Pity the poor Democrats

That’s an appropriate alternate title for this editorial in today’s New York Times: “The Scramble for Hard Money.” There’s so much in this piece to loathe, but the subtext that drives me mad is the suggestion that the Republicans are better able to raise hard money simply because they’re better at direct mail solicitations:

As President Bush's drive for re-election cash jangles across the land like a platinum-plated juggernaut, the Democrats can only envy the Republicans' longstanding edge in organizing donors. For years, the G.O.P. invested more heavily than the Democrats in the direct-mail, small-donor techniques of raising cash.

It’s a fanciful notion on 43rd Street that the Republicans are actually a more popular party than the Democrats – it’s just that they have better computers. The New York Times all but acknowledges their bias in a following section:

With its superior donor base, the G.O.P. attracted almost 50 percent more contributors than the Democrats and showed a commanding edge among lower-budget donors who gave less than $200 apiece. Sixty-four percent of them gave to the Republicans, versus 35 percent for the supposed party of the people, according to a detailed study by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group. [Emphasis added]

Is this a tongue-in-cheek jab at the alleged populism of the Democratic party, or a backdoor swipe at the Republicans? Remember: this is the New York Times. Bizarro World follow-up: Would the NYT write the same editorial if the Republicans were losing ground because of McCain-Feingold? Would they give the GOP a similar pass, stating “virtue is rarely its own reward”, and evoke sympathy over the financial state of the Republican Party? I think not.