I continually ask for proof that Bush' supporters finance Dean

I never get it. So here is a thread. Those of you saying this put up or (well you know the rest).

to actually think this! :shrug: Poor things.

Except its reliant on money, and anytime money and campaign are together, things get strange.

None of the Dean-bashers ever dare to post an ounce of proof anyway. They'll ignore this one like the plague.

From Newsweek's cover profile, now archived on MSNBC:

EXCERPT...

Then there’s Tom Bevan, a 38-year-old former advertising executive from the Chicago area with a conservative bent. He wrote a $25 check to Dean last week after seeing him surge. “The further left he goes and the Democrats go, the better for my man Bush,” Bevan says. “Some of the more centrist candidates would present more of a challenge to a Republican.”

CONTINUED...

http://stacks.msnbc.com:80/news/947647.asp?

Thanks for noticing, wyldwolf!

There are more articles, but they are difficult to find without Lexis/Nexis. Anyway, it's the principle of the thing.

EDIT: Typo in head and body. I blame the GOP.

That will be 25 bucks he wish he hadn't send.

I still don't see where Dean is radically different than, say, Kerry or Edwards.

The article is about a Bush supporter who believes Bush will have the easiest time against Dean, so he is donating to Dean in hopes that Dean is the nominee.

The original post asked for proof that Dean's campaign was being financed by Bush supporters.

The above article show that it is in at least one instance.

Being financed and recieving a donation are two different things. You have the beginning of proof here but it in and of itself is not proof.

Now I ask of you, is it true that the further left the party goes the better it is for Bush?

The second part of the question is where do you put Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, and Gephardt in a Leftist to Center line-up?

..Dean supporters often say the Dean campaign is being "financed" by "contributions."

So, in effect, the man in question has certainly helped finance it.

Whatever.

I personally feel the further left the party goes, the better it is for Bush.

But there are perceptions to contend with.

Dean, a moderate, has the perception with the public of being liberal.

Kerry, a liberal, has the perception of being moderate.

If I had to make a line up, here is what it would be..

Kucinich > Kerry > Sharpton > Braun > Gephardt > Edwards > Clark > Dean > Lieberman > {CENTER}

What we've found here is a contribution. That is not proof in and of itself that Dean is being financed by Republicans trying to influence the primaries. Proof comes when this one contribution is combined with evidence of many more people donating, as a whole, an amount of money they would have denied Dean the millions he has collected. We are talking about something that at least approaches 5 to 7 percent of his overall intake.

Thanks for answering the question regarding whether or not a leftist party helps or hurts Bush.

Should we believe him?

See what you get for watching Fox News all the time? Go on Deans' website and play his economic adress at Cambridge Universtiy last Thursday and tell me he's not Green, not progressive. Another difference? Uh, COURAGE? Dean was way early in calling this war a fraud and calling out the fact that our government is now owned by a handful of corporations. AS he ran for president, as Kerry et., al were mouthing inanities out of twos sides of their mouths. Dean gets fundementals and has the guts to yell out "The Emporer has no cloths" during the coronation, not during the fall. No difference? Pay attention.

In one thread we have Dean being assailed for not being as liberal as Kerry. Here we see a man saying the further left the Democrats go, the better it is for Bush.

Of course, Tom Bevan is a political genius and KNOWS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that a more liberal Democratic party is better for Bush. Is that the general consensus on DU?

Now, finding a handful of Republicans who have given some small sums to a candidate isn't the point. What needs to be proved is that there is a systematic process at play with a significant number of 'disruptive donors.'

After that, we can then discuss which is the most effective way to influence a primary election - donating to a specific candidate or running issue ads?

So, let me reiterate the high priority questions this raises:

Does the party going further left hurt or help Bush?
Is Dean to the left or the right of Kerry, Kucinich, Edwards, etc.?

Take your time in answering.

The question dsc has been asking was the one I wanted to answer first.

Regarding your question, of course the Bush-controlled media want to paint the Democratic nominee as a left-wing loonie. Dean, from what he's said, considers himself a centrist. Kerry says he's "liberal" on some things — like the use of government to improve the lives of ALL Americans. He's "conservative" on others, like the need to keep America's defenses the strongest in the world.

The media want to paint Kerry a certain way. Same goes for Dean, Gephardt and the other DEMs. I hope that wasn't too hard to understand.

To prove Dean's campaign is being funded by Republican's, evidence that at least 5 to 7 percent of his overall take comes from Republicans trying to influence the primary process. Dean raised a record amount of money. True evidence of Republican finance would come from being able to subtract the amount this disrupting donors are giving and leaving Dean a substantially less amount of money.

Would you mind clarifying a few points for me, please?

"The media wants to paint Kerry a certain way." Assuming the media is wholly controlled tool of the GOP, in what way do they want Kerry painted? In what way do they want Dean painted? Is Dean being painted as an ultra-liberal? Is Kerry being painted as a conservative?

Do you think a leftist Democratic party is stronger against Bush or weaker against Bush than a centrist Democratic party?

For a while now, dsc has been asking for evidence, “Proof,” that GOPers were sending money to Dean. Now he has his proof. If I had LexisNexis, there’d be more proof.

As far as your definition of 5-7 percent of Dean’s overall take coming from repugs, that’s really difficult to prove when the campaign finance laws do not require the identification of contributor in amounts smaller than $20 or $25.

Sorry, I don’t remember which. Like I wrote, not everyone is as smart as you, DU Friend LuminousX. The important point to remember is Bushler's supporters can cross over and send a Hamilton Ho-Ho's way anonymously. The number and amounts are anybody except Trippi's guess.

Regarding the way the media want to paint Kerry and Dean, let’s wait until we can get some serious content analysis done. Unfortunately, that’s usually a few months after the election, at best. Until then, we have to use more subjective types of analysis. Going by the amount of coverage, the Lion’s share is going Ho-Ho’s way. Going by the tone of coverage, Dean’s anti-war and Kerry’s wishy-washy on the war. I am smart enough to see both positions are inaccurate.

BTW: I wrote "the media want to paint..." Media is a plural noun.

'Supporters of Kerry, for their part, did not seem concerned that Edwards had edged their man in the quarterly filing. "We exceeded our goals," said a top Kerry supporter, Massachusetts philanthropist Alan Solomont. "We have more money in the bank than any other candidate had at this stage."

In an interesting sidelight, Solomont confirmed the observation of a former finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Florida attorney Jerry Berlin, that Kerry was attracting significant contributions from Republicans. Berlin told the Forward that "a lot of the money John is getting" comes from "dear friends" of the late Republican Senator John Heinz, whose widow, Teresa, is married to Kerry. "Some are doing it because Teresa asked, some because they are at the liberal end of the Republican spectrum," Berlin said.

Solomont, however, attributed the donations not to the influence of Teresa Heinz Kerry but to the idea that Kerry "has centrist views and a pro-business history."'

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.04.11/news3.html

nomination chances on his website:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/fedsoc.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

Political disinfo is SO predicable.

Can't handle a decent researcher, can you anti-Deanies?

I bet you are one of those guys who think the more conservative a dem, the better? WAKE UP! When you run a Republican against a Republican, guess who wins, Einstein? Jeeze. Let's see how much corporate money we can get to beat those horrible Republicans who get their money . . . from . . corpora . . .tions - -, hey, wait a minute Sen. Leiberman, is that smoke coming out of your ears? Will you Wall Street Dems PLEASE let us little people have our party back? Gosh, I know we don't belong at your brand spankin' new headquarters built for you buy the same crony capitalists crowd that the Republicans whore themselves to, but can we actually run the party now? You clowns have done such a wonderful job bringing in the new corporate fuedalism - - NAFTA(3 mill blue collars jobs GONE!), '96 Telecommunications Act (WONDERFUL IDEA guys, ain't media consolidation great?), DU in the Balkans. There's a gem. Let's see, Mr. Clinton. You are too chicken to tell the military, "I know there's no oil in the Balkans, but it's genocide!" And when you finally do something, you use DU to poison the country. AFTER the Serbs slaughtered thousands. Poor got poorer, the rich richer, the middle class shrunk. Lost the '94 elections because you guys stood for ZERO! A budget surplus, no health care! And now you clowns give us CLARK?! I give you my bare-ass backside. Right here, pal.
Move over, fat cat. Dr. Dean is coming, and flawed as he might be, he GETS IT. Voted for the war? You are a maggot, a craven worm feasting on the rotting corpse of our political system. You are coward and a creep, Sen. Bullpuckey, unable to muster up the simple decency to stand up to the gangsters who have stolen our government. You are complicit in a great crime, and now YOU WANT OT BE PRESIDENT? You pound Dean as being too "McGovern-like"? Screw you guys. McGovern had more courage in one atom of his thumbnail than you will ever have in ten life times. A republic in crisis and all the Wall Street Dems think about is THEIR OWN BACKSIDES. Leiberman, Kerry, and the rest of our useless plutocrats need to RETIRE. GOODBYE, you useless humans. Write a damn book. Just leave us alone so we can rescue our government. And some one tell Billary to SHUT UP. It pardoned a corporate criminal for a bribe. Clinton is a coward and a con man. I WANT MY PARTY BACK! I say burn down that sickening palace of a headquarters and rent an office building in the D.C. HOOD, Jackson. Today.
OK, YOU WERE THE UNLUCKY VICTIM OF MY CORPORATE DEMOCRAT RANT. Sorry, but think about balance. Corporations run our country, and we need a progressive movement based on Yankee populism to get us out of this mess. BURY GROVER CLEVELAND, damnit. Goodbye.

What a joke.

One check of $25 is hardly what I would call "financing the campaign".

I am sure some Republicans are giving to Dean because they think he would be weaker against Bush, but I bet it is a very small percentage of the money he has raised, and I would not be surprised if some Republicans have given to other Democrats whom they consider to be weaker challengers against Bush.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

We really shouldn't disturb their little fantasy world.

If they really think that the GOP have the ability to spot the weakest candidate like lions culling a herd of gazelle, then they honestly think the GOP are more brilliant than us. If they really believe people will just throw money away on the off chance that Dean is the weakest candidate, they are delusional.

Denial... it is one of the symptoms of grief. They are mourning the fact their candidates aren't getting any traction.

If they really think that the GOP have the ability to spot the weakest candidate like lions culling a herd of gazelle, then they honestly think the GOP are more brilliant than us.

Brilliant!

This is one of the innovasions of recent campaign laws.

http://www.fec.gov/finance_reports.html

killbotfactory says:
Dean's FEC Q3 report now online.
http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00378125/97935

All but 1000 dollars of the $14,839,513.99 came from individuals.

$6 million cash on hand at the beggining.
$12 million cash on hand at the end.

Dean rocks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=61398

It gives the name, address, employer and occupation of the donor, the amount donated, and date. How could you use this to prove or disprove Bush' supporters finance Dean?

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

But if you really think the method you suggest would work, why don't you use it to prove Bush' supporters don't finance Dean. lol :eyes:

I am sick and tired of Dean bashers requiring the other way. This happens time and time again and no I will do no such thing.

Which is obviously the case. :eyes:

which I have yet to see you criticise even once.

Why should I criticize it?

ever criticise what any Dean supporter ever posts. Not if you don't want to be considered the biggest hypocrite who ever walked the earth.

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

Disprove it!

and you are welcome to repeat that charge as often as you like if you think it will help the case for Howard Dean.

It must be true!!

and let the best argument win.

showing that a decent number of Dean supporters had also given to Bush or other Republicans. That would take work but would pretty well prove the contention.

I would take a link that had a person saying he or she had done it that had the info to track down via FEC reports as showing that it had been done at least once.

Those are some possibilities.

and not an iota of a reply. This charge gets bantied about endlessly (not one but two seperate posters in a fundraising thread make it today alone) and yet this supposedly undeniable fact leads to no proof. Simply unbelievable that is what Dean bashers are.

Aw heck. You're a nice person, dsc. To save you time, here's the relevant excerpt and the link:

EXCERPT...

Then there’s Tom Bevan, a 38-year-old former advertising executive from the Chicago area with a conservative bent. He wrote a $25 check to Dean last week after seeing him surge. “The further left he goes and the Democrats go, the better for my man Bush,” Bevan says. “Some of the more centrist candidates would present more of a challenge to a Republican.”

CONTINUED...

http://stacks.msnbc.com:80/news/947647.asp?

I posted this stuff 12 hours ago. Where's everybody been?

Oh well. Nobody's perfect. Need a link? ;o)

who will balance the budget, give us health care, and not foolishly plunge America into pointless wars.

Plus, I heard if you give money to Dean, it makes you impotent.

Prove it doesn't!

:tinfoilhat:

But they will go for a worthless plutocrat who talks out of both sides of his mouth, takes both sides of every issue and has the sincerety of your average used car salesman on Dopamine. Sure, Americans LOVE phony politicians who are bought and payed for by GE. Yeah, and giving to Dean will also make you hear voices through your tin foil hat. (AH HA! I knew it! A Malloy man!)

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

this is one conservative, and old article, and completely without any showing even one person did it. Yeah, you are quite right I don't consider this proof but I do think it is ridiculous.

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

We take one isolated post by a crack pot and assuming there is a massive plot (which has been outright stated on several occassions) yeah I do think that is ridiculous.

especially over at Free Republic.

They play on our fears. I don't fear them. Neither should anyone else who supports the Democratic party.

dough, though most are big on the Dean-can't-win bravado.

Go to fec.gov and search the Dean for America records and see the names of who donated.

Of course, considering the huge amounts of donors he has, this could take a long time

:smile:

There would have to be a significant number of people donating to Dean who are Republican. One or two idiots who are trying to make a point donating $10 here and there doesn't count.

http://www.polipundit.com/2003_06_15_polipundit_archive.html#200428465

There you go. Too bad the FEC dosn't supply political affiliation in the donor list.

Remember the GOP financiering the Nader campaign in Florida? Same idea. They've done it before, why not again?

Peepers

Some jackass posts it on his blog, and you play that as proof??

Spin those wheels, Kerryites. It's all you've got left in the tank anyway.

The point is, the blog is written by a right-wing nutbag. That right-wing nutbag things people should give money to the Dean campaign. THAT is proof. He's a conservative jackass who is giving money to Dean. There you have it. I don't need a NYT article to say it, when I can go straight to the horses mouth.

Peepers

Do you believe this?

A Howard Dean backer asks if the real John Kerry would please stand up.

It's ironic that, after Kerry's lifetime of equivocation and flip-flopping, beginning with the Vietnam war, he's finally being called to account by fellow Democrats.


If not, why do you believe what you quoted? If so, can I assume you think Kerry flip flops?

Kerry flip-flopped on the vietnam war? Kerry's spent a lifetime Flip-flopping? Care to back that up somehow? The point of that link was to show that certain right-wing nutbags think its a good idea to give money to Dean. That's it. I don't agree with the guy. But he is a right-winger who clearly says, hey, give money to Dean! Clearly that point is lost here.

Peepers

YOu are the one siting this source as being truthful. What I posted was right next to the stuff on Dean. So if you think what the said about Dean is truthful then why don't you think the stuff about Kerry is?

This is an example of right-wingers who support Dean because he'll lose to Bush. I'm not in any way saying anything else he says is truthful, but I AM giving you a concrete example of a conservative who is contributing to the Dean campaign. It's that simple.

Peepers

He never says he contributed (or else I would have looked it up to see if he had) he advocates that other people do so.

And I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of people responded to that call. Look, I'm not trying to say the majority of Dean's support is Republican. All I'm saying is that a lot of Republicans think getting Dean as the Democratic Candidate would be a dream come true. I don't think that's so much the case, given the failures of the Bush Administration, but you asked for proof that the Republicans were sending money Dean's way and there it is. It might not be all that much, but it's going.

Peepers

isn't proof. Proof is that you found person x who gave money to Dean who said he gave it for that reason. If you found a decent sized cadre of people who gave money to Dean and gave money to Bush that would give me pause. You have I wouldn't be surprised if. That isn't proof.

"Tossing a few million Dean's way to help propel him to the nomination will be money well spent: the guy is flat out unelectable... So I'm off to Howard Dean's website to chip in twenty beans. I suggest you do the same. Political parties only commit suicide every so often, and if the Dems have decided they're going to stick their head in the oven in 2004, I'm ready to pony up a few bucks for a chance to watch it happen."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/002376.html

Or...

An article by CK Rairden in the Washington Dispatch-

"Republicans are already voting with their wallets for Howard Dean, logging on to Dean’s official Web Site and donating various sums of cash to the left wing candidate’s primary campaign. They want Dean to win the Democrat primary. The real question now emerges. Will rank and file Republicans cross over and vote in the Democrat Primary elections to help get Dean the nomination?

I seem to remember a Newsweek article at some point mentioning some Republican contributions to Dean as well, but I can't find it anymore.

Peepers

You have cited an article with not one name or cited instance of Republicans giving money to Dean and an anonymous poster on some webiste. That isn't proof.

then here's this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=61310&mesg_id=64797&page=

THAT is a name and cited instance of a Republican giving money to Dean.

Peepers

Polipundit has great information. I really trust what they have to say like this bit about Hillary Clinton's book:

Coulter vs. Clinton

Ann Coulter's new book on liberal treason (yes, treason, literally!) is already beating Hillary Clinton's on the charts. And Coulter's book hasn't even been released yet!

Remember Rush Limbaugh's second book? Simon and Schuster did an unprecedented (for non-fiction) first printing of two million (as opposed to Hillary's one million) and sold them all in just eight weeks.

The only way liberals can even begin to compete with conservatives for book sales is by airing their dirty laundry, like Hillary is doing.
posted by PoliPundit at 5:10 PM Link to this post

Search for a more reliable source. Actually I can't believe those who make this incredulous claim haven't seized upon the Republicans for Dean movement and called it an Overt Operation to have middle class working Republicans cough up a thousand dollars here and there to help fund Dean. Those Republicans, they are all connected to the secret network. Whenever Bush gives a speech, he is actually sending secret messages to all of his followers.

With a cabal this organized... We're screwed.

But this source isn't intended to be reliable in any way. There is a point being made here. This guy is a right-wing whackjob. He also urges like-minded people to contribute to the Dean campaign. That's all I'm saying. It's the same idea as providing a quote from Bush that says "I want conservatives to contribute to Dean's campaign" and you deciding that was an unreliable source because he lied about Iraqi intelligence.

Peepers

I see people saying a lot of things every day. No doubt there are a few who heed the advice and gave money to Dean, but fundamentally the amount collected that way is pretty slim, mainly because if it was in any significant volume, it would be easily spotted by other campaigns doing opposition research.

There just isn't any reliable way to influence primary politics from the outside. There is barely ways to influence it from the inside. Money doesn't guarantee a win, which means donating money in an effort to cause a win is a worse investment than collecting money to run a positive ad or negative ad at critical times. That is what we really need to look for, issue ads popping up unsupported by any of the candidates.

So there you go. You will have to live with that.

Kerry is a war criminal after all the Boston Globe said it. It is possible that Kerry lied about being Jewish after all the Boston Globe said it. It is possilble Kerry lied about being Irish after all the Boston Globe said it. It is possible that Kerry drove his first wife crazy after all Newsmax wrote it. Yet, I don't post such drivel due to the fact I have standards.

since big donations would be more their style.

for Howard.

P.S. At the request of Rove of course!

that quoted several Republicans who were donating to Dean to assure he's be Bush's opponent. I have been unable to track it down, it may be archived, but, it did exist, and I'm sure there are people here who remember it at the time.

In another thread, I posted a column from a rightwinger that suggested to other Republicans to send money to Dean. All I received from Deanies was further scorn.

and what you recieved was the fact it was a person no one had heard of and that you had no proof at all that anyone had done it. That isn't scorn. And yes I would like the link for that USA today piece if you eventually find it.

It was in GD, LBN and P&C.

Wouldn't it be fairly easy for Gephardt or Kerry to bring it to light? Wouldn't that be a great angle of attack on Dean for their campaigns, especially with Dean quoting Truman 'When a Republican runs against a Republican, Republicans win.' Gephardt could be pointing out that not only has Dean said nice things about Newt but is currently being funded by the Republicans as a way to co-opt the Democratic party.

But they aren't. Why not? The proof is in the FEC filings and easily accessible for those who have a campaign staff willing to do the cross referencing. Alas, it doesn't come to light because the few nut cases who have no problem throwing away money are insignificant compared to the hundreds of thousands who honestly support Dean.

even a first hand account of anyone having done so. The artilce to which blm refers stated that unspecified other people had done so but the author clearly hadn't.

why not? This was a conservative author advocating doing it. He said others had (no names to check out of course) and said he readers should. I generally do the things I advocate doing unless I have a very good reason not to.

I wanted Gore to win? No.

:kick:

Proof, what a novel concept.

Stood next to the head of an enormous Ariel Sharon?

<>

I do realize that it is hard for some of you to understand this concept but yes I do think if people make claims they should back them up.

who actually made this claim that got you so riled up? I'm not saying it didn't happen -- I just want to know who the villian is here. Who made this claim, when and where? What exactly did they say? At least that way we'll know who to be mad at.

I am not going to be baited into getting a post deleted. This charge has been stated several times here.

Just like a Dean supporter!;-)

to the mods this is only being done to show that the above post is inaccurate.

Posts 9 and 17 of this thread are two examples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=61155

Again, I would like to note there is no way to answer the post above but to do this.

and the second post doesn't actually make the claim, it just makes the comment:

" Remember how the GOP was one of the biggest financiers of Ralph Nader's campaign? Same idea..."

which as we can see makes no claim or assertion at all, just points out how this meme is similar to another meme.

I don't intend to keep searching for hours over this. That person also said it and the second poster in that thread also made that charge. Since it is against the rules I am hardly going to keep going but the simple fact is the charges were made and by several people.

in another thread. ;-)

Then all the Democrats would be cowering in fear how the Bush wants to run against him, which may knock the Dean organization out of the primary to Kerry or Gephardt. It would be psychological warfare at its best.

http://stacks.msnbc.com:80/news/947647.asp

Is it possible people got this idea from reading Newsweek?

That really would be unfair of them to repeat something they read in Newsweek.

And before you can even TALK about it, you then have to prove it means more than 7 percent of all Dean campaign contributors really support Bush and will vote for him in 2004, except if the election occurs during a period of economic emergency while a black hole devours the outer gas giants and moves through the inner solar system like that one gigantic planet destroying thing on Star Trek TOS that almost claimed the life of Commander Spock, who should have gotten a promotion by now, who had to steal a shuttlecraft while everyone watched the dashboard screen, while trying to find a pay phone in Leamington, Ontario, during the dead of night, cached double stacked on GOOGLE, which still only constitutes circumstial pro bono face time evidence and not proof of anything real. And don't tell me you don't think so, because you'll have to cite a link for that, too.



"Don't you think I don't know that?"



EDIT: Typo.

which translates to 1 out of $800,000 dollars which went to Dean came from this man. Or that would be 1/8000 of one perecent as a decimal that would be 0.000125% And you have no knowledge at all that he has any knowledge of politics what so ever.

Here's Tom Bevan's website:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

He spends most of his time ripping Dean and pimping Gephardt.

Why would he do that if he wants Dean to get the nomination?