Looks like someone stole David Frum’s calculator
Someone is following in the footsteps of Captain The Lion’s Share. The Rant’s JB Williams writes:
Fact is the Bush re-election campaign is funded almost entirely by individual voter contributions, mostly under $200. per, and within the $2000. maximum allowed by campaign laws, as it should be.
Mostly? If by mostly you mean 28% of the US$228 million Bush had raised as of August 2, then you do have a point.
We think we’re going to be seeing a lot of JB Williams here at Sadly, No!:
He has a pragmatic “common Joe” approach to even the toughest issues facing our nation. He has a degree in BS from the school of hard knocks, and a uniquely entertaining way of helping even the most liberal among us, to discover the obvious.
Added: Oh my, how did we manage to miss this one?
while Bush’s [special interest] funding amounts to a poultry 8.4%, a mere $17.5 million
“He is published nationwide and in many countries around the globe,” Hey, now I am, too! Thanks, Sadly, No!
His ?tongue in cheek? method of making sense will keep you entertained
I really can’t argue with that statement. I’m definitely entertained.
You guys can really find ’em can’t you?
A hard hitting columnist, attacking the socialist cancer plaguing America today.
He is also apparently attacking the rules of english grammar. (Successfully, I would add!)
I am always skeptical of claims to the effect that a given percentage have contributed less than n number of dollarts. For example, does an individual who gives $199 per month for ten months count as ten contributions of under $200?
Ah seb, you can’t handle the truth. Individual contributions “mostly” under 200 does not mean what you think it means.
If there are 2000 donations of $10 and 1999 donations of $2000, then the contributions are mostly under $200. It’s a meaningless statistic.
What is most likely, is that the median contribution is right at $200. In fact, that’s a very high number indeed.
If there are 2000 donations of $10 and 1999 donations of $2000, then the contributions are mostly under $200. It’s a meaningless statistic.
Yet the best (?) part is that even if we use this meaningless statistic and tortured definition Kerry has done “better” than Bush (35% v. 28% in dollars raised, and 82% v. 70% in # of donations.)
A poultry 8.4%?! Is he saying that Bush is too chicken to accept large amounts of special interest funding? And does this “poultry” thing have anything to do with Kerry “Chicken” Marsala?
a poultry 8.4%, a mere $17.5 million
I think he is saying that $17.5 million in is just chicken feed to a guy like Bush, who awards more than that to Halliburton in just one day. And that Cheney is socking away a nice little nest egg through his stock dividends. Or something.
“a poultry 8.4%, a mere $17.5 million”
I cry fowl.
He has a degree in BS…a degree in bullshit? At least he admits it.
Why does he enclose the main topic of his column in parentheses like this : [special interest soft money]? He does this ten times and only once omits them! It makes the column read as if he had merely been filling in a form letter or template. Hmmm…
Poultry? Cue chickenhawk joke here.
Damn! The repubs have the crucial Chicken vote! This election might as well be over!
Maybe it was “poultry” special interests pronounced with Bush’s fake Texan accent.