or some other charity; I can’t quite recall, so I guess the answer is that they get to keep it.

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com/ nathalie

    you also won’t hear bitching about kerry’s billionaire-backed elitism. how many times did we hear about the “priviledge” of W in 2000? as a middle class American (the type that kerry allegedly REALLY REALLY cares about), I have NOT ONE thing in common with the elitist, gold-digging asshole.

  • RKB

    Tell me again why it’s newsworthy that Kerry has raised more money in 2004 than W did in 2000?

    Where’s the Drudge Report on Bush raising over $200 million (source), also breaking his own record from 2000?

  • RKB

    Are you kidding, Nathalie? That’s a standard talking point about Kerry. He’s CONSTANTLY getting jabbed by the right for his east-coast elitism.

    Both of this guys are children of privelege. Both guys make oodles more money than most Americans can ever imagine.

    If you want to look at an interesting graph of where the money’s coming from, click here. About half of Bush’s donations have been sums of $2,000 or more. About half of Kerry’s donations have been $200 or less. Says a little something about “billionaire backers,” doesn’t it?

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Yeah RKB. The difference is Rush LImbaugh brings up Kerry’s privileged life. Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw and the likes of them are the ones criticizing the Bush funding “juggernaut.”

    I’m sure you see the difference…

  • RKB

    Difference shmifference. :)

    Some might argue that Rush has a much larger audience, and is much more influential with his audience than those talking heads on TV. It’s only anecdotal evidence, but I’ve had many more conversations with people who have prefaced a statement with “well, Rush said…” then “Tom Brokaw believes…”

    Rush is as mainstream media as it gets.

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com/ nathalie

    nope, I wasn’t kidding. I hated bush in 2000, so I joined in on the screeching. as far as those fundraising numbers, I’d like to see the ones that include PAC contributions. I’m curious what those numbers are, not that it even matters. the $$ required to run a campaign is out of control in general.

    how influential can rush be considering he is a known rightie and speaks to an audience that already agrees with him?

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    how influential can rush be considering he is a known rightie and speaks to an audience that already agrees with him?

    AMEN!!!!!!!

    That’s what I’m saying.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Rush Limbaugh has 20 million listeners, on average, at most points during the afternoon give or take a few million popping in and out as the show progresses.

    As of May, 2004, the ratings for the Network News (not counting CNN and MSNBC who you could easily see don’t match Limbaugh’s views, NPR, or Public TV):

    NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw 9.16 million viewers watching a man whose biases are not espoused.

    ABC World News with Peter Jennings 8.59 million viewers watching a man whose biases are not espoused.

    CBS Evening News with Dan Rather 7.16 million viewers watching a man whose biases are not espoused.

    That’s a total of 25 million people, most of whom watch the half hour broadcast start to finish, of people who espouse on every topic under the sun under the guise of being “journalists” or “reporters” or “anchormen” as opposed to 20 million people (most of whom agree with him anyway) listening to Rush who bills himself as a conservative commentator and whose views are the centerpiece of his show.

    The idea that you could call Limbaugh mainstream (ratings don’t make you mainstream, acceptance of views does) cracks me up.

    As Nathalie said, Limbaugh preaches to the choir. Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather preach to everyone else.

  • RKB

    A couple of thoughts, Vinny:

    1. The 25 million viewers of various evening shows and the 20 million listeners of Rush’s show are not mutually exclusive. Any number of people listening to Rush who ALSO happen to watch the evening news probably enter those 30 minutes well prepared to disregard much of what “the liberal media” has to report. I’d even be willing to bet that there’s a good chunk of his listeners that don’t get there news from any source other than Rush.

    2. As you said yourself, there’s 30 minutes of national news. How long is Rush’s show? Two hours? Four? Where he’s pretty much the only voice, and his opinions are the only ones that are shared, anywhere from four to eight times as long as the other guys.

    3. Tying it all together, I agree that he is preaching to the choir. But like a minister on a Sunday sermon, preaching to those who already believe, he doesn’t just reiterate old news. He’s topical. He stays current. He introduces new concepts to an audience of eager listeners, just as you might walk away from a Sunday sermon giving more thought to a topic you hadn’t paid any attention to before, or some issue you never knew about.

    This is why I think he’s very influential, ESPECIALLY because he preaches to the choir. He helps shape the opinions of well over 20 million people — many who accept everything he says as if it were the gospel truth — and you don’t think that’s mainstream?

    The first hour of his broadcast his played every day on the Pentagon’s American Forces Radio, and he’s not mainstream?

    What is he, then? I can’t imagine he’d be called a “fringe” voice from the right, especially when he’s had the sitting VP of the United States as a guest on his show.

  • RKB

    More on the original topic I also think that the headline and content of this AP story is pretty amusing:

    Kerry War Chest Hits Record $180 Million

    Ten paragraphs on Kerry campaigning, finances, etc, then this paragraph near the end of the article:

    Bush is setting an overall record for presidential money raised and spent. He has collected more than $220 million and is on track to surpass $250 million by the time of the GOP convention in late August.

    Oh. Umm. Okay. So it’s a record war chest for Kerry even though it’s $40 million less than what Bush has raised. Wouldn’t a biased liberal media replace the word “Kerry” with “Bush” in their headline, so they’d at least be more accurate?

    Also note that this headine was on the front page of Yahoo! News, with the sub-heading of “Coast-to-coast stops on the presidential fund-raising trail paid off for Democrat John Kerry in June as he collected $34 million and boosted his record total to more than $180 million.”

    Further proof that John Kerry is nothing more than an snobby, elite, wealthy, money-grubbing cork-nut.