One Dollar = One Vote
Ari Fleischer gets asked a question about Howard Dean:
Q Secondly, on fundraising. Governor Dean has said that it's a threat to democracy for any one presidential candidate to have two or three times more money to get his or her message out than any other candidate. Regardless of how much money the President plans to raise, does he see any merit whatsoever in that argument? MR. FLEISCHER: Well again, I think the amount of money that candidates raise in our democracy is a reflection of the amount of support they have around the country. So the President is proud to have the support of the American people, and the American people will ultimately be the ones who decide how much funding goes to any Democrat or any Republican. Q How can that really be reflective of his support, though, considering he's getting money from people who can afford to go to dinner for $2,000? I mean, most Americans cannot afford that. So how can that really be reflective of his support from middle America? MR. FLEISCHER: The rules are equal. The rules are the same for both parties, for the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties compete knowing that. They, of course, raise money from all groups of Americans, including many low-dollar donors. And, again, the American people decide how much support to give either candidate in either party. Q It's also known, Ari, that the labor union members overwhelmingly support Democrats, or have in previous elections. So how can that really, you know -- that doesn't really support your argument. MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure of your point, Heidi. Q I mean, Gore was endorsed by most of the labor -- you know, major labor unions. MR. FLEISCHER: Right. So the American people have spoken because one segment of our society has spoken? I stand by what I've said about the American people, broadly.
Bush makes shit loads of money from a small number of donors while Democrats get smaller overall money donations from a larger cross-section of the populous. But by Republican terms of the debate, Bush's win in the money primary means he has more support from Americans. Well, at least the American's who count. BTW, there was another question about Dean, but it sounds like a plant:
Q Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who won the Wisconsin state Democratic convention poll decisively, over Senator Kerry and the others, has said, regarding the location of Saddam's WMDs, "How much did the President know, and when did he know it?" And my question is, in view of the statements last year in which Senators Kerry, Liebermann, and Graham, as well as Congressman Gephardt, all affirmed that Saddam had WMDs, doesn't the President believe this Dean smear is more directed at Dean's rival Democrats than at the President? MR. FLEISCHER: I think -- the fact of the matter is there is a terrible split in the Democratic Party and among its presidential candidates about whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Q So he's going after the Democrats rather than the President, isn't he? MR. FLEISCHER: Many who have the most experience have said that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, indeed. Thank you.
Got that? Dean's direct criticism of Bush over the question of WMD is turned into an attack by Dean upon the rest of the Democrats who supported Bush's initiative. Are these guys sneaky or what?