Public Campaign Financing is the Only Way

[MrSoundAndVision]

Full public financing is the only way to preserve this democracy. Think about it, and you'll agree. We should do away with money politics, and with the George Bush's who inherently become elected in such a flawed system. After living through this government for three years now, we are in a unique opportunity to fix things, because the issue can be brought before the public eye through the media because of the coming election year. Accomplishing this is imperative, so it won't happen again, and once again progressive, democratic values will be what determines who wins the White House, not how much money a candidate has, nor the wealth of his or her supporting base.

On March 7, 2003 the Associated Press reported the following:
"Howard Dean committed Friday to taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign.... He promised to make it an issue in the Democratic primaries if any of his rivals decide to skip public financing, as President Bush did en route to winning the Republican nomination in 2000. 'It will be a huge issue,' Dean said. 'I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform.'"

Howard Dean is preparing to go back on his word and not accept matching funds from the government, as I expect we shall hear in the news this evening. Apparently, Dean wants Dean supporters to have more of a voice in the formation of our new government than supporters of other Democratic presidential candidates. As this is completely undemocratic, in principle and attitude, I call on Dean supporters to give Dennis Kucinich a chance to be their Democratic candidate. He represents solid progressive values and principles and is an honest man.

Many people say that they would support Dennis Kucinich and that they completely agree with his principles, but that he can't win. These people fail to see the irony in this logic: We can do this! I'll submit here and now that it is already happening, that many people have rejected this media-formed presumption and in fact will support Dennis Kucinich in the booth.

An example: go to http://www.kucinichwatch.com and read an article about how Newsday polled readers and subscribers three times on their Democratic presidential choice, and every time Kucinich won, in the third he won 86% of the votes of their readers. So Newsday pulled it, as it these polls apparently didn't agree with their choice of candidate. Dennis Kucinich's book "A Prayer for America" is on the NYTimes Best Seller's list, it was number 7 on Amazon.com as of Tuesday, and it had only been released eight days at that point.

Kucinich is catching on, and one of these days soon I think the out-of-touch media will discover this, and we'll have ourself a president. Please click on http://www.kucinich.us and join us.

[dajabr]

1. Sorry, I'm with the NYT on this one...

Shrinking From Campaign Reform

Published: November 7, 2003

It is historic, not just regrettable, that former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont thinks that he had best drop out of the publicly subsidized campaign financing system and reach for bigger money through private donations. That would be a grave blow by a Democratic front-runner to a system that has served well since the Watergate days, when political corruption by special-interest money scandalized the nation into reform.

The move, which Dr. Dean hopes will be endorsed by his Internet supporters, is sadly understandable. The Democratic primary rivals are exhausting their resources in attacking one another, under public financing rules that limit their spending in the primaries to $45 million each. President Bush, meanwhile, is amassing a war chest that could reach $200 million in private donations. He can spend that money as he chooses even though he has no challenger to his nomination for re-election.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/07FRI2.html

[Padraig18]

2. Same here! n/t

[MrSoundAndVision]

3. I am NOT with the NYTimes on this one....

and seriously suspect their logic, as I'm sure you expected. You see, America want Bush out of the White House! Do you agree Democrats, that people see this guy as evil, and the people want him out!?!? Excuse me, but an extra $150 million dollar doesn't buy trust and credibility, or make lies truth. I think that is very Republican logic, that money makes the real difference: only in a privatized government, not a public democracy! Let's put Dennis Kucinich in front of Bush for the three debates next fall, and see him shrivel up and when he's in front of some real, unscripted criticism and patriotic thought.

Don't forget, the NYTimes, along with the rest of the captive media, marched us into war. Did Thomas Friedman write that article, because if he did, I can find some fun things for you to read.

[dajabr]

6. "or make lies truth"

See, I'd love to believe that, but the splash of cold water in the face which brings me back to reality is that millions of Americans think Saddam Hussein bombed the WTC and Pentagon.

People believe what they see and hear on TV & hate radio, and those outlets don't give their time away for free.

It sucks, but that's the way it goes.

I would like to see Dean challange Bush to stay under the limits, and for Dean to pledge that he won't bust the cap in the Primary.

[MrSoundAndVision]

10. Maybe you would...

like to see Dean not bust the caps, but he won't, and you know it.

So you recognize a system which is in place that is undemocratic, because of the money involved, and that the media wants that money, yet you still support the candidate who is willing to do it the dirty way just to get elected? You hope he doesn't 'bust the cap' but you'll support him anyway if he does? Is it that his opportunist character appeals to you directly, or that you don't think we need someone with solid, unwavering Democratic principles to stand up to Bush next fall?

I'm a Democrat, not a Republican, and I think we can issue Bush out of the White House, not spend him out.

[dajabr]

27. OK...

"but he won't, and you know it." - No, I don't know it.

I can guess that he won't have to, but I'd like to hear him say something about it on Saturday before I pass judgement.

Like I said, the system sucks, but it's infantile to think that Amurka won't brainlessly buy into what Bush will be peddling relentlessly for 5 months while we have no way to respond.

"You hope he doesn't 'bust the cap' but you'll support him anyway if he does?" - Again, I don't think he will need to do this, and it would probably hurt his standing with me if he did.

"Is it that his opportunist character appeals to you directly" - Great, now let's talk about me instead of the point I was making...

Do an archive search to find out ALL the reasons why Dean appeals to me.

"or that you don't think we need someone with solid, unwavering Democratic principles to stand up to Bush next fall?" - Oh goody, me again. Argue the point, not my character... Just to answer, I do think we need someone like that.

"I'm a Democrat, not a Republican" - OK, me too. Won't matter if we're standing on the sidelines for the next four years, will it?

"I think we can issue Bush out of the White House, not spend him out" - OK, I volunteer for the leaflet commitee to fight Bush's around the clock National Media advertsing campaign! That'll work - and boy, we'll be principled non-factors together! :eyes:

[LuminousX]

4. I can't see going into a fight with one hand behind our back

On Saturday, I believe, Dean will say he will abide by campaign financing limits if Bush agrees to them. This is done as a near direct result from a convesation with one of his supporters who was really upset about him opting out.

reference link

[MrSoundAndVision]

7. Oh now it's Bush's fault

Dean is going back on his supposedly strong Democratic principles? You, and he, know damn well he won't, so that's no answer. Sorry, a $45 million dollar limit in the primaries doesn't mean he won't get the monetary support he needs next fall if he wins the nomination. He'd get mine. He just wants to make damn sure he gets the nomination, no matter who the best candidate is for the people, and no matter how many people get left out of a health care system when the rest of the industrialized world acknowledges this RIGHT. You see, Dean is willing to leave the current systems of corporate-controlled America in place so long as it gets him elected president. The man is an opportunist.

[LuminousX]

19. I didn't say it was Bush's fault

I was highlighting the fact that Dean was willing to put a challenge to Bush on the issue. Dean is still leaving the decision up to his supporters.

If Bush was constrained by law not to spend his $200 million, then it wouldn't be an issue. I for one am not willing to lose the election because our candidate couldn't run a commercial when he/she needed to.

[Egnever]

16. Sory but that doesnt work

Even if bush agreed to stay within the spending limits, because of the crowded feild and the money they are spending against eachother all of them will reach the caps before bush even starts campaignining. Even if bush agreed wich he wont, it would leave whichever candidate emerges as the nominee defensless for months while bush is just begining to spend his 45 million.

But the reality is bush would never go for it because the matching fund would negate a huge portion of his donations wich come at 2k a pop. forcing him to return a huge portion of that cash.

I guarentee you that he will not give that money back.

[redqueen]

5. I remember how the NYTimes handled...

the Monica stories, and the Gore stories...

I think they have their own agenda.

[MrSoundAndVision]

8. I still don't have a response: who authored that article.

Was it Thomas Friedman? Because, if so, I'll have to do another post about how Thomas Friedman is a mouthpiece of the Bush administration propoganda campaign.

[dajabr]

9. Paul Krugman (nt)

[MrSoundAndVision]

13. Be back in a minute.

I need to check on something.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

14. Where do you see that?

I can't find the author's name. None of their Op-Ed pieces seem to have an author, except the ones by their prominent columnists (like the other Krugman piece from today).

[redqueen]

22. Their Op-Ed pieces are done by the editors as a group.

You remember, the same editors that were spewing lies even as their OWN investigative journalists were discrediting them?

:D

[MrSoundAndVision]

18. Paul Krugman is...

a professor of economics at Princeton and a columnist for the New York times. I still disagree with him. His conclusion is based on the assumption that people aren't SICK AND TIRED of Bush. He seems to believe money equals democratic popularity. Not in the Democratic system!

And it seems someone is question whether he is in fact the author in another post.

[dajabr]

30. See post #22

Sorry for the goose chase. I thought you knew these were written by editorial boards.

I picked the Anti-Friedman as a response.

[Padraig18]

11. Why should we enter a gunfight with *...

... armed with a pocket knife? It takes fire to fight fire, in the real world.

[MrSoundAndVision]

12. You're analogies are meaningless

Don't speak in analogies, be substantive. What do you mean?

Again: I am a Democrat and not a Republican, and I believe that we can "issue" Bush out of the White House and not spend him out.

Don't be such Americans on this one guys.

[Padraig18]

15. The analogy is apt.

This is the real world, and the fact of the matter is that the only way our ideas will ever get across to the American people is if we *buy air time*, because we cannot expect the media to give our party a fair shake otherwise. That requires $$$$$, and lots of it.

I do not like it, but it's the way it is.

[MrSoundAndVision]

20. If you don't like it....

don't support a candidate who does. It's that simple. I'll venture so far as to say this: All it's going to take is an effort to get your average everyday citizen to sit down and watch one debate (as watching TV is what they do best) between Dennis Kucinich and Bush and it's all over for Bush, unless Diebold and the Supreme Court destroys our democratic system of government.

[Padraig18]

24. I'm supporting the candidate I like.

I do not propose to court an electoral disaster, simply so I can say "My candidate stayed with public financing", as they march us off to the camps.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no name no slogan]

17. Why fight under Shrub's rules in the first place?

Why bother even going to Bush's gunfight? Why not tunnel underneath him via the grassroots and take the ground right out from under his feet?

No matter how much Dean thinks he can raise, he still won't beat the BFEE at the money shakedown game. If Dean somehow believes that they'll beat the BFEE at the game they've invented and perfected for the last 30+ years, then he's either incredibly naive, incredibly deluded, or he's been running a sham campaign for the last two years.

The fact that his "grassroots" campaign has taken off as it has should be proof positive that he doesn't need the "top-down" approach employed by our past losing candidates. However, if he's really so unsure about using "people power" to spread his message and win support, he's really not that much different from the "politicians" he aims to replace.

[Padraig18]

21. An extremely narrow 'take' on the campaign

Grassroots and money are not mutually-exclusive. Dean does believe in his grassroots message, but he also realizes that it takes money to win.

[no name no slogan]

32. Wellstone beat Boschwitz with 1/10th the spending in 1990

Why the money obsession? Why the media obsession? We both know damn well that the Democrat, whomever it is, will get tarred and feathered by BOTH of these interests. Who honestly gives a flying f*ck what these people think?

It doesn't take money to inspire people. It doesn't take money to tell the truth. You'd think Dean and his folk would have figured this out.

If Dean (or whoever gets the nod) decides to go down to Bush's level, then what is the whole point of even running an opponent? We'd STILL end up with the same things we have now, NOTHING would really change, and we'd be back in the same situation four years from now wishing that we didn't nominate the knucklehead we did.

Face it: if we choose to play the media's game, the only thing that will change in the white house are the drapes.

[Padraig18]

34. Sorry.

We just have to agree to disagree on this; you won't convince me, and vice versa.

[redqueen]

23. Except he'll have a flamethrower...

and Dean will have a torch.

This race has to be run on ideals and policies, or we're toast.

[MrSoundAndVision]

25. Right on

RedQueen.

[Padraig18]

26. What good is a message...

... that's shut out by the media? :eyes:

If all it takes is a message, why is DK polling 0-2%?

[Desertrose]

28. How can we count on the media anyway?

At this point it is so bought & sold...it makes a lot more sense to create and depend on an entirely different method...people to people...grassroots...beyond...

Everyone on this board gets all bent from these polls & money raised...and while you're all focused on that stuff...the Kucinich campaign is going deeper below the surface...and just wait til we come up for air, babeee!

Peace
DR

typoedit(I've created a new word)

[Padraig18]

29. Peace.

But you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath? :)

[LuminousX]

31. My favorite formula this week

SEIU members x $50.00 = $80 million

You can't tell me that every Dean supporter can't give $5 to $100 to his campaign between now and October 2004. That is true democratization of a campaign.

[redqueen]

36. You really believe ...

that all the SEIU members will send money to Dean? Heh... I don't.

Remember, it's the party bosses that decide whom to endorse, not the workers. They'll send money to whomever they like.

on edit: I think I will suggest to the DK campaign staff that they start hammering his position on Taft Hartley during debates & interviews. It seems to have sunk in with the longshoremen and dockworkers, at least!

[Padraig18]

40. Minor correction:

It has 'sunk in' with one local of the union.

[redqueen]

46. Minor correction of your minor correction:

It has sunk in with the bosses of one local, of one union.

Remember, the bosses pick a candidate. They don't march the workers to the polls.

[LuminousX]

42. I'm willing to accept 33% of them

And 33% of AFSCME and 33% of the rest of his supporters.

33% of 1.6 million is roughly 500,000 at $50 a pop = $25 million

[redqueen]

47. Even if he did get all that cash...

He still wouldn't have half of what Bush has now.

[LuminousX]

101. Better to have as much as he can, than leave money on the table

Why turn away a potential donor because of an arbitrary limit?

[redqueen]

111. Gee, I dunno...

maybe because you claimed that the principle of making politics about something other than money was important enough to warn other candidates that you'd jump on them if they did the same thing, just months before?

[MrSoundAndVision]

No I don't see members of the service industry...

wasting a paycheck on Dean's vague relation to them. You keep saying that these union members are going to go Dean ga-ga like you and give a hundred dollars, but you don't seem to realize that their union's operating costs are require them to contribute less.

Anyway, TAKE THE MONEY OUT of politics, and restore a fair system.

[LuminousX]

81. Take the Money Out

That's great, but right now, the money is in.

[Le Taz Hot]

33. If you're going to compete

you have to do so on a level playing field. At this point, any Democratic candidate cannot do so and accept matching funds. Love it or hate it, that's the way it is.

The difference, which was so obviously left out, is that Georgie boy is getting his $$ from the big boys. Governor Dean is getting his from the grassroots. Georgie's donors are offering up $2,000 a shot. The Governor's donations average $77.00. If that's not public financing, I don't know what the hell is.

One more thing. Dean has asked his grassroots supporters for their opinion. He did not make a unilateral/insider decision, as he very well could have. He put it up for a vote and we all pretty much know what the decision is going to be.

Kucinich could do the same thing but we know he won't. Because of "principle." Great. That's his perogotive. Since Dennis is polling something like 2% nationally, his supporters might want to concentrate on Congressman Kucincich's message rather than spending all this time, effort and the little dollars he has bashing other Democratic contenders. The gentleman, and some of his supporters, seem to have forgotten who the REAL enemy is. Ring, ring, Clue phone. It's not Howard Dean.

[helleborient]

35. To finally have real reform...

We have to get someone in office who is truly committed to the reform.

Under the old system, this requires wheelbarrows full of money.

Dr. Dean has proven he has the best chance of filling those wheelbarrows...then maybe we can move toward it not being required in the future.

[redqueen]

37. Dean cannot, and will not, level the playing field.

He cannot beat * at his own game. It's a painful fact, but a fact nonetheless.

The only way he can even come close to matching * at money-grubbing, is to appeal to PACs and the like, and if he did that, he'd turn off so many voters we'd end up with another * v. Gore... too close to not steal.

[Padraig18]

38. Look at his numbers.

He *can* raise as much as * w/o accepting PAC money; look how much he has already raised ($77/avg.) already, and the election is a year away.

[redqueen]

45. LMAO!

Bush, barely getting started, has already gathered just under $85 million.

Dean, working like a demon, has gathered just over $25 million.

We'll know better how things are going for Dean after the 4th quarter fundraising reports are in. So far he's increasing donations with every quarter. If he can keep that up, he may be able to stay in the 1/2 to 1/3 range. If he can't ... :shrug:

[LuminousX]

84. By your logic, if Dean opts out he will have even less than Bush

That buys even less air time. WTF? Where's the logic in that?

I don't know anyone who will allow this issue affect their votes. We must be pragmatic and let our candidate get as much money as he/she possibly can. Why do you want the Democratic candidate handcuffed in this battle?

Opting out won't get enough votes to counter Bush money.

[redqueen]

90. *sigh*

What we keep saying is that we can't focus on money at the expense of principle.

Airtime or no airtime, him going back on his word will reflect poorly on him. There's just no way around it. You can rationalize and explain all you want, but the simple fact that he said one thing then and another thing now is going to come back to haunt him if he gets the nomination, mark my words.

People keep talking about being handcuffed and having one hand tied behind your back... all of that thinking requires that you're invested in the mindset that you have to cooperate with big media to get your message out.

The whole idea of grassroots efforts is that they're not centrally controlled or commercially marketed.

I wonder if people will stop calling him a 'grassroots' candidate, if he decides to opt out and try to fight * on *'s turf.

[LuminousX]

96. Principle doesn't pay the bills

and at the end of the day, the number of votes he gains by being principled will be less than the number of votes he loses because he will be unable to run commercials, send mailings, and challenge Bush to his fullest extent.

You do have to cooperate with big media to get your message out. Find me an example of someone who didn't while running a Presidential campaign and won, then we'll talk about that campaign and talk about if it can be a model for future campaigns. As it is, to leave money on the table... to turn my $1 away because he hit his limit due to matching funds seem anti-democratic in a fashion.

Why is one person's $1 better than another person's $1?

Until we have true public financed campaigns, something I fully agree with, we need to circumvent the advantage of the Republicans whenever and however we can. In this case, we have a candidate capable of raising money from the people en masse. That is a principled way of getting the money. I will be the first to condemn Dean if he starts taking $2000 checks from the elite. He isn't though.

[redqueen]

103. By this logic I should be out hooking.

I mean, hey, I can make more money that way, right? :eyes:

Here's the thing. LOTS of people don't vote. LOTS and LOTS.

The reason a lot of them don't, is because there's no reason. They believe politicians are sell outs and have no principles.

That's as clear as I can make it.

[LuminousX]

108. That isn't clear at all, Hooking is illegal

And you aren't in competition with someone else.

If you were trying to get a message to a lot of people and you were competing with someone else who had a contrary message... you'd need every dime you could get.

Dean is not doing anything illegal. You wouldn't either.

[redqueen]

113. Ugh

Okay, bad analogy.

Same principle. :)

If I'm in a competition, and I swear to play by the rules I believe in, then turn around and say I won't, what does that make me?

By my definition: a hypocrite.

By Dean's defenders : pragmatic.

[LuminousX]

119. I agree, Dean will be a hypocrit

He shouldn't have ever said he'd take matching funds, that is not a decision that should be made at the beginning of a campaign.

He did, he was wrong to do so, he is correcting that mistake in light of new information. Adaptation is key to survival.

[dajabr]

39. He can do it right now...

(Or more accurately, within the week)

And be beholden to PEOPLE. They will be Union members, but I can't see you having a problem with that.

3 Million members of SEIU/AFSCME give $100 each = $300,000,000

[redqueen]

49. Whoa.

You're even more optimisic than others on this same subject!

Not all members support Dean, despite the bosses' pick.

I'm also pretty sure they won't all be giving money to whomever they do support.

But I like your optimism. :)

[dajabr]

51. Thanks...

If the bosses pick the candidates, why have the straw polls at the locals?

Wouldn't the members talk to each other, compare notes, and be able to discern if the "boss" overrode their choice?

[No More Shrub]

54. Didn't we do that last election? Worked like a charm.

[dajabr]

60. You're comparing a straw poll to Selection 2000?

:silly:

[No More Shrub]

67. A bit of a stretch I know

My point was that the end result may not reflect the whishes of the majority. as we saw in 2000

[redqueen]

59. Heck yea they do.

I saw a stat on this very board, not sure of the accuracy... that 35% of union members voted for Bush.

Ouch!

[dajabr]

62. "not sure of the accuracy"

Well, until your sure, or can provide something to back up your allegation, I'll stick with my premise.

[No More Shrub]

41. Competition

In order to truly compete Dr. Dean would need to accept PAC money which would be a complete sell out rather than the partial one he proposes now. That said, I'm voting for my principles, not to beat bush. Beating bush would be a hollow victory if we do it through hypocrisy and moving our party farther to the center. I'm voting for whomever makes it that I actually agree with, be it Kucinich, Nadar, or Dean (if he convinces me he won't back out of the rest of his promises like so many beforehim).

By the way, I like the quote about the shoes.

[Padraig18]

44. It's not the only way to raise $200 million.

:wtf:

[No More Shrub]

52. That’s awfully optimistic, for a realist.

I'm and Idealist and I don't believe you can raise that much without corporations, if you could, we wouldn't need campaign finance reform now would we?

[Padraig18]

58. He's raised in excess of $25 million already...

... and the average donation has been $77. 12 more months, more media exposure, etc., I can see it happening, quite honestly.

[No More Shrub]

63. bush raised $85 million so far

That math still work for you? I cant afford to give the kind of cash it would take to beat bush financially, most of the people who can support bush anyway. Therefore, I would rather vote for someone who sticks to his or her principals.

[LuminousX]

68. Especially since step 4 on his website is the $100 push

I will tell you honestly, up until Dean, I really thought that the only people that mattered in financing a campaign were the wealthy.

Dean and Kucinich have proven that when the 'little people' like me cough up just $50, a one time $50 donation, it adds up to a lot more than the big corporations.

This is the first time the little people are really being asked to give. They are being addressed and told, "This is your country, your government, not Enron's, not Halliburton's."

Obviously when I'm talking about 1/3 of SEIU's membership, I'm really pointing out that this one organization in and of itself could turn the campaign financing on its ear. It doesn't take a multi-billion dollar company, it only takes a group of individuals willing to part with $100.

[redqueen]

71. Not sure how to feel about that, really.

I can't afford to even give $50. All my donations are in $10 - $30 range. It's the same for nearly everyone I know (except the people I work with, and they all love meester boosh).

:(

[No More Shrub]

73. The American people

I guess i just don't have the same faith in the American people as you, I do however think that you don't need all the money to win. A good grassroots campaign and good debates should work. Besides, I think enough people will vote against bush for it to work out for us this time. As long as the voting machines don't steal it this time.

[LuminousX]

86. good debates

Bush won't debate.

[No More Shrub]

88. No?

Why not? besides the obvious reason that he would look like the moron he is.

[LuminousX]

102. Exactly and since he is a President during 'war' he has his excuses

[No More Shrub]

109. My lack of faith in the general public aside

I don't believe even our apathetic populace, who get their opinions straight from the TV, would accept that as an excuse.

[redqueen]

92. Are you kidding me?

Don't worry, he's going to debate.

[LuminousX]

104. How do you guarantee it?

He didn't want to debate in 2000 but had to. This time around he really won't have to.

[redqueen]

115. What makes you think he won't have to?

I hope you have some kind of precedent for this line of reasoning.

Being an occupier of a foreign country is not an excuse for not being able to spend an hour or two discussing issues important to the nation.

The JOB LOSS president refuses to debate... yeah... that'll work for him. :)

On a side note, I'd LOVE to hear the backlash after THAT act of cowardice. :D

[ThirdWheelLegend]

77. Where is this money going to come from?

I still do not see where this money to match * is coming from. Unless he plans on taking corporate dough at which point I will vote third party if he wins the nomination.
I already am considering it now after the last couple 'lies' from Dean.


TWL

[LuminousX]

87. We don't need to reach $200 million

But we need as much as we can get, much more than what matching funds offer.

Would you want to see this election lost due to the inability to spend $1 more?

[No More Shrub]

93. If the $1 million came from selling out,

yes. As much as I hate bush, I like my ideals more. I wont vote against him this time, I'll vote for someone I agree with. Even if it means four more years at least I'll be proud of my own decision.

[LuminousX]

100. You do that, don't ask me to.

[No More Shrub]

106. I wouldn't dream of it

I wouldn't ask anyone to go against what they believe. You set your own priorities. I was just expressing my opinions. I may one day become a "realist" but I sure hope not.

[no name no slogan]

53. Dean can outfundraise Bush then?

You MUST be joking. For every $77 contrib Dean gets, Bush will get one $2000 contribution. NOBODY can be Shrub at the shakedown/extortion game, so why even bother playing it?

Grassroots campaigns DON'T NEED Bush-level money to work. All they need is the people, you and I, spreading the message. It's worked for Dean so far, apparently, so why does he want to change his strategy and capitulate to "politics as usual"? Unless, of course, that was his and Trippi's plan all along...

Since Dennis is polling something like 2% nationally...

You also seem to forget that 90% of people nationally CANNOT NAME ONE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. It's little more than a name-recognition contest at this point, regardless of which "poll" you choose to believe.

Sure, he's putting the issue out to his people, just like elections they used to have in Iraq where Saddam won 99% of the vote. Dean has made his decision already-- he's just looking to legitimize it with this whole "election" thingy so he can still claim to speak for "the people".

Dean is finally revealing his true colors as just another business-as-usual politician who's more interested in saying what will get him elected as opposed to doing what's right. At least with the other "politicians", I KNOW they're politicians. Dean pretending to be something he's not is worse than that, IMHO.

There's no way I could support him if he's the nominee-- not after this.

[bread_and_roses]

43. There are always

the arguements of expediency. There is always the arguement that the "end justifies the means." And so we go on. Nothing changes. The worst of this to me is that Dean had to have known last March (or whenever it was) that he would face overwhelming financial disparity between his and Bush's campaign. But then he took the high road, engaging people with another pricipled stand. But as with everything else I've read about him, come the crunch and his principles become pretty flexible. Or nonexistant. And lo and behold, the same supporters who were engaged by his principles are suddenly pragmatists. And people wonder why so many have deserted the Democrats, or won't come out to vote at all.

[Padraig18]

48. I didn't give a rat's arse about his stance on public financing.

Had nothing to do with why I chose to support him then, and has nothing to do with it now.

[bread_and_roses]

55. The specific issue

is not the point. The point is what he said last spring, and what he says now. The Bush war chest was the subject of discussion last year, he had to have known the situation. The only difference about this particular issue is that I don't see how he can say that the situation has changed in any way between then and now. Other, of course, than his status as a contender...as I said, the arguements of expediency.

[Padraig18]

61. His status as presumptive nominee, and...

... the fact that he has been able to raise in excess of $25 million already, with the average contribution being $77. He'd have to be blind, not to see the change in circumstances (his own).

[dajabr]

50. He knew what Bush would do in March...

But, how could he have possibly guessed that his own fundraising would be record-breaking?

Look, if he was doing this with $2000 checks, we'd all be outraged. But he's not. The average joe/jane is driving this thing...

[MrSoundAndVision]

57. Indeed...

pragma invites ignorance, and only categorical understanding. People around here call themselves pragmatists but don't even really know what that means. They think it means abiding by some very well-though out general principles. Roget's thesaurus says that synonyms for pragmatism include the following:

hard-nosed, businesslike, materialistic, untheoretical, hard-boiled

[dajabr]

64. And...

"Having or indicating an awareness of things as they really are"

http://education.yahoo.com/search/nt?lb=e&p=num%3AP1159600

[MrSoundAndVision]

70. and

unromantic, no wonder you're so hard headed.

[dajabr]

75. MSAV

Why is it always about me? Leave me out of it, just argue the issues or put me on ignore.

[LuminousX]

94. I invite you to read up on the Philosophy of Pragmatism

This is at least what I mean when I talk about it.

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/james.html

[nocreativename]

56. As I see it

Dean is using public moneys. If you look at the money is taking now it's all from regular ol' people. That seems pretty public to me, and know it's not the money given by the "public" but's our money, not halburtain, safeway...

And to jump into a gen. race hamstringed is nuts. It sucks that this is about money, but the fact is the Bush Crop. will have hundreds of millions of dollars, and to have as much money is really the only way to fight back.

[MrSoundAndVision]

65. Wrong

The American people want Bush out correct?

YES.

So money isn't the answer to this one actually. Even Kerry could beat Bush, with all of his vagueries and lack of energy and vision. Put a monkey in front of Bush and people will vote Bush out, look at the home page of the Democratic Underground, "Anyone but Bush!" So, no Dean is not trying to go back on his word and raise as much money as possible to beat Bush, he's going back on his word to have more clout than his Democratic opponents. He's compromising Democratic principles to make sure he's the Democratic nominee: see the irony?

This is about changing the country.

[dajabr]

66. The American People...

Are basically split on Bush 50/50...

And, if you're basing your argument on the DU Homepage...good luck!

[MrSoundAndVision]

69. No the people are

ready to get this fool out of here. And if you think it's fifty-fifty then you probably think Bush was elected.

[dajabr]

74. No...but you're not far off

"And if you think it's fifty-fifty then you probably think Bush was elected" - Uh, No. Good guess though, based on these numbers:

19. Some Democrats have charged that recent events such as the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the recall election in California, and the Florida recount following the 2000 presidential election are part of a Republican strategy to attempt to overturn the results of elections which don't go their way. Do you believe these charges to be true or not true?

2003 Sep 19-21

True 38
Not true 58
No opinion 4




"get this fool out of here" - OK, let's look at the numbers...

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?


2003 Sep 19-21
Approve 50
Disapprove 47
No opinion 3


USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results
More: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-09-22-bush-poll.htm

You're talking about American People right?

[MrSoundAndVision]

78. You apparently do trust the media don't you

Sorry, but I don't trust those numbers, that's the bottom line. The media marched us right into war, not mae king any real effort to stop the war, to address the consequences of our undermining the only true maker of legitimate international law, nor that our government has violated the Geneva Conventions. The media will not bring to the public that the American president has lied to the American people repeatedly, an impeachable offense, not to mention that these lies led us to violate international law. Our media refuses to discuss illegal detentions at Guantanomo Bay, it refuses to talk about the ties between the bin Laden family and the Bush family, and the media more recently fails to inform the public that the 'partial birth abortion' law just enacted includes provisions which prevent a doctor from saving a woman's life through abortion.

And you defend them? You believe what they say? I'm sorry, but you're not seeing the whole picture of what's happening in this country. Here's my poll: http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/

Why don't you take it? You don't just say who you support, they poll your beliefs on the issues, and you see your candidate. Go ahead, I'll check back later. But I don't expect an answer. I challenge you.

This poll only proves that the media is keeping attention off the issues, and that Dennis Kucinich can win this election.

[dajabr]

79. You just proved my point...

Access to The Media gives you the ability to control (or obscure/skew) the message.

What are you going to do? Send a telegram to every citizen directing them to that web-site? (yes, I took the evaluation months ago...)

What are you going to do when Murdoch buys that web-site and co-opts it?

You think the Revolution was fought over ideals, don't you?

[redqueen]

85. You're right about access to the media.

But people who vote usually watch the debates. Seeing Dean debate * will be nice, but IMO it won't have the impact of seeing Kucinich debate him.

There's a much clearer difference bewteen Kucinich and *, and the tipping point is that Kucinich will be the type of candidate to get people who haven't voted in years (or decades, even) back to the polls.

The kind of people Kucinich is reaching out to are cynical about politicians in general. Won't matter what the papers say (e.g. * v. Gore), because his ideas are so much more about fundamentally changing the direction we're going as a country. Not just a slight adjustment, but a whole new course.

Just my opinion. :)

[no name no slogan]

95. Access to the media DOES NOT MEAN control of the media

If you honestly believe that, then I have a large bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

What has media "access" done for us lately? It give the right-wing media the ability to take a beautiful 3+ hour memorial service for Paul Wellstone and turn it into a hate-mongering political lynching of Paul's "grieving republican colleagues".

It took Al Gore and made him look "unpresidential" when compared to some draft-dodging drunk-driving cokehead business wrecker from Texas.

The media took millions of thoughtful, conscientious, pro-peace people from throughout the world and made them look like a pack of Stalinists who hated freedom and supported tyrrany.

You can present any "face" to the media you choose, but it will still spin it the way that its owners (the Rupert Murdochs of the world) see fit.

And don't think for a second some piddly media "exposure" is going to change that.

[dajabr]

105. Glad you brought up Gore...

What is he buying that Liberal Network with, Monopoly money?

I'm talking about advertising, not what the pundits are talking about.

See HowardDeanTV.com or his 30 minute infomercials running in Iowa for an example of how money buys you UNFILTERED access to the people.

You think the TV stations care how he fills those 30 minutes. They just care that his checks clear...

[LuminousX]

107. Bingo!

If you aren't spending the money to talk to the people directly, you are relying upon the media to carry your message for you. If you bypass the reporters, your message is delivered as you intend it to be.

[MrSoundAndVision]

112. Yes I do think it was fought over ideals

And thank god for Thomas Jefferson and his foresight to draft an idealistic constitution.

[MrSoundAndVision]

116. And fought for greed, but at

least we had an intelligent idealist making the best of it. And I don't see how I made you're point. I mean, we could just as easily extend campaign finance reform to the media; we could have a major media outlet in the same vein as the BBC, and with the same independence as the BBC. That could help solve that problem.

The debates are an opportunity to deal with the media exposure problems. Everyone who listens to them knows Dennis Kucinich won. We can get Dennis Kucinich elected just via a grass roots campaign. For example, I've managed to convince most if not all of my extended family members and friends to join the effort. Not all of them go out and try to convince others to join, but some do. And it continues. That's how it's done. People are ready for this, it's just that the media discourages us at every step of the way: they ignore Kucinich, they insult Kucinich, and they belittle him at every step of the way (for example, NPR interviewed a 20 year old girl who dropped out of college to join the Kucinich campaign, instead of interviewing Howard Zinn. Her answer to why she supported Kucinich was: "He just like, says everything I think."). So, we recognize the media as part of the problem. Now the next step is to fight that via a grass roots campaign. The hard part is ignoring the people (like you) who just see it as a waste of time. Well I'm fighting for something I believe in, and even if I can't beat Rupert Murdoch at least I'm no coward.

[MrSoundAndVision]

118. at least I'm not afraid

to make a mistake. So what is your point? That it's all a waste of time? That I should compromise my Democratic principles so that we can decide who the media will let us elect?

No, that would be a waste of time.

[dajabr]

120. "The Perfect World" Scenario...

Goes out the window when Kucinich spends all his debate time defending himself against accusations and lies told by Bush in :30 bites for 5 months.

Agreed, DK has a powerful message, but you're going to counter months of ROS & Prime-time Bush spots with NPR segments?

People are ready for this, that's why DK & Dean are still in the race. Why not ride the wave of people - power, instead of special interest power? If Dean was taking special interest money I would not support him in opting out.

If I saw participating in a grass-roots campaign as a waste of time, I wouldn't be supporting Dean.

No one is calling you a coward...

Or (in response to your post below) that you made a mistake...

[redqueen]

72. It's only 50/50 when his opponent...

is less than inspiring. :)

Dean inspired me, Kucinich still does.

[nocreativename]

91. Dean is changing things

again his money is from just regular people. In my mind that makes it even better than offical "public" funds and spending caps.

I still think many people are still tricked into to thinking bush is doing a good job.

Here's a test for you go to a local bar pick four "average" looking people and ask them if they would vote for Bush in 2004. I do this from time to time and it scares me.

elections are won with money, media, and slick organzing. This is team Dean's move to cover all three.

Look at the head lines he's been in my local paper three days in a row now. I never seen Kerry's name in the paper here.

[no name no slogan]

99. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

I'm still not convinced. The only thing that would change with Dean in the white house is the color of the drapes.

[nocreativename]

122. wow

That's a pretty big statement.

care to list a few reasons why you think that?

[redqueen]

123. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration...

More succinctly, the basics of our corporatocracy will be in place: trade set up to benefit multinationals over people, unions still kept in check by Taft Hartley, prison- & military- industrial complex still doing fine...

[nocreativename]

125. Dean's stance on trade

I know Dean is not as far left as DK, and I like what DK is saying, and if he's the guy then you'll have all of my support.

I think Dean's stance on trade is huge step forward, adding environmental and labor laws to NAFTA et al.

And I really don't think congress will ever let DK take that much funding away from the military budget.

And, Dean is not a corp goon, remember again this is our money and our country.

[snoochie]

131. Can't change NAFTA under the terms of the WTO

These agreements are set up to benefit corporations. They are not set up in the interests of the people. Saying you'll fix them is like saying you'll fix the mafia. (?)

Clinton managed to cut the defense budget, and he was a centrist. I trust Kucinich to accomplish his goals. He'll do as he has and work with both sides toward a solution, most likely lobbying those conservatives who are still conservative about dumping money down a $1 trillion black hole.

I never said that Dean was a corporate goon, but based on what he's said he's willing to wage war just as much as Bush is (seriously... a 60 to 90 day waiting period?)

[no name no slogan]

76. IF it's all about raising money, why doesn't Dean sell crack?

You can sure raise a hell of a lot more money by selling drugs than you can by hitting up thousands of individual donors. You could also get a lot more by robbing a bank, too.

However, that still doesn't make it right.

Since Dean is caving on this very important issue even BEFORE he gets the nomination, what does that indicate he'll do as the nominee, or as the President? Will we see even more "pragmatic" trangulation as he seeks to pander to the lowest common denominator in this country?

Having ideals is fine, but standing up for them is what really matters.

[redqueen]

80. Ooooooh, I like it!

"Having ideals is fine, but standing up for them is what really matters."

Go Kooch! :)

[LuminousX]

98. Taking Money from Me is not equivalent to selling drugs

[blm]

82. Wellstone's bill:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 6, 2001


Contact: Rick Bielke 202-293-0222

Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform Enters Debate

Sen. Wellstone’s Legislation Offers Alternative to Current System Through Public Financing

Washington, DC -Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) today offered another vision of campaign finance reform by introducing “Clean Money/Clean Elections” legislation. To date, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) have co-sponsored the bill. The bill is based on a model proposal advocated by the non-partisan group, Public Campaign. Similar laws, dubbed “Clean Money” or “Clean Elections” laws, have proven successful at the state level in Arizona and Maine. Sen. Wellstone’s bill would, for the first time, provide for voluntary full public financing of Congressional races.

“Passing legislation to provide public funding for political candidates will go along way in restoring faith in our political process,” said Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign. “Arizona, Maine and Vermont have already implemented publicly financed systems and all three states saw increased competition and political participation in their last election cycle.”

“Effective reform addresses not only the unlimited, unregulated amounts of soft money but hard money contributions as well,” said Nyhart “The McCain-Feingold bill addresses part of the problem by eliminating party soft money contributions. It is now time for the Senate to shift focus and provide politicians an alternative to scrambling for hard money contributions.”

Clean Money/Clean Elections is a comprehensive system that addresses both hard and soft money contributions, by providing public funds and eliminating the need for candidates to depend on special interest contributions.

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) also plans to reintroduce his proposed Clean Elections legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. He sponsored similar legislation in the last two sessions of Congress.

[dajabr]

83. This would have saved Kerry alot of his own money in 1996...

Before he got all "principled" and all...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/16/hard_to_pull_for_kerry

time machine edit

[blm]

89. That was a Bushlover's view. Kerry advocated for public financing in 1985

And all your spins, notwithstanding, his principle stand is for it. If he's president he'll be able to force greater changes.

He won't disarm when he's in a knifefight, though.

[LuminousX]

97. Kerry won't disarm against Dean, but will against Bush? Odd

[blm]

114. Why would you suggest that?

?

[LuminousX]

117. Because Kerry only opts out if Dean opts out

and isn't saying anything about the bundle of money Bush has.

If Kerry doesn't feel he can compete with Dean with Dean's money advantage, then why does he feel he can compete with Bush with Bush's money advantage?

[blm]

124. Now, the media only focuses on Dean and Bush.

Kerry has to cut through and get past that media bias. That costs money.

When it's Kerry and Bush, Kerry has the comprehensive policy AND the resume, AND the stark contrast between a shootfromthelip, gaffe-prone speaker and an elegant, thoughtful speaker who can raise the standards of debate that Bush has so lowered.

The media can't avoid him so readily as the Dem candidate. The American people can actually have a chance to hear him and focus on WHAT his ideas for this nation can mean to their futures.

[LuminousX]

126. That logic mystifies me

[dajabr]

110. Good...

Kerry could even the field in '96

Dean could even the field in his last race for Governor

And they both can even the field against Shrub (provided they do it the "right" way)

Agreed?

[goodhue]

127. agreed

The whole "you gotta fight a nuke with a nuke" tone of many Dean apologists is truly impressive. What color of kool aid are they drinking. Must get some. Then must get arms to fight. Or dollars. Whatever the weapon of choice. Gladiators are you ready?

[w4rma]

128. Politics in a democracy is war without (as much) death and destruction.

If you refuse to use your best weapons when fighting a war, you allow your allies and innocents under your protection to be killed. Bush will kill more people if he is allowed to stay in power. He must be taken down from power and replaced with a competant ally.

[MrSoundAndVision]

129. Just go away..

just get outta here...scat! Is the rich man most competent? I thought knowledge of the issues and a fiery personality made the most competent, progressive values and a unwavering devotion to the masses of poor people in this country meant competency.

[w4rma]

130. IMHO, your perceived ideology is getting in the way of your logic (n/t)

[MrSoundAndVision]

132. Hmm that's substantive Mr. Spock

All you have is bashing and name calling just like most people on here. Be substantive not rude Democrat!

[MrSoundAndVision]

133. And what the hell is

perceived ideology? I mean is it or isn't it ideology, and what's wrong with that? Did you mean your perception of ideology or mine? And, what kind of car do you drive?