Kucinich Challenges Dean for Breaking His Word on Campaign Financing

FYI- Just got this in....


For Immediate Release: November 6, 2003


Only months after he pledged to remain in the public finance system, Dr. Dean is asking his supporters to vote on whether he should opt out of the system, which was created in response to Watergate and the corruption of the political system by corporate money. Congressman Dennis Kucinich intends to move quickly to reach out to those disaffected Dean backers who supported the former Vermont Governor because they thought he represented a fresh new approach and believed his promise to use public financing.



Kucinich said: "The end of public financing means a tighter grip on the political process by special interests. Howard Dean has called for the people to take back America. His attempt to kill public financing will take back America -- for the corporations. Simply by asking the question, Dr. Dean has broken faith with small donors who saw him as a reformer who claimed to be from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. Dean's small donors gave to a candidate who promised to use public funding and who painted himself as the type of person who would never do otherwise. They should ask for their money back. In order to keep pace with Bush's fundraising, Dr. Dean will inevitably rely even more heavily on the corporate interests who are already sponsoring his campaign.



"Dean has misjudged the most effective way to defeat President Bush: challenging the corporations who control our government with money. By ending his commitment to public financing, Dean unwittingly supports the worst fears of the American people that there's really no difference between Democrats and Republicans on the most critical issues affecting the very nature of our democracy. We all know that the current campaign finance system is not perfect. But the answer is not to roll back three decades of progress and return to pre-Watergate standards."



BACKGROUND:

On March 7, 2003, the Associated Press wrote: "Howard Dean committed Friday to taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign.... 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.'"



UTILITY EXECUTIVES: According to a Feb. 25, 2002, Associated Press article by David Gram, titled "Dean Turns to Utility Executives to Finance New Campaign": "When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry. Nearly a fifth of the roughly $111,000 collected in its first months by Dean's presidential political action committee, the Fund for a Healthy America, came from people with ties to Vermont's electric utilities, according to a recent Federal Elections Commission filing. It should be no surprise. Dean and utility executives have had a long and friendly relationship…"



CORPORATE MEDIA: According to Center for Responsive Politcs, the second biggest donor to Dean presidential campaign is AOL/Time Warner executives and employees.



Kucinich said: "Dr. Dean promised to make it a campaign issue if any of his opponents opted out of public funding. I'm making it an issue now. Dr. Dean may feel that he can drag his supporters into agreeing with his preconceived decision because in the end he believes they have no other place to go. Well, he's wrong. Our campaign is reaching out to them. They don't have to give up hope."



WEBSITE FOR FORMER DEAN SUPPORTERS: The Kucinich campaign is creating a new section on its website called "The Dr. is Out".



For more information: http://www.kucinich.us

Peace
DR

He is only hurting the Party with his hopeless campaign and his flaky personality.

The guy is way worse than Nader.

dem candidate that supports health care, education, and a living wage for all americans.
There are plenty of people, myself included, who feel this man speaks for us more than any other candidate.

If he can't form a coherant and logical attack on Dean, but rather pointlessly bickers for attention. This is ridiculous. Many people, including Dean, are for finance reform in order to stop special intrests and private companies getting a large stake in the government. And when people speak against matters, such as what Dennis is doing, they forget to consider exceptions, and stretch themselves to extremes. What would those exceptions be? People, rich and poor, all over America, trying to finance a campaign to make change and improve their lives. If youve taken a look at Dean's average donations, it truly makes Dennis look like an idiot to bring this up. It isn't the corporations financing dean, but rather the people. Perhaps this is an exception that Dean himself had never considered early on with such rhetoric he displayed.

This pattern of thought is all too common today. People reach extremes; if they are not for something, they are against it. Pro, and Con. There lies no more gray area and exceptions, and just extremists yelling across the lines. He who yells the loudest, with the most Texas-like accent ussually wins...


It is near facism when the private sector can buy, influence, and control all the action of the government.

It is democracy when the people can finance a campaign aimed at changing their lives.


Im not for any one candidate...but Dennis definately has some strikes against him for such unsightful progressive fanaticism, which forgets the underlying reasons for progression, and acts only on idealology.

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

Go ahead...bury your head in the sand and ignore the REAL problems we all face. I am sure you will feel better in the morning.

Thou Congressmen DK is still in the neutral position in my book...I'm getting more and more negative feel for Dr. HD(no governor since he ain't one no more!!!!!).
At least DK doesn't pander to everyone.

Because it's his supporters who are making the call, NOT Dean. This is lame and Kucinich is being a titty baby, IMO.

...and they will. Heck, they can criticize him on virtually everything. Just watch them. They'll show up here soon.

And having his supporters vote on it, having read the blogs and heard the statements from Meetups, I'm sure the Dean campaign is pretty sure which way the vote will go. But hey, it's my position that Dean is a shrewd politician, that or he's got some pretty savvy advisors. I'd be very surprised if the vote isn't a complete blow out.

See how Kucinich spins it? He says Dean has already made up his mind and is goading his supporters to back his decision.

Fundamentally, at this stage of the game, Kucinich is an 'Also Ran.'

I can't fault anyone for standing up for thier convictions...and calling him a "titty baby" becuase he does??.oh wow, thats a real adult & intelligent comeback.

You call Dennis Kucinich names for sticking to his convictions and yet its simply wonderful that Dean, who publicly stated he would not do what he is about to do ( which I agree- great play Howie- get your loyal supporters to OK it )is going to go ahead and change his mind once again for poilitcal expediency.

I understand that money is the key & driving force of politics, which makes me very sad...how will we change this? If we can't then I truly fear for my country....

Someone has to take a stand...and you all say after Dean (or whoever) is elected...THEN we'll change...but after the next pres is bought and sold by corporate interests...HOW the HELL are you going to do it?? It just keeps going and going....how close are we to the final spiral down the drain ?

Peace
DR

PS don't get me wrong I understand why Dean is doing this...but I also understand that Dennis is trying to bring this financial control of politics back from the brink....I applaud him for thinking its not too late. Doesn't anyone else get what Kucinich is trying to do?? Obviously not....

And Kucinich knows that. The issue here is this...if we don't get Bush out of the White House we can't fix the problem. Kucinich would have reason to criticize Dean IF Dean were foregoing matching funds so he could accept corporate contributions. But that's not the case. Dean is being funded by the people. When Bush is funding his campaign the wrong way and building up money that WILL be used to attack relentlessly, why shouldn't the people be free to fund the Democrat just as well so they can actually fight effectively? This battle MUST play out the way it's about to. The people NEED to prove that they are JUST as powerful and influential as corporations. This sends a message to politicians that they DON'T have to sell their souls to big business.

Yes, I think Kucinich is whining on this. Dean is putting the decision in the hands of his supporters. I voted for him to forego matching funds. I explained why I feel it's necessary and the right thing to do. I feel like Kucinich is insulting and attacking ME just as much as he is complaining about Dean. I don't like it and I think he's acting childish, hence the "titty baby" comment.

Emerson espoused all these great ideals, but it was THOREAU who put them into action, and LIVED them in his own life.

Any jackass with a wad of $$ can say "I favor campaign finance reform"-- even BushCo says things like that. It's like saying "I support our troops", or "I oppose hunger", or "I like puppies".

What really matters is if a candidate will live by his convictions and beliefs, and not dump them when politically expedient.

Sorry, but "I was a triangulator before Bill Clinton" does not cut it for me. Nor should it cut it for ANYBODY else who seeks change in this country, IMHO.

I like puppies! Vote for me!

Reminds me of the Edwards booth at some function attended by a reporter for The Nation, where a sign read 'Free Puppy Love Hot Dogs' or something close to that.

????

Great article, by the way, only available in print.

You decide.

Let's see what the "small donors" think.

I say it is better never to have any ideals to begin with. Just my opinion, though.

It's about Dean backtracking on a platform.

What concerns me is, he said he was "committed" to federal spending limits because "campaign finance reform is just something I believe in."

Now he's flushing that "belief" for political gain.

I'm glad to see him stand by his convictions. I'm also glad Dean is honestly thinking about opting out.

We need to win in 2004 and we aren't going to do it with one arm tied behind our backs.

What I love is if Dean opts out, Kerry will also, and since Dean is allowing his supporters to decide, it means Kerry is allowing Dean's supporters decide if he is in or out. What a leader. Dean supporters have more say in his campaign than Kerry supporters.

as though opting-out is an option for him, but he's choosing to stay within the system.

does he even qualify for matching funds?

he has since the second quarter -possibly the first quarter he ran....

Each quarter his contributions have increased and NO- NONE are from corporations ....

DR

came from business-related PACs. Out of $25 million. He's received a total of $16,500 in any PAC money. Out of $25 million.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00025663

Yes, some of Dean's contributors are corporate executives. Guess what? I'm sure some corporate executives have donated to DK as well. Ben and Jerry technically are corporate executives.

We're hardly talking corporate sponsorship here.

Look, I'm not knocking DK's ideals. Good for him. I hope he continues to do well in bringing in the donations he wants, and bring an important message to the people.

But I wish he wouldn't bring up that either-or, no-difference-between-Rs-and-Ds rhetoric (posted in the intital post) that isn't helping and really isn't accurate.

...have come from employees of corporations?

I commend DK for his position on campaign finance, but there is idealism and there is the reality that Dems face.

However, the individuals with "ties to utility companies" are employees and/or executives who donate as individuals, and employees of a company. DK has the same type of donors on his lists. There are executives who donate to DK's campaign as individuals exercising their right to donate to political campaigns. This is true of all of the candidates. The distinction between individual (employee) donations and corporate PAC donations must be acknowledged.

DK also receives donations from PACs. They are NOT corporate PACs, however, (they're union PACs).

This is a tough issue. Campaign finance reform is desperately needed, but not at the cost of an unequal playing field.

What level are the employees? Executives? Management? Or are they production-level first-line employees? I have a feeling I know the answer, given the amounts of corporate $$ he took (and his pro-big business beliefs he held) as governor of Vermont.

I personally am very concerned with the media consolidation that's going on in this world. I also know that Howard Dean has accepted donations from AOL/TimeWarner executives. AOL/TimeWarner is one of the leading media conglomerates in the world, and controls much of what we see and hear in the media.

Knowing that, how confident am I that we'll ever see Dean sign legislation get signed into law that will restrict the power of media monopolies to control our airwaves?

Not very.... :(

...which is why I grimmaced when they all took that pledge. I don't advocate going to a gunfight with Bush armed only with a pistol with no bullets, while Bush is buying his way once again. In the Republican primaries, as discussed in these forums, Bush manhandled his way to the nomination, and then the White House, by burying all other contenders in a flood of cash. And he's doing it again. And that pledge was taken when we already knew that Bush was likely to opt out again. I think it would be doing democratic voters a disservice not to opt out in these strange times.

long ago but if I hadn't I would now.

isn't that a study in Democracy?

:wtf: Dennis?

You talk about Dean's small donors and them slap them with this statement?

Guess you are just another politician... :puke:

They'll vote no.

...or they can join the Kucinich campaign. And that's ok too. Campaign finance, in this election, as written into the post-Watergate laws, isn't high on my list of priorities when dealing with an incumbent extremist who has repeatedly strongarmed the media into complicity and buried opponents in floods of blood money.

if EVERYONE was on the same playing field.

Problem is, we're not. I'd love full, mandatory public financing, where everyone has to adhere to the limits. But we're not there yet.

If Dubya can spend $200 million dollars between now in and the RNC convention attacking Democrats -- which he can, because he opted out of the financing system, and he has no primary -- and we can't answer because we've run out of money and can't go back for more, we're doomed. Think about it -- we'll probably know who the nominee is this spring. That gives Dubya the whole summer to attack that one person with impunity.

I think HD painted himself into a corner in March by coming out so strongly about accepting matching funds. Truth is, nobody expected him to hit that threshold. I would guess he said that to keep Kerry from tapping his wife's money and opting out that way. (Just a guess, purely my own.) I think maybe he should acknowledge he made a mistake in March.

I don't think he's making a mistake now.

I voted Dr. Dean should opt out of matching funds.

I disagree, but I admire your commitment.

I do think it points out differences between people who see themselves as primarily idealists (where I would place DK) and people who are primarily pragmatists (which is where I tend to place myself).

We need both!!

He was entitled to be in the position Dean is in because he was against the war, and then Dean came along and lied and stole all his supporters. Must be tough.

Dean started his campaign back in 2001, when he first organized an exploratory committee, with the help of some friends in the power industry. Dean then began criss-crossing the country, enlisting supporters, while still employed as Governor of Vermont. As a matter of fact, the press in VT had to sue to get access to his ostensibly public calendar, since he was out of the state so much during 2002.

Kucinich, OTOH, was DRAFTED to run for president after the overwhelming response to his speech, "A Prayer for America", which he delivered to the Southern California ADA in February 2002. After receiving literally thousands of letters and emails, he organized his committee in early 2003.

Keep in mind he was also quite busy at the time as a full-time congressman, NEVER missing an important vote (until a couple months ago) and leading congressional opposition to the IWR.

While Dean was telling everybody he was from "the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party", DK was waging the good fight against BushCo as the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Where was Dr. Dean? Oh that's right: out on the campaign trail trying to get the dream job he'd had ever since he was a young boy growing up in the Hamptons in New York.

Dean's actions just prove yet again that he's as much of a populist as Steve Forbes. It's just another suit for him to put on at his convenience when it serves his campaigning and fundraising purposes.

A vote for Dean is another vote for business as usual. At least now some of his supporters are realizing that.

BUT at least he is asking his supporters what to do.

DK is right--this is a turnabout on Dean's part. Politically expedient and probably needed, but still a turn. He should never have said he would stick with public funding.

So I understand where both of them are coming from. Hope Dean can turn lemons into lemonade on this one, because I think he is a fine candidate.

NOT.

reminds me of the story of big pharma companies ordering their employees to donate to Bush.

to give to a Republican PAC. My boss hammered me about 100% participation. I refused and kept refusing and there were no repercussions, but it was scary for a while. I really thought I might lose my job over it.

Why the complaints from the Dean supporters?

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...

Back when THE ONE said he'd do it, the idea of making a stink if anyone opted out was just dandy... now that THE ONE has said he's opting out, anyone that makes a stink is a TITTY BABY.

:eyes:

like DK.

I am glad that he is drawing the line in the sand on this. It sickens me to hear people say that Kucinich and Dean are close on the issues when they are anything BUT close. Dean's core principles are those of a deregulating Libertarian. Dennis' core principles are those of a progressive Democrat.

You don't need big money to win. Many a successful GRASSROOTS campaign has been waged in this country, on many levels, that has resulted in victory.

As I posted elsewhere, Paul Wellstone spent 1/10th of what his opponent spent in 1990, and he WON. He won by appealing to the GRASSROOTS supporters, who spread the word by word-of-mouth, working the streets, door-to-door-- and not having to spend a medium-sized country's GNP to do it.

It seems to me Dean doesn't really think this kind of campaign will work for him. What does that say? That he really doesn't believe in the populist campaigning style that's brought him so much success so far?

Time will tell if Dr HD will take money from Big Industry!!!!!

When Dean made his commitment to matching funds, I think there is a strong argument to be made he never dreamed he would raise the kind of money from the number of people that he has. Certainly none of his opponents believed it. And no one had ever done it before.

Howard Dean found himself and his campaign in 100% unprecedented territory. When you find yourself in territory no one else has ever been to, I think you usually start to rethink your entire approach.

My guess is that Dennis Kucinich would be rethinking his options if he found himself with $30 million raised mostly from donations under $100...so raised from many thousands of people. I don't really think Dennis would want to tell people to quit sending money because we can't use it.

Anyhow...that's my guess about Dennis. He can speak for himself.

The Dean campaign has shown itself to push boundaries into previously untraveled territory for Democratic presidential campaigns multiple times already. I expect they will again as well.

We had a great discussion at Dean Meetup about this issue, and there wasn't consensus...but we will all go with the majority of supporters.

I think anyone could have predicted Dennis Kucinich's response as well. If you couldn't, you haven't been paying much attention to his campaign.

I do want to remind everyone that Dean's average per donation is below $100 each. And Dean has received money from many many more individual people than any other Democratic campaign. Wouldn't you want to build on that success if your candidate was that successful at raising funds?

and not change his mind on this important issue. He is after all and Idealist and not likly to cave in. Weither or not that would be the best move for him is up for debate. I personaly feel that if Dean backs down from his promises now, what will he do if he is elected? It sounds too much like politics as usual to me.

Kucinich's lifestyle speaks to his commitment to ideals. Is he the only candidate who's not a millionnaire? I know his net worth (which has to be disclosed when you file to run) shocked some journalists.

He's stick to his word, because he doesn't just talk about campaign finance reform and why it's important, he actually believes it.

Also, he knows the race isn't about money - it's about moving the grassroots to action through passion, principle, and common sense policies that change the status quo. If it's all about money, * has already won so what's the point.

I definitely support Dean if he chooses to forego campaign matching funds, and I support Kucinich for questioning it.

It's a fair issue, and campaign financing is a very very important topic for us all to think about.

with this.

to get out of addressing some concerns about something or other... anyone remember?

Have other Democrats used this tactic to avoid taking responsibility for their actions or the results of their actions?

Just curious.

What the hell are you talking about?

How is Kucinich playing politics with this? Is it because Dean said, back in March, that he would not only abide by matching funds regulations, but would hold other candidates to it, as well?

Let's set the wayback machine for March 6, 2003, shall we? Here's what Dean said, according to AP:

On March 7, 2003, the Associated Press wrote: "Howard Dean committed Friday to taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign.... 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.'"

So tell me how it goes from being "a huge issue" in March, to being something to be forgotten about in November?

Or is this yet another case of Dean saying he is one thing, yet his actions show that it's not the case? Or, in other words, Dean behaving exactly like the so-called "politicians" he's been railing against?

How can you hardcore Dean supporters continue with this campaign, when Howard has not just had a change of heart, but breaks his campaign promises even before he wins the election?

Would YOU trust this man to keep his campaign pledges, if elected?

I would expect it will cause Dennis' supporters to be even more strongly in agreement with him.

And I would expect Dean foregoing the federal limits will cheer many of his supporters.

I can't imagine it being an issue that resonates a tremendous amount with undecided voters. They will make decisions on something different...not campaign finance.

It's about keeping promises you make during your campaign and then breaking them when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

Dean said that campaign finance reform was important to him, and he would abide by federal matching funds rules. In fact, he said he'd take to task ANY Democratic candidate who also didn't follow those rules, too.

Now, he says he's going to break that promise-- a promise that may well have attracted a number of supporters who thought he was "different" from the other politicians in the race.

Don't forget Bush The Elder's "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge he made in 1988? He broke that in 1990, and it was a major reason why he didn't get re-elected in 1992.

If Dean is willing to break promises he's made as a candidate, it's not a good indication of what he'll do if he's elected.

This is nothing new.

We have evidence on here today for Dean lying.

We have evidence for Kerry lying.

I've heard plenty of people say DK lies because of his change in opinion on abortion.

We have a DU'er posting a cropped photo to emphasize a point by leaving out the part of the photo that could call into question the point.

I'm so tired of the lie accusation being thrown every which way.

If you use a narrow definition of lie, all of the candidates lie.

Scientific research shows that most all of us lie too...with a narrow definition.

Why not follow Joe Conason's lead and focus on the BIG LIES!

If money is all that it takes to beat Bush, then Dean will never win, because corporations will always have more money than individuals.

Dennis on the other hand doesn't need that much money to beat Bush because his sincere message resonates with the populace. Just because the media has so far managed to shun him doesn't mean that he is not poised to leap into the lead. He will not be ignored forever. Even when he does become the front runner, and has an option to drop federal funding, even if his supporters encourage and support it, I am convinced that Dennis will NEVER forego public funding.

Why is he attempting to knock out Dean... even if Dean loses, his supporters are more likely to go to Clark, Kerry, and Edwards.

I think Kucinich should be focusing on a few splinter issues, a few key differences he has with all the different candidates and attempt to split off supporters from all of them to boost his overall support.

I'm not saying attacking, I'm saying "If you oppose NAFTA, I'm the only candidate who is going to repeal it. If you honestly want single-payer health care, I'm the only candidate who is going to do it." Still positive, but tailor it for each of the other candidate's supporters.

"Dean may be anti-war, but I actually debated and voted on it."

I saw how they were treated after the flag fiasco. Clark theres good possiblity. Actually Kucinich has done that. He often says this than what is going on now. Then again they would still regard him as unelectable oh sigh but thanks for not attacking him.

I see this race as between Kucinich and Dean all the way. Sometimes I wonder what you Dean supporters would say if the media suddenly started covering Kucinich in an unbiased manner, or even in a biased manner like they cover Dean. I believe in the American people, and I think that most voters will (by the time they vote) have watched a debate or two, and see Kucinich in action, and they will know that he is the only candidate with a strict agenda which will take this country back from the corporations.

I know the media would never report on it, but I'm sure that most Americans see the media as an arm of the right wing war machine in this country, and they immediately distrust it, and I think this also applies to their fervent support of Dean.

I don't know if this is true or not, but somebody told me yesterday that Dean is of the Dean Witter Dean's. True? Is he related to that Dean? I would LOVE to know or get a link.

From Fortune Magazine

POLITICS
Dean and Dean Witter: Related?
FORTUNE
Monday, October 13, 2003
By Melanie Shanley


Ever since Howard Dean began running for President, his lineage has created some mystery. In August bloggers at sites like rightnation.us and freerepublic.com misinterpreted a Jimmy Breslin column in Newsday saying that Dean's "father was the head of Dean Witter stocks." They figured Dean was a Dean Witter scion. Nope. Dean Witter was one guy; he founded his firm in 1924 with his brother Guy Witter.

So who were Dean's ancestors? The family, which settled in Sag Harbor in the 1600s, had become wealthy by the early 1900s: Press clips say Dean's great-grandfather had a box at the Metropolitan Opera and toured New England by auto. His grandfather Herbert followed the family path from Yale to Park Avenue to Wall Street (he was a governor of the NYSE and a member of exclusive clubs like East Hampton's Maidstone), then went on to be a vp at Pan Am. Dean's father, also a Yalie and Park Avenue denizen, ran dozens of branch offices for Reynolds Securities before it was bought by Dean Witter in 1978, then stayed with the firm till 1986. Young Howard was also a stockbroker before becoming a doctor. Lest confusion remain, we confirmed that he is no relation to James Dean, either.

The testimonials on that page are wonderful. My favorite is:

"This is fundamentally the same argument I painstakingly proffered durring the world series; to see the Yankees lose does not mean I see my team win, i.e., To support Dean becasue I think he can "win" means I'm cheereing against the Yankees not for the Rex Sox. This is not just a fight to regain control of the whitehouse but more importantly a fight to see the essence of my country change back to ideals I embrace as "truly American". I no longer want to compromise the values I have and the beauty that lies within holding them, just to have a reawrd of cheering for a "winning" team. For God's sake that's the epitome of a Yankee fan." - A. Becom, Raleigh, North Carolina

Check 'em out!

And a great American philosophical tradition stretching back to John Dewey.

I do hope that Dennis Kucinich and his supporters do not forget that.

Idealism and Pragmatism are both valuable to a positive world.

I know which one I'd bank on.

To the world...but that's ok, I'm already over it.

Pragmatism got elected Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Idealism lost the election for Walter Mondale and George McGovern.

All 4 great people, but anymore it scares me when Republicans win the presidency.

Nobody had heard of him, and nobody expected him to win the nomination, much less the presidency.

I find it interesting that DK's turnaround on the abortion issue is "evolution," yet Dean possibly opting out of a statement made in March, 2003 is "lying." Interesting.

Kucinich's turnaround - 18 months - no votes during that time.

Dean's - 8 months - vocal opponent of present action at that time.

...he changed his position over the last few years. He has also backed up this change with his votes in congress and his pledge to not appoint judges who don't support Roe v. Wade.

Dean, OTOH, pledged to abide by campaign finance laws if the other Democrats did the same, and would HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE if they did. So far, no other Democrats have said they would not abide by the matching funds provision-- except for one. Howard Dean.

The question is, will he hold himself accountable? Or is this merely another "triangulation" that can be explained away, like his stance on NAFTA, the Social Security retirement age, Medicare, the Iraq War, and the rest of the issues he's "modulated" his position on since he started campaigning?

Dean made that statement ion response to the conventional wiosdom floating arround at the time that Kerry was the best candidate because of his ability to dig into his personal fortune to fuund his campaign if necesarry.

Dean has been comited to campaign finance reform for a long time and is being dragged to doing this. They brought it up a few months ago and Dean even then said he didnt want to do it.

At this point It is the right thing for him to do. He has allready established his frontruner status pretty firmly and that status only continues to increase unless something major hapens in the next month or two he will be the nominee. He will need to be able to ignore the spending limits to compete with bush when he becomes the nominee.

To do anything else under some false sense of pride would be idiotic.

The second bush opted out adhearing to campaign finance in this campaign became foolish.

He shouldnt have said what he did regarding it as it is coming back to haunt him with people like you.

It doesnt change the fact that the smart thing for him or kerry or any of them for that matter to do is to forgoe the funds if they can raise comparable funds on thier own.

You would be a fool to fight the bully with one hand tied behind your back because you made and agreement with your friends to only fight with them one handed.

I will hold it against him if he uses this as an excuse to go outside the spending limits in the states with early primaaries. Untill that happens I will take him at his word and believe that he is doing it to compete directly with bush.