This turnip isn’t giving YOU any blood, anyway

I knew the Democrats were in trouble this year, but I didn’t realize how bad it was until I saw this email appeal today from Nancy Pelosi:

Dear Brad,

What’s the main difference between Republicans and us?

Them: They rely on the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, and outside interests to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy elections for them.

Us: We rely on grassroots support from Brad…

Wow, y’all really are hard-up.Turnip_2622027

I mean, first, you can’t get blood from a turnip. And second, even if this turnip had blood to give, he wouldn’t be giving any to you or any other political party.

So you might want to review your strategy. Better do what the Republicans — and you — have long done. Turn to George Soros, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and the rest of your “outside interests.” (And while you’re at it, take a good look in the mirror at the beam in your eye.)

Oh, but speaking of blood — I have an appointment this afternoon to give again at the Red Cross over on Bull Street.

This time, I’m doing something new. I was all set to do my usual double red-cell donation, but then on Friday, they called to say that right now, they need platelets even more. So I’m going to do that.

I don’t even know what that entails. I’ll tell you later…

9 thoughts on “This turnip isn’t giving YOU any blood, anyway

  1. Harry Harris

    Your argument against Ms Pelosi’s point is specious. Soros’s big donation to Democratic-leaning causes was made 10+ years ago, and wasn’t to a party. Bloomberg has dedicated a large amount to gun-control efforts, but isn’t a dramatically large donor to Democratic candidates or issue campaigns. While there are a number of rich liberal donors to Democratic and liberal campaigns and causes, the large, shadowy, and stealth funding attributable (with some digging) from the Kochs, Dick Armey’s group, the Rove groups are nowhere close to equivalent. On whole, Republicans do largely depend on contributions from wealthier constituents and have a deep-pockets network of contributors who max-out campaign dollar limits, spread them across the country, and rely heavily on outside “charitible” issue advocates to attain tax deductions for the contributors. Why did Gov Haley get 54% of her second quarter 2014 dollars from out-of state donors? Agendas and deep pockets maybe?
    Ms Pelosi’s appeal and others like it don’t get any money from me, either. It is, however, substantially correct.

      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        Doug, as I often say to you, it’s NOT all about the money.

        But generally speaking, the big fund-raisers win. I’m not saying it’s a direct, cause-and-effect relationship. Often, the reasons people win are the same as the reasons they were able to raise more money — incumbency, relative popularity, perceived inevitability — rather than the money itself guaranteeing the win.

        But being the guy with a big warchest is a far more enviable position than that of the candidate who has nothing…

        1. Bryan Caskey

          But being the guy with a big warchest is a far more enviable position than that of the candidate who has nothing…

          Well, yeah. Obviously. But getting your message out takes money. Yard signs aren’t free. Radio ads aren’t free. Television ads (ubiquitous as they are) aren’t free. These things cost money. Heck, even ads on this blog (presumably) cost money. Money is speech in this technological day and age. However, as much as people want to whine and complain about it, money does not equal votes.

          They don’t count the number of dollars spent on election day. They count the votes cast.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Harry, my point is that the Democratic narrative alluded to here — that they’re all about tiny contributions from latter-day Tom Joads, and the GOP is all about the Fat Cats — is a pretty myth.

      Both sides have their billionaires. And you might want to follow that Forbes link above, where you’ll see:

      Twenty-six of the top 100 disclosing donors in America are billionaires. Democrats have gotten more money from Steyer and Bloomberg than Republicans have gotten from all 26 billionaires combined. In total, top-donating billionaires have already given $40.5 million to Democrats and $18.2 million to Republicans….

      1. Harry Harris

        Yes, both sides have their wealthy donors, millionaires and billionaires. There is a little word in the source you cited that underlies my concern. “Disclosing” donors. Almost all of the Koch allies, one of the Rove Crossroads groups, many smaller groups, and a boatload of “thinktanks” (Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and others) masquerade as charitable educational organizations when they are advocacy groups using “dark money” from undisclosed sources. Those donors also get tax deductiblity for their contributions, so you and I end up subsidizing their political “free speech.” If you think Koch and Adelson totals are under a million each in this cycle, you just aren’t looking at the real world.

Comments are closed.