Not standing up to Bush on Iraq is costing the Democrasts money.
October 10, 2002 7:14 PM   Subscribe

Not standing up to Bush on Iraq is costing the Democrasts money. I work fund raising for the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC, and all three have seen a drop in fund raising dollars over the last two months. The Dems claim it's a good year no matter what the numbers say, but I beg to differ, as a person working the frontline of their telemarketing campaigns the callers are hearing serious complaints from the donors, and we in middle management are getting no response on what to tell the donors. With the House having voted for Bush's resolution, and the Senate set to pass it, is it too late to save face with their donors?
posted by jbou (11 comments total)
Umm, I'm just wondering how much money you've raised for the Democrasts, while working for the Democratic National Commitee. Isn't that a conflict of interest? What exactly do the Democrasts stand for?

Really, no one is certain where the public actually comes down on the "war against the guy who tried to kill the president's daddy". The Democrats, as a party, haven't taken a firm line for or against, though it may be assumed that many of its supporters are against the Iraq policy simply because it squares off against Bush. Personally, as you've phrased this front page posting question, I am actually happy that the Democratic representatives are more concerned with what their constituancy want than with how much money they're raising. (That doesn't mean I agree with support of the Iraqi folly.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:52 PM on October 10, 2002

Yes. Our Democratic congressmen and women are just as bad as their Republican counterparts. They're not voting the views of the people that elected them. I only know one person (closely) that supports attacking Iraq & he's a big-wig at MSNBC. Go fucking figure. I know I have become totally apathetic and even more disgusted with America since 9-11. We deserve everything that happens to us.
posted by password at 7:53 PM on October 10, 2002

The leadership deficit in the Democratic Party without President Clinton is amazingly obvious right now.
posted by owillis at 10:25 PM on October 10, 2002

It is a scandal that a country with a two-party system is effectively without an opposition on this issue. There is no side that stands firmly against the war. There are no options for voters; the public has been shut out of the decision making process. United we stand indeed--there isn't another choice.
posted by muckster at 10:37 PM on October 10, 2002

Here is a Democrat who is standing up to Bush.

He's my Congressman! When I read his statement I was really proud to have this guy working for me in Washington. I don't belong to any political party, but his actions almost make me want to work on a campaign for the first time in my life.
posted by neuroshred at 10:43 PM on October 10, 2002

So our congresscritters are acting on an issue despite the fact it costs them funding? And we're complaining about that? Interesting. Most of the time, we worry when they follow the Benjamins.... and well we should.

On the otherhand, this could be just another manifestation of the widespread opposition to the war. If the Democratic party and its candidates find themselves losing individual support because of their position on the issue, it's another example of how they're out of touch with their constituents.

I'll be interested to see if the Dem's stand will actually cost them the election, and if people can make a difference by voting with pocketbooks as well as the polls...
posted by namespan at 11:48 PM on October 10, 2002

Boy, Wulfgar!, you don't democrastinate, do you?
posted by y2karl at 12:03 AM on October 11, 2002

So our congresscritters are acting on an issue despite the fact it costs them funding? And we're complaining about that? Interesting.

i don't know much about american politics, so i may be wrong, but isn't the difference here that the funding is coming from "direct mail donations", which i take to mean "ordinary people posting money", rather than corporations? the standard(?) leftist line on funding is that corporations don't have the interest of the "people" at heart and so their financing of political parties distorts democracy (the rightist reply being the claim that corporations only get rich if people get rich). in this example, with the money coming from individuals, it would be consistent for "the left" to be concerned.

incidentally (1) it strikes me that the rightist reply is only true in the long term, but that we've plenty of evidence (enron, tyco etc) that the short term is more important to those making the decisions and (2) did anyone else notice the weird warning about sending data to the usa when passing through the site's survey page (at least if you claim to be from albania).
posted by andrew cooke at 10:41 AM on October 11, 2002

Both the Democrastic and Repubelican candidates for the Senate here are for the iRaq issue which is just fine with me. But, since both of them are also against privitization of Social Security I guess I'm going to vote for the incumbent Democrat whom I 've voted for the last times he has run. Now if one of them were FOR privitization, he'd have my vote in an instant!
posted by RevGreg at 2:45 PM on October 11, 2002

« Older DID YOU   |   "The Bookmobile Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments