Jackson Jambalaya

Guess I'll have to sit this one out...

Guess I'll have to sit this one out...

that's discouraging. what about us working stiffs living paycheck to paycheck that can't stomach the politics of the left? we have no meaningful alternative. none of those sponsors are living paycheck to paycheck and sure as hell don't represent me

The Barbours, Austin, Henry & the BIG ONE just get a little richer!!

2:24 - Take a hint

if you were to pony up $50K or more, what would you expect in return for being an Obama supporter. I understand this is for Romney, the same question will apply if/when he is elected.

Like it or not, there are some people that can afford $2,500 to the max of $50k. And to those that can, and where it doesn't hurt, why not? Wish I could, but I don't have that kind of cash, but I don't begrudge those that do.

Last time I checked, its Obama that is dissing those that are successful. Wish I was - hope I am one day. But in the meantime, I am glad that those that have the ability are willing to spend it to help elect good candidates, rather than just to enjoy the luxuries of life (which I am sure they still are doing.)

Also - in reading the invite - you don't have to pony it all up; you can raise it and still make the cut.

So to those that are bitching - would you rather have this group of folks, or the crowd that does it for the Dems?

Note to handlers:

Don't let him say , " I ate some more cheesy grits " .

And please, avoid the Jim-Buck Ross Museum as a stage for the international press conference when he departs.

He's what we have at this point. Would you moaners rather we host John McCain and have him grin and raise his arms?

4:28 is right. There has never been a President who wasn't rich, including the current one, at least in the last hundred years or so. I've worked hard all my life and have earned every penny I have. I've contributed a good amount of money to different political candidates, and there are a lot of people out there just like me. We're trying to help the candidates who we think will do the best job, and very few of us ask for anything in return. 2:24, you're going to miss a lot of Presidential elections if you feel like you can't vote for anyone who's ever been rich or had rich people contribute to his campaign.

Bill, quite a few of our Presidents in the last hundred years didn't begin politics as wealthy individuals...Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan,Clinton and Obama weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths and hadn't accumulated great wealth at the time of their election. Nixon and Reagan were more financially comfortable that the others but were, at best, lower upper class .

While I agree that wealth or the lack thereof shouldn't be a factor, the selling of the Presidency ( and every other political office) and the ability to accumulate great wealth by virture of holding office should worry all of us.

And, in my lifetime and yours, Presidential candidates still thought it more important to talk to the largest crowds on a campaign stop rather than to raise the most money. They wanted to spread their message to get votes.

Romney is simply " preaching to the choir" to raise money.

Mississippi isn't in doubt...and that's another problem these days. We won't be high on the list when it comes to political gratitude.

Maybe your analysis is accurate when you only consider when they entered politics, but Truman was a US Senator when he was selected as VP for Roosevelt; Ike was a four star general when he ran; Nixon was also a former Senator and VP, along with a stint in the House of Representatives; Reagan was a semi-successful movie actor and Governor of California; Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a successful attorney; Obama was a US Senator. Granted, none of these men were in Romney's territory, but my statement wasn't that the Presidents were born with the silver spoon in their mouths. Rather, I said that they have all been wealthy. Some more wealthy than others, but we haven't elected a middle class guy to the Presidency in our history and never will.

The game has changed, and for the worse in my opinion. Whistle stop train trips are a thing of the past, although I think a candidate could get a 30-second sound bite out of one because of the quaintness factor. Cable TV and the internet make it possible for candidates to reach millions of people instead of hundreds or thousands, and that's the way to win elections in a nation full of voters who wait to make their decision until they see who has the most signs at the polling place. My point is still that it's illogical for someone to decide not to vote for a candidate because of how much it costs to attend his fundraising event. BB

I wouldn't be surprised if neither candidate spent a dime on TV or radio ads in about 35 states, since the allocation of their Electoral College votes is pretty well set. They will spend an incomprehensible amount in the remaining states, and that takes massive funds.

I remember in 2008 talking to friends in other states who were burned out on the deluge of advertising. They couldn't understand that we in Mississippi had not seen any of these ads, unless they were purchased on national broadcasts.

Yup. Media buyers in Ohio and Florida are all going to be at the Miami boat show next year.