What's up with Dean?

I received this email from the Public Citizen.

"Gov. Howard Dean, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination, has just announced that he will make a decision this week as to whether or not he will stay within the public financing system for the Presidential primary elections.

As the top fundraiser among Democrats, Dean is clearly tempted to opt out of the public financing system, but we want to make sure that his commitment to abide by the system's rules - and to fix the system, should he be elected President - remains solid. So we are asking you to do the following: no later than the end of the day this Friday, please send a message about public financing to Gov. Dean. To do that, point your browser here:

http://www.citizen.org/congress/forms/actionemail.cfm?src=42"

Between his NRA position and the way he handle the Rock The Vote debate he is really starting to concern me.

Does anyone know his REAL position on public financing of elections?

pretty clear. At least he cloaked the flip-flop under the guise of progressive involvement through a vote, unlike his flipflop On Cuba and Israel.

He feels that Castro isn't making an effort and he's not in favor of relaxing the trade restrictions without some kind of positive action on Cuba's part. Simple.

He still needs to be talking about what HE would do with Cuba.

I'm a little tired of all the "flip flop" claims that die off unsubstantiated. Would you mind elaborating on the Cuba and Israel flip flops in detail please?

Cuba - He originally was for expanding trade with Cuba based on the idea that expanded ties will encourage democracy in Cuba. He later supported tightening trade sanctions against Cuba due to it's sentencing some dissidents to long jail terms. Not a flip flop, IMO.

Israel - He originally his position to be AIPAC, which tends to be strongly pro-Israel, in an Ariel Sharon kind of way. He later said he has a balanced approach to both parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. IMO, also not a flip flop, but Dean hasn't been very clear on this issue aside from saying he is a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist and supports the creation of a Palestinian state

He is concerned that accepting federal matching funds would limit him to spending $45M when Bush is expected to raise about $200M, but he also wants voter input.

by tens if not hundreds of millions.

The system is broke so that Bush can opt out and get hundreds of millions from corporations but if Dean opts in he is limited to maybe 1/4 of what Bush is raiding.

He HAS to opt out to remain competitive and WE CAN HELP.

There are many more of us work9ing poor folks than there are crporations.

Nothing wrong with Dean's position at all. But becuase he did not WANT to do this earlier he wants the approval of his supporters so that they are all on the same agenda page.

It is cool.

Dean is cool

He said that in the same speech where he "apologized." Basically he thinks campaigns should be almost totally publicly funded, if not totally.

Re: the NRA position. He's not an NRA member AFAIK. Until recently he was opposed to the "assault" weapons ban. Unfortunately he seems to have decided he needs to be for it to get the Dem nomination so he flip-flopped.

Re: the RtV debate. I finally saw excerpts last night. What a non-issue. Some audience member took something he said out of context and Sharpton blew it out of proportion. It was race-baiting and pandering. Reminded me of the idiots a few years ago who were offended by the word "niggardly".

Re: campaign financing. He thinks he can raise more money privately than he could under the restrictions that come with matching funds. So, he wants to raise as much money as he can, but he wants to do it within the law. Doesn't bother me in the least.

whites in the south wave confederate flags.

He was merely being a hypocrite.

What I've seen him say is tht he is for the brady bill, the assalt weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, but beyond that wants to leaver it up to the states.

Given it will help defeat Bush provided Dean gets the nomination, I wouldn't lose sleep over this.

but he knows he would lose if he only had $45m versus Bush& Rove's $250-300m.

duh

bush-lite

You can honestly say that you'd want the Dem candidate (whomever it may be) to be hobbled by a $45M spending limit? It's not like Dean's taking Tobacco money here, he's just considering declining federal matching funds and the spending limits that come with them.

Of course Dean should opt out.

But he never should've said he'd accept matching federal funds in the first place. Dean knew Bush would have a $200 million war chest when he committed to the federal funds.

But he said he was "committed" to campaign finance reform and would accept federal matching funds.

Now he says he's opting out.

This is the exact definition of a flip-flop!

For some, this is probably a non-issue as any Dem will need to grab as much cash as they can to compete with Bush.

But for me, it's just another example of Dean saying one thing and then doing another.

I'd like to know in detail your other examples.

I can' blame him for thinking he had no chance to raise this kind of money. He had no idea how thirsty we all were for his kool aid.

I can' blame him for thinking he had no chance to raise this kind of money.

So you think Dean only committed himself to public financing because he thought he wouldn't be able to break the limit anyway?

How principled!

Good one :toast:

Like I've said, he should opt out. He just should've never "opted in" in the first place unless he was totally committed to it.

As for the other flip flops I was referring to, I guess the one that has really bothered me was the death penalty.

Not so much that he reversed his position, but how he's tried to play it both ways.

Watching that Meet The Press interview in June was brutal.

When people at dean events used to claim that he never flip flopped, my response was always, "there are two issues. One is the death penalty, which I can easily accept given his explanation, and matching funds, which he hasn't flip flopped on yet, but probably will."

Looks like I was right.

I have had one major complaint with the Dean campaign of late. And that's this feeling I have that it is no longer People powered Howard, but Dollar powered howard. This doesn't alleviate my concern one bit. I attribute this to a fundamental difference between Trippi and Dean himself.

I think that's a reasonable concern. But it may have been inevitable.

but it goes against my deepre beliefs that elections are about people and getting the vote out, not about how much you can raise.

This is where I admit to being idealistic, maybe to a fault.

amongst other things. If Dean didn't do it, he'd have no chance of winning anything. Dean ran a "grass-roots" oriented campaign only because he didn't yet have the money, and because the first two states to vote depend on retail politics.

...that's an alright one to have :toast:

because he is consulting with his supporters as to what to do.

He said he was "committed" to the federal matching funds.

Now he says he isn't. I read the email he sent to his supporters. It's quite obvious what he expects the response to be.

Spin it how you like. That's a flip flop.

Like I said in my post, I think he should opt out.

I just think it's unfortunate that he painted himself into the matching funds corner so early in the campaign.

It is an official change of position. And I don't mind one bit.

Just a Dean fan backing you up. I'm willing to admit the obvious.

:hi:

I actually was looking for arguments to support the limits but when I noticed all the attacks gearing up, I figured well, they are going to attack him anyway, might as well go for it.

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

"Do me a favor asshole, just go vote for bush now."

I cut and pasted this from your post for posterity.

Way to lower the level of discourse.

"So, he should just accept the limits?"

Did you even read my post? I said he should opt out.

I also said it was a mistake to ever committ to accepting the federal funds in the first place.

It's a flip-flop. Simple as that.

He's asked us to vote on it.

It is the supporters who want him to refuse the matching funds.


And Dean is publicly funded... we're the public and we're funding him.

would have preferred that Dean ask THEM, I guess!

I've noticed you asking for cites when someone makes a claim about what Dean's supporters think. So I was wondering if you have a cite for what Dean's critics thinks

Dean's supporters are the ones who will be deciding the issue. It will require even more commitment from those of us who have been supporting him.

When he made his original pledge, he didn't know that Bush would be raising $200 million for a primary battle in which he faced no primary challenger.

He didn't know how the numbers would work to his disadvantage otherwise. With matching funds, he probably runs out of money completely by March and will not be able to spend another cent until after our nominating convention in late July. Further, if he accepts matching funds, he'll have to bring fundraising to a dead halt.

Tell me that's not a prescription for disaster -- and a loss at the polls in 2004 (assuming we have fixed the voting machines problem so the machines and their owners LET us choose our next President).

Eloriel

Everyone knew Bush was gonna being running uncontested, and everyone knew he'd be raising mad bank.

His coffers were already lined when Dean made his committment to matching federal funds.

So that line doesn't wash.

"Further, if he accepts matching funds, he'll have to bring fundraising to a dead halt... Tell me that's not a prescription for disaster."

Hey, if you read my post, you'd see I said he SHOULD opt out, cuz, yep, putting a cap on fundraising would be a disaster.

We agree on that.

I just said that it is a reversal of Dean's previously stated position. Putting the "decision" to his supporters doesn't change that. He's either for the matching funds or he isn't.

and we're deciding if we want "limits" or not! A lot of us say "not"! We are rolling right along with the times and you can use all the buzz words like "flip flop" ya want..they don't mean a thing when there are important issues to be discussed by Dean Supporters.

We will do what we want. No excuses to nobody.

Yeah his whole platform changes!

averaging 77 bucks apiece. Yeah. What a corporate whore HE is.

using the bush card makes no difference.

and that he would make a top priority in his campaign to address this issue. Kucinich is the only one that I know of addressing it now, and I'm sure he will bring it up at the next debate, as I'm sure Dean will opt-out.

My guess is that opting out will be a mistake for him. His mouth keeps getting him in trouble. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think his speech coach/writer can guarantee he won't say something stupid and insensitive again.

Click on http://www.kucinich.us to find out more on Kucinich's take on the privatization of our electoral process and why he thinks it is the most important issue in America today. Also, did you read this on the Washington Post today:

Howard Dean: "Chairman of Diebold has sent a letter saying that he will do everything he can to get Bush reelected. this does not engender confidence in the American electoral system. If I become the democratic nominee we will have teams, particularly in jurisdictions like Florida, who will be conducting poll watching activities to prevent the kind of republican abuses that took place in the last election. We will do more work on the voting machine issue as the campaign moves along. "

That's odd, because I find it VERY TROUBLING, and VERY SUSPECT. And I think the Justice Department should too, as well as Dean.

before you let your concern get out of hand. If he decides not to take matching funds, he still won't be contributing to the reason why we all wand CFR.

The limit on matching funds was based on the fact that nobody thought any candidate could mobilize so many small contributors. The only way anybody could raise that much money, they thought, was by pandering to special interests. That is clearly not the case with Dean. Take a look at this data:

Candidate - - - over $200 donors - - under $200 donors - - Total raised - - - Over $2,000 Donors

DEAN - - - - - - - - - 13% - - - - - - - - - - - 52% - - - - -- - $25,387,493 - - - - - - 1,579

KERRY- - - - - - - - - 53% - - - - - - - - - - 14% - - - - - - - $20,043,631 - - - - - 4,371

GEPHARDT - - - - - 56% - - - - - - - - - - 11% - - - - - $13,666,915 - - - - - 2,957

EDWARDS - - - - - - 67% - - - - - - - - - - 4% - - - - - $14,510,398 - - - - - 4,374

BUSH - - - - - - - - - - 74%- - - - - - - - - - 11% - - - - - $84,583,768 - - - - - 29,787


How can anyone imagine that opting out of the matching funds means Dean is now going to start taking special interest money?

-edited for clarity-

Is there any more doubt about who is winning the hearts and minds of the average citizen?


This guy is phenomenal.

And there is no greater evidence that it's the system that is broken.

I have to check my mail because he is asking his supporters to vote on it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fate of this campaign rests in your hands, and I believe the future of our American democracy rests on your decision.

Sincerely,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

PS For more information about the vote, visit http://www.deanforamerica.com/decision

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

Right there. I've been hindered from day one by campaign finance laws. They're vague and dangerous. When you have a campaign that gets so much money from individual contributions, the campaign finance laws don't apply very well. The laws were never meant to keep me from taking hot dogs to a Dean house party.

Here is a link from his site
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_campaignfinance

As far as the matching funds, he is opting out for the same reason all serious Dems should opt out, because George Bush is opting out. I to want good reform of the system, but cannot expect to go into this election with a $160 million less to spend when compared to Bush & Co. It's like going into a boxing match with both hands tied behind your back and wearing a blindfold. The moral righteousness of taking public funding will not counter the on slot of negative ads Bush will run from March to August.

I believe he has said that he wants to clean up the system, but until that happens, you've got to play the current game.

will he use the money to outspend his opponents in states where they are limited to the caps?

Like in Iowa, will Dean outspend Gephardt maybe 2-1 in order to try and win the caucus, while Gep is limited to the cap and Dean isn't?

The BASTARD!

Will Dean still abide by the spending caps in the states in order to have a level playing field and use this money only against Bush, or will he break the caps in the states?

and he's in the lead, so why would he need to spend more?

...in a rhetorical manner.

Of course Dean will outspend other candidates, just as Gep and Kerry and Lieberman and Edwards will outspend Kucinich and Sharpton and Mosely-Braun. There's nothing wrong with that...especially considering that there's not a competing candidate who can afford to spend the money but is adhering to the limits for philosophical reasons.

We've talked about this with Trippi. There is a feeling that all D candidates should come to a gentleman's agreement to set a cap so that candidates who do take funds won't be at a disadvantage against those who don't. And it saves money in the long run to go after Bush.

But the downside for Dean in that regard is that Gep will blow his wad in Iowa and Kerry will blow his in NH. Edwards in SC. Dean isn't running against one person with one bank account. He's running against 8 people with 8 bank accounts who will surely gang up on him in different states. Lots of gray area.

I would have a problem if Dean went back on his pledge to try and use his money to defeat the candidates who are forced to spend under the caps.

and I appreciate the objectivity. I'll be worried if he spends all of his cash on the primary.

he's opting out. Seems clear enough.

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

<edit>

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.”

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0816-01.htm

Published on Saturday, August 16, 2003 by the Associated Press
With Cash Pouring In, Dean Pulls Back on Campaign Spending Pledge

<edit>

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.

more...

What rubbish! He never thought he'd be in this position.

the limits that go with it"

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0816-01.htm

and it says what you claim it says. Sorry about that.

Dean said he promised to make it an issue if the other candidate opted out and started taking special interest money.

And Dean said he was going to take the matching funds, but that was before they realized that doing s would put them at a 160 million disadvantage to Bush... and they never thought they've have this public funding system set up.

The spirit of the law is to keep big business and special interests from buying the election... not to keep hundreds of thousands of people like you and me from funding a candidate with small donations.



At this point it would be foolish not to opt out.

What's actually Dean's opinion on free trade? Some imply that he's against and others that he's pro. Makes me feel kind of confused :) Anyone wise enough to know his viewpoint on this, truly important, issue?

Finished reading Stiglitz' masterpiece "Globalization and its discontents" yesterday. A splendid book where the author embraces the "good" globalization, i.e. free trade and reformed global institutions. Basically that's why i am asking this question in the first place. :)

Thanks,


/Daniel

to fix some of the problems with it.

He wants to attach labor, environmental, and safety standards to our trade agreements, and to make US companies that relocate factories offshore to meet the same standards in any other country that they'd have to meet here.

Dean sees trade as a national security issue... he wants to make sure we build strong middle classes in other nations, not only to buy our products, but because folks who have a nice middle class and opportunity, tend not to blow up buildings or help terrorists etc.

Sorry, can't answer your question. But welcome anyway.

ONCE commenting on Dean's own words (post #12), y'all helped me decide to encourage him to opt out with my vote.

Dean should opt out of public financing. Ideals are a wonderful thing, but this election will determine the rest of our lives, as well as those of our children and grandchildren, etc. It isn't as if public financing is some sort of idealistic sacred cow.

Also, I say use every trick in the book. If Dean stays within the public financing system, no one will be happier than Rove and bush.

Although Dean has done a great job energizing the grass roots, he sure wants to run a "conventional" campaign now. What's the point of trying to beat Shrub at his own damn game? Playing by the conventional rules means you're gonna get trounced the conventional way.

Paul Wellstone defeated his opponent in 1990 by spending 1/10th of what his opponent spent. He did it throught GRASSSROOTS efforts-- person-to-person, neighbor-to-neighbor-- and also some VERY strategically-run humorous television commercials. It CAN be done, without having to buy votes "the old-fashioned way".

If Dean foregoes public funds, it just proves he's really no different from the rest of the "politicians" he's running against. All it proves is that he's done a good job of hoodwinking a bunch of well-meaning people into supporting yet another business-as-usual political hack.

In 1992, when he was running for governor of Vermont, he told the NRA he was against an "assault" weapons ban. But now he says he supports the "assault" weapons ban that was passed in 1994. So there's some weasel room; he can claim the ban that was passed is not as restrictive as the proposed bans that were circulating in 1992.

If you're wondering why I put "assault" in quotes it's because "assault rifle" is as meaningless a term as "partial birth abortion". The only useful part of the AWB (IMHO) is restricting the size of ammunition magazines; all the other restrictions are on cosmetics.

I've learned not to tust the 3rd party statements about what Dean said... I want to see his quotes.

What's your source?

The NRA weighs in also in the article.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html
Kerry criticizes Dean's gun views
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
11/01/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said Dean's opposition to an assault weapons ban in 1992, recorded in a National Rifle Association endorsement questionnaire, contradicts his position as a presidential candidate supporting a federal assault weapons ban.
Kerry supported the 1994 bill that outlawed the sale and ownership of assault weapons, which Dean says he now supports.
"Howard Dean, during the time we were trying to pass it, was appealing to the NRA for their support," Kerry said, while visiting a rural Story County farm.
"We don't need to be a party that says we need to be the candidacy of the NRA. We stand up against that."
Dean has said 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore lost the election because he failed to win Southern states, where disaffected Democrats who favor gun owners' rights were reluctant to support him.
"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Dean said Friday in a telephone interview from New Hampshire. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."
Dean said he answered the questionnaire while running for re-election as governor of Vermont. He has said he was never asked to sign a gun control bill during his Vermont tenure.

I find your attitude simultaneously condescending and incredibly naive. It would be lovely if campaign finance rules were fair, and all we had to do was stand by the candidate with the best policies. Of course, if that were the case, Bush wouldn't be in office, would he.

The correctness of your ideas doesn't matter a bit if nobody gets to hear them, and I'm sure Karl Rove knows just how to spend that $200 million to drown out any facts that manage to find their way through the "media filter."

I'm touched that you feel bad for me getting fooled by that mean old Mr. Dean, but when Dean asked me, along with the 600,000 other supporters whose opinions he actually seems to care about, I told him I thought he should forego the matching funds. If Dean turns into a corporate shill, clearly I've made the wrong decision... but at least it was my decision.

Wellstone was a remarkable man, and he accomplished remarkable things. I wish the system were fair, so that such success became commonplace. In the meantime, I'll encourage Dean to spend every penny I can give him to defeat Bush.

Like I said before, you cannot beat Bushco at their own game. THEY set the rules. THEY will win. THEY will still raise the most money, "people-powered Howard" or not.

But if you think the Democrats need to keep playing the same old hopeless corporate/Republican game of "buying" votes (instead of using PEOPLE POWER and the GRASSROOTS to spread their message) then please go right ahead.

And don't be suprised if we lose, yet again, to the guy with the most cash, who will undoubtedly be Shrub/Cheney.

For a guy who's not about "politics as usual", Dean sure is playing this whole thing like a good politician.

If he starts by caving on the public financing issue, what's next? Will he also start taking $$ from Haliburton, Bechtel, Boeing, et. al.? We already know he's got power company execs and AOL/Time Warner execs writing checks to him-- what's to stop him from taking more dirty corporate money?

This move just confirms my worst suspicions about him: a faux-"populist" campaign that's actually run top-down, but with just enough "participation" by supporters to make it seem like they actually have a say in it.

Howard Dean won't change this country. He'll just become the new head at the top of the corporate-dominated beast. Mark my words.

He's letting his supporters vote on opting out or not...

And what is it about Kucinich supporters who want to cut off their own legs before the race starts? This lose at all costs attitude is why kucinich is polling at 2%.

Dean has the chance to compete with Bush... he won't raise 200 million, but he could easily raise 100 or maybe even 150 million.

Wellstone was not running a national campaign with national media prices. Dean is going to need everything he can get to beat Bush and the Rove machine... not just grass roots word of mouth, but enough money to answer back to Bush's media attacks. Otherwise Bush will spend 6 months defining Dean in the media while Dean is hitting that 45 million limit and is unable to answer back.

DO you want to lose that bad?

:scared: :nopity:

Hence the hue and cry.

his supporters vote on whether or not he should opt out of federal financing so he can compete money-wise with Bush. If you want more info go to the blog or deanforamerica.com

Isn't it a good thing if people who really
want to donate to Dean's campaign and have
already, continue to do so....and those
taxpayers who don't want to fund Dean's campaign
don't have to.
Dean's campaign mainly has been funded by
small contributions. You'd think Common Cause
would see how great this is, in this case.

Another way to look at it.

On the other hand, I can see if you are GWB,
collecting huge sacks of money from corporate
interests who are in turn receiving government
contracts..that is a problem.

Have you ever heard of the old Jedi Mind Trick called CHANGING ONE'S MIND BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION?

Investigate it! It can have amazing results. Why, using such a technique, the average person can grow intellectually and spiritually in leaps and bounds!

Of course, you could stick doggedly to your razzing of "flip flops". That tactic has a name. It's called "conservatism".

info. But Dean has not let Kerry off the hook for his Iraq vote even though he has clearly stated that he didn't support going into Iraq without support from other countries.

In addition to Dean's being awfully unforgiving with other's change of mind, Dean has not done a good job of explaining why he's changed his position. The position change that sticks out in my mind is Dean's position on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Dean now says he does not support a BBA, when in the mid-1990's he did. He says he changed his mind because the economy has changed, but that doesn't make sense to me. If whether or not a balanced budget is a good thing depends on economic circumstances, then why did he support a BBA that would have made it impossible to run deficits no matter what the economic circumstances?

and kerry politically expedient vote and Dean asking his campaign if we should have spending limits. You really should look at this more closely.

http://www.deanforamerica.com
http://www.blogforamerica.com


edit~for adding links to Dean

I wonder how many people will die because Dean initially made the wrong decision on campaign financing....

Interesting to see you think the two issues are comparable.

Julie

plus he has yellow teeth

get out of the shallow end of the pool and start swimming down here in the deep end.

And those are Grreat Pictures! I love the way Dean looks!

I think the American people will tire of him too soon to get through to Nov.2004. Just as he grates on many of us who don't support him now, most Americans will see him only through television and get uneasy with him as leader. Especially when he has to drop his populist act and go back to his centrist roots.