0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 07:52 pm
verrrrry interrrrristing different takes, kinda like witnesses at a car accident where everyone saw a different scene.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 08:03 pm
I agree with you on Gephardt, PDiddie, but I'm not so sure Edwards really advanced himself, and Clark left me underwhelmed. I'm pretty much with you on the rest. I do see Dean as relatively unscathed, and again his composure, though strained, served him well. The others in The Final Four appear to be encouraging him to exibit less composure.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 08:27 pm
timber wrote:
In the meanwhile, it appears Graham has officially anounced his availability for the Veep slot alongside whoever actually does emerge as frontrunner


I was wondering if maybe there might be something else to this than just VP. So sudden and all - he has been quite sick recently. But, it is a good point. He doesn't have to choose or ruffle any feathers.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:18 am
An interesting email came in from Dean this morning:

Quote:
I am writing to place the most important decision of this campaign in your hands. We need to choose whether we will decline federal matching funds or accept them.

Our political system is drowning in a flood of large corporate interest money. The pens that sign the checks of the lobbyists in Washington are the same pens that write our legislation.

Oil corporations write energy laws in the Vice-President's office. The pharmaceutical industry drafts our Medicare laws. Billions of dollars worth of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan are awarded to Bush contributors. For the Republican primary election, even though he has no opponent, George Bush is raising $200 million from large corporate interests.

The Bush campaign is selling our democracy so they can crush their Democratic opponent.

We are building the only campaign that can stop this outrage. Our campaign has not been just talk about future reform, it has been the action of real reform. Through hundreds of thousands of donations averaging $77, the impossible is happening -- ordinary Americans are poised to overpower the largest mass of special interest money our nation has ever seen.

But soon our opportunity to compete dollar-for-dollar against George Bush's army of special interests may be gone. If we accept federal matching funds, our spending will be capped at $45 million -- and the greatest grassroots movement in the history of presidential politics will be stopped from raising money almost immediately and will reach the spending limit well before the end of the primaries. We will not have any funding until the Democratic convention at the end of July.

I have always been committed to public financing. But the federal matching funds law, though it was meant to provide an incentive for ordinary Americans to participate in the funding of our elections, is doing the opposite of what it intended. It could end up punishing a movement that has raised more from ordinary Americans than any campaign in history, while rewarding the campaign that has blatantly abused both the spirit and intent of campaign finance, selling off piece after piece of our country.

This is how the Bush campaign believes they can defeat us. If we accept federal matching funds -- and the $45 million spending cap that goes with it--they will have a $155 million spending advantage against us. From March through August, they will be able to define and distort us, and we will have no way to defend ourselves.

We do have the option to go toe-to-toe with the big corporate donors of George Bush by getting 2 million Americans to give a hundred dollars each. By declining matching funds, we free ourselves to raise the money needed to defend ourselves during the crucial months from March through August against the attacks of George Bush and his special interest backers.

But let me be clear, if you decide to decline federal matching funds, it will require a significant commitment from all of us who have brought this campaign to this point. Declining matching funds means turning down almost 19 million dollars that the federal government would give to this campaign.

That means we will have to raise that money ourselves if we are to win the primary, beat George Bush, and take our country back. Declining federal money and funding a campaign with grassroots support has never been done before, and if you choose this option it will be a challenge -- but with your commitment, your dedication and your hard work, we can do it.

This decision is no longer mine to make. This is a campaign of the people, by the people and for the people. Your successful effort of raising a historic amount of money through small contributions has made this choice possible. This is why I am putting this decision in your hands.

I am asking you to vote on what kind of a campaign we will conduct from this point forward. No matter how well intentioned both our options are - the choice is difficult: do we choose option (a) to fund our campaign ourselves and decline matching funds, or do we choose option (b) and accept federal matching funds and the spending limits?

You will receive a ballot via email on Thursday and have until midnight Friday to vote. The results will be announced on Saturday.

The fate of this campaign rests in your hands, and I believe the future of our American democracy rests on your decision.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:48 am
Quote:
This is how the Bush campaign believes they can defeat us. If we accept federal matching funds -- and the $45 million spending cap that goes with it--they will have a $155 million spending advantage against us.

Dear Governor Dean,

Bush's lead in funding is a function of the popularity of his message, and as to how his campaign believes it can beat you, he will beat you on the issues.

Regards,
Reality
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 10:59 am
As mentioned weeks ago on this thread, such a move would instantly differentiate Dean from his compatriots. I figure it would leave all but Kerry in the dust.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 05:23 pm
Scrat wrote:

Dear Governor Dean,

Bush's lead in funding is a function of the popularity of his message, and as to how his campaign believes it can beat you, he will beat you on the issues.

Regards,
Reality


Right. All those corporate donors love the message--it has nothing to do, of course, with the tax breaks and other goodies the Bush Administration has been doling out.

By the way, I just discovered that Eugene Scalia is the Labor Dept's solicitor general. If that surname sounds familiar, it's because his dad serves on the Supreme Court. The same group, of course, whose decision put Bush in office in the first place...
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 05:25 pm
D'artagnan - you need a little dose of "Reality", I think Rush is pushing it at a bargain basement $15 a hit - hurry before he takes them all.......
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 05:42 pm
BillW wrote:
D'artagnan - you need a little dose of "Reality", I think Rush is pushing it at a bargain basement $15 a hit - hurry before he takes them all.......


HA! Laughing

How much is ten thousand hits--I expect a volume discount--?

I thought Dean's psuedo-apology about the flag flap today was sorta weak.

First of all, I didn't think he owed one. I completely got his point and didn't find it offensive (and I'm offended by virtually everything about the Stars-and-Bars).

Second of all, he's correct; if the Dem candidate doesn't get the votes of some of those Southern good-ol'-boys riding around with Rebel flags on their pick-up trucks, then that person is toast (which leads to my concerns about Dean's electability, but that's fodder for another thread).

But thirdly, any apology that begins with "To those whom I may have offended..." isn't really an apology.

That always sounds to me like, "You didn't understand what I was trying to say, so since you didn't, and won't, and can't get over it, I suppose I'm sorry..."
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 07:10 pm
Aren't you guys interested, though, that Dean, this centrist Dem, is polling his constituents, populist-style, on the decision whether to accept public funding or not? (Implicit is the message: Gimme $100 more, please!)

The commentators are saying that Kerry et al are working very hard (using Dean's quote about the confed flaggies) to show his constituents, presumed progressives, that their candidate is in fact a centrist/elitist. Which of course all of us have known since forever -- just look at his track record in Vermont. So why are we sticking with him? Because he listens. Because he was very clever about getting commitment. Because he deliberately and deftly connected with people. Say what you will, it has been a masterful effort.

I'm willing to bet you that what Dean supporters are AGAINST isn't just George Bush but the entire machinery and particularly the Democratic National Committee and the DLC. I think they could well be interested in Clark and one or two other, but fugeddabahtit when it comes to current senators!
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 10:31 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Aren't you guys interested, though, that Dean, this centrist Dem...

Dean... centrist??? ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:02 am
Turn off Fox, Scrat. Look at his record! Look at the hassle liberals in Vermont gave him while he was governor!
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:10 am
You should have heard him spinning the flag comment this morning--saying republicans have abandoned the south. Dean, when you're in a hole, stop digging!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:42 am
Scrat wrote:
Laughing Laughing Laughing etc.


Shhhhhhhhh ... If that's what they wanna think, that's just peachy! :wink:
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 09:11 am
Back to the issues and the candidates:

Quote:


Clark outlines strategy for winning war, exiting Iraq
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 09:37 am
PDiddie -- My reservations about Clark are diminishing thanks in part to the Eliz. Drew article in the NYRB which addressed specifically some of the points which had bothered me.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 11:46 am
PDiddie wrote:
I thought Dean's psuedo-apology about the flag flap today was sorta weak.


I think he also said something in his apology thet Sharpton is going to pick on and say something about. Rightly or wrongly Dean seems to keep stepping in poop with these series of comments.

Dean said:

Quote:
"I think I made a mistake," Dean told CNN's Bill Hemmer on "American Morning." Dean also said he is confident his remark won't sink his campaign ship.

"I apologize for it. I think it's time to move on. The people who are most concerned about this are the people who are with us. I think we'll be fine."


That second to the last line opens a whole new can of worms. "The people who are most concerned" tended to be African-Americans. Is Dean now saying that the party can take their votes for granted? That isn't likely to go over well either (even if it wasn't what he meant). We'll see how long it takes for Sharpton to challenge him on that one.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 11:51 am
I also read the Elizabeth Drew article on Clark in the NYRB and thought it was excellent--and reassuring re Clark's credentials. I recommend it to all--it may be available on-line (some of their articles are free on-line and others aren't).
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 12:39 pm
Stuff I heard this morning on talk radio, re Dean. NB: the show's host seemed to be trying to stir things up about comments and "apology" -- "I think Dean's toast!" she kept saying -- though the calls seemed to prove her wrong. I only heard two calls entirely as I drove around, doing errands (the others seemed to be "no big deal.")

The first was from a man with the manner of talking and accent of someone who almost certainly has a confederate flag bumper sticker somewhere on his pickup. He said, indignantly, "Dean didn't apologize!" (I braced myself...) "The fella said he was sorry if he'd offended anyone but he didn't apologize. I don't have a problem with that. He can say what he wants. This is a free country. He didn't offend me. The guy's being honest. So what the hey..."

The second was from someone who was hard to define. She was calling from a payphone, she said, and she sounded like a frail old lady. She described how she had met Dean when he came to San Antonio, that he'd stopped and spoken with her for much longer than she would have expected from a busy candidate, and that he was a "real person." "I think this is the first Real Person I've seen running for president in a long, long time," she said. "He pays attention to you, the way doctors do. He's kind of normal. He's reassuring."
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 01:28 pm
Scares the pants off them Repubs

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/sehrgrosse/large-smiley-030.gif
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 05:38:14