Is This A Logical Reason Not To Vote For Howard Dean?

Putting aside issues and electability for a moment and just focusing on the man as a politician and a campaigner, it would seem that Dean is not the most focused of candidates.

Knowing that he had a $41 million war chest to work with, he blew that in only two states.

Now the question I have concerning whether or not to vote for the man is this.

If Howard Dean cannot be trusted to use his money wisely in a primary campaign, why should Democrats trust him with all the campaign marbles once the General Election starts.

It's one thing to blow through $41 million, it's quite another to do the same with $100 - $130 million (or whatever the Democrat will raise this year).

Do YOU trust Howard Dean with the finances of the Democratic Party? I think his track record thus far has proved that he's not capable of balancing his own books (he's in debt, so much for the balanced budget crusader) and therefore not a candidate we should throw the whole party aparatus behind.

Agree?
Disagree?

He apparently comes from wealth and must own property somewhere. This would give his campaign a boost.

Ahem. It's all over the web, in about a zillion places, that Dean is plenty solvent, and his website is pulling in money at a faster rate than ever, if anything. It's Kerry that's in debt. This doesn't show what Kerry owes, but it's interesting anyway.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=C


Dean's organization has been all over the country. The "Sleepless Summer" tour last year wasn't free. It didn't all go to two states.

All I have heard lately is how Dean is on the ropes financially. Ifthose reports are correct, Dean is way ahead of the othersin cash available.

Does Kerry's number account for the debt to himself as well? If not, he is running a fiscal disaster of a campaign.

He took a gamble and lost but sometimes politics DOES involve risk taking. I was critical of it the other day in a cheap shot post ( as a tit for tat thing I should NOT have done), but I would rather take him to task on some of his dealings in Vermont such as the failed rail project and other aspects if I am going to criticize him.

Campaigns are expensive and risky and as long as it takes OBSCENE amounts of money to reach the electorate, shit is going to happen financially to all of our candidates.

which is the only state in the Union not required to do so.

budget not only balanced but created a surplus. It's EASY to balance budgets when they are small, times are good and federal money is flowing.

He also underfunded environmental watch dog agencies and other agencies in order to accomplish this. This info is freely available from mainstream sites such as BusinessWeek on google.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I see you point...Dean's really just a small town mayor, right? And as Magic Rat's question suggests, I guess Dr. Dean' really just a man not to be trusted with money. But I wonder why he and his wife chose to live so beneath their means all these years and why Dean's been painted as being so frugal for nearly 20 years? Can't figure that out, but I'm sure there's an answer somewhere, huh?

flaunt money. (But I understand what you mean.)

Just like voting for Kerry because he pulled out all the stops, mortgaged his house, and figured out how to win with fewer resources, against the conventional wisdom (me included) that had him just about out of the race.

This isn't party or national fund management. The Dean campaign made a calculated gamble that they could score IA & NH and couple those victories with paid organizations in many states to win the nomination.

The voters derailed the strategy but it isn't an inherently bad strategy. Of course, it probably is a WIN or go HOME strategy because it leaves you too weak to fight hard for several critical weeks.

good money, good positions

So why did he lose then? Somebody did something wrong

say that he was derailed in IA by several factors:

- long, tiresome bloodbath with Gephardt alienated voters
- some electability concerns (perhaps media aided) that made him look weaker than Kerry (military issue) and less appealing than Edwards
- an enthusiastic, though inexperienced, organization that couldn't compete with Kerry's more seasoned supporters in the caucus

After that, you have the media 'SCREAM' mess and the snowball effect for Kerry.

Try scary...

Though the worst of the Clark supporters haven't been around much lately.

They all scare me.

Not only did Dean spend so much money and lose, at lot of the money was misspent, if the reports can be believed. He bused supporters in in order to make him seem more popular than he was. He spent lots of money equipping volunteers who had no political experience. He went way overboard with his mailings, etc

Busing in people to fill up your crowds. It's almost the reverse of what the Kennedy people used to do when they'd bring the partitions closer in so it looked like a room was packed when it really wasn't.

The $36 million wasn't all in two states. Somebody was paying the people in those offices in SC and 23 other states. (I may be wrong in the number of offices Dean opened, but the last figure I heard was 26.)

Also, Dean paid Zephyr Teachout to go around and hold seminars on organizing grassroots movements which wasn't directly tied to his campaign - it was considered an investment in Democracy.

So while it was a high burn rate, I have very little problems with how it was spent (people are complaining about valet services at certain events which if you think about it, makes it easier for the elderly and disabled to attend since they won't have to walk after getting their cars parked... but we'd much rather see a negative instead of a positive, wouldn't we?)

you're kidding...right?...seems if it wasn't related to the campaign, and was paid for with campaign funds, it's a problem

edit: spelling

He reaped indirect rewards in all those states because Zephyr is part of his campaign and this was a way for his campaign to get into contact with activists and people interested in organizing in this fashion - people most likely to want to become involved in his campaign.

The thing was, anyone could attend.

if the campaign paid the bills...it needs to benefit the campaign..if it brought people into the fold it sounds like recruiting...and sounds valid to me

on edit: I guess my point was a campaign isn't supposed to be investing in Democracy (whatever that means)...it's supposed to get someone elected...

I don't think he's in debt.

it was in the New York Times today.

He's got almost 8 million on hand.


Got a link saying he's in debt?

-snip-
All told, the campaign carried into the new year only about $9.7 million of the $41 million it raised in 2003. It also had $1.2 million in debt. The campaign continued to raise money, bringing in more than $5 million in January, but spent heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Last week, campaign officials said they had about $3 million left and bills to pay."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/politics/campaign/02DONA.html

There you have it, $3 mil on hand and sliding into debt. By the time the campaign reaches the states he wants to raise he might be in debt.

so which is worse.

instead of mortgaging his house to continue, he analyzed the situation. (and he did not blow through the whole 41, he is still in the black, unlike kerry) he tightened his belt, and counted the delegates available. he decided that he could still win some delegates on tuesday, and focused his remaining resources on the delegate rich races coming up next week.
AND he has been organizing in all 50 states for a long time. (not all the money was spent in 2 states) he has a very active campaign here in illinois, even tho we are highly unlikely to have any say in the nomination.
i think he has been very smart with his campaign money, he is very tight with his own money, and he was very smart with the money of the taxpayers of vermont.

He has a solid record - a history - as a fiscally responsible chief executive. How many other candidates have a record even close to that?

And, of course, that he masks his centrist and corporate self by coopting the language of internet message boards.

But then, I figure you already had your mind made up.

Funny how Dean is "collapsing" yet still leads the pack on attack threads from supporters of the present "front-runner"...hmmmmmm

1st Dean didn't run the money part of the campaign. That's what a campaign manager is for.

2nd Dean did a great job in Vermont. Managed the State finances so well he balanced the bugdet every year he was Gov. and still provided Health Care and better education per capita than almost every other state.

3rd Kerry had to morgage his house to continue in the campaign. Why didn't you say the same thing about him. What did they do with all the money. Can Kerry be trusted.

4th Kerry continues to vote for more and more programs and the money has to come from somewhere. Or doesn't Kerry realize that there is a finite amount of money available to the Government. Dean realized that. That's why he BALANCED the budget every year. He even lowered the taxes for Vermonters. Can Kerry say he ever lowered taxes for anyone in the USA

that he signed off on all spending. And the blame lies with him and not the campaign.

Would you expect anything less. What a great thing to do. Instead of blaming someone else (that was responsible) he took the blame as a decent man would. Imagine someone actually standing up and being accountable instead of deflecting blame.

Another reason to like Dean more than Kerry.

Look at it like this. Dean has a finite amount of money. He recognizes that to stay the course he must conserve cash. Rather than borrow and spend his way out of problems, he made a hard decision in order to stay solvent.

Kerry on the other hand, faced with the same decision, elects to borrow more money to fund his campaign rather than live within budget he has. That sounds an awful lot like the way government currently runs to me.

Kerry borrows more money to continue his campaign. Just like a Liberal from Taxachussetes.

Kerry as President "Hello socialist state"

Is this like Kerry borrowing seven million dollars on his house on a $150K a year salary?

This is a campaign, not the US budget. They are two completely different things. The only way Dean can fix the mess Bush has made is to win the nomination and then the general election. He has more hired staff than any of the other campaigns, and a lot of money went to paying those people. He had many early ads and has invested a lot in mailings as well. He's got offices in states the others haven't even been to yet. Of course he's spent more money. It would be ridiculous to think he hadn't. With that being said, I must reiterate that campaign spending is a far cry different than budgetary spending. Dean is the most careful about budgetary spending out of all those in the race, including Bush. He ALWAYS ran a VERY tight ship in Vermont...ALWAYS. His executive record speaks for itself and is totally irrelevent to election campaigns.

By the reasoning of the original post we would have to assume that Kerry would have to mortgage the country in order to pay the bills. So, if we are going to make such comparisons, Dean is still a far cry better than Kerry because Dean is in the black while Kerry is in the red.

I wouldn't be concerned about this with any of the candidates.

From the NYT article:

<snip>
Mr. Kerry raised $2.3 million in the fourth quarter and lent his campaign $2.9 million, less than half of the $6.4 million he obtained by mortgaging his home to feed the campaign. He raised $25.3 million over all in 2003, spent $23.7 million and had $1.6 million on hand on Dec. 31. His total debt, including the loan to himself, was $3.8 million.

<snip>

Kerry raised $25.3 million ($6.4 mil borrowed from himself) and spent $23.7 million, ending the year in debt $3.8 million.

Kerry isn't running a platform that begins and ends with balancing the budget.

Dean may only have a million or two on hand, but Kerry mismanaged his funds and had to borrow $7M. So Dean is better off finacially.

:wtf: :dunce:

economics. WE'll lose on the economy.

Dean called it a gamble on MTP. Not a good choice of words. I guess all the candidates need to roll over now, because only Kerry's supporters are making a wise investment? I don't think so.

I suppose I blow all my money investing in my mortgage and my car payment, or loaning money to a friend who needs it. You're assuming Dean has nothing to show for the 41 million. And that is precisely where the argument fails. Dean has done more to affect the momentum of politics in this country than Kerry could ever dream of. Kerry is just riding in the wake of Dean rocking the boat.

DU is being overrun with Kerry supporters posting reasons not to vote for Dean. Why aren't you guys posting reasons TO vote for your guy?? Seriously because I am a Dean supporter and Kerry is way down my list at this point. Tell us something GOOD about your guy.

A possibility that he understands the mistakes that his staff made in spending his money and is trying to rectify them?

Isn' t that like gambling your house at a poker game ? What kind of a person would do that??

But since it's not, then it's irrelevant.

?

see post 39.

I don't know which of your two statements give more weight to.

But, it is truly something to know that you have this inside information that the Dean Campaign is deep into debt when there's nothing else reported to confirm this.

Perhaps, the Dean Blog could have a link to your personal website for financial updates?

but you are correct that his personality would prevent an effective campaign. He would have to play ball with the party and he hates to play ball. Staff would check out, meltdown.

and not helpful to Kerry. First he has over 5 million left and that means he spent 36 million and not 41 million. Then he spent the money in lots of states not just those 2. I know, for a fact, that he spent some in Ohio. I have some of the stuff he bought in Ohio. I know for a fact, he spent some sending letters with ballot applications to New Mexico. Every dishonest post people like you post makes me want to print your profile in the general and tell the party to ask you for the stuff they are asking me for.

You do realize that Kerry's spent at least 10 million more than he's raised on this race and that he expects all of us Dems to pay him back -- with interest, don't you?

is completely logical.