I realize a candidate can’t be held responsible for the comments of his fundraisers, but I don’t think this type of comment reflects well on John McCain:
A top fundraiser for the Arizonan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk for the campaign, was more blunt: “It’s hurting with the main money guys. Overall, it’s definitely a negative.”
He added that the constant barrage of criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh is making it difficult to raise money from the conservative wing of the party.
“Like it or not, our base listens to that stuff,” the fundraiser said. “Whether it’s a good bill or a bad bill or an indifferent bill doesn’t matter. The folks who are listening to that stuff, it’s hard to persuade them with facts.”
First, the “like it or not” preface suggests this fundraiser doesn’t like that the GOP base listens to Rush Limbaugh. Second, “hard to persuade them with facts”? One of the most infuriating elements of this debate has been the supporters’ insistence that the opposition just doesn’t know what it’s talking about. President Bush complains that critics haven’t read the bill, when all of us have some skepticism over whether he spent a few hours reading through a 500 page bill. DeMint & the gang had to pull a procedural motion to get enough time to read the clay pigeon amendment. Then you read reports like this:
The conservative opposition, led by Tom Coburn (Okla.), Jim DeMint (S.C.) and David Vitter (La.), argued they were not given ample time to review substantive changes to the underlying bill before they had a chance to vote.
“It’s patently unfair,” Vitter said. “We have the right to understand what is before the Senate. We have the right to read it.”
The Senate is voting on amendments without reading them, and opponents are the ones who don’t know the facts?