Matt Fong quote to the contrary notwithsanding, there's another way to interpret this Washington Post report on the many big-dollar GOP voters who haven't yet opened their wallets for a particular candidate:
More than a third of the top fundraisers who helped elect George W. Bush president remain on the sidelines in 2008, contributing to a gaping financial disparity between the GOP candidates and their Democratic counterparts. Scores of Bush Pioneers and Rangers are not working for any Republican candidate, citing discontent with the war in Iraq, anger at the performance of Republicans in Congress and a general lack of enthusiasm. More than two dozen have actually made contributions to Democrats. Matt Fong, a former California state treasurer, 1998 U.S. Senate candidate and two-time Bush Pioneer, said that after months of disappointment in the Republican Party, he had hoped to be recharged by the new crop of presidential candidates. 'I have yet to get interested in any of them,' he said. 'I'm just not happy with the direction of our party. I think we have a huge credibility problem, which I have not seen any of the candidates show the ability to rise above.'
Now it's true that probably there are some long-time Republicans who are fed up with the war in Iraq and believe a Democratic president actually would do anything differently there. But isn't it equally possible that a lot of big-money donors aren't writing checks because they have no idea of who will be the GOP nominee? Because a donor figures that since this is a wide-open, multicandidate race, if they back one guy and another guy turns out to be president, then that donor's chances of fulfilling a long-held dream of becoming ambassador to Djibouti will go unfulfilled? I suspect that once the Republican party chooses a nominee, a lot of money will start flowing his way. Whether it will be enough to close the gap between him and the Democratic nominee is another question.