Kucinich Camp Brags of Success

[LWolf]

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/october/1017_campaign_corner.shtml

<snip>

"Unlike other campaigns that are in decline, the Kucinich campaign today announced an increase in fundraising -- $1.65 million this quarter (up from last quarter's $1.54 million)," Kucinich staffers told supporters on Wednesday.

"We raised nearly $1 million in September alone! With an average donation of $72, the vast majority of our funds will be federally matched," the staffer said. "As a grassroots campaign with a huge volunteer base, Kucinich for President doesn't need to equal other campaigns dollar for dollar."

Given that rival Democrat Howard Dean of Vermont raised ten times as much, it is not surprising the Kucinich camp would be arguing that they don't need to be expert fundraisers.

The backers of the self-avowed "Peace Candidate" also said, "Too bad for the national media pundits who've wished the Kucinich campaign would just go away ... because Kucinich for President has surged in recent weeks. Other campaigns have seen their fundraising decline; ours is growing!"

[jeter]

1. Less than $2 million raised, less than 2% in the polls

yep, that's success.

[no name no slogan]

2. Don't forget about those donations...

$1mil in September? Damn, I knew it was a lot, but not THAT much! :toast:

And about those donations: Dennis Kucinich takes NO CORPORATE PAC MONEY, unlike most of the other candidates. Not a cent.

This is a true PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN, from the start. Dennis was drafted by popular demand by folks who heard his "Prayer for America" in February 2003-- how many other candidates can claim this? Nor did he take any campaign "seed" money from "special interests" to get his campaign of the ground.

Dennis's message has spread by word of mouth-- NOT by the media, who have been doing their damnedest to pretend he does not exist.

His supporters have ORGANIZED HIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN without the aid of political "consultants" and hacks.

His numbers may appear low, but they're growing exponentially, underneath the radar, and are going to suprise a hell of a lot of people at the primaries and caucuses!

:kick:

[hippywife]

3. As I am fond of pointing out

the Prayer for America speech was February 17th 2002. Dennis was way ahead of the curve and the other candidates in calling out the "unelected president and his undisclosed vice president".

I still get a chuckle out of the John Ashcroft/exposed bosoms line in that speech. Brilliant! :thumbsup:

[no name no slogan]

4. D'oh!

I stand corrected. My excuse? Not enough sleep, it's late and I've got a LOT of work to do this weekend for www.minnesotaforkucinich.com. :D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. When I phoned in my latest donation

the person on the other end of the phone asked me a series of questions to ensure that I was giving my own money from a personal, not a business, account; that I had not been asked to do so by my employer (well, I'm my own employer :-) ), and that I was not donating funds that had been given to me by someone else for that purpose.

It seems as if he's pretty determined not to accept PAC money.

By the way, as I mentioned on other threads before I became a Kucinich supporter, small donations can be very effective in that a person who gives money is more likely to vote for you than someone who doesn't. I have given the example of Oregon's Peter DeFazio (another member of the Progressive Caucus), who is known for his $35 fundraisers with beer and pizza. I think he does take corporate money, but I'm also sure that his ability to get reelected in what should be a swing district is due to his ability to mix with the common folks.

[NNadir]

6. That's the law, not Denny's policy of avoiding PAC money.

Every candidate has to ask these questions by law. Check out any candidate's web site to see that this is true. Saying that Denny is asking these questions to avoid PAC money is, like most Kucinich claims, a huge exaggeration.

[Tinoire]

7. Oh ho ho ho. Kucinich is the ONLY candidate NOT accepting Corporate PAC $

Everyone else is accepting it.

Your post is a huge exaggeration as it attempts to minimalize and marginalize what he's doing by implying he's doing no differently than anyone else.

You missed the crucial point so I will repeat it- Kucinich is the only one NOT accepting Corporate PAC money.

[diamondsoul]

9. Dontcha just love hit-n-runs?

Me they make me crazy. Head-games and all that, but what really makes me mad is they never acknowledge facts. S'ok, though. I'll keep the other thread kicked so everyone can see Kucinich's foreign policy experience.*smirk*

[Mairead]

11. Well, we should cut this guy some slack. I'm sure he's feeling threatened

People who feel secure have no inner need to try to belittle in such a desperate way.

[LWolf]

13. That is a crucial point.

Follow the money to see who your choice is working for.

[diamondsoul]

8. Oh you're a real cutie.

No response to "Denny's" foreign policy experience in the other thread I take it? Nooo, no indeed, instead it's a pitiful attempt to belittle the man for having some integrity. Show me a single claim from Kucinich that is "exaggeration", please. I am just dying to see this.

My bet is I'll hear still more chirping of crickets rather than a response.

[Frodo]

10. I'd be happy to respond to his "foreign policy experience"

He has none.

I didn' pile on in the other thread because I didn't agree with the guy's tactics (and the low post count makes me suspicious). None of what you posted constitutes foreign policy experience, but rather the kind of foreign policy speech that people without such experience make to try to beef up their resume. The fact he has SPOKEN a bit about foreign policy is not the same thing as actually have worked in the field.

Biden,Dodd,Kerry (the only one in the race right now) certainly have it. Gore had it in spades. Daschle and Gephardt at least have the leadership experience to have been briefed on all of the appropriate issues and been involved in negotiations. And they've given more substantial policy addresses in their sleep than you've linked on the other thread.

He's a good man. People here lovve his politics. He has real supporters who are some of the core of this party. But he is not qualified to be President - foreign policy "experience" being one of the smaller arguments agains him.

Edit - For the record: I'm not aware of Kucinich saying anything that is an exageration. His supporters HERE, on the other hand, seem to swim in the stuff.

And the chirping crickets line is mine :-)

[Mairead]

12. And now, for your next trick, tell us what the 'experienced' people

have done for the world recently.

[Frodo]

14. Once again

I am NOT talking about whether he would do a good job, or whther he has good ideas or whether he is a good person.

I'm merely saying that this job has a job description that voters associate within minimum qualifications. There's no point in even submitting your resume' if you don't have these qualifications. Lots of us would love to see Martin Sheen as President, but "played one on TV" doesn't fit the job requirements, nor does having the right views (ok left views).

There are lots of people who could do a better job at any number of positions who happen not to have a PhD in whatever. But when the job says "PhD required" and you have just finished your Associates degree you just don't get the interview.

Again, in politics, we call this "come back when you have experience" response "1-2% in national polls".

[Mairead]

15. It's funny you should say that

Because a woman friend and I have similar records of getting jobs for which we were nominally unqualified by education or experience --in her case once over the heads of 2 people with master's degrees. Even though at the time she was a thirty-ish single mom with only a high-school diploma, she had the goods in the parcel and the 2 with the impressive credentials didn't, and that difference was apparent to the hiring manager.

Smirk has no qualifications at all. Not only not for President, but not for Governor, Congressman, or CEO. He's pushing his limits to qualify as a human (whence all the cartoons). If Smirk can be sold to 50M people, then Dennis should be a walk-in. All we have to do is get the word out in the right way.

[Frodo]

16. Sigh. I'm being very patient with you. :-)

I have also been the beneficiary of "enlightened" managers who have let one or two requirements slide (and ,if I may say so, have reaped the rewards for their flexibility). But we aren't looking for a single open-minded voter. We're looking for millions of Democrats to overlook half a dozen more qualified candidates in the hope that 50Million or so will also overlook it.

I agree shrub wasn't particularly qualified in any real sense, but he WAS a six year governor of a big state which (while constitutionally weak by comparrison to some states) was a hell of a lot more like being President than a six year congressman is. And, like Kennedy, shared a political name. Plenty of people probably thought they were voting for his father. Also, shrub was running against an "almost President", not a sitting President.

He's more qualified than Sharpton is, but really none of the rest.

[goodhue]

17. get a grip

Kucinich has as much foreign policy experience as the other members of Congress. Your presence here on this thread and your similiar comments on another thread are a disservice to the DU community.

Among other things, Kucinich sits on the Government Reform Committee, including Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations.

Last week, on October 8, the Government Reform Committee held a an oversight hearing “Winning the Peace: Coalition Efforts to Restore Iraq.”

Watch the tape on C-SPAN and look for Kucinich's foreign policy acumen in action . . .
House Hearing on Efforts to Restore Peace in Iraq
The House Government Reform Committee holds a full committee hearing entitled, "Winning the Peace: Coalition Efforts to Restore Iraq."
10/8/2003: WASHINGTON, DC: 4 hr. 25 min.

[Frodo]

18. "As much foreign policy experience as the other members of Congress"

I have to write that one down for the next "open mike" night at the comedy theater. Let's take that one a couple ways:

1) That aint all that much. Yes every Congressman does get involved in some amount of foreign policy. But take a look at this ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/raasch/r121.htm ) article from just after 9/11.

2) As much as any other congressman? First, few out of over 500 ever run for President (want to guess why? It starts with a "u"). Second, it isn't true. Lots of those Congressmen have spent time on the foreign relations committee instead of being on the "watching for BinLaden burps" subcommittee of the "football oversight" committee.

3) It's just plain wrong. A couple have been there for more than six or seven years. Which would be "more" experience (and they don't run for President). Hell, the article linked above talks about Gephardt and Daschle needing to make some policy addresses to appear credible on the issue (note that most of the "experience" DK fans have been quoting have been these same kind of "look credible" FP addresses they predicted for the two leaders). If our two senior congressmen with DECADES of experience may not cut it (though I think they do), DK is a long way off.


As for my being "deserving" or not: Have I said I don't like the guy? Have I propsed a opponent's name as being "the guy" and stolen your thunder? Have I disagreed with any of his policies (though I do on a few)?

No. My goal is to win elections. And I see the radical DK supporters to be cutting the legs out of some legitimate Democrats AND sending us down the road to permanent minority status.

I'm not arguing "too liberal to win" (though he is) vs. "sacrifice beliefs for a win". I'm just saying we will have enough of a problem without a solid Governor on the ticket (and the winner is almost ALWAYS a governor). It's going to be hard enough to "spin" a Senator as qualified to be President without substantial executive experience - it would be impossible to sell Kucinich as qualified.

I don't mean any offense to those "true believers" who want to pick whichever candidate best fits their beliefs (this includes the Sharpton, CMB supporters). I just don't think they understand politics at the national level.

[goodhue]

19. sorry

I meant the other members of Congress running for President. I thought that was implicit. And I don't really care whom you like or agree with, the disservice is the antagonistic and houlier-than-thou tone of your posts and the belittling way in which you respond to others reactions. But I guess not everyone understands politics as you do.

[LWolf]

20. Thanks to Frodo for keeping the thread kicked.

DK supporters are proud of his accomplishments, and notice that growth in fundraising and supporters is a good sign; better than stagnancy or decay.

:kick: