Dean Backs Away from Spending Limits

[flpoljunkie]

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

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 some 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. ``But I really don't want to do that.''

Just five months ago, Dean committed to accepting taxpayer money and vowed to attack any Democrat who didn't.

more

[Cha]

1. Whatever , Dean basher.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. whatever? Is that really the best you can do?

[flpoljunkie]

3. Why is it that Dean supporters are apparently unable or unwilling to speak

to the merits of issues posted--rather they tend to attack those who raise any issue regarding Dean's positions.

Attacking the messenger may feel good, but it does not illuminate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. It is more and more disturbing to me - Dean has been my #2 choice but

It is more and more disturbing to me - Dean has been my #2 choice but this is getting old.

edit: I'm not comfortable with zealotry or 'True Believers'.

[Egnever]

11. hahahha dean is your number two choice!

That explains you being on every bash thread there has been trying to put him down.

[molly]

15. We are not OFFENSIVE - we don't start stupid threads about

non issues - we are DEFENSIVE when it comes to definding POSITIONS - not sandwhiches or stupid staged press conferences. Study your candidate.

[Egnever]

17. LOL yeaaaaaaa right!

Nothing like starting threads based on out of context quotes or freeper articles to further your argument of not starting threads on non issues!

your laughable!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Your 'with us or against us mentality' is counterproductive.

Your 'with us or against us mentality' is counterproductive. It is not bashing to inquire about a candidate's positions.

[Egnever]

31. Ohh please!

You know this candidate inside and out! You have been all over dean threads for weeks now so much has been posted in response to you by me and others that if you havent figured Dean out by now you never will.

Back kerry jump into the threads bashing him with vigor!

But lay off the twist on Dean not only is it devisive but for the most part its completely dishonest.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. I've asked some questions, some of which haven't yet received answers

I've asked some questions, some of which haven't yet received answers that reassured me.

You can insult me all you want, characterize me however you want, it won't stop me from asking questions, and it won't get me to stoop to your level.

[Egnever]

34. Well then why dont we get those adressed ?

Why dont you list your questions right here right now?

I am sure there are a ton of people that would be more than willing to help you find the answers.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Those questions have their own threads

Those questions have their own threads. You posted in one and you are welcome to continue that discussion. Should I bump it up so you can find it?

[molly]

5. Yet they post stupid threads bashing Kerry that have

nothing to do with ISSUES!!! It is Rovian - isn't it?

[Egnever]

12. So i take it you think this

is a smart post on the issues?

Get real!

[Nicholas_J]

51. True.

When confronted with legitimate questions about Deans record, or character, it is time to bring out the rudeness and name calling that is the hallmark of Dean and his campaign, avoid answering, change the topic, or start talking about another candidate.

[Nicholas_J]

147. Because

They generally have no legitimate answers to account for Deans behavior. When they have no legitimate responses. They either attack, or change the subject.

[molly]

7. Dish it out, but can't take it - huh?

[Northwind]

8. I do not think it is a bad thing

if he can earn enough through voluntary donations to run the campaign without financing through public funds (tax money). I think it will increase his standing in the eyes of many people.

[w4rma]

13. An article was posted that states that the Dean campaign might look into

other forms of campaign financing to be competative with Bush. That's not Dean bashing.

I do hope that we'll be able to remain competative without taking that route, but Bush is set to out raise Democrats by quadruple our funding, this time. It was only double when Gore ran (Bush is *doubling* his fundraising).

[killbotfactory]

6. He is still saying he'll accept spending limits...

And doesn't want to reject public financing. This seems like a non-issue to me.

[shance]

119. It is an opportunity for Dean to discuss problems with our election system

The bottom line in all political conflicts of interest and overall corruption is ultimately campaign financing.

Right now you have a president who is amassing an election kitty that puts certain countries overall worth to shame, and meanwhile our country is falling apart. And there is Howard Dean, who has busted tail crossing this country, meeting and talking to Americans, listening to the concerns and fears facing us, utilizing his skills as a leader and a speaker, 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 the most successful grassroots movement, what makes him so unique and respected is his commitment, a hopeful and inciteful vision, and focus to returning to a standard in America where we are actuallly proud again.

But 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.

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 beginning of his campaign.

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 has been the standard because we, along with our leaders have gotten tired and complacent and allowed ourselves to get off track, and take the easy route. As a result, we have been run over by individuals who have monopolized on our complacency. Could be that right now we may have to settle for a balance of some sort. 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 be politics as usual.

Dean is right, we do have the power.

Seems to me it would be a great opportunity if Dean held a press conference 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.

[dsc]

9. I don't like this either

but every Democrat is going to have to consider this if he or she can raise the money. Under the matching fund's limits we will be broke from June to August and Bush can run amok on TV. Dean was foolish to make his original statment and this one as well but we have to face up to the idea that public financing may not work this time.

[Egnever]

10. So your saying?

When election time comes for which ever of our candidates to go up against the bush money machine that you think they should tie thier hands behind thier back on principle even though they have the potential to match him dolar for dolar.

Are you really sugesting letting bush try to buy the election because he can and refuses to play by the rules?

While you may see this as a smear this is just another reason to suport dean IMHO. He is not affraid to tak the gloves off to get the job done. I get from your post your looking for a candidate that is willing to lie down for bush.

So what would you do in his position? just let bush outspend you 5 times and possibly buy this election or take the money being offered to you by your supporters and run with it against this Farce of a president.

No where does he say he will do it in fact he says he doesnt like the idea but that his campaign is advising him to keep it open as an option.

The fact that he might be able to take bush head on where bush thinks hes strongest, the money factor, Just makes me feel stronger that he is the one to beat shrub right back into the bushes where he belongs.

Nice try for a bash though.

You folks are getting more and more desperate as you chosen ones loose more and more ground.

[w4rma]

14. Not a bash. Title of the article. Pretty much stating facts. (n/t)

[Egnever]

16. Not a bash?

Then why do you see it as important enough to be posted? Personally I see this as a positive but clearly from the post whoever posted it does not.

For me its yet another example of why to support this Dean. Hes in this thing to fight for us! The gist of this post is suposed to paint how somehow Dean is a bad guy because he might be able to match bush dolar for dolar and if he can that he will do it!

OH the horror!

The poster seems to sugest that anyone who would do such a thing is some sort of demon. SRy but i would want any candidate that has a shot at it to run with it. This is not going to be a clean fight. These guys whoever gets the nod will need to pull out every stop to take this bastard bush down!. Dean is ready to do just that!

Is your candidate?

[molly]

18. Let me see now - Philly cheese steak - joke about Gore

not a bash? Hmmmmmmmm - "Then why do you see it as important enough to be posted? "

You sure as hell can dish it out, but can you bullies take it?

[Egnever]

22. Rofl cant take it?

Haha!

Choose not to participate it in it perhaps but cant take it?
feel free to find me bashing your candidate or populating a thread bashing him.

You are posting two examples of posts made that I agree were stupid posts to begin with to lay out how mean the deanies are. Well sry but two posts on things that while not earth shatering certainly show a serious lack of judgement from kerry are not the end of the world.

feel free to jump riht into those posts and defend kerry i have no problem with that at all but thats not really what you do is it? Instead you look for dean bashing threads to jump into so you can try to pile on!

No worries though do your best. Time after time your ilk is shown for what they are dishonest spiners intent on trying to bring a dem candidate down. Fine by me but dont cry when we call you on it

[molly]

24. Oh - I do Participate - believe me - you say Dean bashing?

where - list the posts please - I am not talking about ISSUES relative to this country, I am talking about STUPID IDIOTIC BULLYING bashing. Everyone that starts one of those threads is GUILTY!

Please list the Dean bashing threads.

[LuminousX]

81. The Dean Hive Mind

Yes, we all conspire together to post these threads.

Give it a break and stop lumping supporters together in a large batch and don't even try to defend it with some lame argument about 'most' and 'vast majority' of supporters. It isn't true. There are a handful of anti-Kerry Dean supporters who eagerly post anything bad about Kerry. Ditto with anti-Dean Kerry supporters (and Kucinich, and Clark)...

The shrillness factor is getting out of hand.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Are you a horse? they wear blinders. I'd prefer not to.

Are you a horse? they wear blinders. I'd prefer not to.

You say: "The gist of this post is supost to paint how somehow Dean is a bad guy because he might be able to match bush dolar for dolar and if he can that he will do it!"

whereas actually this was just a post of a news story from the Associated Press. And whatever your characterization or interpretation of that article, others may have their own interpretations, perhaps even a more obvious one. Attacking someone for posting it seems to be like saying we should only read certain news stories about Dean and only listen to certain interpretations. Notice that the poster did not even include one word of commentary - all s/he did was post a news story.

[Egnever]

23. Then take yours off!

You are clearly burning with a desire to find anything to try to discredit dean i have watched your posts for weeks now trying to make mouintains out of molehills.

Again and again you try to imply that dean supporters dont see what he he is doing. What you fail to realize is that we see quite clearly what he is doing and we support it!

You dont like him or his posistions thats fine with me. Trying to justify it to yourself with half truths and swearing by them however is laughable.

[molly]

26. Mountains out of molehills - then you must certainly have

some defense? How can one defend a thread about sandwhiches and jokes - I thought we have done a superb job - your turn on the REAL ISSUES!

[Egnever]

33. Hmm bad joke wrong sandwich?

The joke is about as lame as it gets from a dems mouth. Would i Ever not vote for him cause he said it? Of course not should it be praised? Hell no. It should be discouraged.

You from philly?
Have any idea how seriously they take the cheese steak?
Its a stupid issue but it makes Kerry look like hes pandering to philidelphia when he walks in and trys to show how he is into the local traditions and completely screws it up.

Again important? Nope. Sloppy and piss poor campaigning? you bet!
Does it hurt kerry nation wide? Nope. Do you think he won votes in phily from that thoug? Two minns of briefing or helll maybe if he READ THE MENU! that problem wouldnt have ever been there.

Worth a post on it? Not really.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Again and again

"Again and again you try to imply that dean supporters dont see what he he is doing."

what are you talking about?

[Cocoa]

19. Dean supporters, get used to it

I think that as Dean progresses, he's going to be backing away from more and more positions, "moving to the center" as he looks ahead to facing Bush.

It's not a big deal to me, in fact I think he'll have to do this to beat Bush, which is what this is all about. Just that the image of Dean as the purist candidate will have to make way for Dean the politician. This campaign finance story can serve as practice for the other ones that will be coming.

[molly]

21. His downfall will be his fault - he has whipped up the masses

into an illogical frenzy and not equipped them with the truth - that is the worst kind of betrayal.

[Cocoa]

25. only a few Dean supporters are going overboard

and I suspect that's more due to instigators trying to divide the dems, than to Dean. I'm not saying that any DUers are plants, I'm saying that there are news stories that are planted to play up that feud. A bunch have appeared at Drudge, for example, and they get reposted here, unfortunately.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. This story is from the Associated Press.

[Cocoa]

49. this one's legit

there's no doubt about this one, it's all on the record.

Other stories quoted unnamed campaign operatives from either Kerry or Dean's campaign, but then the campaign quickly calls B.S.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. I don't pay any attention to those I guess

I don't pay any attention to those I guess. Just ignore the unsubtantiated BS and those threads will sink away.

[Eloriel]

89. Feanor -- just how many posts will it take for you to notice

that it's NOT necessary -- and in fact it's pretty annoying to readers -- to repeat your headline in your post?

No one else does it, unless they're very new, and then only a few and they get over it.

Eloriel

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. a billion?

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

27. Yup

I'm attracted to illogical frenzies. I can't think for myself. I didn't really reasearch the candidates, I just went with the guy who spoke the 'bestest'. I think I represent most Dean supporters. We're all sheep being led across the field. Maybe one day there will be a pill that cures us from this. Are you that pill?

[w4rma]

40. I am a Dean supporter. And most Dean supporters know

Dean's moderate positions. We also know that he's not the perfect candidate, although he's a very very good one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. The mistake wasn't made today by backtracking,

The mistake wasn't made today by backtracking, it was made in March by committing to a strategy that, today, looks like it might have been a mistake, and by claiming the moral high ground:

``We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in,'' he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.
http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

Hey, every campaign has missteps, it's not really that much of a big deal. But trying to spin it into a positive or deny that it is a story that should be read by politically interested people, or attacking the person who posted it just casts doubts on your own credibility.

[LuminousX]

64. Candidates

should always try spinning everything into a positive. That is called politics.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. It can backfire when it looks ridiculous, that's all.

[LuminousX]

80. Then you anti-Dean folk

should be applauding this move and praising the political marketforce for finally getting rid of Dean as a threat. Does this mean the anti-Dean folk will quit their whining?

I assure you this is a non-starter of an issue. Middle-America doesn't understand or want to understand campaign financing just as long as the money doesn't come from foreign sources.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. Who are you talking to?

Who are you talking to? Do you live in a black and white world where everyone is either pro- or anti- Dean? We are either with you or against you? We either believe Dean can do no wrong or we are deluded or evil?

It is a dangerous road you are treading.

[Duder]

35. Smart move by Dean...

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.

Looking ahead to Bush, that's the way it should be. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. The statement in March was a mistake

The statement in March was a mistake, because if they'd never made that commitment there would no news article today with 'Dean Backtracks' in the headline.

[Duder]

38. Nonsense...

There's been no commitment by the campaign yet and so it's really a non-story at this point. Most likely since it has a quote from Jordan I would imagine that's the source. Given Jordan's history I suspect there'll be lots more of these non stories to come.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. quote:

However, in a March 7 interview with The Associated Press, Dean committed to accept the taxpayer money. The promise was echoed by a campaign spokesperson.

``We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in,'' he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.

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.
http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

He's backtracking on his previous commitment. Really, the more you deny it was a misstep the bigger you blow up the issue. Just accept that Dean can make mistakes and - dare I say it - move on.

edit: added link

[virtualobserver]

43. the reality is.....

He will stay within the limits during the primaries.

If he locks up the nomination and there are still months before the convention and Bush has 200 million dollars, he is going head to head against someone who has opted out. He may need to rethink.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Well he already has rethought.

Well he already has rethought. That's what the story is about:

However, in a March 7 interview with The Associated Press, Dean committed to accept the taxpayer money. The promise was echoed by a campaign spokesperson.

``We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in,'' he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.

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.
http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

it gets tedious reposting the same quotes over and over but when people respond as if they didn't read it what else is there to do?

[virtualobserver]

47. he said that he would keep his options open

he did not say that he would opt out.

When I said "rethought", I meant his strategy, which should have been clear to any reader who wasn't looking for a fight.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. Yes, he said that today, and in March he said something different

Yes, he said that today, and in March he said something different. I'm not looking for a fight but if you are trying to say he did not go back on what he said in March, then I'm gonna call you on it.

It's no big deal - so why deny it?

[virtualobserver]

56. I'm not denying it

It is a change of position. And if later,he truly changes his mind and opts out in order to have the resources to win, I have no problem with that.

A politician who can't change his mind, when he realizes the practical effect of his position, is pretty stupid.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

44. OK call it a mistake

I call it re-evaluating the situation and changing your strategy based on the new information. You're right though, either way it's just not a big issue unless we make it one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Re-evaluating is not a mistake.

Re-evaluating is not a mistake. Making a commitment you can't live up to is. That's why I say he didn't make a mistake today, he made it in March.

[Duder]

52. Kerryites should know all about mistakes...

...since Kerry has made so many already in his campaign.

I don't really see it as an issue since there's been no decision made yet, but it is smart politics for some campaign advisors to be considering the options since the scenario may have changed from March.

Could we change our mind? Sure,'' he said. ``But I really don't want to do that.

Certainly it's nothing for Kerry to whine about since he's uncommitted. If either candidate can do better against Bush without accepting the matching funds then that's what they should do, imo. A mistake would be giving Bush a blank check.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Yeah, everybody makes mistakes. So why can't some people admit it?

[Duder]

54. For Kerryites...

Thinking, I suppose is a mistake. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. That is the level you wish to debate on? Talk to yourself then.

[Duder]

58. What's to debate?

If someone says they're thinking about doing something different you consider that a mistake. That seems to be the level we're on here, which truthfully does seem a little juvenile.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. One more time

The mistake wasn't "thinking about doing something different". The mistake wasn't made today by backtracking, it was made in March by committing to a strategy that, today, looks like it might have been a mistake, and by claiming the moral high ground:

``We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in,'' he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.
http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

And it really is not as big a deal as you are making it out to be.

[Duder]

62. I agree, not a big deal

But some of his advisers believe Dean has an outside shot of raising the kind of money needed to abandon the public financing system.

"We're not looking at that as an option, although there are those in our campaign that insist on thinking privately that they want to look at it as an option,'' Dean said.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. More context.

(Emphasis added)

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.

Just five months ago, Dean committed to accepting taxpayer money and vowed to attack any Democrat who didn't.

The about-face follows his emergence as the Democratic Party's biggest fund-raising threat. Dean collected $7.6 million in the fund-raising quarter that ended June 30, more than his eight rivals, and aides said Friday that he is on pace to far exceed that total in the next quarter.

In an interview Thursday, the former Vermont governor said he did not recall promising to accept public financing and the limits that go with it. Under a program designed to curb special interest influence, candidates who agree to state-by-state and overall spending limits get federal matching dollars for the first $250 of each donation they receive.

``I was asked very early on and I said I intend to take the match,'' Dean said. ``I think what I said is that we weren't looking into that as an option.''

However, in a March 7 interview with The Associated Press, Dean committed to accept the taxpayer money. The promise was echoed by a campaign spokesperson.

``We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in,'' he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.

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.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

[virtualobserver]

69. Better call the thought police......

Even though Dean says "We're not looking at that as an option"

Members of Dean's staff are "thinking" hypocritical thoughts.

If that is the best that the Kerry "attack machine" can come up with, I wish you luck.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. Maybe you should call a reading instructor instead.

[virtualobserver]

71. you should take your own advice

I quoted Dean accurately.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. You quoted Dean accurately? Let's examine your 'quote' then:

You quoted Dean accurately? Let's examine your 'quote' then :

Sat Aug-16-03 03:50 AM
Even though Dean says "We're not looking at that as an option"

Members of Dean's staff are "thinking" hypocritical thoughts.

If that is the best that the Kerry "attack machine" can come up with, I wish you luck.

I see the quote "We're not looking at that as an option", the word "thinking" is also in quotes, as is the phrase "attack machine". By the way, who are you quoting there? Is that something Dean said?

They almost seem randomly chosen, rather than a coherent attempt to lay out an argument. I guess when you pick and choose such short phrases (well, actually only one phrase along with a single word) out of an Associated Press news story with over 750 words in it (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html) it makes it a little harder to make your case with any clarity.

[virtualobserver]

76. My only quote of Dean is.....

"We're not looking at that as an option" which is an accurate quote.


My next line...

Members of Dean's staff are "thinking" hypocritical thoughts.

That is me, mocking this whole line of attack, because if you read the full quotes that have been supplied, the worst that can be said is that some of Dean's people have been thinking about it.

Dean also states "Could we change our mind? Sure," he said

But he does not say that he did, while Dean clearly states that he is not "looking at that as an option"

The following line is me and only me...

If that is the best that the Kerry "attack machine" can come up with, I wish you luck.

I am mocking the weakness of the argument by attacking the notion of a Kerry attack machine.

If Dean had stated that he did intend to blow off the matching funds, then you might have something to argue about. But even then, for practical reasons, Dean has the right to change his mind, and admit that it was wrong to make that statement.

[w4rma]

39. exactly (n/t)

[Nicholas_J]

50. Not a new move for Dean:

Dean scraps public campaign financing
August 19, 2000

By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - Gov. Howard Dean dropped his bid to publicly finance his re-election campaign Friday, saying the political stakes were too high to allow a potential opponent to outspend him.

"I regret this because I believe in public financing of campaigns," he said at a hastily scheduled news conference at his campaign headquarters. "I am not going to fight this campaign with one hand tied behind my back."

His decision makes him the top fund-raiser in the race with more than $300,000. Under the public financing system, Dean would have been limited to $255,000 as the incumbent...

Pollina was just as critical of Dean when it came to the governor's decision to abandon public financing. Pollina is the sole candidate left in the race who is funding his campaign with public money. As such, he is held at a $300,000 spending cap.

"Rather than looking for excuses to raise and spend money, he should have stuck with his principles and what he knows is right," Pollina said.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/deanscraps.html

As Polina noted, when it comes to principles, Dean has always been ready to sacrifice them in the name of expediency

[chimpymustgo]

59. The heart of the issue is that Dean was planning to attack any

candidate that eschewed public funding.

He is one lying, opportunistic, hypocritical a**hole.

This is so par for the course for him. He's always flip-flopping and tap-dancing. Dean is the consumate bullsh*t artist.

[Nicholas_J]

61. Yes...

I would say that is an accurate description.

[LuminousX]

63. Is this a bad thing?

sounds just plain logical to me

don't unnecessarily back yourself into a corner.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Is it a bad thing to make a public commitment and then back out of it? Yes

Is it a bad thing to make a public commitment and then back out of it? Yes.

I agree that he probably should not have backed himself into this corner back in March by saying:

``We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in,'' he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.
http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

[VoteClark]

66. Not shocking at all

This is exactly what Dean is like.

:kick:
J4Clark

[samurai_jack]

72. totally agree

Dean is just a slick pol...he's a damned good political operator, I'll give him that, but "principled" isn't the first word I would ever use to describe him...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. He reminds me of

He reminds me of Clinton in this way -- and I sure dont regret voting for Clinton.

[DrFunkenstein]

75. Hypocrisy And Compromise

Having just finished reading this illuminating debate, this is my favorite moment:

"Personally I see this as a positive but clearly from the post whoever posted it does not. For me its yet another example of why to support this Dean. Hes in this thing to fight for us!"

Yes, this is truly another example of why Dean is great.

Before this starts, let's get something straight. I don't think this is that big a deal. It's Dean's first national-level campaign outside of rural Vermont. They don't even have a major urban center there. So he's gonna make mistakes.

That said, let's put it on the table. Dean committed to an agreement and backed out of it. "We've always been committed to this," he said. Circumstances change, and Dean changed with them. Acceptable.

Dean also claimed "It will be a huge issue ... because I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform," warning other candidates not to cross the line on this moral litmus test. By warning the other candidates, Dean moved from backtracking to hypocrisy. Slightly more troubling.

But in the end, the thing I find most fascinating about this whole episode is watching the process of activists - who pride themselves on their righteousness - as they actively compromise themselves.

First, it was learning that Dean was a centrist. Many consider themselves progressives, but could live with pragmatist. It still sounded cool. Then as Dean became more viable, he began to publicly temper his anti-war sentiments. From anti-war, Dean became anti-this-war. Ok, I guess supporters could handle that. They were against the invasion of Afghanistan, but the past is truly behind us.

And now Dean makes a blunder and steps into a pile of hypocritical backtracking. But now we're pragmatists, so we're cool with that. Well, not exactly. Instead of pragmatically saying he made a mistake and moving on, we get stories about how this proves that Dean is a wonderful candidate and that he is fighting for us.

Which makes you hypocrites.

[Egnever]

78. Thanks for quoting me !

First off im not a progressive. I am closer to an independant than anything else. I like a lot of liberal ideas but I think a lot of them are fantasies that do not reflect the realities of the world in any sense whatsoever.

I was always for the war in afghanistan.

Soon as they said no we wont give osama up I said "the fuck you wont!". You may have been against Afghanistan, I was all for it before I ever heard of Dean.

That aside I have never seen Dean say he was anti war ever. Please point me to that one so I can truely see what a waffler he is.

Clearly I dont think like you. I am not a peacenick. I dont revel in war and would prefer to avoid it, but I would not for a second hesitate to support a war if I thought it was justified. Iraq was not justified.

Any candidate that is anti war looses me. The world I live in is full of war. It is going on every day all over. Some things are worth fighting for. Denis Kucinich for example looses me with his "department of peace", great goal but entirely unrealistic. We already have a secretary of state thank you much.

Far as Deans hypocracy on campaign finance reform goes. The way I see it that statement holds till the first person decides to exceed the spending limit. After that only a fool would chose to stay in the limits if his oponents dont.

Was his original statement made before bush stated his intentions to ignore spending limits?

In all reality I couldn't care less.

Campaign finance reform is important. We need to get some form of it established that cant be ignored. Dean clearly believes in campaign finance reform his quotes make that quite clear.

He still says he doesnt want to go against the spending limits even though his advisors are telling him he should be thinking about it.
When he does it then he will be a hypocrite.

Quite honestly I hope it becomes an issue for him. If he can get the kind of money needed to take bush on dollar for dollar, making him a hypocrite, things will be just peachy in my world. I want bush out! I think Dean is the only guy we've got running that can do it.

I am quite sure you will be able to find one million things he says that dont quite jibe with other things he said in the past over the course of this election season. He rarely reads prepared speaches he isnt affraid to say what he feels. This fact alone assures you will have plenty of things you can catch him on. It doesnt change the fact that the over all message stays consistent.

I can hear you screaming now "but look he said the sky was blue and now he says well i thought it was blue yesterday but today he says it is closer to aqua! That lying jerk said the sky was blue!!!"

BABABABABA!

Preach on DR funk!

You dont know shit about Dean suporters. But you sure do know what you want them to be!

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

82. Excellent post, egnever

:)

[DrFunkenstein]

83. I'm Happy You Are Pro-War

But you still didn't explain why backing out of his commitment after vowing to attack any candidate that did (which I suppose would include himself) somehow proves that he is a great candidate.

I noticed you literally put words in my mouth. I'm just not sure what the blue/aqua example is supposed to mean. As far as preaching, I don't see which part you think sounds preachy. I called it as I saw it, in a fair and balanced manner.

I said that I didn't think it was a major issue, but it was illustrative of a few tendencies within the Dean camp. One being the failure to acknowledge a mistake. It's part of being a grown up.

If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that Dean thinks campaign finance reform is important - just not for him. I wonder if he would have supported the many reforms Kerry supported in Congress, like the Wellstone-Kerry Clean Elections bill.

Kerry has a history of walking the walk - writing and supporting campaign finance legislation, refusing to take PACs in any of his Congressional races - while Dean has a history of committing to a clean election, then pulling out. Kerry's record is an open book, Dean's record is locked away in a vault.

As for knowing shit about Dean supporters, I know that most of them are decent and honest. But some of the more vocal are nothing but children that cannot accept a mistake, and resort to changing the subject and putting words in people's mouths.

I take some comfort in knowing that these people are loud, but still a minority in Dean's camp.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

84. I think you are mistaken

You said: If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that Dean thinks campaign finance reform is important - just not for him.

No! Dean is saying that in a perfect world finance reform would work. Unfortunately Bush isn't playing in a fair and perfect world, and Dean will rise to the challenge instead of laying on his back while Bush walks all over him. The other candidates sure don't mind doing that, but Dean won't. What in the world is wrong with that?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. He thought he wouldnt raise this much, so he claimed the moral high ground

He thought he wouldn't raise this much, so he claimed the moral high ground. Now that his fundraising is better than he expected, he's backing out of his promise.

Every uncommitted voter is going to look at those facts, and judge for themselves what they mean. And if that voter hears the Dean camp trying to spin this into gold, it's just going to make that voter trust the Dean camp less.

It's simple human nature. You feed someone a line of bullshit, and they are less likely to believe you when you are telling the truth.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

88. I'm not at all afriad

of undecided voters looking at Dean. I'm sure some of them will see it like you do, and some will see it like I do. Let people decide for themselves what is important in a candidate. Those of us who see the reality of Bush and realize we are fighting against someone who has no ethics won't mind a candidate changing his mind on is strategy of getting Bush out of the WH, because the most important part of this campaign is to get Bush out of office. I'm willing to compromise my ideal of a white knight saving me from this misadministration in favor of someone who REALISTICALLY can and will beat Bush. While I love idealism, I gave it up when I realized that there is no such thing as perfect. I like to balance idealism with pragmatics, and Dean reflects that to my liking.

[DrFunkenstein]

90. Is This A Double Standard?

"I'm willing to compromise my ideal of a white knight saving me from this misadministration in favor of someone who REALISTICALLY can and will beat Bush."

This sounds like a vote of confidence for Kerry. I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not looking for a white knight. I'm looking for the best candidate for the job.

Your line of thinking directly contradicts the Dean supporters that ignore everything Kerry has ever done, but return repeatedly to the IWR. They say that the person they support must be pure. No mixed-message votes. No matter how much Kerry rails against Bush's rush to war, the IWR compromises his Purity and Virtue.

Now that Dean is amassing some blemishes, they either turn the other cheek (and the other and the other) to maintain Dean's white knight image, or they become pragmatists. I'll take the pragmatists, personally. I was never much for Puritans, especially hypocritical ones.

[Egnever]

94. Fair and balanced!

Hahah now your fox news! I agree with that completely!

Its a great thing because since that statement bush declared he would not adhear to the spending limits. Dean still hasnt said he would forgo spending limits only that his campaign has been talking about it, and that he didnt want to.

You ARE mistaken. I am saying Dean thinks campaign finance reform is important but not in a race where the competition ignores it. Solid position imho. You obviously would choose the high ground aproach and get your ass handed to you.

Deans record isnt hiden away in a vault and you know it. More bullshit from you. His record is every bit an open book as kerrys is. Kerry is open because you can see what he voted on? How exactly is Deans less open again? You cant see what he signed or didnt sign?Way to promote the spin though! Preach on brother!

Kerry has a history of doing what loooks popular or might get him elected. Theres no other way to defend his Iraq vote. He didnt want to look soft on defense plain and simple. He could have easily stood up for what he suposedly thought was right by not allowing or giving permision for the president to rush to war but by refusing to do so! But to me it looks like he didnt have the balls that the peacenick in this race (kucinich) did and took the hedge route and went with it figuring he could say its not what he meant later.

And finally I couldnt care less what makes you happy or unhappy about me.

Keep suporting all the little BS arguments you will be hearing a lot more from this loud childish Dean suporter.

[DrFunkenstein]

100. Uh, Actually Dean's Records Are Closed For 10 years

And everyone knew Bush would forsake federal spending as soon as McCain-Feingold passed. Before actually. We can't afford to vote for someone that could be misled by Bush.

"Kerry has a history of doing what loooks popular or might get him elected. Theres no other way to defend his Iraq vote. He didnt want to look soft on defense plain and simple."

Straw Man
Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Kerry in 1997:

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.”

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”

[molly]

77. There's a thread over in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=185057&mesg_id=185057

[Vap Noose]

79. So what

Dean is considering not taking money from taxpayers, who cares!

[CMT]

86. first, he has not decided to do this. second, if he did I would suppot

him because when the primaries are finished Bush will have a huge arsenol of $$ at his disposal to use to dominate the airwaves for several months before the Dem convention. If Dean doesn't accept federal money and he is the nominee that means he will be able to continue to raise money and counter the Bush onslaught.

[polpilot]

91. Dean's campaign has Chimpy in their sights and will respond to

whatever is necessary to win. It's rather foolish to not recognize reality and not change course when it's required in order to win. It's called 'politics' and Dean will win.

Dean '04

[IIgnoreNobody]

93. It's called 'hypocrisy'.

The ends justify the means?

[Nicholas_J]

112. No, the ends do not justify the means..

Otherwise, the war in Iraq, can be justified by several events, such as Saddam being found to be withing months of producing plutonium with the Osirak reactor in 1981, again, having been found to have been within months of doing so again by U.N. inspectors in the early 1990's, using extraction from highly enriched uranium, and finally, even the few tons of uranium ore that was found by the most recent inspectors is another. albeit less efficient method to extract pure uranium from low level ore, and then separate out the correct uranium isotope from the metalic uranium using centrifuges. The quantity of ore in the metal drums left sealed by the U.N. inspectors was sufficient to extract enough fisile materals to produce several weapons of the type used at Hiroshima, which produces a lower yield bomb, and the bomb must be faily large, weighing several tons. Hussein had no missiles capable of delivering such a payload, but plenty of aircraft that could, and giving one to Hamas of any other terrorist organization to smuggle, Leave in a truck and detonate was highlt possible.

Hussein obviously has been found repeatedly to be attempting to obtain, directly or indirectly, fissile material, and interfering with him reaching this end, could be seen to justify the means.

He has also used other prohibited weapons more than once, regardless of being a signatory of numerous treaties to not do so.

So again, does the end of getting rid of a regime that was devoted to continue trying to obtain prohibited weapons, justify the means of removing somone who was intent on breaking international laws.

Fianally, Saadams briutal regime itself could be an end justifying the means used to change the regime...


Lastly there is this, regarding the sealing of ones record:

"Secrecy is the badge of fraud."
(Legal maxim - Sir John Chadwick (British Judge) 1990)


http://www.spicyquotes.com/html/Sir_John_Chadwick_Secrets.html


To utilize the methods of ones opponents and abandoning ones principal indicates that one beleive that the ends justify the means.

Or that one never had principals to stick to to begin with.

To win by being or becoming what you oppose is not winning at all.

It is surrender.

[molly]

95. We've got to learn to live with the fact that no matter

WHAT Dean says or does, his backers will support him - issues don't matter.

[virtualobserver]

96. all Dean said is that he "could" change his mind.....

not that he had.

Why is that such a big deal to you?

Even if he did change his position when he realized that it was impractical to go head to head against Bush, would that be such a problem for you?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. Whereas earlier he promised that he wouldn't

[virtualobserver]

98. when did he promise that he wouldn't change his mind?

I think that people are allowed to change their minds.

[DrFunkenstein]

101. Apparently He Signed A Contract

``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.''

Honestly, I don't know any more about this contract. Anyone know what's up with this contract?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

102. When did he promise? In an interview with the Associated Press on March 7

(Emphasis added)

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.

Just five months ago, Dean committed to accepting taxpayer money and vowed to attack any Democrat who didn't.

The about-face follows his emergence as the Democratic Party's biggest fund-raising threat. Dean collected $7.6 million in the fund-raising quarter that ended June 30, more than his eight rivals, and aides said Friday that he is on pace to far exceed that total in the next quarter.

In an interview Thursday, the former Vermont governor said he did not recall promising to accept public financing and the limits that go with it. Under a program designed to curb special interest influence, candidates who agree to state-by-state and overall spending limits get federal matching dollars for the first $250 of each donation they receive.

``I was asked very early on and I said I intend to take the match,'' Dean said. ``I think what I said is that we weren't looking into that as an option.''

However, in a March 7 interview with The Associated Press, Dean committed to accept the taxpayer money. The promise was echoed by a campaign spokesperson.

``We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in,'' he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.

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.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

[virtualobserver]

104. here is the Mar 7 article

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html

-snip
Former Vermont Gov. Dean said he has already met the requirement. 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.”

-end

Clearly what Dean is talking about is about someone doing what George Bush did in 2000....blowing out primary opponents with raw cash.

What Dean is now saying is that Bush is spending $200 million in the primaries, and he reserves the right to go with pure cash if he needs it to go after Bush. If any Democratic nominee wins early, Bush could pound them for months.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. 3/7 Dean committed to taxpayer dollars 8/15 backed away from his pledge

3/7 - Howard Dean committed Friday to taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign while fellow Democrat John Kerry laid the groundwork to do the same with a letter to donors suggesting they could double their money by helping him qualify.

In fact, only donors’ first $250 gets matched by the government.

Like Dean, Al Sharpton, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich are committed to taking public financing and the spending limits that come with it, aides said. They are trying to raise the required amounts – $5,000 from each of 20 states in contributions of $250 or less – to qualify for the public money.

Former Vermont Gov. Dean said he has already met the requirement. 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.”

Sharpton, too, will make campaign finance and the role of special-interest donors an issue in his campaign, spokesman Roberto Ramirez said.
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html



8/15 - the former Vermont governor said he did not recall promising to accept public financing and the limits that go with it. Under a program designed to curb special interest influence, candidates who agree to state-by-state and overall spending limits get federal matching dollars for the first $250 of each donation they receive.

``I was asked very early on and I said I intend to take the match,'' Dean said. ``I think what I said is that we weren't looking into that as an option.'' http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html






Hey everyone understands that the reason he is breaking this promise is because he wants to win. So I don't know why you keep repeating that point.

[DrFunkenstein]

106. Thanks For The Link

:nuke:

[virtualobserver]

107. read the article

The line "He promised to make it an issue in the Democratic primaries " is not a quote of Dean, it was a line in the article.

Please show me where Dean is quoted stating his "promise"

The only quote of Dean in the entire article is “It will be a huge issue,” Dean said. “I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform.”

Just because the AP writer uses the word promise in a sentence does make it a "promise" or "sacred compact" or anything else.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. Yeah read the article

if you can actually read that article, ' and not conclude that Dean committed to public financing, you should get a job as an analyst at Fox News.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html

[virtualobserver]

110. the piece does not quote Dean "promising" or "committing.....

to anything.

all I can assume is that he does stongly favor public financing, not that he "promised" that he would under no circumstances forego matching funds.

Here is the only quote of Dean in the article.

“It will be a huge issue,” Dean said. “I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform.”

If you see a "promise" or permanent "commitment" in that quote, get back to me.



although she does not quote Dean, The reporter states the following..

-snip - mar 7 article
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.
-unsnip

Personally, I would reject any candidate who tries to win the nomination by opting out and wildly outspending their opponents in the primaries...Dean, Kerry or anyone else.

But What is Dean's current position....

-snip AP Aug 15 article
Dean said he still intends to accept taxpayer money and spending restraints, and suggested he has discouraged his staff from considering alternatives right now.
-unsnip

So not only do we not have a quote of Dean "promising" that he wouldn't opt out....We have Dean stating that "he still intends to accept taxpayer money and spending restraints"

So what does Dean say that he said to the AP reporter on Mar 7?
-snip
``I was asked very early on and I said I intend to take the match,'' Dean said. ``I think what I said is that we weren't looking into that as an option.''
-unsnip

Hardly a promise.....

So why Does Dean say that he wants to leave his options open?

-snip
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.
-unsnip

We have the answer....It is to go after Bush.

If I was criticizing Kerry, I would never hold him responsible for the word choices of a reporter. Unless you have a quote, you have no idea what Dean did or did not say.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

111. If you can convince yourself that he didn't commit

If you can convince yourself that he didn't commit to accepting public financing, I can't even imagine the other mental gymnastics you'll be able to perform. I wouldn't even try to convince you that the sun rises in the east if you believed otherwise.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html

[virtualobserver]

114. I have the advantage of reading the actual quotes of Dean...

you rely on your psychic powers to divine what was not said.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

115. 3/7 Dean committed to taxpayer dollars 8/15 backed away from his pledge

3/7 - Howard Dean committed Friday to taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign while fellow Democrat John Kerry laid the groundwork to do the same with a letter to donors suggesting they could double their money by helping him qualify.

In fact, only donors’ first $250 gets matched by the government.

Like Dean, Al Sharpton, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich are committed to taking public financing and the spending limits that come with it, aides said. They are trying to raise the required amounts – $5,000 from each of 20 states in contributions of $250 or less – to qualify for the public money.

Former Vermont Gov. Dean said he has already met the requirement. 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.”

Sharpton, too, will make campaign finance and the role of special-interest donors an issue in his campaign, spokesman Roberto Ramirez said.
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html



8/15 - the former Vermont governor said he did not recall promising to accept public financing and the limits that go with it. Under a program designed to curb special interest influence, candidates who agree to state-by-state and overall spending limits get federal matching dollars for the first $250 of each donation they receive.

``I was asked very early on and I said I intend to take the match,'' Dean said. ``I think what I said is that we weren't looking into that as an option.'' http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

116. Sigh

Where in that article is Dean quoted at saying he made a promise or commited to accepting the matching funds? You do understand the difference between hearing someone's actual words versus someone's interpretation of comments, don't you? You have heard of things like spinning and twisting, no? Did it ever occur to you that the author of the story may be lying, mistaken, spinning, twisting, or whatever smear word you are applying to Dean, and that's why there are no quotes supporting this author's suppositions?

[virtualobserver]

117. I'm sorry that you feel so betrayed by his decision

Ultimately Dean has to beat Bush.

As Dean says; The question is what do you do with an opponent who can murder you from March to December?'

I would feel betrayed if my candidate was so naive that he did not correct strategic errors. Bush is bending the rules of the game by raising $200 million. Changing your mind is not breaking a promise.

Has Kerry opted in or out?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. I'm just amazed that Deans supporters will believe 2+2=5 if he says so

As I've said, this is no big deal, Dean made a mistake back in March by claiming the moral high ground on campaign finance, because now that he thinks he might have a chance to raise big money, he's changed his tune, and he looks like a bit like a hypocrite.

No, what I am amazed by is this mindless, blind loyalty he seems to evoke. Real 'True Believers'. Willing to believe black is white if it will help the cause. Utter denial that any questioning of Dean could possibly be honest. Anything other than 100% praise is an attack.

[virtualobserver]

122. what I'm amazed at is the desperation of kerry supporters

as they attempt to paint Dean as a hypocrite.

The fact that I agree with Dean on this somehow seems to mean blind acceptance in your eyes. Because I believe that he has the right to change his mind, this somehow makes me some sort of illogical zombie believer.

I don't have much respect for people who make the argument that anyone who does not agree with them believes that " 2 + 2 = 5 ".
It is very condescending. It reminds me of Republican rhetoric.

If you had a strong argument, you wouldn't have to resort to that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

124. "It will be a huge issue"

Dean said it would be a huge issue and the more you press your illogical position the bigger issue you make it. You can continue to believe that Dean did not commit to accepting public campaign money on March 7. But I don't think you are going to be able to convince anyone who is not a True Believer.

And I will happily match you post for post and keep this thread on top forever, it that's what you want. But I would rather 'move on'.

[virtualobserver]

125. I'm sorry that you can't accept that a person could have.....

a different opinion than yours.

I can smell the desperation in the Kerry campaign.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

128. I absolutely accept that you have

I absolutely accept that you have a different opinion than mine. I don't understand the reasoning you used to arrive at that opinion, but I accept that you hold it.

[virtualobserver]

130. I have tried to explain.....

that I agree with his change in position. I think that he should leave the option of opting out on the table.

If he does decide to take the next step, and actually reject public financing, he will have to explain why he thinks that it is the right choice.

I think that it is impractical to think that you can counter Bush by staying within the imposed spending limits.

I would be comfortable if he changed his position today, but he isn't doing that. By the way, you didn't answer my question earlier....is Kerry accepting matching funds?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

131. Did you read these articles we are discussing?

Did you read these articles we are discussing? They clearly answer your question. What part of the articles are unclear to you?

[virtualobserver]

135. yes, but it does not say one way or the other......

but since you probably are John Kerry, I thought you might be able to give me more insight.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

137. You've read the article accurately in this narrow instance.

Kerry hasn't yet made a commitment one way or the other - unlike Dean, who first said he would accept public financing and attack any candidate who didn't, and then backtracked once he saw that promise may have been premature.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

127. Nice article here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3036834,00.html

That while some of his aides are ``chomping at the bit'' for him to give up public campaign financing given his fund-raising success, ``I would prefer to take matching funds.'' Dean said there would be ``no serious discussion about that certainly until after Sept. 30 and maybe not until after Dec. 30.'' Those are the next two financial filing deadlines for candidates.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. So Dean is saying again that he no longer is committed to public financing

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

134. Um, no

He said he wouldn't even consider the change until Sept. 30th at the soonest. So he's NOT consdiering not taking the matching funds, at least yet. He will reassess it at the end of the quarter, if need be.

What in the world is so harmful about that? I'd rather not lie back and let Bush spend every penny of his beloved $200 million dollars to win just because we want to play nice. The time for playing nice is over. It should have been over after the 2000 election, and damn well better be over since the 2002 election. I'm voting for a fighter, not someone who will get backed into a corner and get the crap kicked out of him because he wants to play nice.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

138. You just want to repeat this forever don't you?

You just want to repeat this forever don't you? What do you have against the Dean campaign that makes you want to continually rehash this issue, which, whatever you may think, does not make Dean look good?

Dean backed out of a promise that he never should have made. All you are saying is that he shouldn't have made that promise. I agree. That was a mistake.

[diamondsoul]

144. Ok so he-

"believes in campaign reform" unless it affects HIS campaign success, huh? That's not hypocritical? And if you really believe Bush can "murder you from March to December" then you don't have much faith in the people or your candidate.

Bush is about neck deep in the shit right now, and I doubt he'll get out of it in time to defeat the Democrats in the general election.

[diamondsoul]

99. Exactly

And whatever respect I gained for him over the past month or two is shot to hell with this statement. He's an opportunist, plain and simple, and he's not very good at hiding it.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

132. So an idealist

who pretends that the real world doesn't exist, who claims he can create a utopia by ordering executive orders and passing unpassable laws is superior? While i admire DK's willingness to hold on to his beliefs and idealism, he cannot get bush out of office that way. Bush will play dirty, while DK will hold up his peace sign.

I prefer a more pragmatic approach that looks at what is out there in the real world (BFEE) and is willing to fight tooth and nail to win. Just because his campaign is willing to look at options rather than stick to something that won't work just because they said so 6 months ago, doesn't make him the immoral candidate. Sheesh, this is politics, remember? We are not voting on a god.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

133. A 'pragmatic approach' - code words for 'the ends justify the means'

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

136. hardly fair

He's not doing anything immoral, like Bush did with this war.

[diamondsoul]

142. Huh-

So knowingly breaking promises he's made to his supporters isn't "immoral"? Wow, that's a new one. And tell me if he's willing to break that promise how do any of us know he won't cow to the same sorts of monetary pressue if he manages to get elected?

[diamondsoul]

141. "Sheesh, this is politics, remember? We are not voting on a god."

Really? Tell that to *.

The bottom line for me is this, if he's already breaking campaign promises even BEFORE he has the nomination, what assurance do I have he'll keep any of them as things go on?

MY personal view of Dean is that he hedges his bets as much as is humanly possible. That's how we got into this mess and I'm not interested in repeating it. He wouldn't support single payer healthcare "because it won't pass Congress" and now he says "I'll sign a single payer plan if it comes across my desk." Gee, where was that assurance 2 months ago?

5 months ago he says he'll take taxpayer funding because campaign reform is "something I believe in", well apparently not enough to stick to it. Bush will play dirty? And so what? He's done nothing BUT play dirty since he decided to run for office, and people are becoming sickened by the layers of scum coating him, including some of his previously staunch supporters.

Money isn't the answer here, TRUTH IS! Dean is no more honest, imho, than Bush is. Whatever bit of trust I was building in him he's shot to hell, and I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that's my view and I'll stand by it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

143. Dean believes in Campaign Finance Reform?

Check out this link for Dean's record on Campaign Finance Reform in Vermont:

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

[DrFunkenstein]

103. VPIRG On Dean's Commitment To Campaign Finance Reform

Governor Howard Dean Pulls the Plug on Democracy

Governor Howard Dean has proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant governor.

VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future.

The Governor's move will simply open another door for access by corporations and other wealthy donors seeking generous tax breaks, permission to pollute our air and water, boondoggle electric rate contracts and other special interest perks.

Opponents of campaign finance reform falsely say that Vermont's public financing system does not work because there are no limits on how much a candidate can spend to run for office.

VPIRG supports two simple measures to fix the campaign finance reform law: closing the loophole allowing unlimited donations by a political party to a candidate and creating a matching fund system similar to the one in place in Maine.

Dean's proposal is currently being debated in the Vermont House of Representatives. VPIRG is lobbying the House of Representatives to reinstate the entire $1.3 million to the Fund and to remove Governor Dean's proposal to permanently remove all funding for the law.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html

<>

[dsc]

109. They must have merely forgotten the court decision

which made it so the money couldn't be spent. They surely aren't being dishonest no not at all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. Who are you accusing of being dishonest?

[dsc]

118. that organization

They are being very dishonest when they say he took the money but don't mention the case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. the Vermont Public Interest Research Group is dishonest?

VPIRG is Vermont's leading watchdog and advocacy organization. Supported by members since 1972, VPIRG's mission is to promote and protect the health of Vermont's environment, people, and locally-based economy. By informing and mobilizing individuals and communities across the state, VPIRG brings the voice of citizens to public policy debates that shape the future of Vermont.
http://www.vpirg.org/vpirg/_vpirg_top.html

Public Interest Research Groups in general have a lot of credibility with me. What do you believe is the motivation for this citizen advocacy group being dishonest? And could you please tell us exactly what you are talking about anyway? what case? You've accused what appears to be a highly reputable organization of being dishonest, so lets hear the facts that led you to that conclusion.

[dsc]

123. I don't read minds

so I can't say what their motive is. But they are being dishonest when the claim that Dean took the money (which he did) without mentioning the court decision which led him to do so. My evidence is your citation. Every published news report says the same thing. The law was ruled unconstitutional. You can't spend money enforcing laws which are unconstitutional. Given that they presumedly have at least one lawyer involved in that organization that leaves dishonesty as what they did.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

126. I'm asking you to back up what you are saying

You say:

"when the claim that Dean took the money (which he did) without mentioning the court decision which led him to do so. My evidence is your citation"

So you are saying that they don't mention the court decision, and whey I ask you 'What court decision' you point me at the article that doesnt mention it. I'm asking you again: What court decision are you talking about? Tell us.

Also "claim that Dean took the money (which he did)"

if fact, this article

Governor Howard Dean Pulls the Plug on Democracy

is not about 'Dean taking money'. It is about Dean proposing to remove funding for Vermonts Campaign Finance Fund.

And no one is asking you to read minds, all I am asking is for you to state any possible reason this citizen advocacy group could have for being dishonest. Is it some Karl Rove inspired plot?

VPIRG is Vermont's leading watchdog and advocacy organization. Supported by members since 1972, VPIRG's mission is to promote and protect the health of Vermont's environment, people, and locally-based economy. By informing and mobilizing individuals and communities across the state, VPIRG brings the voice of citizens to public policy debates that shape the future of Vermont.

VPIRG's Board of Trustees prioritizes campaigns issues that present opportunities to educate, organize and activate key constituencies to move public policy and build awareness of the links among the well-being of Vermont's people, environment, and economy.

Our programs share the common objectives of building a broad constituency to protect Vermont's air, water, and land by bringing together environmentalists, the agriculture community, consumers, businesses, and others who have an interest in protecting the environment and maintaining Vermont's reputation for purity.

An over-arching theme of VPIRG's work is that protecting our environment, whether by eliminating pesticide use or developing sound transportation policies, makes as much economic sense as it does in terms of protecting public health.
http://www.vpirg.org/vpirg/_vpirg_top.html

According to you, they abandoned these noble goals in order to dishonestly attack Dean. On the face of it, it doesn't seem likely. Asking what possible motive they could have is a natural question. This organization is certainly more credible than an anonymous message board poster who is not willing to back up what he is saying with a citation.


Just to remind you, the crux of what you are saying is that they are being dishonest by not 'mentioning the court decision'. What court decision?

[dsc]

139. Sorry

It was widely covered on this forun and I thought you were in a thread where it was covered. There was a decision that threw out the law (public financing) which meant that the money couldn't be spent. It was only after that decision that Dean took that money. It is very dishonest to state he took the money without stating it couldn't be spent. One of the threads was entitled "The Progressive case for Dean" and it quoted an article by the same title.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

140. Instead of talking about some other thread, why don't you address this one

You still haven't cited anything.

You've accused the Vermont Public Interest Research group of being dishonest by not 'mentioning the lawsuit' So let's talk about the lawsuit that you are trying to imply absolves Dean's actions.

This is about Dean proposing to not fund Vermont's Campaign Finance Fund during Vermont's 2002 legislative session.

Perhaps you are talking about the lawsuit mentioned below:

(this is from another webpage of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, the very organization that you accuse of dishonesty by 'not mentioning the lawsuit')

The main components of the campaign finance law as it was originally passed in 1997 included publicly financed campaigns for qualifying candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Governor, spending caps for all candidates, and strict contribution limits for individuals, PACs, corporations and political parties.

The law has been under attack ever since, and yet it remains today one of the toughest in the nation in terms of reducing special interest influence and attracting greater participation in our political process. The following is a list of the major attempts to weaken Act 64 since 1997:

Republican Party Lawsuit

Soon after the law's passage, the Republican Party, among others, challenged several key provisions on constitutional grounds. VPIRG joined in the legal defense of the law in federal court. The US District Court found that while the spending caps and the very low limits on party donations were unconstitutional, the rest of the law was constitutional. In fact, the court practically invited the Legislature to fix one of these problems by creating somewhat higher limits on party contributions. The appeals process concerning the parts of the law that were struck down is ongoing.

Governor Dean's Plan to Remove Funding

Early on in the 2002 legislative session, Democratic Governor Howard Dean targeted the public financing provision of the law for elimination. VPIRG led the effort to preserve funding for public financing of qualifying candidates. The Governor claimed that the law was not working and therefore should not be funded until a final court decision has been reached. Working with Republicans, Progressives and Democrats, VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses). Read more on this issue.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

So what's the real story here? Who is the real champion of public financing, VPIRG or the Republicans who tried to get it overturned and Dean who tried to remove it's funding?

[dsc]

145. without spending caps the law was worthless

If you don't believe me look at NYC where Bloomburg bought an election. Even though Greene was rather generously publicly funded he couldn't buy ads since the prices went through the roof. The choices Vermont had were to spend an unlimited amount of money (the Christian Right would have spent a mint) or lose the law. He made the right decision. It should be noted that unlike what their website says the court decision came first. I won't provide the link due to it already having been provided and frankly being tired of being the only one ever asked to provide it. Provide a link proving your draft dodging non sense then we can talk.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. You are misrepresenting the facts.

The court decision left in place public financing and spending caps for candidates for Gov. and Lt. Gov. if they accepted the public financing.

A cheap shot
January 13, 2002
(from the Editorials section)

If the Legislature is interested in abolishing Vermont's law for public financing of campaigns, it ought to address that question squarely. The proposal from Gov. Howard Dean to end public financing by siphoning off money appropriated for that purpose is a backdoor attack on campaign reform that smacks of political opportunism.

<snip>

But Sessions left in place the option available to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to accept public financing. In the 2000 election, the result was that Dean and his Republican opponent, Ruth Dwyer, refused public money. They were both able to raise far more privately, and neither wanted to be outspent.

But Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina was happy to accept public financing of $300,000, far more than he was likely to collect in contributions for his third-party candidacy. That handsome war chest allowed him to compete more actively, and he won 9 percent of the vote.

Now the economy is in decline, and revenues are in free-fall. Dean is looking for every dime he can scrape up, and the $1.3 million appropriated for use by candidates is a tempting morsel, particularly since the two major party candidates do not even plan to use the money.

But Pollina would. Using the budget shortfall as an excuse to deprive Pollina of cash has to be a tempting choice for the Democrats, who stand to lose enough votes to Pollina that they could lose the election.

<snip>

Dean's effort to defund Pollina is being greeted with skepticism in the Legislature. But even if they reject Dean's idea, the Legislature need not leave the system in place as it is. Major pieces of the campaign reform law have been junked, and what remains is flawed.

<snip>

The aim of campaign finance reform is to minimize the shenanigans that surround money in politics and to end cynicism about the electoral process.

That is an important goal, and the Legislature should look for ways to achieve it. Dean's plan, unfortunately, has the look of another shenanigan.
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40614

Yes, there was a loophole, however:

What the Legislature Should Do To Improve the Law

First, the Legislature should close the political party loophole in the law (created by the federal court decision in 2000) that allows unlimited political party contributions to candidates. VPIRG supports S.15, which would create a limit on party contributions of $50,000 to gubernatorial candidates.

(With no limits in place for the 2000 election, the Democratic and Republican parties each gave about a half a million dollars to their gubernatorial candidate.)

Second, the Legislature should resolve the problem created when the court struck down spending caps for candidates. Following the model now used in the Maine public financing system, Vermont should establish a matching fund system that helps to level the playing field between public and privately funded candidates. This would encourage more candidates to utilize public financing, reduce big money influence, and create a more even process for Vermonters to hear and choose among their candidates.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

You really think this assault on public funding in Vermont is a winning issue for Dean?

[Nicholas_J]

146. Those who accepted limits

Were allowed to do so throughout the campaigns which already had been started.

Only Anthony Pollina accepted the limits and only used the "Clean Money" allowed for the 2000 campaign.

Dean could have done so as well