ABC's "The Note" on Dean's campaign financing

[ModerateMiddle]

2. Are two apparent Dean semi-waffles-one on Social Security, the other on public financing- building the candidate a rep for changing his mind? On public financing, Dean says some campaign advisers are "chomping at the bit" for him to refuse it.
LINK http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/70189.html
LINK http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2003/aug/16/081608792.html

When the campaign first raised this possibility a bit ago, we were told (and reported faithfully) that Dean's March 7 statement stood. Even now, Dean says he personally still wants public financing; the drive to forgo it, it seems, comes from unnamed campaign people.

Clearly, Dean For America is flirting with scenarios where it'd be in a better position to forgo the primary match. But not remembering having told the AP in March you'd hold the other candidates accountable for opting out … … well, that sounds self-exonerating, but it doesn't forgive us from posing the operative question: if not accepting public financing was bad back then, why, except for self-interested reasons is it less bad now? Or why does the candidate feel one way, and his campaign, another?

For the record, Dean spokesperson Courtney O'Donnell echoes her boss: "We are focused like a laser beam on September 30."

Public financing is something about which reasonable people can change their minds.

However, it may add to a debate litany of allegations, voiced by a Kerry or Lieberman or Kucinich … "You've flip-flopped on Social Security … you've flip-flopped on public financing … . etc."

(Lest we be reminded: Senator Kerry has said some interesting things about Social Security, too) …

Watch this …

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

[dajabr]

1. I'm thinking about climbing Mt. Everest...

There, I said it. I'm thinking about doing it. Does it make it any closer to happening? Does it mean I won't ever do it?

Let me know if he does it. Otherwise, this is just filler during a slow news week.

[Rose Siding]

2. On Saturday, at the Young Democrats Convention

Dean said
snip>
_That while some of his aides are "chomping at the bit" for him to give up public campaign financing given his fund-raising success, "I would prefer to take matching funds." Dean said there would be "no serious discussion about that certainly until after Sept. 30 and maybe not until after Dec. 30." Those are the next two financial filing deadlines for candidates.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/6551253.htm

*This is an inspiring article, if you haven't seen it.

All I expect Dean to do is to chose the path most likely to kick Bush out of office. Battle tactics can change with the terrain. A good leader will know if that's necessary.

"......two apparent Dean semi-waffles"? :silly:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Dean's Vermont record on Campaign Finance Reform

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

[dajabr]

4. Dean targeted elimination of public financing of the state’s campaign fina

Truth: Dean didn’t target elimination of public financing. What he did do in 1997 was sign the most far reaching campaign finance law in the nation. Unfortunately, a federal court judge decided that the spending limits provision in the campaign finance law was unconstitutional. So, with no candidates using the fund, and none able to use the fund until legal issues were resolved, Governor Dean used a portion of the remaining public campaign financing fund to balance his budget – a clear choice for any elected official seeking to prevent cuts in education or health care.

More: http://deandefense.org/archives/000017.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Skip the propaganda, read the independently-sourced material for yourself

Forget about the Dean propaganda machine. Here's what the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Vermont's leading citizen advocacy and watchdog organization since 1972, has to say about Campaign Finance Reform in Vermont:

The main components of the campaign finance law as it was originally passed in 1997 included publicly financed campaigns for qualifying candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Governor, spending caps for all candidates, and strict contribution limits for individuals, PACs, corporations and political parties.

The law has been under attack ever since, and yet it remains today one of the toughest in the nation in terms of reducing special interest influence and attracting greater participation in our political process. The following is a list of the major attempts to weaken Act 64 since 1997:

Republican Party Lawsuit

Soon after the law's passage, the Republican Party, among others, challenged several key provisions on constitutional grounds. VPIRG joined in the legal defense of the law in federal court. The US District Court found that while the spending caps and the very low limits on party donations were unconstitutional, the rest of the law was constitutional. In fact, the court practically invited the Legislature to fix one of these problems by creating somewhat higher limits on party contributions. The appeals process concerning the parts of the law that were struck down is ongoing.

Governor Dean's Plan to Remove Funding

Early on in the 2002 legislative session, Democratic Governor Howard Dean targeted the public financing provision of the law for elimination. VPIRG led the effort to preserve funding for public financing of qualifying candidates. The Governor claimed that the law was not working and therefore should not be funded until a final court decision has been reached. Working with Republicans, Progressives and Democrats, VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses). Read more on this issue.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

Governor Howard Dean has proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant governor. VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future.

<snip>

Dean's proposal is currently being debated in the Vermont House of Representatives. VPIRG is lobbying the House of Representatives to reinstate the entire $1.3 million to the Fund and to remove Governor Dean's proposal to permanently remove all funding for the law. It will then be up to the Senate to improve on the House's actions and reinstate any remaining parts of $1.3 million that belongs in the Campaign Finance Fund.

We recognize that while these are clearly tough budget times, investing in democracy is still a good deal and urge Governor Howard Dean and legislative leaders Senate President Peter Shumlin, House Speaker Walt Freed, Lieutenant Governor Racine and the rest of the Vermont Legislature to do the right thing for democracy and preserve public funding for Vermont elections.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html

[dajabr]

11. So, according to your sources...

What was Dean's motive for de-funding and possibly eliminating a law that might be held up in court indefinately?

There are no fewer than 4 seperate entites that impeded the law:

Republicans
Dean
Progressive Party
House Appropriations Committee
VPIRG

Did anyone want it to make it through the courts? At least Dean did not want 1.3 million of the state's money sitting in limbo waiting to fund a law that may or may not be unconstituational.

VPIRG says WHAT happened. They don't say WHY.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods.

Here you have said VPIRG is an entity that 'impeded the law' whereas in reality they have been one of the main defenders of it and are still fighting for it today. As anyone can easily see by reading the material for themselves.

VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses)

<snip>
The Latest Attack

On March 25, the House Appropriations Committee voted to take another $450,000 out of the fund that is supposed to be used exclusively for public financing of qualified candidates. The full House is expected to take up the matter as part of the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget. VPIRG opposes this raid on the fund just as we have opposed all other attempts to weaken or dismantle the law.
What the Legislature Should Do To Improve the Law

First, the Legislature should close the political party loophole in the law (created by the federal court decision in 2000) that allows unlimited political party contributions to candidates. VPIRG supports S.15, which would create a limit on party contributions of $50,000 to gubernatorial candidates.

(With no limits in place for the 2000 election, the Democratic and Republican parties each gave about a half a million dollars to their gubernatorial candidate.)

Second, the Legislature should resolve the problem created when the court struck down spending caps for candidates. Following the model now used in the Maine public financing system, Vermont should establish a matching fund system that helps to level the playing field between public and privately funded candidates. This would encourage more candidates to utilize public financing, reduce big money influence, and create a more even process for Vermonters to hear and choose among their candidates.

VPIRG strongly urges the Legislature to take immediate action in adjusting the law to bring about these needed improvements. We further encourage all political parties and candidates to stay out of court and instead focus on improving the democratic process in the state and resolving the important issues that Vermonters care so much about.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

VPIRG is Vermont's leading watchdog and advocacy organization. Supported by members since 1972, VPIRG's mission is to promote and protect the health of Vermont's environment, people, and locally-based economy. By informing and mobilizing individuals and communities across the state, VPIRG brings the voice of citizens to public policy debates that shape the future of Vermont.
http://www.vpirg.org/vpirg/_vpirg_top.html

Folks, who are you going to believe, Dean's supporters, or your lying eyes?

[dajabr]

21. I believe VPIRG brought suit in this case.

Thus, well intended or not, they were part of the legal process that was holding up the law and keeping the $$$ in limbo.

How about taking a shot at the WHY of all of this?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. WRONG - they defended the law repeatedly

as anyone who is reading this material can see.

Why? yes, it is a valid question - why did Dean use this lawsuit as an excuse to try to PERMANENTLY remove funding for public financing? The most obvious answer is that he is insincere about being in favor of public financing. If you want to share your spin on it, do so.

[dajabr]

25. Yes, by defending the law...

they unintentially prolonged the process. That's why I said "no fewer than 4 entities" and then listed 5. You can take VPIRG off there if you think it too much of a stretch. That leaves 4.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. By that logic, the Sierra Club is an anti-environmental organization

because they fight in court to have our environmental laws followed.

There is one thing that does seem to be true here: Dean supporters are able to convince themselves that black is white if it helps their cause.

[dajabr]

31. What does this have to do with me? Or any other Dean supporter...

Stick to the topic. Like I said. If you don't buy it (it is a stretch), ignore it. Stop worrying about what I can and cannot convince myself and address the rest of my post.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. The topic is Campaign Finance Reform

You stated the VPIRG 'impeded' the law by defending it. It is 100% on-topic for me to point out how ridiculous that reasoning is.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

[dajabr]

35. So, what's wrong with saying...

"That type of reasoning is ridiculous." I would have no problem with you saying that. I conceded it was a stretch, so I could handle criticism, just don't like the broad brush slams.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. I call em like I see em.

[w4rma]

46. You are seeing this one wrong, IMHO (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. So what's your spin on these facts, then?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Why did Dean and the Republicans fight against public financing?

That's a good question. Why is Dean on the same side as the Republicans and on the opposite side of this citizen advocacy group on the campaign finance issue? Perhaps as a Dean supporter you can tell us.

[dajabr]

24. Because the law was not going to be fully funded...

While it was being contested. Dean supported the Law when it came up in 1997, but saw that it was going to get bogged down in court for quite some time. Think it finally passed in 2002. In the meantime, he wanted to use the $$$ that was being tied up to fund other programs in his budget.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Dean fought to PERMANENTLY remove funding

Spin it however you want. The folks on this forum are smart enough to read the material for themselves and make up their own minds.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

[dajabr]

32. From that particular law.

That was flawed (according to at least 4 entities) and stuck in court. Did he favor introducing another CFR law that would pass?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Yes, the Republicans, Dean, a 3rd party candidate, and House Repubs

all fought against public financing. Those are indeed the facts here.

[dajabr]

44. Was Dean fighting against CFR...

Or, just the fact that the way it was enacted into law provoked a Republican lawsuit that threatened to tie up 1.3 Million taxpayer dollars for years?

Introduced with Dean's support in 1997.

Did not pass until 2002.


What if he sat back and let the court battle rage on while the money sat there? You'd probably rip him for letting the repugs tie up money that could have been used for other progams.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. You have again misrepresented the facts

When the Vermont Legislature passed its landmark campaign finance reform law (Act 64) in 1997, the Green Mountain State immediately became a national leader in the effort to reduce the influence of big money in politics.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

2002:
Governor Howard Dean has proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant governor. VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future.

The Governor's move will simply open another door for access by corporations and other wealthy donors seeking generous tax breaks, permission to pollute our air and water, boondoggle electric rate contracts and other special interest perks. As Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine said at a public forum on December 11th "I do believe money is corrupting the political process."

The Campaign Finance Fund was created by the state Legislature in 1997 to allow ordinary Vermonters, those without personal fortunes or wealthy connections, to run credible campaigns for office without becoming indebted to large donors or special interest lobbyists. Specifically, the law allows qualified candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, to run for governor or lieutenant governor using only clean, public dollars. The funding comes from voluntary contributions and corporate fees. There is no cost to Vermont taxpayers.

Opponents of campaign finance reform falsely say that Vermont's public financing system does not work because there are no limits on how much a candidate can spend to run for office. VPIRG supports two simple measures to fix the campaign finance reform law: closing the loophole allowing unlimited donations by a political party to a candidate and creating a matching fund system similar to the one in place in Maine.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html

[dajabr]

51. THAT particular law!

Not the concept of CFR. The "Opponents of campaign finance reform" are the Repugs, not Dean.

If that were true, you could refute my assertion that he supported the legislation in 1997 when it was introduced. Why gut something he supported, unless it was hopelessly tied up in a court battle?

Let go of your VPIRG script for a moment...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. You are implying something that is not true.

By saying 'THAT particular law!" you are trying to imply that Dean was promoting some OTHER campaign finance reform law when he tried to have all funding for Vermont's Campaign Finance Fund removed.

But that's not actually true, is it?

[dajabr]

60. What does VPIRG say?

What reason do they give as to why Dean would gut a law he supported?

Pull some quotes... Show me his motive. Show where they say he would not introduce additional legislation.

Find a quote where Dean says, "I do not support the concept of CFR," and you win the arguement.

This is a third party account of what happened. Give it to me from the horses mouth.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. We are talking about Dean's ACTIONS - not his spin.

VPIRG credibility: http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/53498

[dajabr]

81. So, Dean did this for no reason?

Does that make sense to you?

I am not contending that VPIRG is giving a false account of actions. I'm just pointing out to you that it does not talk about anyone's motives or reasons.

What you need is another source that shows Dean's disdain for CFR. Some explanation why he would gut something that he supported.

I've given you a reason why he withdrew support from the law. You have not backed up your spin on the story.

It must have been well known that he opposed CFR, surely there is at least one quote from Dean to this effect? One news source that will back up your spin and explain not just the "what," but the "why"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. we don't need someone to tell us what his actions mean

we can judge for ourselves

[dajabr]

88. Based on one article?

You have yet to refute that he supported the law in 1997...

Then, he withdrew support (which VPIRG states)

Doesn't that make you wonder why?

It made me wonder why, to the point where I found a logical explanation.

The one I found may be spin, but you have yet to offer a better alternative.

Look, if I told you that I veered off the road and killed a deer, would it matter to you that the reason I swerved off the road was because a child ran into the street? Or, would you just be content in being angry with me for killing the deer?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. Keep pushing this. I believe all undecided voters should read about it.

And I'll happily match you post for post forever if you want.

I don't need to spin this. The facts speak for themselves.

[dajabr]

102. See what? That you've avoided defending your position?(reply to #92)

Here's Dean signing CFR into law:

Vermont Passes Comprehensive Campaign Reform: In June, Governor Howard B. Dean (D-VT) signed a sweeping campaign finance reform bill into law. The bill, passed by an overwhelming margin in the legislature, provides public financing to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor who agree to comply with strict spending limits. The bill also shuts down the soft money loophole, sets mandatory spending limits for legislative candidates, reduces contribution limits and restricts out-of-state donations.

http://www.commoncause.org/states/states1997.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

107. My position is that people should read this and make up their own minds.

They don't need to be spoon fed their opinions by me.

But if you insist that I summarize it, OK.

Dean signed Act 64 in 1997.
Dean tried to remove funding for Act 64 in 2002.

I don't know what his motivations for signing the law were. Maybe he thought he could appear to be in favor of it, and then later work against it.

Really I'm not any more interested in guessing his motivations than I am in guessing your motivations. Actions speak louder than words, and a lot louder than guesses.

Can we get this thread up to 1000 posts?
Who knows, at this rate it may still be the topmost thread on the day of the NH primary. Which would be a good thing IMHO.

[ProfessorPlum]

109. Or maybe, just maybe

He was in favor of the law, and then realized that the funding for it was being tied up unproductively while it was under review.

That interpretation is just as likely as your nefarious scenario, with Dean twirling his handlebar mustache in the background, patiently waiting 5 years for his chance to kill the law. Bwah hah hah!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

111. Yeah, maybe when he tried to PERMANENTLY remove funding

he was actually working FOR campaign finance reform.

[ProfessorPlum]

114. Like I said "Bwah hah hah"

that is the sound that Dean likely made as he waited 5 years while the law was under review.

Dean (pinky in corner of mouth): "I can't wait to kill that campaign finance law that I signed, but I will wait 5 years to do so."

[dsc]

131. He was governor not emperor

He couldn't have permantently defunded anything. He let those funds sit for not one, not two, not three, not four, but five count them five long years. He wisely chose to use them after not one, not two, not three, not four, but five long years to buy medicine for children. He should be shot. How dare he save some sick kids life who is only going to be a drain on us all instread of letting that money sit for not one, not two, not three, not four, but five long years. Shame on him.

The fact is that he could have, and given that he let those funds sit for not one, not two, not three, not four, but five long years he would have replenished them if and when the courts ruled in favor of the fund.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

132. Dean, a hero for fighting against campaign finance reform..

Basic Principles of Newspeak

The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, good thoughts and thoughtcrimes).

<snip>

The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a "yes" of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them.

<snip>

Real-Life Examples of Newspeak

A comparison to Newspeak can be seen in political rhetoric, where two opposing sides string together phrases so empty of meaning that they may be compared to the taunts young children toss back and forth. The arguments of either side ultimately reduce to "I'm good; he's bad."
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[dsc]

134. bottom line

He took money which hadn't been spent not one year, not two years, not three years, not four years, but five long years and spent it to prevent having to cut medicine to sick children. He didn't make permanent cuts as you dishonestly say (since he couldn't do that). I think spending money which would otherwise sit around to save kids lives is a good thing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

135. It is false to say Dean's proposed removal of funding was not permanent.

Dean did not propose a temporary measure.

Dean's proposal is currently being debated in the Vermont House of Representatives. VPIRG is lobbying the House of Representatives to reinstate the entire $1.3 million to the Fund and to remove Governor Dean's proposal to permanently remove all funding for the law. It will then be up to the Senate to improve on the House's actions and reinstate any remaining parts of $1.3 million that belongs in the Campaign Finance Fund.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html

Oh, and thanks for the kick!

http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/15528
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-02.htm
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40614
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html

[dajabr]

110. Just this?

Well, that's Ok. But why take issue with a source I posted to present another viewpoint? Can't people read that as well in the process of making up their minds? What gave you the right to call it spin if you can't even defend your assertion?

Just easier to sneer and label it spin I guess...

This thread would have been a lot shorter had you just conceeded that you don't know all the facts, and you were just interested in brandishing the one scrap of "evidence" you could find. Not concerned with other's opinions? Suit yourself...

I think that's clear now, and I won't keep you from the rest of your "debates" on this thread.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. What source?

You mean the link that stated that Dean signed the law? Yes, Dean signed the law. That is not in dispute.

[ProfessorPlum]

115. Gee willikers,

why would he do something for the public good like that?

He must have had an eeeevil, ulterior motive.

[dajabr]

116. No, the source I cited in post #4 n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

117. Everyone is welcome to read it.

the spin from DEANDEFENSE.org makes it sound like Dean was forced to do use some of the fund to nobly balance the budget because of a pesky federal judge.

But in reality, Dean proposed to permanently remove funding, and was only stopped by the efforts of VPIRG and others who really care about CFR.

The main components of the campaign finance law as it was originally passed in 1997 included publicly financed campaigns for qualifying candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Governor, spending caps for all candidates, and strict contribution limits for individuals, PACs, corporations and political parties.

The law has been under attack ever since, and yet it remains today one of the toughest in the nation in terms of reducing special interest influence and attracting greater participation in our political process. The following is a list of the major attempts to weaken Act 64 since 1997:

Republican Party Lawsuit

Soon after the law's passage, the Republican Party, among others, challenged several key provisions on constitutional grounds. VPIRG joined in the legal defense of the law in federal court. The US District Court found that while the spending caps and the very low limits on party donations were unconstitutional, the rest of the law was constitutional. In fact, the court practically invited the Legislature to fix one of these problems by creating somewhat higher limits on party contributions. The appeals process concerning the parts of the law that were struck down is ongoing.

Governor Dean's Plan to Remove Funding

Early on in the 2002 legislative session, Democratic Governor Howard Dean targeted the public financing provision of the law for elimination. VPIRG led the effort to preserve funding for public financing of qualifying candidates. The Governor claimed that the law was not working and therefore should not be funded until a final court decision has been reached. Working with Republicans, Progressives and Democrats, VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses). .
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html



Governor Howard Dean has proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant governor. VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future.

<snip>

Dean's proposal is currently being debated in the Vermont House of Representatives. VPIRG is lobbying the House of Representatives to reinstate the entire $1.3 million to the Fund and to remove Governor Dean's proposal to permanently remove all funding for the law. It will then be up to the Senate to improve on the House's actions and reinstate any remaining parts of $1.3 million that belongs in the Campaign Finance Fund.

We recognize that while these are clearly tough budget times, investing in democracy is still a good deal and urge Governor Howard Dean and legislative leaders Senate President Peter Shumlin, House Speaker Walt Freed, Lieutenant Governor Racine and the rest of the Vermont Legislature to do the right thing for democracy and preserve public funding for Vermont elections.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html

[dajabr]

121. And this too...

Democrats urge Dean to drop funds
August 15, 2000

By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - Top Vermont Democrats urged Gov. Howard Dean to forgo a publicly financed election campaign Monday, setting the stage for Dean's possible withdrawal from the new financing system.

In a letter to Dean, attorney Peter Welch, former Gov. Phil Hoff and Rep. Jerry Kreitzer, D-Rutland City, suggested that the fallout from the recent court ruling striking some provisions of the law changed the landscape of the governor's race.

"Unless your Republican opponent accepts your proposal to adhere to voluntary spending limits - which we believe would be in the best interest of Vermont voters - there are several reasons why we think it totally appropriate for you to opt out of public financing this election," they wrote.

More: http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/demgov.html

Candidates talk finance reform
August 16, 2000

By PETER CRABTREE Herald Staff

BENNINGTON - Campaign finance reform emerged as a key issue when Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Ruth Dwyer and William Meub and Progressive Party candidate Anthony Pollina faced off before a crowd of about 125 people Tuesday.

Pollina, the only candidate who has committed to public financing of his campaign, took the Republicans to task for failing to limit their spending to $300,000, as he has.

During a town meeting at the Bennington Firehouse, Pollina said it was "ironic" and "somewhat hypocritical" that candidates who lean on the slogan "Take Back Vermont" would rely on private contributions from out-of-state interests.

More: http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/candidates.htm


Dean torn between campaign-financing options
August 18, 2000

By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - Torn between his commitment to campaign finance reform and the potential of a well-funded Republican challenger, Gov. Howard Dean said Thursday he was still weighing his options when it came to how he would fund his re-election effort.

"This is a tough decision for me," he said at a news conference just hours after returning from the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.

Dean has until Monday to decide if he will continue to take advantage of the new public financing system under state law or get out and raise private money. If he stays in, he is bound by a $255,000 spending limit, while his GOP challenger has no spending cap as a result of a judge's ruling that drastically changed the law.

More: http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/deantorn.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. A cheap shot

A cheap shot
January 13, 2002
(from the Editorials section)

If the Legislature is interested in abolishing Vermont's law for public financing of campaigns, it ought to address that question squarely. The proposal from Gov. Howard Dean to end public financing by siphoning off money appropriated for that purpose is a backdoor attack on campaign reform that smacks of political opportunism.

<snip>

But Sessions left in place the option available to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to accept public financing. In the 2000 election, the result was that Dean and his Republican opponent, Ruth Dwyer, refused public money. They were both able to raise far more privately, and neither wanted to be outspent.

But Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina was happy to accept public financing of $300,000, far more than he was likely to collect in contributions for his third-party candidacy. That handsome war chest allowed him to compete more actively, and he won 9 percent of the vote.

Now the economy is in decline, and revenues are in free-fall. Dean is looking for every dime he can scrape up, and the $1.3 million appropriated for use by candidates is a tempting morsel, particularly since the two major party candidates do not even plan to use the money.

But Pollina would. Using the budget shortfall as an excuse to deprive Pollina of cash has to be a tempting choice for the Democrats, who stand to lose enough votes to Pollina that they could lose the election.

<snip>

Dean's effort to defund Pollina is being greeted with skepticism in the Legislature. But even if they reject Dean's idea, the Legislature need not leave the system in place as it is. Major pieces of the campaign reform law have been junked, and what remains is flawed.

<snip>

The aim of campaign finance reform is to minimize the shenanigans that surround money in politics and to end cynicism about the electoral process.

That is an important goal, and the Legislature should look for ways to achieve it. Dean's plan, unfortunately, has the look of another shenanigan.
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40614

[Feanorcurufinwe]

123. Dean has a history of broken promises on campaign spending

Dean started out the campaign intending to hold to a $255,000 spending limit under the state's new campaign finance law. But he abandoned that pledge after a federal judge ruled that some parts of the law were unconstitutional. The ruling opened the door for Dwyer, who was not taking public financing, to collect unlimited amounts of money from political parties.

Dean abandoned his bid, saying he could not effectively stave off Dwyer's challenge by staying within that limit. Dean also had to contend with Pollina, a well-funded third party candidate who appealed to liberal Democrats.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/elec_night/spendingheavy.htm

[Egnever]

128. Your spin is ludicrous!

Dean has a history of endorsing campaign finance reform and going up against people who choose to either ignore it or break it so that it no longer works, Then realizing the position he is in to stick to campaign finance reform that his oponents arent adhearing to and be outspent or forgoe a cause he clearly believes in and even out the fight. He chooses wisely IMHO

You would prefer perhaps that our candidates hamstring themselves in the face of bushes war chest?

Not to mention the fact that he still has never made a statement that he would forgoe public funding in this election only that his campaign people were suggesting and that he could change his mind on it. COULD ....Should IMHO if he can get the dollars..But could in his statements.

The fact that you ignore that in each case That he has forgone public financing it has always been because the person he was running against has allready disssmissed it.

You seem to have a problem with him evening out the fight for some reason.

Really you just seem to have a problem with him. Cool by me but all the quoting of the VPIRG article in the world doesnt make his decision wrong. It was clearly the right thing to do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

130. Except I'm not spinning, I'm just pointing to independent sources.

The facts speak for themselves, they don't need any commentary from me.


http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/15528
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-02.htm
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40614
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html


However, when Dean supporters try to justify this with leaps of logic like 'by defending the law, VPIRG was opposing it' or outright falsehoods like implying that Dean was favoring some OTHER campaign finance law by attacking this one, I will respond.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. How Do You Like Them Waffles?

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. - Meet The Press (6/22)

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

-----------

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.'' - Howard Dean(7/25)

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

-------

What a difference a month makes!

<>

[dajabr]

6. Bush misled Dean into NOT supporting the war...

How the heck did that happen? - damn waffler!!!

[DrFunkenstein]

7. The Issue Was Imminence of Threat

If the Niger story panned out, the threat would have been much more immediate. But neither Dean nor Kerry believed the threat was imminent, or that invasion was necessary.

But then again, Kerry wasn't the hypocrite saying the other candidates were too easily fooled to be President.

[dajabr]

9. Dean didn't need any story to "pan out"

To justify his position. Remember how the pundits were so sure that Dean's bid would sink after the WMD were found? Wonder why that was?

Oh yeah, because although he acknowledged the likelyhood of WMD being there, it still did not make the case for pre-emptive war.

Why was I not fooled? Why was Dean not fooled? Why was a large percentage of DU not fooled?

Here's a hint. The initials are PNAC. Kerry must have known about their motives - right?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Arent your posts just an attempt to divert attention from Dean's hypocrisy

on campaign finance?

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

[dajabr]

12. You'd need to ask DrFunk about that...

He brought up the waffle quote - not me.

Why don't you stop worrying about me and my posts. Seems that Kerry or Kucinich (10% on latest DU Poll) could use your attention right about now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. You are responsible for your own actions.

[dajabr]

19. So, I have a "shadow" now?

To keep reminding me of the golden rule?

Did you want to discuss anything here, or just keep playing thread cop?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. I want to discuss Dean's Campaign Finance Reform record

you got a problem with that?

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

[dajabr]

27. Why the hostility?

We seem to be doing just that up-thread. Put me on ignore if you don't like my posts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. It's hostility to want a discussion of the issues?

[dajabr]

33. Is that how you normally invite discussion?

Saying, "You got a problem with that?" That must work well for you in the real world.

[DrFunkenstein]

43. Easy Guys!

Keep it between the candidates. No need to get into personal tiffs.

[ProfessorPlum]

66. You're being way too aggressive

dajabr backed up his (her? :)) arguments above well - no need to follow down here.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. "I Tend To Believe The President"

The quotes are smacking you in the face. Dean said - in no uncertain terms - that he was "fooled." Not "we," he said "I." Dean believed, like we all did, that some WMDs would be found. And he said he was misled by Bush SOTU speech. Please don't tell me that Dean is now saying he knew there were no WMDs.

Dean said he was misled, then hypocritically charged the other candidates (specifically Kerry) as undeserving fools.

PS - Why do you insist that Kerry was for pre-emptive war? Do your homework, and stop distorting other candidates positions to make your choice look better.

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test." - Kerry 10/9/02.

[dajabr]

17. I had some Dean quotes set off a few alarms...

The most recent Social Security gaffe for example. But these don't register a "pat" let alone a smack.

You want to parse words? Fine. Let's assume you're right, and they were all equally misled.

Then, who get's my support on this issue?

The guy who was consistently against the war based on the case that was being made by the PNAC influenced administration?

The guy who voted for the IRW and then so lamely made his case that Conventional Wisdom accross the land could not figure out where he really stood until the war was "over?"

Or the guy who proclaims to the hilltops that we had fought a "just war?"

Given that my guy was right, amazing since a Kerry spokesman said he was "unfit to serve" as CIC, he's entitled to the high ground here, and can throw a few stones without worrying if 5% of Democrats don't 'get" what he's saying. I get it.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. You Lost Me There

Then, who get's my support on this issue?

The guy who was consistently against the war based on the case that was being made by the PNAC influenced administration?

The guy who voted for the IRW and then so lamely made his case that Conventional Wisdom accross the land could not figure out where he really stood until the war was "over?"

Or the guy who proclaims to the hilltops that we had fought a "just war?"

Who are you referring to in the first and third part?

As for Conventional Wisdom, that was media bullsh-t. Kerry's position was crystal clear, unlike Dean's - who only endorsed disarmament in February, eventually coming to PRECISELY Kerry's opinion from 1997.

Here is a Daily Howler that tears apart "conventional wisdom" on Kerry's position:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101002.shtml

"This is about as confusing as 2 plus 5."

[dajabr]

49. Don't interrupt me...

I'm on a roll... :-)

Back to "misled." I guess what I'm trying to say is that based on the same information that was available to the public at the time (Colin Powell at the UN for instance) millions of people did not buy the case for war.

Kerry had the benefit of much closer scrutiny of the evidence (briefings), and a personal promise from Bush - which he trusted.

So, did Dean being misled about WMD raise an eyebrow? No, I thought the same way - they probably had/have some.

Was a man in Kerry's position with his track record being misled and trusting Bush to do the right thing alarming? He was REALLY misled for sure. And dissapointing too...

And, if he's setting some kind of sophisticated "trap" for Bush, he better get around to springing it.

[DrFunkenstein]

57. Kerry Never Believed The Threat Was Imminent

I think the problem is that Dean and Kerry are talking apples and oranges. For Dean, the issue was how imminent was the threat. Kerry was focused on disramament and accountability, regardless of the level of the threat.

Kerry was never fooled into believing Iraq was an imminent threat requiring immediate action. Even on the eve of war, Kerry was pleading for a 30 day extension.

Kerry did not "buy" the case for invasion. He thought it was a huge mistake to invade, but a mistake Saddam brought on himself. Kerry would have redoubled the efforts of the inspections team so long as Saddam was fully cooperating.

Probably the big difference was their stances on containment. Dean was for a policy of containment, rather than active disarmament.

("Saddam, in my view, has been successfully contained for 12 years. We can stop Saddam Hussein from doing anything for another 12 years if we have to without invading.")

Kerry was more pro-active. ("We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.")

I also have problems with Dean giving too much authority to the UN. ("Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States.")

Personally, I tend to agree with Kerry.

[ProfessorPlum]

62. that is a policy difference that I would have with Kerry

I think the war is a wretched, horrible mistake, and I thought so at the time.

And even Kerry now has to admit that what we have now is too high a price to pay for "disarming" Saddam. Doesn't he?

[DrFunkenstein]

68. But He Lays The Burden Where It Belongs

On Bush's rush to war. Dean prefers to snipe at Democrats instead for political gain.

[ProfessorPlum]

91. I agree that Dean does things for political gain

would that other Democrats did so, more often, as well.

I don't know what to say about Kerry laying the burden on this mess on Bush's rush to war. The only quote I can find of him discussing his approval or disapproval of the war during wartime (not Bush's approach to the war, the actual war itself) finds him supporting the military invasion to disarm Saddam, with no caveats.

You probably read Digby's blog. It is incredible, full of things I wish I had written myself.

This post, especially, really hits the nail on the head.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_10_digbysblog_archive.html#106089121327018064

Our party is in the fight of its life, for its life, with this election. Dean is in the process of proving that he is tough enough, mean enough, gritty enough, to take these GOP thugs on. I hate to see it devolve to this, but Kerry better get down and dirty as well - if he "slays" Dean politically, he will have proven that he is tough enough to take on Jr. But until that happens, Dean seems to me to be the only one who fully understands what is at stake.

[dajabr]

69. On containment, I tend to agree with Dean.

And it will be tough for us to see eye to eye on their different stances. I congratulate you on hitting the crux of the difference spot on.

And, in a different world, I supported force against Hussein, as did Dean.

But, PNAC is the fly in the ointment for me.

Bush and those who supported the invasion whole or half-heartedly say, "Everything has changed" since 9/11. And it hasn't. Everything is going according to the NeoCon plan. This was the first battle against this philosophy, and we needed all good Dem hands on deck - strategery be damned. We lost, and Kerry's vote did not help.

[ProfessorPlum]

59. The difference was that

Dean continued to say that invasion wasn't necessary and was in fact a bad idea as it was happening. Kerry stayed very silent about the invasion at the time, except to say

". . . I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

in the first debate.

[blm]

26. Dean supported a different resolution for war.

The same war would have happened under the Biden-Lugar guidelines.

[ProfessorPlum]

67. The difference is that Dean took the position that

"the same war" was wrong. Kerry didn't, at least not until it was over.

[shance]

16. Dean needs to own the changes if he believes is the best way to

move forward.

There is nothing wrong with looking at an issue from a different perspective and changing ones mind, in fact that shows flexibility which can be very wise and the sign of a discerning leader.

However the situation(s) needs to be explained and it shouldnt be passed off as someone else's decision.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

22. good point

but the fact is that no decision has been made. He's clearly said that until Sept. 30, no decision will be made. I have every confidence that when a decision has been made, Dean will come out and talk about it frankly.

[polpilot]

39. Dean supporters are supporting a 'winner' not a 'whiner.' He can

change his position on financing this campaign to TAKE BACK THIS COUNTRY!!!! a billion times and it won't matter a twit to me.

Cash, credit, borrowed money, public money, private money, pac money monopoly money...I don't care.

Dean '04...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. In other words

"strategy over principle, for anything it takes to win"

[ProfessorPlum]

72. can we at least agree

that being willing to fight for election is, in fact, a good thing? Too many times the Democrats have been standing around with their hands in their pockets (or, if you prefer, their thumbs up their asses) while the Republicans steal them blind.

Dean seems to be the only candidate to have learned from the Republicans and their campaigning style - and he, like Clinton, seems to know that you have to win the election before you can do anything.

Note that I am not conflating Dean's campaigning style with Republican policies after election - only with Republican-like toughness in the campaign.

You have to say one thing for Republicans, they know how to win. And they will even turn Democrats using their strategies against them, hypocritically of course. Check out today's MediaWhoresOnline on Gray Davis using tried and true GOP strategy against the GOP in the last CA election, and how the GOP weeps about it. Just imagine the fun as Dean turns GOP strategy against them, and how they will weep big elephant tears. Makes me misty.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. Can we at least agree

that the ends do not justify the means?

[ProfessorPlum]

85. Or we could agree

that there are costs and benefits to be weighed.

If every Democrat didn't pee their pants everytime a Republican threatened to accuse them of fighting dirty, we wouldn't be in this fix, and you would rapidly see some Republicans actually campaigning in a more genteel fashion. But since fighting dirty has been so damn succesful for them, don't expect them to give it up now. And Dean knows it - he seems to actually understand the people he is up against and the depths to which they will go.

If (insert your favorite candidate here) doesn't agree that many important rules may have to be bent at least as far as the Republicans have bent them in order to win, then they will lose. The Repubs are playing for keeps this time, and we can't count on the voters to elect someone out of pity.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. I'm not willing to be just like the Republicans in order to win

we can win as Democrats

[ProfessorPlum]

94. "we can win as Democrats"

if only.

[ProfessorPlum]

95. Let's try this again - slowly . . .

I'm not advocating that we BE like Republicans in order to win.

I'm advocating that we CAMPAIGN like Republicans in order to win.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. I hear what you are saying

and so do the other folks reading this.

[ProfessorPlum]

98. Omigosh, you mean other folks are reading this?

My evil plan to support a candidate who actually fights to win elections is publicly exposed! Egads.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. What's wrong with "the ends justify the means" anyway?

Why do I have a problem with it?

But how about good ends? We are always morally justified in working for their accomplishment. Are we, then, also morally justified in using any means which will work? The answer to that question is plainly Yes; for if the end is really good, and if the means really serves the end and does not defeat it in any way, then there can be nothing wrong with the means. It is justified by the end, and we are justified in using it.

People who are shocked by this statement overlook one thing: If an action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good end, even though it may on the surface appear to do so. Men in power have often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making it appear that their injustice to individuals was for the social good and was, therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice for all, a government which employs unjust means defeats the end it pretends to serve. You cannot use bad means for a good end any more than you can build a good house out of bad materials.

It is only when we do not look too closely into the matter that we can be fooled by the statement that the end justifies the means. We fail to ask whether the end in view is really good, or we fail to examine carefully how the means will affect the end. This happens most frequently in the game of power politics or in war, where the only criterion is success and anything which contributes to success is thought to be justified. Success may be the standard by which we measure the expediency of the means, but expediency is one thing and moral justification is another.
http://radicalacademy.com/adlerendsmeans.htm

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. You can call me names if you want

but it doesn't change anything.

"I don't believe that all ends justify all means"

You seem to be implying that sometimes the ends justify the means, but not always.

Is that what you mean?

[ProfessorPlum]

112. Just what in the hell are you trying very clumisly to get me to admit?

My point is sometimes you have to work to accomplish things. Sometimes, unfortunately, you even have to compromise your principles to accomplish things (our congressional candidates surely know all about that). So who do you think is pure in absolutely not compromising their principles to win elections?

My feeling is that even as bad as things are, most candidates wouldn't have to compromise very important principles in order to win - but if things started to approach that point, I would want them to weight heavily how important it is to beat Bush (an important principle) against the principle they were going to compromise.

Are you offering us a snowy-pure (and unelectable) candidate as an alternative?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. It is a simple, yes or no question.

"I don't believe that all ends justify all means"

You seem to be implying that sometimes the ends justify the means, but not always.

Is that what you mean?

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

139. When someone calls me names

the natural thing to do would be to respond in kind. But I don't think you are an 'asshole'. I'm guessing you are a good person who is just frustrated because you are on the wrong side of an argument. You feel passionate about Dean, and you don't like it when his actions are exposed in a bad light. You have boxed yourself into a position where you are defending 'the ends justity the means' and no doubt it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

So, I forgive you.

[ProfessorPlum]

140. You're fast becoming my bestest buddy

Tell me again, succinctly, what is your point? Read my posts below where I assert that Dean's pledge to attack other people who don't stick to the public spending caps was a short-sighted mistake.

What exactly do you want? For me to say, "Well, this is the last straw! Dean is just too dishonest for me to support! The ends can never justify the means. If a candidate can't win entirely on public matching funds of small private donations, then I don't want him!"

None of that is true. Many of our most important leaders had inconsistencies, problems, instances where their judgement was incorrect. Many even had venal flaws. That didn't mean they couldn't be good for the country.

I know that you want me to hold Dean up against some ideal of goodness, where he will fall short. No one stands up to that ideal. Not your candidate. No one.

So can we please get back to some debate that has some meaning in reality?

And please take your forgiveness and place it delicately in the trash, where it belongs.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

141. Ideals, who needs 'em?

Nobody's holding Dean up to 'some ideal of goodness' - we are holding him up to the other candidates. It not about some abstract ideal. It's about whether Dean is the person we want leading us.

I think honesty, sincerity, and consistency are important things to measure when choosing a leader.

"Well, this is the last straw! Dean is just too dishonest for me to support!"

from what you are saying, I don't think anything could make you cross that line. Because once you throw principles out the window, there are no more moral choices to make. Expediency is everything.

[Duder]

142. Ideals? Sho' me the money...

http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/

[Feanorcurufinwe]

143. Yes, Kerry is the richest candidate. So what?

What is your point?

[Duder]

144. And he carries water...

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found.

http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/default.aspx?Section=ARTICLE&AID=8

"Well, this is the last straw! Kerry is just too dishonest for me to support!"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

145. Good example of why campaign finance reform is important.

Under the system we have now, our whole process is tainted. The whole system is awash in money creating both the appearance and sometimes the reality of corruption. How can we tell the difference? I think it is so important for our leaders to be honest, sincere, and consistent. When they are consistent of the course of years in their statements and especially their actions then we know who they are and what they believe in. When they seem to follow a different course depending on the political winds of the day, it is more difficult to say.

The following statement was received by the Center for Public Integrity from Sen. John Kerry s office on May 6, 2003. Statement from Tony Wyche, spokesman for Senator John Kerry: Senator Kerry has friends and family who work at Mintz Levin, ranging from his brother to former classmates who work in this Boston-based firm. In addition to having been elected to the Senate four times, John Kerry has been Lt. Governor and run for Congress in Massachusetts, so a lot of these folks go way back with him. It should come as no surprise that they would be supportive of his campaign for president and any effort to make anything more of it is sorely misguided. On all issues, including issues important to the wireless industry, Senator Kerry makes his decisions based on what is sound policy and what is best for the people he represents. -- Tony Wyche Communications Director

[ProfessorPlum]

149. Gee, the whole process is tainted?

you mean no one is pure? How are you ever going to choose a candidate? How are you ever going to "do better than that"?

At least there isn't even the hint of conflict of interest with Kerry, thank god.

[ProfessorPlum]

146. Oh well, hell, I thought you had some point to make

instead you are just holding Dean up to the other candidates? In that case, I'm really wasting my time with you.

Even the very "pure" candidates have made major moral zigzags on their way to trying to win this election.

Talk to ya later, PP.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

147. Yes, this is about who will be the Democratic nominee

did you somehow lose sight of that?

Your post takes me back to the 70's. I remember during the Watergate scandal, listening to the apologists for Nixon:

"They all do it"
"He just got caught, that's all"

I think we can do better than that.

[ProfessorPlum]

148. It is as if the scales have fallen from my eyes

You are right, Dean is a flawed candidate and I will never back him again.

I will point out however, that even St. Dennis changed his position on abortion (abortion!) to run.

Now, if that ain't abandoning your principles in order to be more electable, I don't know what is.

But I can certainly forgive Kucinich that. I'm happy to have him in the race, and I am proud of all 8 of our candidates, each of which would make a much better alternative than Bush.

I'm sorry for you that you've let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Remember This Day Polpilot

"Cash, credit, borrowed money, public money, private money, pac money monopoly money...I don't care."

This from a man(?) that zealously railed against Kerry when it was suggested that the DLC might back him. I guess you've come full circle to having been forced to compromise yourself to the point where you don't know up from down.

Ah, the power of populist demagoguery. What can't it accomplish?

[polpilot]

47. populism IS powerful!!!!!!!!!

Dean '04

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. Yes populism is powerful

Goebbels' core philosophy, based on a tabloid-style populist approach, was said to have been partly inspired by the ideas of the first Lord Northcliffe. "It was a mistake", Goebbels once said, "to conduct propaganda in such a way that it will stand up to critical examination of intellectuals".
He was not unduly worried about winning over his more thoughtful audience because he believed that "intellectuals always yield to strength, and this will be the ordinary man in the street". In dealing with mass audiences, said Goebbels, "tbe most primitive arguments are the most effective".
http://freespace.virgin.net/christopher.arkell/london.miscellany/m35/spin.htm

[ProfessorPlum]

55. Stop your picking, we have a winner!

you win the hyperbole contest today.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. populism is powerful, I agree, but I hope reason will be more powerful

[ProfessorPlum]

65. Jesus, we can all hope

for that. But as the 'murican people have proven time and again, appealing to their reason will only get you so far.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. I hear what you are saying

and it sounds like "the ends justify the means", "strategy over principle, for anything it takes to win" to me.

[ProfessorPlum]

80. There are a lot of Democrats who would rather be right then President

and millions of voters who have helped them in their quest.

Just because a candidate shows some signs of life doesn't make him evil.

Here's some Aristotelean logic for you:

Republicans use strategy that wins them elections.
Republicans are evil.
Dean uses strategy that wins him elections.


What can you conclude from these premises if we assume them to be true?
A. Dean is a Republican
B. Dean is evil
C. Dean is Karl Rove
D. Dean is unelectable
E. Dean should learn to be polite and lose, just like the other Democrats
F. None of the above

I'll give you a cookie if you can figure it out

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. It's a character issue

do we want to have a President who believes that "the ends justify the means"?

We have one right now. I don't want another one.

[ProfessorPlum]

97. you will certainly not have another President, then.

Enjoy this one while he lasts.

How about having a president who knows that you have to win FIRST, before you can implement any of your policies? Having great policies won't do you a bit of good unless you can win.

There are lots of virtues a President might theoretically have. Honesty, compassion, valour, cool-head-in-a-crisis, clear vision for the future, good communicator. What I'm saying is that effectiveness in getting elected is also a virtue. It is something good to have in a candidate.

And don't get me wrong, if I start seeing the other candidates manuvering a bit, showing some political saavy, and waking up to the kind of campaigning that needs to be done now, I will be incredibly pleased. I'm not wedded to Howard Dean's set of positions - I just can't find any other canididate who seem to be able to campaign so effectively. And that matters to me.

Edit for grammar.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. I wouldn't have believed it

but you actually do seem to be arguing that the ends justify the means.

[ProfessorPlum]

100. What ends? What means?

if the end is winning the election and getting Smirky out of office, and the means are not being as polite as other Democrats have been in the past, then yes, I would say that being impolite justifies winning election from the Simian Dictator.

What "ends" and "means" are you going on and on and on about? Public financing?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

103. We are talking about honesty not politeness. Is Dean honest?

Informed voters make the best decisions.

[ProfessorPlum]

105. Dean seems pretty damn honest

- for a politician - to me. His honesty certainly stands up with the other candidates for the Presidency.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

119. Bush's supporters say he is honest.

Should we believe them, or judge him by his actions?

[ProfessorPlum]

106. Refreshingly so

I might add.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. Refreshingly so

I might add.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

126. Goo goo gaa gaa.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

127. A persuasive argument. Your rhetorical powers are impressive.

Published on Friday, February 15, 2002 by Common Dreams

In Vermont, Governor Howard Dean is attempting to de-fund Vermont’s clean money bill by siphoning off money set aside for public financing to other parts of his budget. Governor Dean has always claimed to support public financing. But in this coming election year, public financing might hurt the Democratic Party. So he’s trying to gut it.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-02.htm

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

129. goo goo gaa gaa

[Feanorcurufinwe]

133. Why don't you stick your fingers in your ears and yell:"I can't hear you!"

That'll win a lot of votes.

Real-Life Examples of Newspeak

A comparison to Newspeak can be seen in political rhetoric, where two opposing sides string together phrases so empty of meaning that they may be compared to the taunts young children toss back and forth. The arguments of either side ultimately reduce to "I'm good; he's bad."
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[DrFunkenstein]

70. Since When Is Populist Demagoguery A Fit Substitute For Populism

Ralph Nader is a populist. Molly Ivins is a populist. Howard Dean is a centrist that likes to yell alot. And, apparently, a centrist licking his chops at the prospect of getting some corporate cash.

[polpilot]

124. JFK was very much a populist president as will be President Dean. A

'centrist that likes to yell alot' is hardly an accurate depiction of a true statesman like Dean who is reviving a dead democratic party.

The DLC is gone, over, along with its most ardent supporters (long time politicos). It's a new and fresh revolutionary party that is developing and Dean is the firebrand leader.

Dean '04...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

125. Dean an enemy of reform

Dean an enemy of reform
January 20, 2002
(from the Letters to the Editor section)

People have lost faith in the electoral system because they don’t believe that the old saying: One person one vote, has held true. They see the influx of corporate money into politics and the distortion it creates. Politicians are no longer beholden to the voters and their consciences alone. They owe their positions and their loyalty to various corporations and big money interests.

There has been much talk about campaign financing reform in recent years, and in Vermont we were lucky enough to have a comprehensive law written and passed on the issue. We have a system of public financing in place that allowed candidates to run without bowing down to corporate interests. Vermonters can have campaigns about issues, not about raising money.

But we are losing this resource. The Dean administration has long been opposed to public financing, if not always in words then in actions. In the 2000 elections, Dean had promised to run a clean campaign, but as soon as the spending caps were struck down by the courts, Dean reverted to his old ways. He raised the most money in Vermont gubernatorial history, by promising the health industry, among others, his support. Now he is attacking the existence of public financing for any candidate. He has threatened to raid the public financing fund and hand this state over to corporations who have no allegiance to it.

Tell Dean that you want citizens of Vermont controlling our elections, not his corporate buddies.

ROB CURRY-SMITHSON

Wilmington
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/41007

[blm]

138. When did Dean become a fighting populist, polpilot?

He scorned populism and fighting when he was governor for 11 years. So...when did he decide to become a fighter and a populist?

[DrFunkenstein]

40. Dean Put Pen To Paper And Foot To Mouth

The Federal Election Commission last month declared Dean eligible for matching funds. Dean signed a letter to the commission in June promising to abide by the program’s rules, including its spending limits. Under FEC practice, Dean could withdraw, however, because he hasn’t yet received a matching fund payment, commission spokesman Bob Biersack said.

“Governor Dean has said repeatedly that he supports the system, he’s threatened to attack other candidates who don’t participate, and he’s signed a binding contract with the federal government to participate in the system,” said Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan.

Dean committed to accepting taxpayer money and vowed to attack any Democrat who didn’t.

---------

My problem is not with him reneging on his contract so much as it is his self-righteous vow to attack anyone that didn't sign such an attack.

[dajabr]

52. "said Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan"

It's possible he said he would go on the attack, but can we get an impartial quote here?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. Here you go

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html

[ProfessorPlum]

54. Yeah, that's a bit over the top

He shouldn't have made that vow, as the important thing for Democrats in this contest is beating Bush - and fundraising is also a way that candidates display their fitness to run against Bush.

Of course, when he thought he would never bring in the money he thinks he may bring in now, he wanted to make others with more money look bad.

His position is absolutely hypocritical as it portrays a shift in his perceived ability to fund raise. And yet . . .

* It shows that he is able to take a weakness and use it as a strength when necessary, and also capable of considering using a strength as a strength when possible.

* He made that pledge before Kerry's wife's money was ruled out for Kerry to use in his campaign.

* Kerry has not taken a position on the use of matching funds yet, as far as I know. Dean's moral position may become a little more clear when we find out what Kerry will do.

* Finally, given what has been said, Dean's original position has to be taken as strategy, not moral conviction. Presenting it initially as a moral conviction was the wrong thing to do, in my opinion.

It does point out his will to win, to use every advantage and to minimize every disadvantage. I wish more of our candidates had his fight.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. "strategy, not moral conviction" - You've summed it up well.

[ProfessorPlum]

64. I'm sorry, has Kerry shown his "moral conviction" on this issue yet?

Let me know when he does, otherwise for all we know, he is pondering the same thing as Dean right now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. The difference is that Dean made a commitment and then backed out of it

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-Money.html

I won't attempt to explain the moral consequences of that to you.

It looked bad at first, and then I found out about Dean's history of fighting public financing in Vermont.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

[DrFunkenstein]

75. The Record Does Make Things Seem Worse

I forgot about the VPIRG. That does exacerbate the issue a little, in my book.

[ProfessorPlum]

76. Yes, that is true.

we may have to learn to live with that. He is contemplating backing out of a commitment, one which he apparently only made because he was attempting to use a weakness as a strength.

And I agree with dajabr above - the VPIRG seems invested in that one particular law, which was being held up and tying up funds which Vermont could better use in other ways. The conclusion I draw is that Dean didn't want that money to go into limbo, regardless of his feelings about public financing of campaigns, and the VPIRG wanted to stick to their rhetorical guns to the expense of the people and the government funds which weren't helping anyone. A practical decision, not an idealogical one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. In fact, Act 64 has been successfully defended repeatedly, and it works.

Despite Dean and the Republicans' best efforts to gut this law, and the attacks on it up to this day, Act 64 is still working in Vermont.

The law has been under attack ever since, and yet it remains today one of the toughest in the nation in terms of reducing special interest influence and attracting greater participation in our political process. The following is a list of the major attempts to weaken Act 64 since 1997:

Republican Party Lawsuit

Soon after the law's passage, the Republican Party, among others, challenged several key provisions on constitutional grounds. VPIRG joined in the legal defense of the law in federal court. The US District Court found that while the spending caps and the very low limits on party donations were unconstitutional, the rest of the law was constitutional. In fact, the court practically invited the Legislature to fix one of these problems by creating somewhat higher limits on party contributions. The appeals process concerning the parts of the law that were struck down is ongoing.

Governor Dean's Plan to Remove Funding

Early on in the 2002 legislative session, Democratic Governor Howard Dean targeted the public financing provision of the law for elimination. VPIRG led the effort to preserve funding for public financing of qualifying candidates. The Governor claimed that the law was not working and therefore should not be funded until a final court decision has been reached. Working with Republicans, Progressives and Democrats, VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses). Read more on this issue.

Progressive Party Lawsuit

On March 15, the Progressive Party and Lt. Governor candidate Anthony Pollina filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that two provisions of Act 64 are unconstitutional. The provocation for this lawsuit was a challenge by the Democratic Party concerning Mr. Pollina's eligibility for public financing.

VPIRG opposed this lawsuit as well. We argued that if the challenge had been successful, there would have been no limit on what political parties could contribute to publicly funded candidates. The lawsuit was dropped one week later when Mr. Pollina decided not to seek public financing in his race.

The Latest Attack

On March 25, the House Appropriations Committee voted to take another $450,000 out of the fund that is supposed to be used exclusively for public financing of qualified candidates. The full House is expected to take up the matter as part of the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget. VPIRG opposes this raid on the fund just as we have opposed all other attempts to weaken or dismantle the law.

What the Legislature Should Do To Improve the Law

First, the Legislature should close the political party loophole in the law (created by the federal court decision in 2000) that allows unlimited political party contributions to candidates. VPIRG supports S.15, which would create a limit on party contributions of $50,000 to gubernatorial candidates.

(With no limits in place for the 2000 election, the Democratic and Republican parties each gave about a half a million dollars to their gubernatorial candidate.)

Second, the Legislature should resolve the problem created when the court struck down spending caps for candidates. Following the model now used in the Maine public financing system, Vermont should establish a matching fund system that helps to level the playing field between public and privately funded candidates. This would encourage more candidates to utilize public financing, reduce big money influence, and create a more even process for Vermonters to hear and choose among their candidates.

VPIRG strongly urges the Legislature to take immediate action in adjusting the law to bring about these needed improvements. We further encourage all political parties and candidates to stay out of court and instead focus on improving the democratic process in the state and resolving the important issues that Vermonters care so much about.
How You Can Help

Join our email action alert team to receive occasional messages at important times to help protect Vermont's Campaign Finance Reform Law. To sign up, go to http://www.vpirg.org/action/email_register.htm. VPIRG will not share your email address with any other individual or organization.

VPIRG marks 30th anniversary

[ProfessorPlum]

82. You just backed up everything I said in my post.

and it says nothing about Dean's feelings about public financing.

I'm glad the VPIRG has done so well in this area - the whole country needs this kind of reform.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. We will judge Dean by his actions

not by the 'feelings' you think he has.

[ProfessorPlum]

86. I didn't say anything about his "feelings"

you &*$%%@#, or about what I thought his position on campaign finance reform was. Feel free to judge him by his actions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. I quote you

"You just backed up everything I said in my post.

and it says nothing about Dean's feelings about public financing.

I'm glad the VPIRG has done so well in this area - the whole country needs this kind of reform. "


topic_id=22289
mesg_id=22460
Mon Aug-18-03 07:36 PM


"I didn't say anything about his "feelings"

you &*$%%@#, or about what I thought his position on campaign finance reform was. Feel free to judge him by his actions. "

Mon Aug-18-03 07:46 PM
topic_id=22289
mesg_id=22467

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[DrFunkenstein]

73. Signing Was Not A Moral Issue, Vowing To Attack Others Was

Signing the contract may have been strategic, just like his backtracking. I have no problems with that. But vowing to attack others who refused matching funds is clearly making it a moral issue.

William Bennett compiled a lovely book on morals. No problem there. But when he attacked people for failing to live a "moral" life, only to spend his royalties gambling - that's a problem.

[ProfessorPlum]

77. Yeah, I agree, that was a bit over the line

and not very far-seeing on his part.

[virtualobserver]

136. but he now sees the error of his ways.....

Don't you believe in redemption, Dr Funkenstein?