Dean is tumbling.
February 4, 2004 8:40 AM   Subscribe

Dean is out of cash. Somehow he blew through $40 million and still managed to leave the first Super Tuesday without a first or second place finish, anywhere. No mistake about his Meet the Press interview, though, which was felt as an incredibly strong and persuasive performance. It's obvious that Dean overestimated his grass-roots support, which has currently dried up, but the amount of publicity he has generated is surely a huge advantage. Two options come to mind: blow out the Washington Insiders (as he alluded to in his latest interview), or become more of a traditional candidate.
posted by BlueTrain (72 comments total)
 
It's a shame, too. Now the Dems have a frontrunner who a) voted for the Patriot Act, b) voted for W's tax cuts, and c) voted for the war in Iraq.

Oh well. Same old game.
posted by xmutex at 8:41 AM on February 4, 2004


Maybe they'll hold a hootenanny.

As mrs.jonmc said last night watching the news: "Dean is done. Stick a fork in him and put him on a bun."
posted by jonmc at 8:44 AM on February 4, 2004


based on his performance managing his campaign ... is this the guy we'd want running our country?

not that he wouldn't be miles better than AWOL ... and in fact I personally would vote for him were he electable. at the end of the day we need the middle of the road suburban moms to vote for the democrats candidate - and i suspect they would be asking themselves the question above.

howard dean - new chairman of the DLC.
posted by specialk420 at 8:45 AM on February 4, 2004


What stavros said.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:47 AM on February 4, 2004


voted for the war in Iraq

you sound like a republicon.

distorting kerry (or edwards) vote - doesn't exactly help get bush out of office- of course you probably voted for nader too.... if so, a hearty thanks for the last 3 years of quality leadership.
posted by specialk420 at 8:48 AM on February 4, 2004


I would disagree that the grass-roots is drying up. That is all he has left. It is the ho-hum crowd that has left. The money keeps flowing in from the true delivers.

Dean and Clark need to join forces.
Their supporters have a great deal in common.
Two Washington outsiders would be a very powerful ticket vs. the status quo.
Tell voters on super Tuesday that they could have a "two for one" with their vote.
Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean could bring about 16 years of strong Democratic leadership.
The supporters in each campaign get along wonderfully. If only the two men could look past their ambitions to join forces for the sake of their country.
posted by EmoChild at 8:49 AM on February 4, 2004


Bush has spend over $33 million so far on his campaign. He's not even running against anyone.

So "somehow" Dean's not the only one to "blow through" their money. At least Dean's not currently in charge of, you know, the nation's fiscal policy or anything important like that.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:50 AM on February 4, 2004


based on his performance managing his campaign ... is this the guy we'd want running our country?

Unfair comment. Campaign finance is less like running a business and/or public budget than it is placing a series of bets, and hoping you put enough of a positive message to continue to attract contributors downstream. Sometimes you try to shoot the moon early to build a groundswell, or to correct a gaffe or something that was out of your control, and you don't realize any return on your investment.

Dean maybe didn't run the smartest campaign (attacking Gephardt in Iowa might not have been too bright, as it opened the field for Kerry), but I don't really have a problem with the way the budget was managed. It's a risky business, and you have to go with what seems smart and reasonable at the time, even though hindsight dictates that you should have done something else.
posted by psmealey at 8:51 AM on February 4, 2004


1992 Ross Perot rides a grassroots swell of support against special interests and politics as usual. The media unfairly characterizes him as a short, temperamental man who is unelectable. His campaign is destroyed.

2000 John McCain rides a grassroots swell of support against special interests and politics as usual. The media unfairly characterizes him as a short, temperamental man who is unelectable. His campaign is destroyed.

2004 Howard Dean rides a grassroots swell of support against special interests and politics as usual. The media unfairly characterizes him as a short, temperamental man who is unelectable. .... and on and on and on....


When are people going to stand up and refused to be told what to think?
posted by EmoChild at 8:57 AM on February 4, 2004


Kerry could offer him the vice presidency...
posted by me3dia at 8:58 AM on February 4, 2004


special420k: Care to explain how I distort Kerry's vote by pointing out the simple fact it was a yes to authorize military action in Iraq? Or do you just want to act like a moron and say I sound like a Republican?
posted by xmutex at 8:59 AM on February 4, 2004


It's obvious that Dean overestimated his grass-roots support, which has currently dried up

Yeah, the way he's recieved more cash since Iowa from more people than the current front-runner- a man who has clearly "locked" the nomination with the 5% of required delegates contrary to Dean's 2.5%.

Anytime I hear someone declare themselves a politcal expert by announcing that "Dean's toast" I look at all the articles a week before Iowa and remind myself that these are the people who had shared the common bond with myself of having absolutely no idea what we're talking about. At least I'll admit it.

I like Dean, and I know he's not going to be the nominee, and he's clearly in trouble with the latest primaries. So why do the people who don't like him think they need to pull canned statements out of their ass to say the same thing?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:59 AM on February 4, 2004


Oh well. Even Dean has said he doesn't want to get rid of the Patriot Act in its entirety, which is pretty much Kerry's position. Dean also, at one time, argued in favor of sending more troops to Iraq, which struck me as nearly insane. I hate how media people have treated Dean lately - it's been pathetic and unfair - but his candidacy was never The Second Coming.

Which makes me think: I have to wonder if his being oversold by starry-eyed supporters would have hurt regardless. It pained me to read over and over that many Dean people wanted a candidate to "believe" in. Politics is not religion, already. Sometimes it takes a charismatic movement to shake things up a bit - and Dean's done that, to his credit - but keeping the movement going and expanding it requires a large dose of realism, even when not taking into mind today's harsh and absurd media environment.

Speaking of media unfairness, Clark's son spoke the truth yesterday, looks like - even if Slate bills him (on the front page) as a kid who threw a tantrum. (And where is an alternative to the current type of coverage? Political blogs haven't been much of an improvement in the horse-race obsession he talks about, certainly. They've been some of the worst offenders in the chat-about-daily-polling department.)
posted by raysmj at 9:01 AM on February 4, 2004


...and in fact I personally would vote for him were he electable.

I still don't get this whole 'electable' thing. Does this mean most Americans do not vote for who they personally think is the best candidate, but instead vote for who they think other people are going to vote for? And then these same people sit around and bitch about mediocre candidates and voters being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils? Yeah, I thought so.
posted by spilon at 9:11 AM on February 4, 2004


It ain't over 'til it's over. I want the herd to stay as thick as possible for as long as possible. The primary season and its attendant rhetoric have resulted in a huge drag on bush's approval ratings. And I will always admire Howard Dean for being the first to really criticise bush.
posted by whatnot at 9:14 AM on February 4, 2004


So "somehow" Dean's not the only one to "blow through" their money.

Except that Bush remains President for the next 9 months and can continue to raise funds without worry of being ignored by the media. Further, his warchest is well over $100 million, and will continue to remain filled until a true Democratic front-runner (read: winner of the primaries) emerges. Bush has no concerns about running out of money any time soon. In fact, I would venture to say that he'll never run out of money.

So why do the people who don't like him think they need to pull canned statements out of their ass to say the same thing?

What canned statements, exactly? I haven't come out for or against Dean. Nor have I suggested that he's going to win or lose. His campaign is in a critical stage right now and, as I wrote earlier, he has a couple of options. The former would lead to an inevitable loss, the latter may just save his ass.

Dean has really broken some new ground in fund-raising and issues that Democrats can use to beat Bush. He also has an incredible amount of publicity, negative and positive, that he can use to continue to make a difference in this primary season.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:15 AM on February 4, 2004


Why is it that people always blame a right-wing conspiracy when their candidate tanks? "It's a conspiracy by the press to destroy him" "The DLC schemed with Gephardt to take him out" etc. Maybe it's just that Dean is a lousy candidate, that his message never moved beyond Iraq, that his right-wing record in Vermont didn't match his populist rhetoric, that his campaign manager was too trippy and didn't mind the books, and that many people just basically didn't get a good feeling for the guy.

Look, I consider myself a very liberal voter on all issues. From day one I didn't like Dean. I never trusted him, I never found him appealing at all. I've liked his Internet campaign, but I wished from day one that the campaign was attached to a different candidate.

So please don't blame the press, the DLC, or any other conspiracies for Dean's flop. He just flopped, period.
posted by alms at 9:20 AM on February 4, 2004


voted for the war in Iraq

Care to explain how I distort Kerry's vote by pointing out the simple fact it was a yes to authorize military action in Iraq?

xmutex - you answer yourself partially in your own clintonesque - nuanced answer ... please save your moron comments for the next time you look in the mirror.

kerry and edwards voted to authorize military action - with the conditions that bush go to the UN and get international support and only go to war as a last resort.

- which he did neither.

i don't support the vote to authorize by kerry and edwards - but lets not distort the record and say they "voted for war" - its the kind of simplistic asinine comments that republicons will be making about the democratic candidate whomever it turns out to be.
posted by specialk420 at 9:38 AM on February 4, 2004


I still don't get this whole 'electable' thing.

jeezus... kucinich best represents my view politically - the man doesn't have snowballs chance in hell of being elected - thus i am putting my time and energy into supporting a candidate who i feel can beat bush. kerry's record on the environment (the most important issue to me) is excellent, so i have no problem throwing my support his way.

i would have voted for nader in 2000 if i was bound to voting for the man who i personally think would have been best for the country - i am still pissed at the nader voters who rather than switching their vote to al on election day thought they were going to prove something by electing bush for 4 years. thanks alot ralph (and supporters).
posted by specialk420 at 9:44 AM on February 4, 2004


Wow, BlueTrain. This post is amazingly dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You're using a 6 day old DailyKos article, and you couldn't even be bothered to see what Kos has had to say in the mean time. For example, the post you selectively decided to copy had a follow-up on the 31st of January. See, Kos was working off the same rumors as everyone else was on the 29th...no one knew what was going on with the Dean campaign, as there was a leadership vacuum. Once he had better information, this was Kos said:
After Iowa, with Gephardt out, everything was going according to plan. But NH proved different. A shocked media couldn't believe Lieberman was sticking around. And what about Clark? Shouldn't he be dropping out as well? And let's not get started with Dean! He screamed! And didn't you hear the rumors that he was broke? (Reality -- he has $5 million in the bank.)
Where I'm from, there's a difference between $5 million and zero. But, see, the story goes on.

January 31st, we got the FEC papers showing how much money everyone had on-hand as of the turn of the year. And you know what? Dean had a little over $9 million at the beginning of 2004. That left him with the most money of anyone except Bush. And even after New Hampshire and Iowa, he had $5 million.

But wait, there's even more information that BlueTrain couldn't be bothered to include, since it would detract from his always-evident biases.

On January 30th, Dean's new campaign manager, Roy Neel, posted a message to the Dean website that was reported by every person and organization covering this primary race. He first of all explained that $2 million had entered their coffers since Iowa--directly proving false BlueTrain's allegation that Dean's out of money. He also explained that the campaign pulled ads for the Feb 3rd primaries and wasn't expecting to win any of them, instead focusing on later primaries. Mentioning this, of course, would have meant BlueTrain couldn't make snarky comments about how Dean spent all this money without winning anything on the first Super Tuesday...here's a clue, jackass: you can't win an election if you're not on the air.

I also truly love how you assert Dean's grass roots support is drying up, while boldy omitting any factual evidence to bolster your claim. Last time I checked, money was flowing into the Dean campaign as fast as they can count it. The only one making more cash is Kerry. Last week they raised like 1.8 mil from even smaller donors than usual--the average was in the $50s instead of the $70s or $80s.
posted by jbrjake at 9:46 AM on February 4, 2004


Eh, I do think Dean is probably toast. I detect a certain disappointment in those who have backed him most wholeheartedly.

Even at the worst, Dean gets to make a firebrand of a speech at the Democratic National Convention, and his influence is felt as Kerry, et al, step up their attacks on Bush. Even this, I think, is extraordinarily beneficial.
posted by kgasmart at 9:50 AM on February 4, 2004


specialk420: You can play with words all you'd like to make yourself feel more comfortable about Kerry, but voting to authorize military action on the basis of any number of criteria is voting to authorize military action. He gave a yes to a president who from the beginning said he would like to get UN authorization but would go it alone.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Have your Democratic candidate who supported the three most divisive issues in the debate today.
posted by xmutex at 9:50 AM on February 4, 2004


xmutex -

ill sleep just fine, thank you.

you might want to check the record ... and what was negotiated in the senate prior to the authorization vote (wrong or not) - and then work a little on your ham handed verbalization of your opinions of what that vote meant.

if dean was heading twords the nomination (and eventually the whitehouse) - even though I disagree with with his pro-death penalty and pro-gun views... i would be strongly supporting the man - not tearing him down because i disagree with him on a few issues - or past missteps

the issue is bush, not a family feud.
posted by specialk420 at 10:04 AM on February 4, 2004


What canned statements, exactly? I haven't come out for or against Dean. Nor have I suggested that he's going to win or lose.

BlueTrain, whether you intended it or not, there's honestly not a single original line in your FPP. Your line about "grassroots drying up" as noted by myself and others is a complete falsehood, and everything you said I could find verbatim from a transcript of one of the main news channels' post-election pundit discussions. It's talking-point regurgitation from the same people who a month ago asked why Kerry hadn't dropped out yet.

My point isn't that people are right or wrong, just that they should all stop acting like everything they're saying is some political revelation when it's a basic look at the polls and parroting what everyone else said. ("If Dean doesn't win a few primaries, he won't win the nomination." No shit?)

And making a FPP about Dean spending all his money and not winning a primary isn't suggesting anything in regards to him winning or losing? Like I said, you're either gloating or stating the blatantly obvious.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:10 AM on February 4, 2004


his campaign manager was too trippy

Good one.

Well, I giggled.
posted by deadcowdan at 10:13 AM on February 4, 2004


the issue is bush, not a family feud.

And that's the most troubling thing, specialk420 - you vs. BlueTrain, any number of Dean Democrats vs. any number of Kerry Democrats - I know this is how the system is supposed to "work," but while you while away the days and weeks arguing minutae, Bush slithers step-by-snakelike-step into a second term... It doesn't matter why Dean's "out," he's just out. All that matters is Stopping the Madness by retaking the White House and the sooner "real" Democrats get behind a single, electable candidate, the better chance that party has to evict BushCo. from the power.
posted by JollyWanker at 10:15 AM on February 4, 2004


jollywanker - im trying to figure out how you got the impression that i disagree with you in anyway?

if i thought dean (or edwards, or clark, etc...) had the best chance at doing a number on bush this fall - i would be supporting them feverently - and encouraging kerry supporters to do the same - as well as admonishing any crybabies who are miffed their guy (kerry in this hypothetical situation) isn't getting the nod from the voters.
posted by specialk420 at 10:23 AM on February 4, 2004


Listen, I think a bunch of ya'll have a severely perverted idea of what my intentions were when crafting this post. I think that Dean still has a strong chance of winning because of his name-recognition. I also think that Dean has to continue his "Meet the Press" attitude --- pressing deeper issues and continuing to represent consistent ideas.

Dean was, at some point, strapped for cash. There is proof of that. Further, he lost, as jbrjake so eloquently stated, because he didn't run any ads. I'm not quite sure how accurate he is about calling me a jackass, but I have seen zero hard evidence suggesting that Dean has continually raised more funds than his adversaries after Iowa and New Hampshire. I would love to be proven wrong.

Finally, about a month ago I realized that I had to vote for one of these jokers in November. Each of them has some sincere flaws that need to be publicized and analyzed. What I suggested in the post, as if I really need to repeat myself is: Two options come to mind: blow out the Washington Insiders (as he alluded to in his latest interview), or become more of a traditional candidate.

No one is willing to discuss the obvious fact that Dean lost some major credibility since New Hampshire and has continually fire-bombed the "Democratic Establishment" since then. Further, I don't know of a single campaign, ever, that has won the nomination, or election, based on $50 donations. Finally, although his message "Iraq=bad" has sincerely affected the general populous, his opponents, Kerry and Edwards, seem to be benefiting more from the rhetoric than the man who originally floated the idea. These are serious issues that need to be addressed. All of you "die-hard Deans" can call me all the names you want, but can you address these aforementioned issues without resorting to mud-slinging?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:34 AM on February 4, 2004


kucinich best represents my view politically - the man doesn't have snowballs chance in hell of being elected - thus i am putting my time and energy into supporting a candidate who i feel can beat bush.

You are free to do that. But on the other hand, in the primary when there are many to choose from, and one who looks likely to win no matter what, why not go ahead and cast your vote for Kucinich? By doing so, you at least get to vote once for who you really like, and also add to the numbers that add up to say to the world that what Kucinich stands for is important. What good does it do to marginalize a marginal candidate even more? If people who liked the little guy actually voted for him, he still might not win, but perhaps some of his issues would gain more mainstream support. And then, in the general election, you can throw your support to Kerry. Its all good.

But really, what I was commenting on are all the people I see on TV who keep saying things along the lines of, "I was undecided until this week, and I decided to vote for Kerry because he is electable." That just seems like the silliest thing I've ever heard. Anyone is electable if people vote for him/her.
posted by spilon at 10:40 AM on February 4, 2004


pssst, specialk420, yr hypothetical demo nominee is going to need Nader2000 voters and it doesn't make sense to continue to screech at them.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:47 AM on February 4, 2004


Can I get a Kerry-Edwards 2004?
posted by callmejay at 10:58 AM on February 4, 2004


Errm, isn't he still in second place?


posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:02 AM on February 4, 2004


the sooner "real" Democrats get behind a single, electable candidate, the better chance that party has to evict BushCo. from the power.

i completely disagree. i'm with whatnot. the longer that these caucuses/primaries stay in the media spotlight, the better. i want to see as close a race as possible, and then the runners-up support the nominee vigorously. conventional wisdom suggests otherwise, but fuck conventional wisdom. everything changed on 9/11, dontcha know? ;p
posted by mrgrimm at 11:08 AM on February 4, 2004


psst, hackly_fracture, our democratic nominee needed the nader2000 voters in *2000*. do you really think any of them are going to vote for bush this time, seeing the effect their voting had last time? nobody wants or cares if nader runs in this election, not even his strongest supporters.
posted by centrs at 11:18 AM on February 4, 2004


Still in 2nd place? Kinda. 98 of Dean's delegates are superdelegates, who can change their vote at any time. In fact, they haven't even voted at all, they just said they supported Dean at some point. But a couple of weeks ago, a lot of people said they supported him. Not so much now.
posted by smackfu at 11:24 AM on February 4, 2004


pssst, specialk420, yr hypothetical demo nominee is going to need Nader2000 voters and it doesn't make sense to continue to screech at them.

That's okay. We can bring all the Nader voters to my broomcloset and apologize to them individually.
posted by jonmc at 11:29 AM on February 4, 2004


Any non-American Mefites have stories to share about what it feels like to vote for someone because you think they'd do the best job?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:30 AM on February 4, 2004


Ah! That explains it, so ignoring the supers we have:

Kerry: 244 - 82 = 162
Edwards: 102 - 23 = 79
Clark: 79 - 31 = 48
Dean: 121 - 98 = 23

...although that still leaves all of them still shy 2000 delegates of winning.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:48 AM on February 4, 2004


Remarkable fact: Dean has spent $207 for each vote he has received to date.
posted by notme at 12:05 PM on February 4, 2004


pssst, specialk420, yr hypothetical demo nominee is going to need Nader2000 voters and it doesn't make sense to continue to screech at them.

if they are now part of the dean camp that pouting and saying they'll stay home if the nominee is kerry, it does.
posted by specialk420 at 12:09 PM on February 4, 2004


Oh boy, its time for another round of Dean bashing? Already? It seems like the media just got done roasting him unfairly.

The truth of the matter is that I prefer Dean to Kerry but will vote for any Democrat opposing Bush.

ABB '04!

Anybody But Bush in 2004!

The democratic party is going to have to unite to kick Bush out of the White House. Repair divides, make new partnerships, let your Dean daughter marry a Kerry son. Unite the party and we'll crush the evil empire in power now.
posted by fenriq at 12:23 PM on February 4, 2004


centrs,

I have no doubt that N2K voters will go ABB this time around, unless they just stay home. I'm not defending the decision to opt out, I'm just saying that in the same way the Democrats are trying their darndest to attract the "middle voters" they need to realize that constant beratement will not win over the "left voters" who are inclined to support them this time.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:29 PM on February 4, 2004


I'm also with whatnot and mrgrimm on the primary process. Actually getting some Democratic ideas into the media instead of GOP/White House talking points recited by the stenographers at our media outlets is refreshing.
Keeping a healthy primary debate assures a candidate ready to defend the party ideals.
It helps that the primaries sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle and keeps aWol out of our face. A Dean scream is much preferable to aWol's atrocious grammar.
posted by nofundy at 12:31 PM on February 4, 2004


let your Dean daughter marry a Kerry son. Unite the party and we'll crush the evil empire in power now.

amen. i really think dean should be the new head of the DLC - and kick some serious AWOL ass ... and keep kerry and crew in line. meanwhile drive lizards like zell miller absolutely nuts. :)
posted by specialk420 at 12:32 PM on February 4, 2004


he blew through $40 million and still managed to leave the first Super Tuesday without a first or second place finish, anywhere
Two options come to mind: blow out the Washington Insiders
Had been wanting to comment on this for some time, was planning to even put this comment in a previous thread that had touched on the subject.

Of all the Presidential Candidates, you have to applaud Dr Howard Dean's communication lines, blogging being one of them. One thing I have learned through Meta-Filter is the Iowa & New Hampshire primaries are overated. So with him blogging , have to ask how come he didn't do his homework better regarding this?
posted by thomcatspike at 12:58 PM on February 4, 2004


Do you guys really think Kerry is the "most electable"? To me (an as-yet undecided swing voter) he comes off as really sleazy and opportunistic. I would far sooner vote for Dean or Edwards, guys who seem to be genuinely principled, and have something they stand for besides getting elected.
posted by maciej at 1:05 PM on February 4, 2004


specialk420: Why don't you relax and not tell me that pointing out that the voting record of a candidate for a party whom I desperately want to take office and affect change is in 100% alignment with the opposition party whom I desperately want out of office is somehow wrong? Why don't you not tell me I sound like a Republican when I point out the obvious and considering the context highly suspcious and unfortunate? Why don't you try to not tell me that democracy is about settling and that I am wrong for preferring a candidate that I actually believe in as opposed to someone who you deem as more electable?

It's rather rude and perhaps a bit stupid to tell me that I sound like a Republican for pointing out that Kerry voted with the Republicans on three of the biggest issues today. It's not wrong that I imply that this is out of step with any truly Democratic ideal and that there are other candidates running who are more inspiring, more truly Democratic, and therefore more likely to pursue some real and new change.

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to rabidly attack anyone who supports a candidate different from your own and anyone who may really wish to actually cast their vote for someone they believe in.
posted by xmutex at 1:27 PM on February 4, 2004


I still think Lieberman was the most electable Democratic candidate, but for some reason instead of "Anyone but Bush" the Democratic voters actually mean "Anyone but Bush or Lieberman." I don't get it.
posted by gyc at 1:29 PM on February 4, 2004


sleazy and opportunistic'

compared to bush?



"The guy has guts," Jack Blum, who investigated the drug-contra connection for a subcommittee on terrorism that Kerry headed, told me recently. "So many politicians are in the job so people will love them. Kerry is a throwback to senators like Phil Hart, who, even though he came from Michigan, investigated the auto industry. They run for office not so people will love them but to use the powers of office"--in Kerry's case to expose betrayals of the public trust.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96aug/beatty/beatty.htm
posted by specialk420 at 1:37 PM on February 4, 2004


xmutex -

voting record .... is in 100% alignment with the opposition party whom I desperately want out of office is somehow wrong?

please check bush/(republicans) vs. kerry's voting record on the environment, education and women's right's
posted by specialk420 at 1:42 PM on February 4, 2004


kucinich best represents my view politically - the man doesn't have snowballs chance in hell of being elected

I voted Nader in 2000 (although my state was so heavily Gore it had no effect on the delegate count) Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate that would get me to vote this year. All this talk of electability is subterfuge, clouding a deeper problem with the electorate. 50% of eligible voters feel so disenfranchised, that they are convinced nothing they can do at the polls will make the slightest difference in their lives. Since the Carter administration the democrats have moderated themselves to the point that they are republican lite. The military/industrial establishment, are happy regardless of who wins, democrat or republican. I say the liberal (I actually prefer the term progressive) types should stay true to their principals. Compromising (aka 'selling out') in the Clinton and Carter administrations got us to this point. If those suburban housewives the dems are so worried about haven't figured out Bush is looting their schools and social services, the country needs to eat another four years of it.
posted by MetalDog at 1:46 PM on February 4, 2004


If those suburban housewives the dems are so worried about haven't figured out Bush is looting their schools and social services, the country needs to eat another four years of it.


i hear ya. 'cept they probably don't/won't understand the consequences of 4 more years of bush lifetime appointments in the judicial system. ... please send a thank you note to your fellow nader votersin a florida for - pickering and the rest of them we are stuck with now.
posted by specialk420 at 2:00 PM on February 4, 2004


specialk420: That was beautiful. I specifically said "voting record on three of the biggest issues" and you just completely took out the central part of that to somehow argue against me.

Kerry would be proud, I guess.
posted by xmutex at 2:05 PM on February 4, 2004


xmutex.

kerry far from perfect - so is dean - and edwards etc... .

lets agree they are all infinitely better than bush.

let the process work and support the guy who ends up going up against AWOL.

with a dem in the whitehouse then work to be more involved in/changing the politcal system so voices like dean - kucinich - nader - ours - etc ... are heard.
posted by specialk420 at 2:37 PM on February 4, 2004


"sleazy and opportunistic"

compared to bush?


Well mainly I was comparing to some of the other Dems. I don't like the policies of either major party that much, but other things being equal I'd rather vote for someone who has real beliefs and sticks to them.

But since you asked, yeah, maybe even compared to Bush. Kerry really gives the impression of trying to be on both sides of every issue. With Bush mostly you know where he stands. I often don't like where he stands, but at least it is clear and unlikely to change wildly.

Like I said, I'm a swing voter, so "bush is eeeeeevillll" is not gonna go very far in persuading me that Kerry is acceptable.
posted by maciej at 3:01 PM on February 4, 2004


Metafilter: Why don't you relax and not tell me that pointing out that the voting record of a candidate for a party whom I desperately want to take office and affect change is in 100% alignment with the opposition party whom I desperately want out of office is somehow wrong?

I still think Lieberman was the most electable Democratic candidate

No offense, gyc, but are you insane? Kerry is winning because he's seen as electable. Lieberman is out because he absolutely isn't.
posted by jpoulos at 5:37 PM on February 4, 2004


1. Most of the campaigns were broke after NH and IA. The saying goes that if you have any money after those races, you're an idiot. His being out of money doesn't mean he's reckless.

2. Please...let's not stop this "Kerry is a Republican" nonesense. Just today I read about how some Republican complained that Kerry has a voting record that is more liberal than Ted Kennedy's.

I think there are some Kerry votes that people here are apt to disagree with. But along those same lines, I think that there are some Dean policy proposals that these same people should also take issue with -- e.g., eliminating all the tax cuts. (Something that the lower and working class can't afford in this economy -- real Democrats should consider that.) Can we look at the candidates as whole people, please?

I could pretty much get behind almost all of the candidates, although admittedly, Kerry's been my favorite. With the a great slate of candidates and a competitive race for once, it's disappointing for me to see this divisive talk already.
posted by jennak at 5:44 PM on February 4, 2004


I meant LET'S STOP not "let's not stop." Argh.
posted by jennak at 5:45 PM on February 4, 2004


SpecialK you seem slightly confused about the methods of our electoral system. We do elect a president by popular vote, but by electoral college representation. I voted for Nader, and it made no difference at all because in my state Gore won the electoral votes. Now if i had lived in a close state such as florida, perhaps it would haav made a difference, but the fact is just voting for a minority candidate is only hurting the more electable candidate if he actually loses in your state.

Electoral College
posted by sophist at 6:48 PM on February 4, 2004


... slightly confused about the methods of our electoral system.

perhaps you missed my garbled smartass "please send a thank you note to your fellow nader votersin a florida" comment in earlier in this thread.

im fully versed in the electoral college and the unnelected president they installed 3 years ago . thanks.
posted by specialk420 at 7:06 PM on February 4, 2004




I think that there are some Dean policy proposals that these same people should also take issue with -- e.g., eliminating all the tax cuts. (Something that the lower and working class can't afford in this economy -- real Democrats should consider that.) Can we look at the candidates as whole people, please?
jennak:
So are you suggesting that the lower and working classes are better off paying the Bush Tax than losing a couple of hundred dollars a year (if that) in reduced income tax? That is strictly delusional. For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. This doesn't even figure in the cost to future generations. The only reason some candidates favor keeping the tax cuts in place is because it's politically popular and they want to get elected. Dean is the only major candidate telling the truth these cuts.
posted by sixdifferentways at 10:28 PM on February 4, 2004


Dang, I didn't realize xmutex was so sensitive. Usually he just makes smartass comments. I don't remember anyone accusing him of "sounding republican" whatever THAT is. At least I never got the impression that he either sounded republican, or even was one.
posted by Eekacat at 10:29 PM on February 4, 2004


eekacat: see above.

I can take a lot, you know, but when someone calls me a Republican it.. you know.. I got my limits.
posted by xmutex at 11:07 PM on February 4, 2004


"The Massachusetts Democrat actually was angered by the loophole but didn't want money stripped from the project because it would hurt his constituents who needed the Boston project finished, "

Ah, the sweet smell of Kerry in the morning.

sounds like a smug o'reilly or gillespie impression to me ...
posted by specialk420 at 11:22 PM on February 4, 2004


So are you suggesting that the lower and working classes are better off paying the Bush Tax than losing a couple of hundred dollars a year (if that) in reduced income tax? That is strictly delusional. For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. This doesn't even figure in the cost to future generations. The only reason some candidates favor keeping the tax cuts in place is because it's politically popular and they want to get elected. Dean is the only major candidate telling the truth these cuts.

Oh, god no. There's no doubt that most of the tax cut money went to people who didn't need it at all. But you can't take away $304 from someone who chooses between food and drugs. This isn't a myth -- I've lived that kind of life, and I know plenty of other people who do as well. (And hell -- I only got $107 because they said I didn't pay enough taxes. Bullshit. I pay taxes in my paycheck, and by generally being a consumer.)

Roll back a majority of the tax cuts. But this is exactly the kind of economy in which you should give tax cuts to the lower and working class. This isn't the time to roll them all back.

I'll be one of the first ones to advocate for eliminating tax cuts in a good economy and investing that in a rainy day fund. If most states are required to do this, why isn't the federal government?
posted by jennak at 5:01 AM on February 5, 2004


Ah, the sweet smell of Kerry in the morning.

To be fair, all of the MA delegation tried to block that bit of legislation in order to protect money slated for MA construction projects.

Of course, that's not mentioned anywhere by the AP.
posted by jennak at 5:21 AM on February 5, 2004


I can take a lot, you know, but when someone calls me a Republican it.. you know.. I got my limits.

I know exactly! Great line xmutex! Made me smile.
posted by nofundy at 5:52 AM on February 5, 2004


Too bad Dean has alienated so many "traditional" politicians -- he might have been able to salvage the run by settling into a more conventional campaigning style.
posted by taragl at 6:36 AM on February 5, 2004


Taking money from the Big Dig as punishment for the actions of certain insurance fraudsters was a brilliant attempt at submarining the entire project. Can't you just see it now? If funding was cut, the project would start to miss deadlines, and naturally look ugly and unfinished. Also, as any big-time construction firm will tell you, the longer you wait to build something, the more it's going to cost you. If they had succeeded in cutting the funding, you'd hear an uproar by the Republicans who would point to the "mess" in Boston and the billions already spent on a project that wasn't even finished as evidence of Democratic waste of taxpayers hard-earned money.

Luckily the project is nearly finished, no deadlines have been missed (many parts were finished ahead of schedule, in fact), and Boston is going to have a nice central-city transit infastructure. Nya nya.

By the way, Dead said he will drop out of the race if he doesn't win Wisconsin.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:10 AM on February 5, 2004


jennak - nowhere have i heard dean say he's inherently opposed to tax cuts. he's opposed to *bush's* tax cuts and the structure of them. he's said on numerous occasions that the poor and middle class in fact, did not get a tax cut because the cost of other programs (unfunded mandates to the states which raise state taxes) or the reduction of programs cost the poor and middle class more than the tax cut made up for.

it's kind of like giving everyone a small cost of living wage and then doubling the prices in the company store.

dean is saying that you cannot keep the *current* tax cuts *and* achieve all of the promises the other candidates are making.

what if you didn't get your extra $107 rebate, but your drugs were half the cost? how much would that save you over a year?
posted by centrs at 11:39 AM on February 5, 2004


nowhere have i heard dean say he's inherently opposed to tax cuts. he's opposed to *bush's* tax cuts and the structure of them....what if you didn't get your extra $107 rebate, but your drugs were half the cost? how much would that save you over a year?

I think we're saying the same thing, but getting caught up on the particulars.

Yes, he's said in numerous stump speeches (on CNN, on C-Span) that he will roll back ALL of Bush's tax cuts. Yes, I also agree with you that putting the necessary funding is desperately needed. But I'm also saying that this needs to be coupled with cash on hand during this economy. It's a more immediate relief. I see eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts as akin to trickle-down economics -- the relief from programs won't come quickly enough.

So in summary: cut back the unnecessary tax cuts for the rich, put the money back into social security/health care/education, and keep the tax cuts for the middle, working, and lower classes.
posted by jennak at 1:09 PM on February 5, 2004


« Older Remembrance of Books Past   |   Gay Marriage, Not Civil Unions Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments