With cash pouring in, Dean backs away from spending limits pledge

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/08/15/national1440EDT0658.DTL

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean backed away from his pledge to adhere to spending limits, saying some advisers want to explore opting out of the Watergate-era public financing system because of his sudden fund-raising success.

Dean said he still intends to accept taxpayer money and spending restraints, and suggested he has discouraged his staff from considering alternatives right now. But he left open the possibility of following President Bush's lead in rejecting public financing.

"Could we change our mind? Sure," he said. One rival campaign accused Dean of hypocrisy.
.......
-------------------------
Yeah, other candidates have shown lack of conviction and firmness on issues and can be political(cough, Kerry)

but at least their campaign isn't built around the proclimation that they are the only straight-talkers in the race.

When did that happen? And how is changing his mind not straight talking. He realized he was wrong, and admitted it. Oh no! I hate when people see the error of their ways and try to correct it!

And he plans to spend it all on beating the snot out of the Democratic nominee.

For context, Bush* raised ~$100 million during his primary in 2000 and had to spend it against Sen. McCain.

The spending limits for federal maching funds for the primary are ~$45 million. Dean can *only* spend $45 million if he accepts the spending limits and the federal matching funds.

The current campaign finance laws are obviously out of whack, since it may be impossible to be competitive and accept spending limits for federal matching funds.

Note, it could be possible, once an obvious front-runner appears, for the 8 other candidates to spend their money on taking Bush down rather than taking each other down. Of course, they wouldn't be able to coordinate with the frontrunner's campaign.

by pointing out the bad behavior of others

"Dean committed to accepting taxpayer money and vowed to attack any Democrat who didn't"

and you can bet he would have attacked them too.

about raising such a ridiculous amount of money back then for the sole use of attacking the Democratic nominee.

One must remember that Bush* is about to set an all time world record in campaign fundraising and most of it will come in the form of $2,000 checks.

anyway Bush wouldn't need all that money anyway if Dean is nominated

he could beat Dean with the change under his couch cussion

but that is besides the point

Dean spins himself as the straight-shooter, more than any other candidate, and fits that label the least.

and we are still in the primary, Dean is not the nominee

I would never vote for Bush, and I vote for any dem for president in 04, if I'm home at the time(I'm registered in MA, but I go to school in FL)

but if Dean won the nom I would not be at all happy to vote for someone I know had hurt the dem party and America immensly with his campaign, and I would not put a great deal of effort into getting to the booth

he is however the only serious nominee who would make Massachusetts a swingstate

"Bush wouldn't need all that money anyway if Dean is nominated he could beat Dean with the change under his couch cussion"
You feel this way, because you would rather vote for Bush than Dean?

"Dean spins himself as the straight-shooter, more than any other candidate, and fits that label the least."
Bush, like it or not - fair or not, *is* a candidate. And he is a candidate who will spend an all time world record of $200 million to trash the Democratic nominee.

"I think public financing is a good thing. The question is what do you do with an opponent who can murder you from March to December?" Dean said.

The reason I bring up Bush is because Dean wouldn't be considering that option if not for Bush*'s obsene $2,000 check/fat cat fundraising which slightly more than quadruples the $45 million spending limit cap.

Dean said he wouldn't do this in the primary and now he is doing it

I said Bush could beat him that easily because it is the truth, Dean is by far the most ideally unelectable candidate for Bush from the 5 or 6 serious dem candidates running

and it would not at all be difficult for Bush to beat him

none of that or what I said indicated I would ever want to or decide to vote for Bush over anybody

Bush is a candidate. Repeat this until you understand that Bush will be spending his all time world record $200 million in robber baron money during his primary as if it were the general election. Bush *is* a candidate. And if it weren't for Bush and his all time world record $200 million in robber baron cash, Dean wouldn't even be considering this strategy.

As far as I know, Bush didn't start bragging about his obsene fundraising capabilities until sometime during the last few months after Dean has said that about his spending limits back in March.

why can't you get that through

If Dean knew that Bush was going to be raising this cash when he said the statement months ago

if he didn't, he's a moron, and I know he's not a moron

…
On Friday, however, Dean cited Bush's plans to raise $200 million -- five times the spending limit -- as a reason for keeping his options open.

"I think public financing is a good thing. The question is what do you do with an opponent who can murder you from March to December?" Dean said.

Democrats worry that their nominee will emerge from the primaries broke, restricted by public financing caps, while Bush holds a huge financial advantage until he accepts public financing after the GOP convention in September 2004.

Dean said it's too early to determine whether he will reject public financing in the primaries. For one thing, he said it is "a little optimistic" to assume he could raise more money than is available under the federal system.

Candidates who take the matching funds can get up to $18.7 million -- money Dean would be turning away if he rejects the system -- and are limited to about $45 million in spending through the primary season.
…

Why don't you register to vote in Florida? You're obvously going to be there the first week of November '04

Being out of state isn't a valid excuse to not vote. You have a few options. Request an absentee ballot from your MA town/city registrar of voters or register in FL (if they allow students to register there.) Don't give up your vote.

with the enemy.

"Dean spins himself as the straight-shooter, more than any other candidate, and fits that label the least."

Anything to back up these comments? Or is it just mindless babble?



Sounds like mindless babble to me. :)

first of all he litterally SAY'S that he is a straigt-talker, blunt, etc..., which if a politician has to say they're obviously not.

He uses tons of code-words, some of which even contradict each other.

the "democratic wing of the democratic party" is clearly code for liberal wing, yet he then defends himself from the charge that he is too liberal by calling himself a centrist

he likes to be in the bussiness of saying who is and who isn't a "real democrat" and if you try to follow his logic there it's clear that according to him only Dean and his followers can be real democrats and/or that people like John Kerry are right-wingers

he attacks other candidates for copying him, this from the guy who uses Paul Wellstones catchphrase as his own.

I could go on and on

unlike your guy, Sen. Edwards.

You want to play the candidate trashing game? I am positive I can dig up many imperfections on your candidate. But, I haven't done that, because unlike yourself I'm not going to trash other Democratic candidates to raise the guy, I support, up (except for that example at the top of my post).

Noone ever said that Gov. Dean was the perfect candidate. IMHO, he's the best one, though. IMHO, he's the best one in the long-term and short-term for the Democratic Party as he is reviving the Democratic Machine. IMHO, he is also the straight-talker in the race and most of his supporters know and accept that he is a moderate.

like this campaign financing thing, like him lying about when he lied about his statements on the retirement age, like when he lied about Edwards voting for tax cut bills that he never voted for

there is a difference between "imperfections" and a clear pattern of bending the truth, lying, and being a haughty arrogant egomaniac

"reviving the democratic machine"?

talk about empty rhetoric

Why do you bring up Iraq? This post has nothing to do with foriegn policy, but your dismissal/deflection tactic of bringing it up just showcases the obviousness that all of Dean's support come from knee-jerk anti-war frustration, that is driven by pure emotion and no logic

Dean is hurting the party by among other things creating this Jesse Jackson-like liberal litmus test that people like Ralph Nader love to wallow and pontificate apon.

Edwards IS a liar, he a lawyer, lawyers are paid to lie. I'll bet that if Edwards shows up in the lead, all sorts of things will come up in the press about all sorts of untruthful statements that Edwards has made about all sorts of things. And, c'mon he's a high priced sleezebag lawyer who makes zillions off of his clients.

Edwards voted for and supported the patriot act. Does he want to repeal it or keep it? Is he anti-civil liberties or anti-American?

Edwards voted for and supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He still feels it is a "just war", I believe. That strikes me as a bunch of bull right there.

And, I really don't know much of anything else about him, except that he has no momentum in the polls and he may be dropping out soon to shore up his Senate campaign.

That is what MAD looks like. Btw, alot of what I posted was exaggerated and flippant, much like alot of what you, IMHO, are posting about Gov. Dean. Also, I like Sen. Edwards alot and don't have any illusions that he is perfect, either.

If you know a lawyer who has lied I suggest you call your state or county bar. It's a violation of the Canon of Ethics.

A lawyer argues ... He doesn't testify... So your point is moot.

My mom was a victim of medical malpractice. She had her right leg a-m-p-u-t-a-t-e-d below her knee because a doctor didn't diagnose a blood clot in her leg despite several opportunties to do so.

If it wasn't for a trial lawyer like John Edwards my mother wouldn't have recovered a cent.

Build up your boy, Dr. Dean but don't slam trial lawyers.

If it wasn't for trial lawyers the little guy would get trampled into the ground*


*by the way the biggest lawyers bashers are Pukes. I'm sure you know that. Trial lawyers even the playing field .That's why Pukes hate them.

who thought he knew more than she did about her own body. It took her four months to get him to pay attention to her symptoms and run the sensible tests.
A bit late for effective treatment of her type of cancer.

I can recount many other instances of physicians harming patients because they were negligent, usually due to the arrogance that begins the day they first think of themselves as "pre-med." Some good people go into medicine but I've also known a number of people who cheated to get into med school and one who successfully threatened the med school with a lawsuit if they kicked him out when he couldn't pass a comprehensive exam required of all at the end of their fourth year. He's in practice now, isn't that great? Social promotion in med school!

A mediocre lawyer can cost you money but a mediocre physician can cost you your life.

That is what MAD looks like. Btw, alot of what I posted was exaggerated and flippant, much like alot of what you, IMHO, are posting about Gov. Dean. Also, I like Sen. Edwards alot and don't have any illusions that he is perfect, either.

On a Thursday morning in July -- before heading to meet undecided voters in Keokuk County, Oskaloosa and Ottumwa -- Howard Dean joined his volunteers filling bags of groceries at the Johnson County Food Bank.

Nothing new here, you could say: Politician proves he's caring and compassionate by spending 10 minutes helping out in front of cameras and microphones at orphanage or soup kitchen before leaving for very private, no-press-allowed fund-raiser with distinguished citizens who seek only a minor change in the tax code that would exclude "those corporations founded in Delaware before January 31, 1975," or something similar.

What potentially makes this scene quite different is that the campaign volunteers, dubbed the Dean Corps, encouraged and inspired by Ross Wilburn, have made a commitment to return each and every week to the food bank.

Dean legitimately boasted that his local volunteers had brought 320 pounds of groceries, this week alone, to the food bank. The governor gives credit for the Dean Corps idea to "the young people." He sees it as a way to show that "campaigns are not just about votes, but, more importantly, are about people."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/28/column.shields.opinion.dean/

Back in the early/mid decades of the 20th Century -- a time when the Democractic Party was all but invincible in many of America's most populous urban areas -- working families, poor families, recent immigrant families, even middle-class families (especially those familiar with hard times, as so many were then,) knew what to do when the wolf showed up at the door:

Trot down to the neighborhood Democratic Party headquarters and tell your troubles to a local ward-heeler over a cup of coffee (or maybe something stronger.)

Within days, maybe hours, someone would stop by with the warm winter coats the children desperately needed, a box of food would show up on the doorstep, and maybe someone would phone up to let you know they were hiring down at the meat packing plant, and if you mentioned Mr. So-and-so's name, they'd see you got a few days' work, at least.

This was known as "machine politics" by the Goo-Goo GOPpies, and with hard work and plenty of bribes to the right media connections, this kind of political organizing tactic became inextricably linked with genuinely corrupt practices that undeniably occurred in many Democratic Machine cities. (Although the genuinely corrupt practices such as cronyism, bribery, nepotism, etc., weren't by any means limited to Democratic politicians and their handlers.)

This kind of practical, neighborly, give-a-friend-a-hand political organizing got a bad name and fell out of favor with a Democratic leadership eager to purge itself of real corruption and advance an agenda of openness, transparency, public access, fairness, etc.

Too bad, because it was the glue that held the Democratic juggernaut together. It was the real reason why the Democratic Party was "the Party of the people." The people knew damn' well what they needed, and it wasn't policy analysts making $100,000 a year developing economic strategies for Wall Street.

I haven't made up my mind yet about which of the current candidates would make the best President in '04. But I can tell you this--- if Howard Dean succeeds in reinventing the great Democratic Machine by putting Democratic Party politics back on the streets, back in the church basements, back in the free clinics, etc., it's going to be a tidal pull of massive power.

I think it might surprise hell out of some of the establishment pundits and the policy wonks.

It'll be fascinating to see if the Dean campaign recognizes this and pursues it as a real, conscious strategy. And if they do, what results.

prognosticatorially,
Bright
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=5069&mesg_id=5069

who can make the Democratic party competitive at the presidential level in the Red States while maintaining our grip in the Blue States

I don't care if the candidate is Howard Dean, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, or whomever.

If the candidate can't accomplish that , he and his supporters are pissing in the wind.

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

so I don't know who you are referring to when you say "THE" DLC

it's chairman? it's founder Bill Clinton?

Is Kerry DLC? I don't follow him completely, so I can't answer to that.

So if Dean is a DLCer, why has the DLC spoke puclicly against Dean? What kind've bullshit is that? Here, I'll post an NYT article of the DLC bashing Dean, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FF6345B0C7A8EDDAE0894DB404482






Edited twice because I can't spell right now and its almost time for bed.

I'm here a fair amount, and all I've ever read from Bombtrack is Dean bashing. Starts quite a number of THREADS doing it, too.

I don't get it.

If Edwards is so great, then promote Edwards.

Who knew that *bush would raise 250 million. One can't compete against that with only 45 million...get real. He'd be stupid if he was able to raise more any didn't acknowledge things change....He's not commiting to give a kidney!

This is war!

Pulling out of his commitment is an understandable mistake of someone new to national level politics (although apparently Dean did something similar in Vermont, as well).

What troubles me more is that he vowed to attack anyone that did. Does he plan on attacking himself? He just might be the only candidate that he hasn't attacked yet.

There is a difference between backtracking and hypocrisy. Dean has crossed it - again.

We were misled," Mr. Dean said. "The question is, did the president do that on purpose or was he misled by his own intelligence people?"

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030623-122726-4425r.htm

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

after all Bush will have money up the ass to dominate the air waves from the spring thru the Dem convention in July. If Dean is the nominee and doesn't accept federal money he could continue to raise money and counter to a certain extent the Bush onslaught.

I remember when Kerry supporters were excited when they thought Kerry would have access to his wealthy wifes fortune to help fund his campaign--that apparently didn't pan out. Now Dean is considering not accepting public money but depend on grass roots contributions from people like me who send him $25 every month or so--and people get up in arms.

I think Dean would be dumb to accept the spending limits. However, he's the one that made the issue a moral litmus test - back when he didn't think he'd have the cash, and he thought Kerry would.

Secondly, don't think that Dean is worried about his $25 contributors. The reason he changed his mind is because now he can attract big spenders.

PS - Ms. Heinz is free to use her money on "issue" ads as much as she likes.

regardless of what he says now. Kerry leads all candidates in money raised.

``Governor Dean has said repeatedly that he supports the system, he's threatened to attack other candidates who don't participate, and he's signed a binding contract with the federal government to participate in the system,'' said Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan. ``It would be shocking if he breaks his word and breaches a binding contract for purely political reasons.''

Dean made the remarks when the party leaders considered Kerry to be the most likely candidate to bust the spending limits.

The Massachusetts senator, who is independently wealthy, has not said whether he will accept public financing. Associates say his decision might be driven by what Dean does.

The way the campaign finance laws are set up it makes no sense to handicap himself if he has the remote possibility to compete with Bush in terms of raising and spending money. I would say the same for any candidate.
That being said, I think that there should be NO private contributions to ANY poltical candidates. It should all be publicly financed. As long as we are forced to play by the rules that currently exist, however, I would support any candidate who stands a chance to raise significant amounts of money being able to do so without limitations...Bush is not going to limit himself; why should a Democrat who stands a reasonable chance of being able to raise good money?

it takes major major cash to fight the bushco money machine, and if Dean has the opportunity to raise more money to unseat Shrub by forgoing federal cash, he would be foolish to do otherwise.

This thread topic sounds like more self-destructive Democratic purist thought.

I hear this all of the time.

The bottom line in all political conflicts of interest and overall corruption seems to be the issue of campaign financing.

Right now you have a president who is amassing an election kitty that is an insult to Democracy quite frankly, and meanwhile our country is falling apart. And there is Howard Dean, who has busted tail crossing this country meeting and talking to Americans, utilizing his skills and the result has been creating a movement like no other individual before him. (I wonder how hard George W. Bush and a few others around him have worked to get where they are today.)

Along with being a pioneer for a successful grassroots movement what makes him unique and so respected, is his commitment, belief and focus to returning to a standard in America where we are proud again.

Yet when push comes to shove, candidates are faced with the issue of staying the road or having to bend their own standards in order to win.

Its a tough issue, and this seems to be 'the' American ethical problem at large:

Do I win, or do I do what is right?

And/or how can I win and do what is right?

Dean is 'right' when he said in essence how does one compete when the other team outguns us in the war chest and the media chest?

AND if they have virtually no rules or standards by which they work, how do Dems compete with that?

That is an issue (for all Democrats) Dean could take straight to Americans.

If he does, he invites people to get involved and examine an issue that confronts every good candidate and it would perhaps stir a debate that is sorely needed. It would also get Americans more involved into seeking a solution.

One of his greatest strengths is his ability to inspire and educate. Another strength is his supporters. Take the issue of fairness and democracy to the people. Thats whats been working for him since the begining.

One time I met Ann Richards and asked her that if we are the party of the people, why all the high dollar fund raisers and yet so many Dems are left out. And she basically said, 'honey, thats the way the system works now'.

I think that is true because we have gotten tired and complacent and allowed ourselves to get off track. And as a result, we get run over by individuals who monopolize on our complacency. Could be that right now we may have to settle for a balance of some sort. But we as Dems have to work harder to get to know each other, bridge the differences, learn to further appreciate and better utilize our diversity, bring groups together as often as possible, and stay involved. And above all else we need to keep our eye on the prize - taking our government back and creating a healthy government.

It doesnt have to be politics as usual unless we allow it to continue. Dean is right, we do have the power.

Seems to me it would be a great opportunity if Dean held a press conference perhaps at some county fair in Iowa or New Hampshire or wherever and brought this issue to Americans. It would be a terrific issue for him to address because it represents alot of what his campaign is about - getting special interests out of the way and bringing the political process and government back to the American people.

Now would be a good opportunity to address things about the tremendous inequity and double standard happening between Republican fundraising and Democratic fundraising. An example is the lack of scrutiny on Cheney and/or Bush for using our tax dollars to fund raise, especially while our country is falling apart. Remember the inquisition on Al Gore for what appeared to be an insignificant infraction. Cheney recently left a nice tab for the taxpayers I think in Billings Montana, after he rode into town and raised a good amount of money and rode back on out. The double standard is hypocritical and seems epidemic in the election system.

I would think if Dean directly called attention to it and showed why the system is wrong and the damage it is doing to America, not to mention taking a look specifically at California, all started by a VERY rich guy named Issa, and the issue of money confronting Deans campaign as well, lalala....he would be doing what he does so well, striking a chord with Americans and inspiring Americans to do more.

He paid a price for that, and Dean will probably pay a price for this if he does it, but I think calling either of them a hypocrite for this kind of stuff is making too much of it.