Dean's Keeping His 50 State Promise - Pelosi & Reid Not Happy About it

[radio4progressives]

I think this piece says it all for anyone following these matters closely. Personally, I'm writing letters to both Reid and Pelosi (and calling their offices) essentially to let them know to back off with their harrassment of Dean and to support his 50 State strategy or to kindly please step aside.



Democratic Leaders Question Whether Dean's Right on the Money

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Sunday, March 5, 2006; A04

Democratic congressional leaders aren't happy with the way Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is spending money. At a private meeting last month, they let him know.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) challenged the former Vermont governor during a session in Pelosi's office, according to Democratic sources. The leaders complained about Dean's priorities -- funding organizers for state parties in strongly Republican states such as Mississippi -- rather than targeting states with crucial races this fall.

Neither side was willing to give ground, according to several accounts of the meeting. Dean argued that his strategy is designed to rebuild the party across the country, and that he had pledged to do so when he ran for party chairman. Reid and Pelosi countered that if Democrats squander their opportunities this year, longer-term organizing efforts will not matter much.

(snip)

cont..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400998_pf.html

[MadMaddie]

1. Dean is doing the right thing....

We can't just write off Repug states.....we have to gain them......

It seems that Pelosi and Reids strategy didn't work for us to well during the last election?

[Coexist]

2. read "Crashing the Gate" and see why Dean makes sense on this

it is very interesting.

[Dawgs]

3. I understand Dean's side on this, but...

Pelosi and Reid are correct. Right now there is nothing more important than gaining seats in Congress.

[radio4progressives]

6. Precisely the Point..

There's no more important objective than to win the House and Senate (hopefully with a super majority) - the RNC is all over the country - all fify states and he's campaigning communities that Dems have always taken for granted..

Dean's strategy hasn't been tried (except with the Repukes)where as Pelosi and Reid's wonder bread strategy has been tried over and over again, and lost over and over again.

[Dawgs]

29. I disagree!!

Blindly backing Dean, just because you don't like Pelosi and Reid, doesn't make you right and me wrong.

I think spending the money where Democrats have a good chance to win makes sense.

Let me put it this way.

Say you have 25 states where Democrats have a chance to win, but Dean decides to spread out the money across all 50 states. Now, what if only 15 those Democrats win, while the other 10 lose in close races? Doesn't it make sense that, for right NOW, the Dems spend most of their money and efforts on the close races. After 2006, when all 50 states matter, we can spend our money worrying about changing red areas to blue.

I'm not saying I'm right. I just don't think it's fair to say that Reid and Pelosi are necessary wrong.

[radio4progressives]

30. Look at the Track Record my friend...

Reid and Pelosi pressuring Dean to take the party line strategy, a strategy has failed in election cycle after election cycle for the past 10 years and longer, is not a track record to base their argument.

Dean's theory and strategy is one that is responding to the hue and cry from too many states and regions that have been ignored by the party apparatus for decades.

What is it that Dems keep saying about Bush's Iraq War strategy? Something about "Staying the course and expecting different results"...

it's the same damn thing, imo.. ;)

[Dawgs]

50. First of all, you are not my friend!!

Second, you are assuming that Dean's strategy is best because he's giving money to state party members that are crying for it. I'm not sure why you think that is the best strategy, considering there is "no track record" that fits that argument.

Third, I tend to blame the Democratic losses on the lying and cheating of the Republicans; not Reid and Pelosi.

Again, your lack of proof, and love of Dean, doesn't make you right.

Fourth, the Democrats finally have a chance to win some close races, and that's why I think focusing on close races is important; not because of any loyalty or love of Reid or Pelosi.

[radio4progressives]

58. Your logic completely ignores history.. ..

And for the record, I'm not "in love" with Dean. I have had my critisms with Dean, but on this issue is precisely why I lobbied so hard for his election as chair.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

83. I completely agree with you. Dawgs/Reid/Pelosi are WRONG

It seems logical - dump all your money into the closest races to maximize your chances. But it's flat out wrong.

Why? Because you forget the other side of the equation - the Republicans.

For every race you give up as hopeless, you free another Republican to give substantially into those same races. If, on the other hand, you spend just a little money, along with finding a good candidate, you can - at the very least - tie up their candidates. At the best, especially in a Democratic year, you will have a few upsets. It doesn't hurt that the GOP is getting known as the party of corruption.

Dean is right.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Dawgs]

104. When did I say that Dean shouldn't give money to races that seem hopeless?

Disagreeing is fine, but don't put words in my mouth.

1) I never said he should dump "all" of the money into close races. You did.
2) I never said that he should give up on races that are "hopeless". Again, you did.

Anyways, I still disagree with Dean.

[mistertrickster]

96. C'mon, Dawg, admit you're his friend. No point in acting like Republicans

NT

[xxqqqzme]

62. That is precisely why there is a

DCCC & a DSCC. The money they raise is supposed 2 go 2 those very races U describe. Dean is REBUILDING the Democratic Party.

[radio4progressives]

68. DCCC & DSCC Are Pelosi's and Reid's Purview for their Cherry Picked Races

I know people have withdrawn their funding support for the DCCC and the DSCC as direct result of policy positions that party refuse to take as an expression of their own constituents. Iraq War, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy, Alito filibuster, and on and on.

I'm very happy to hear that Dean was not to be intimidated by these people. It's damn time they understood that Dean meant business, and that we support it.

[leyton]

87. The point is, Dean wants to create opportunities in the future.

Currently there are only a handful of states that are competitive because the Democratic Party ignores so many places. Thanks to Dean, the map will be much bigger in ten years.

[Hippo_Tron]

98. Here's the problem with your argument

It seems in every election that there are one or two swing states that decide the election. In the past two elections, clearly the most important states were Ohio and Florida.

Now, look at it this way. Don't you think that after Florida in 2000, the Democrats were thinking gee maybe if WE controlled the statehouse in Florida instead of George Bush's brother and a dem were Secretary of State instead of Katherine Harris that we wouldn't have had all of these problems with the vote counting? Of course, until 2000 nobody knew that the election would come down to Florida. We spent our money in the states soley where we thought that we could pick up congressional seats while we were weakening our institutional support in states that would be key to our electoral victories in the future.

The exact same thing happened in Ohio in 2004. The entire state was controlled by Republicans. If the machine were Democratic instead of being controlled by Republican assholes like Taft and Blackwell, there wouldn't have been lines out the door in black precincts, dem voters mysteriously purged from the rolls, and more accountability with the electronic voting machines.

Also, institutional support is CRUCIAL for organization and last minute get out the vote efforts. Remember when New Jersey was being declared a swing state but on election night it went to Kerry by a fairly comfortable margin. That is because Democrats have a well-oiled machine in New Jersey that is notorious for last minute GOTV efforts. They didn't build that machine overnight, either, it took years to do.

We don't know where the key states in 2008 will be. That is why we need to start building from the ground up and Dean is doing that. Plus, Mississippi isn't as much of a lost cause as we think it is. They are a senate retirement away of electing Democrat Mike Moore as their US Senator. It's a shame that Lott didn't retire because that could've been this election cycle.

[Ken Burch]

148. If we do it for now, we'll never STOP doing it.

(sticking to targeted races only again, I mean).

[JNelson6563]

102. and how better to do that than grassroots??

If you want to win you need the people. The Dems being invisible in many parts of the country outside of 4 months prior to a presidential election has proven to be a very worthless plan.

The more folks you have with a vested interest int he party, themore straight ticket Dem votes you get. That benefits all candidates.

This is what it will take and until we do it we lose. Go HOward! Nevermind what out of touch Beltway insiders say! We need the poeple! Keep on keeping on!

Julie

[trogdor]

122. So what was the point of D-Day?

I mean, thousands of people got killed on June 6th, 1944, right? So what was the purpose?

To open up a third front, divide Axis forces, and win the war, that's the point. So we run candidates in all 435 districts if we can. We give them some money - enough to put up a decent fight. Hate to say it, but Dean understands this shit better than the leadership in Congress.

[DrGonzoLives]

141. There are winnable seats in nearly every state

and to say otherwise is nothing more than defeatism. Simply because we can't win the seats NOW NOW NOW is no reason to ignore them, as running a higher-profile candidate gets people to notice you again. It worked for Bean in the 8th of Illinois, who lost her first election against Crane in a red district, then won.

We either become a national party or we die. Period. The Republicans figured this out years ago.

[SheilaT]

4. I like his 50 state

campaign myself, but I live in Kansas.

[HereSince1628]

5. Geez, you wouldn't want the good old boy system threatened by

upstart locals who think they know what the base of the party wants and needs.

[InsultComicDog]

7. I agree with Dean

We need a full frontal assault throughout the country.

[Coexist]

9. the time is ripe to change a lot of minds,

all over this country, and make us a majority for years to come.

[InsultComicDog]

10. At the very least

we cannot concede so many races throughout the country.

[iconocrastic]

35. "We need a full frontal assault throughout the country"

And Dean has the cohones to do it.

[mdmc]

8. Dean!

Rat worms be gone!

[MissMarple]

11. We can't forsake the long view. Dean's right.

We have to push on both fronts. Reid and Pilosi have a good point, but they all need to work together, this isn't an issue of crossed purposes. Coordination will get the biggest bang for the bucks.

[gasperc]

12. keep the pressure on EVERYWHERE

IF Ried and Pelosi can't understand this then there is no hope for our party

[gasperc]

13. keep the pressure on EVERYWHERE

IF Ried and Pelosi can't understand this then there is no hope for our party

[adwon]

14. Nice, sort of

They did go to Dean rather than start a gossip campaign. That much is nice.

It's not necessarily a bad idea to focus on winnable races in election years and work on building the national party infrastructure in off years. Anyway, without more information, anything really said is pure speculation.

[radio4progressives]

18. Seems to me that is what the DCCC is about, focusing on "Winnable" Races

That's their baily wick.. if the DCCC isn't getting the level of funding the DNC is, that's not Dean's fault, that's Leadership fault. I know a lot of regular people who refuse to contribute to the DCCC, precisely because they feel extremely betrayed by the party leadership (DLC/DCCC) and will only contribute to the DNC because most people understand there is a very important distinction, but even then, many will only contribute to specific candidates campaigns because none of the party apparatchik are trusted.

[iconocrastic]

37. Dean got bumped because DLC said Kerry was winnable

[WildEyedLiberal]

124. That's a lie that's been debunked 100000s of times

:eyes: Get a new smear, would you? That shit is old and tired.

[madfloridian]

21. DSCC and DCCC support candidates financially.

DNC's job is to build party structure and run the presidential campaign.

The committee leaders depend on big name Democrats to send out emails for money anyway. They often just pick the candidates, tell others to get out, send out the word to former presidential candidates, etc. to collect big money for the chosen ones.

Dean is rebuilding the party in a new way, with smaller donors as much as possible. It will take a lot of power out of the hands that had that power previously.

Actually there is enough information there to see that the same mindset exists with the party leaders in Congress...target only certain races.

They got tens of thousands of dollars from Kerry, Clark, Obama, et al for people like Duckworth. They just held huge fundraisers in DC for her. Didn't cost them a thing, really. Not the committee.

So they can get money, all they need, and they don't need to pressure him to stop his plan. It will work to the benefit of all of, Dean's plan will.

[davidwparker]

15. K&R

[ananda]

16. What! A politician keeping his word??!!

Thank you Dr. Dean.

[katinmn]

17. Dean making elections grassroots. The establishment HATES that!

Go Howard!

[Totally Committed]

19. Geez, Louise! Why am I not surprised?

Anybody ever asked Reid and Pelosi what they've done about voter fraud? Or if they were going to support STRONG candidates vs. "status quo" candidates? Or why they still stand for the likes of Joe Leiberman still having a "D" after his name, and on and on and on.... seems a lot of their tactics are what have weakened this Party to the point that we will probably loe our chance in 2006 anyway.

Howard is out to rebuild this Party from the ground up, much the same way the Republicans did in the 80's and 90's. They took their time and they were freaking methodical. We don't have that luxury, but we need to find a discipline, and like him or not, Dean has mapped out a plan and is implementing it. Seems better than Pelosi and Reid's keep-throwing-shit-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks appraoch to me, but that's only my opinion.

TC

[radio4progressives]

43. lol!

keep-throwing-shit-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[ManiFesto]

20. Dean trying to have it both ways...

He was confronted in Raleigh about this and promised both competitive NC races (8th and 11th) some serious cash.

Larry and Heath are waiting Howard.

[madfloridian]

25. That is not the job of the DNC.

Guess it is time for another post about parts of the party.

[xxqqqzme]

63. tell Larry & Heath to contact

the DCCC and/or DSCC. THAT is where their money should come from.

[madfloridian]

82. And Larry and Heath should have known that ....

if they are serious candidates.

[Totally Committed]

22. Self-delete

Dupe.

TC

[ManiFesto]

23. Dean trying to have it both ways...

Howard was confronted in Raleigh about this and promised both competitive NC races (8th and 11th) some serious cash.

Larry and Heath are waiting Howard.

[madfloridian]

24. I am going to check some figures I recently saw on NC

I believe Dean has been more than fair to your state. The DNC does NOT contribute to candidates, the DSCC and the DCCC do that.

You appear not to know that.

[gordianot]

26. Let me see, targeting candidates has not worked Democrats so far.

Democrats lost with this targeting strategy last election. Bush's poll numbers are now down everywhere in 2006. The Democratic Party does not want to continue to be a minority party.

[rucky]

27. Dean doesn't tell them how to do their job.

And they could use some guidance.

[dpbrown]

28. It's more about protecting their turf than taking a long-term view

Dean is right. But the problem with waking up new people to getting involved, or putting a strategy in place that moves the Democrats forward in previously ceded territory is that the old school becomes more diluted.

Who says you can't win races in key areas and also build the Democratic Party in previously weak areas?

Pelosi and Reid do, apparently.

What they are missing is that Democrats could win all the races they wanted to, if they acted like they were the 49% minority, instead of projecting a 3% power-base aura of failure.

Democrats need a backbone, and they need to stand up to Bush's monstrous mismanagement of the government, the Constitution, and our "freedoms."

The bought-and-paid-for media wants Dean to fail, so they put out these teaser stories.

[Talismom]

88. I agree with you about the role these "leaders" are assuming and the

damage this does to their party. We should be going after the whole pie with a self assurance that says "We are the true representatives of real american values--they are the liers and frauds!"

[pinto]

31. I agree with them both. I support DNC's 50 state strategy

and realize it's a long term effort that may not show a lot of effect in 8 months. I think it's the best course for the long term growth of the party, though. Reid and Pelosi are advocating for an emphasis on '06 Senate/House elections and I agree that this is a crucial election.

An honest difference of opinion, imho, and reflective of their respective positions, as well:

Chair of the DNC, Senate Minority Leader and House Minority Leader.

[mikeanike]

32. Dean is terrible

When it comes to fundraising he is doing a dismal job! Goodness guys can't you see that? Sure he is a great person to rally around but if your not going to inspire people into contributing their money and time to the party then why bother being in that position. That is what he is supposed to be doing! Frankly he's falling down on the job.

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. Links?

As to Dean's dismal fund raising?

[madfloridian]

40. Up 20%.

Without the benefit of the very large donors so far.

[katinmn]

46. Didn't Dean play a major role in how funds are raised, too?

Too bad this article doesn't acknowledge that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500816.html?referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email

Rise in Online Fundraising Changed Face of Campaign Donors
Small Contributors Found to Be Polarized but More Representative of Middle Class

The Internet is perhaps the single most important development in political fundraising, and Democrats appear to have taken better advantage of it than Republicans. More than half of Democrats gave online, more than double the percentage of Republicans. More than 80 percent of the contributions by people ages 18 to 34 were made online. Almost half of all small, online donors gave without being asked first by the campaigns.
snip
They wrote: "The Internet has helped level the playing field between large donors and small donors. Online political activism diminishes the tremendous fundraising advantage enjoyed by long-term, large donors who move in social circles of donors close to the campaign and lobby on behalf of their candidate. The Internet has helped small, less experienced donors broaden their reach, and hence their influence with others."

The study also found that a quarter of all donors said they attended a political house party, which the authors described as "evidence of the surge in grass-roots organizing."

[radio4progressives]

56. It does seem to be a conspiracy!

I just read this article and found it lacking in backing up many of their assertions - especially regarding "no ideological differences" (between large and small donors in both parties) - or least it sources were not clear to me.

The dismissing of Dean's hand at revolutionizing grassroots campaign support (vis a vis the internet) seems part of long standing scheme to either discredit him directly whenever the media finds it necessary to mention him at all, or simply disregard his contribution as to successful developments, financially or structurally.

[pinto]

51. My comment wasn't a pro or con assessment on fund raising

per se, or Dean's capability with fund raising. It was about strategy and timing. To be honest, I'm not sure how well the DNC has been in raising funds under Dean's chairmanship, but others here are more up to date than I on that aspect.

I just wanted to note that my comment wasn't about a personality, but a strategy debate among party leaders about using available resources. I welcomed the fact that the three sat down and talked about just that...

[TankLV]

53. Really? How so?

Unfortunately for you, his track-record proves the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to claim.

But stick around, maybe you'll learn something yet.

[mikeanike]

55. to all in the thread that don't believe me

Here is the washington post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400998.html

While I admit classically democrats do worse in fund raising, you have to ask yourselves why, with so much displeasure with Bush, are people not opening up their pocket books more? I would venture to say that because Dean is hitting up the grassroots scene via the internet he simply is not getting enough traction. Remember the late 90's? Pets.com ring a bell? It is very very difficult to make a lot of money of the internet. And while its great that he has a DNC rep in every state can one rep handle all of the races that are going on now? I'm not saying we are going to lose this november. Far from it, I'm pretty sure we are going to make some big inroads. However I'm afraid that us winning will be used to "prove" that his method worked, when in reality it was just a very shitty couple of years of rethugs.

[radio4progressives]

59. Do not ignore a major obstacle in fund raising from grassroots

two things: economy and disaffection/disenfranchisement by Elected Dems in Congress over the course of the past year.

The Elite-O fiasco was a MAJOR turning point for many many people. I personally have no access to numbers, and i dare say that party leaders won't know for sure until the mid-terms.

But the Dems in Congress are perceived to have betrayed voters on levels that I'm not sure can be accurately calculated at the moment, give the level of disafection, i am compelled to conclude that it has hurt their funding considerably. Who's going to keep sending hard earned money to a party who keeps ignoring them?

the Elite-O factor is being conveniently forgotten or ignored in the funding analysis, interestingly. Wonder why?

[mikeanike]

69. yes people feel disaffected

but that is towards congress as a whole. When you look at people's perception towards their own congressman they have much more favorable views. I happened to be interning in congress during the alito hearings and I can tell you that in the republican stronghold of my district very few democrats really protested the alito nomination. They were concerned about a menagerie of issues. If the democrats want to get money all they have to do is find one and only one issue and stick at it until they get traction.

[radio4progressives]

72. Were you interning for a Republican or a Democrat?

And which Senator?

[mikeanike]

90. a repub senator

I'm not going to say who it is but you would hate him that's for sure (more than a regular repub)

[radio4progressives]

99. Ok. So that's why you didn't hear much from Dems on Alito..

We targetted our efforts on Dems as well as a few moderate Republicans. I personally called a number of Republican Senators, but it wasn't an easy thing to do and I went beyond the "moderates", but not many.

For instance, i called Senator Lindsay Grahams office before his remarks about "cleaning your clocks" (on filibuster) i could not bring myself to call him again. I called Susan Collins office, and Snowe, Chaffee's office and i can't remember which other Republicans - but the work was hard enough just herding the Democratic Senators - so, collectively we didn't lobby Republicans hardly at all.

Given how hard that work was going to be, given that a number of our Right Wing Democrats already had indicated that they weren't going to filibuster and even four of them indicating they were going to vote in favor of Alito, given that the Media all but declared that Alito was going to pass easily through, why would Dems in largely Republican region bother to lobby (a)Republican Senator(s)?

It was a slam dunk for Alito the way it was portrayed.

In other words, you're argument doesn't hold water... but thanks for playing... :hi:

[mikeanike]

113. Game.Set.Match

Well I can't argue against that. I trust you in saying that you guys mostly focused on democrats. I can tell you that even I would stop giving a damn when people would call. But I must say calls are better than e-mails (shakes fist at the sky...) don't EVER send an e-mail! Someone has to read that crap and guess what? After a while you really stop caring. I know that sounds heartless but so many people have no clue as to what actually goes on there it gets really frustrating.

[radio4progressives]

118. Your experience as an Intern would be valuable insight..

you might start a new thread and impart wisdom from your experience.

But I have to ask, have you left the Republican party temporarily or ..?

[mikeanike]

120. I was never in the republican party

but I happened to live in the same state as my boss. I will say (to the dismay of many here) that after working with these guys you do tend to appreciate what they do even if you don't agree with them. They say that the camaraderie between leaders has lessened in recent years. If thats the case I wish I was working there during the time when they were friendlier. I've gone to various budget reconciliation meetings and the friendship and class that these guys give each other even in a tense situation like a budget recon conference is quite heartening. Even if you think these guys are total assholes you have to give them credit for fighting in what they believe in. Look at Tom Delay for a second. Total Asshole right? Do you know what his pet issue is? Foster care! The guy is a huge proponent for foster kids and even has a few. (I'm biased towards him a little bit cuz he would say hi to me in the hallways all the time and the elevator for me, he didn't have to do that and actually since many of those occasions where during a vote he wasn't supposed to)

[radio4progressives]

127. Clarity on minor quesiton?

You mean the comaraderie between leaders within the party or bi-partisan comaraderie?

I've read about the Foster Care, naturally i sense there's more to it than altruism, but i hope i'm wrong about that for the sake of the kids..

[mikeanike]

129. bi partisan

They are friendly with each other for the most part. Maybe not the leadership but that is to be expected. Also Delay really does care about foster kids. He wouldn't do all the work he does, considering he gets next to no press over it. While they can appear evil from the outside, these guys are doing what they believe is right for the country. To put it simply, they just aren't paid enough to do otherwise. Do you know what the average LA (legislative assistant) makes yearly? Its pathetic! I make more know in my entry level telecom job than my peers in the office. These people love what they do so much, it really is inspiring. And that is coming from a guy who worked in a republican office. And I was the only democrat!

[xxqqqzme]

65. well I don't know about that article

there was an article @ the end of the year that showed Dean had raised over $52 million in his first 10 months. You have the DNC confused w/ the DCCC & DSCC, both of which exist for the sole purpose of raising money for Senate & Congressional races. Fundraising for those races rests in the house & senate; not Dean's job.

[mikeanike]

70. yes that was then and this is now

And for christ sake it's from the Washington Post. They are no friend to Bush. While he may have made more money than previous incarnations of the DNC, so has the republican machine. WHen your looking at so little in the bank right now, it is very scary and I think for Dean to snub the more wealthy donors is foolish.

[radio4progressives]

73. WaPo no friend to Bush? LOL!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

omg.. :rofl: i'm dying of laughing too hard :rofl:

[mikeanike]

91. prove it

I read it everyday and it is definitely not a shill for the bush regime

[radio4progressives]

100. we talk about this endlessly, stick around and you'll learn something

WaPo is part of the corporate media who cheerleaded us up to war based on lies, they knew about in advance? a corporate media who refused to mention one word of the DSM when it was first published in the UK?

Did Wapo cover the huge Impeachment forum held by Harpers last week, and broadcast on C-Span... did they do the story?

if so, i'd be interested in the link...

in the meantime, stick around and you'll learn all about how much the CM is just a stenographer for the Bush Crime Family and the PNAC'rs in the WH.

[mikeanike]

112. I have read the reasons

Innuendo. Nothing more. You show me some sort of proof, a link or an overtly fawning article and I'll rethink my position. As for the war issue. What was the percentage of the country for the war? For that matter how many congressional democrats were for it? A lot of us got swept into that one. I can't fault them for it, they are people too.

[radio4progressives]

117. "A Lot of Us got Swept Up Into that one"..

The reason why "a lot of us got swept into that one" is precisely because the papers of record (New York Times and the Washington Post) refused to report AVAILABLE FACTS REFUTING the so called "evidence" of WMD's which this administration used to justify going to war.

These are people too? Excuse me. These are people in the business of fact finding and reporting those facts - especially if the facts contradict the claims and assertions being promulgated by an administration with an obvious agenda contrary to the case they were making.

please... the evidence in the case for making "the war easy", in terms of the media's role in this - has been well made.

REMEDIAL READING on this issue backs this up. So much has been written, the evidence is so numerous - that no one (except Bush Bots) even dares to suggest that the media's complicity isn't obvious.

As far as the Congress members agreeing with the President. I can't believe this comment is even being made on this date after all that has been said, done written, blogged, filmed, testified etc etc, but apparently you've been on some sort of vacation from planet earth.

Nothing i can do about that - except to suggest that you go to Google to get started. Or perhaps I should point you to commondreams.org, access Norman Solomon's War Made Easy references and essays and many, many others.

[mikeanike]

119. the beaches on mars are fantastic!

Don't sit there and accuse someone who disagrees as being a "Bush bot". That's just bad arguing skills. Can you pinpoint when the Post became a shill for the right? Watergate certainly wasn't one of those times. Try and look at the paper as a whole. And yeah I looked at the common dreams website and looked up their articles regarding bias in favor of the right. I particularly liked the one regarding bias towards the Iraq war and their "study". I'm guessing you went to college (most of us dems tend to) so I'm assuming that you took at least one stat class. If you get the chance turn you eye to that article and analyze...oh wait you can't! They provide no actual info regarding their methodology or their proof. That is what you call innuendo. Here is the article http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0304-07.htm Like you I have a slant towards the progressive side yet that doesn't mean I believe everything that is handed to me by a progressive site. Fuck man being a democrat means not fucking towing ANY line.

[radio4progressives]

123. My Apologies, and Beaches on Mars...

i apologize for my lack of care to avoid any implication of "Bush Bot" references to being swept up on the war..

the people in my community that got "swept up" in favor of war - were co-workers who were staunch Bush supporters. The rest of us were marching in the streets prior to invasion, showing the world that it was about OIL, Halliburton & Bechtel, demonstrating to the world that we were being lied to and innocent people were going to massacred for it.

Associating 9/11 with Iraq was an insane lie - and the Corporate Media, including the Papers of Record - NYT a la Judith Miller, and the Washington Post dismissed Scott Ritter and Hans Blitz's reporting, and they did absolutely NOTHING in their coverage to hold this administration accountable to their assertions and lies leading up to invasion and occupation. They did nothing. They had enough evidence to at least challenge on a very significant level - meaning publishing articles on the front page and above the fold - REFUTING claims and assertions by this administration which they already had in their possession to report for the benefit of American public.

Are you unaware of this? At this juncture, do you really need links pointing to this fact or are you merely jerking me around?

[mikeanike]

130. no offense was taken

I'm the type of person who is more concerned with getting the full perspective possible. On this site I might come into some trouble a la my Dean comments (which I still affirm) and maybe it is because I was swept up into the war that I didn't notice it. Also look at it this way, where do the vast majority of news stories come from. Not from the Post or NYT but rather the AP. I haven't done this but if you go back and look at the stories written by actual Post staff writers you'll probably see more stories critical of the prez than favorable. It is natural for a news paper to be adversarial towards any administration. It wins awards and such.

[mikeanike]

121. Also

can you tell me who are the right leaning reports and who are the left wing reporters. Your sure to find some. Hell Tina Brown has a regular column (granted its in Style) but I hope we can all agree that she is no Bush lover!

[radio4progressives]

125. Separate Reporting from Columns

There are Neo Liberals, Neo Conservatives, Liberals and Conservative columinists - I look forward to certain columnist which i can access on line. But I'm not referring to Op Ed's.

I'm referring to Above the Fold/Front Page reporting.

There are excellent reporters, and recently there has been a stepped up level of critical reporting a bit and that's an improvement but it isn't enough.

Where were they before we charged into Iraq, when the WaPo and the NYT knew well in advance that this administration was already trying to link 9/11 with Hussein, in order to justify an invasion that was on the books the moment the administration took office?

And has the WaPo ever reported on PNAC?

[mikeanike]

128. i also am referring to above the fold stuff

But what is PNAC (I'm still new to the forum) also can you provide me a reputable link regarding the fact the those two papers knew and were complicit in withholding info regarding iraq?

[radio4progressives]

131. PNAC is the Neo-Con's "Project for a New American Century"

Papers were drafted originally in the early 90's by William Kristol, dusted off and finished in 1997 - signatories include Dick Cheney, Donalds Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfetwitz and others listed at the bottom of document linked here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

It was presented to Clinton while he was in office, but ignored.

The Neo-Cons seized control of our government in a stunning coup vis a vis elections fraud in 2000 and again in 2004 (again not reported in papers of record until Dec 2001 on the 2000 elections theft, and not until Oct 2005 on the 2004 elections fraud - in other words, each time the papers of record waited until a full year after the fact, to report on both election frauds) and started implementing their PNAC agenda. first on the agenda: Regime change in Iraq, following with regime changes in neighboring countries.

At this point, after six years so much as been written and discussed about PNAC - I sometimes forget that it isn't yet common knowledge - and the reason why it isn't common knowledge is because the papers of record refused to ever report it's existence and it's role in the entire Iraq War Agenda.

PNAC is the KEY factor underpinning this insane, illegal, tyrannical enterprise .. it is well known, discussed widely but yet never referenced or reported on in the papers of record or mentioned in the CM.

That's prima facia evidence of Bush Administration bias, right there.

[mikeanike]

132. your gonna hate me for this comment

I am totally, utterly and completely against the belief that the election's were stolen. Especially 04. Kerry was simply a very weak candidate. While Bush is an utter tool, he had incumbency going for him and a war which people for the most part were uncomfortable with handing over to a new leader, plus you had wedge issues, that people in the mid west (who are well removed from any real terrorism issues) cared more about. Lastly he wasn't effective enough in getting his message out and getting enough people behind him. Remember all those rallies he held? Every rally he had was blown away in terms of turn out when you look at what Bush would do. That's tough to fight against. It wasn't very surprising. Also what is the term CM mean? Conservative media?

[radio4progressives]

133. Nope, I don't hate you for this common misperception...

I agree that Kerry's Campaign was incredibly weak but despite that fact, he still technically won 2004.

I'm forgetting the numbers right now, somewhere over a half million votes all told - (it's probably posted in DU's Elections Forum )- between Ohio and Florida, the GAO reports shows that Kerry won despite his poor campaign performance and Bush's incredible machine, pushing wedge issues or the "national security" canard.

CM is Corporate Media which is one and the same as Conservative Media ;)

[mikeanike]

134. THE GAO huh?

that's interesting. In an odd paradox I am somewhat wary of the government ( ok a little republicanism rubbed off while I was there!) but I generally trust the numbers they pump out. Do you have a link to that or could you point me in the direction of that info?

[radio4progressives]

135. Some links..

there are more links, but i don't have the time to go through everything, here's a few to get started.


the link to the report is here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

but one link to the analysis based on this report is here:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Brad Friedman is an Independent (not a Democrat)and has focused almost entirely on the entire Diebold and electronic election machines fraud and abuses and everything around it, law suits etc etc etc. all around the country here:

http://www.bradblog.com/

Here's another:

http://www.votingrightsact.org/report/finalreport.pdf

[mikeanike]

138. thanks

:yourock: :headbang: :applause:

[radio4progressives]

142. happy to oblige

spend a little time over at bradblog.org and check out his radio interviews - i know his blog site is hard to read - there's so much research and facts posted there it takes a lot of time to comb through... but if you just pick a link (any link) it'll be an interesting journey...

:hi:

[radio4progressives]

144. Report on DU (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2490768&mesg_id=2490768

[radio4progressives]

136. PNAC referenced on Chris Matthews just now...

PNAC and the agenda to go to war in Iraq was now discussed in brief on Chris Matthews just now..

interesting timing.. but four years too late.

[mikeanike]

139. that is funny

Now do you fall on the side of Mathews being pro or con Bush?

[radio4progressives]

140. Matthews is a complete an unabashed Shill for Bush, but I think he hates

Cheney and the Neo-Cons. I don't think he ever privately supported the war in Iraq... and I believe he despises the PNAC/WHIG crowd, which I believe Matthews holds responsible for Bush's terrible decisions, and low polling numbers. Matthews is unapologetic conservative, Catholic and anti-choice -and he is a Bush Bot man. He wants desperately for Bush's ratings to go back up, and to save the Republican party, and he's been working really hard to rehabilitate Bush whenever he can. The other day, he compared Bush to Atticus Finch in the story To Kill a Mockingbird.

I mean, ya know... can it possibly be more obvious?

[Cha]

78. Yes, the wapo is NOT a big

freakin' friend to bush so that shoots down that premise.

[mikeanike]

92. huh

are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

[lojasmo]

61. You are absolutely incorrect

DNC fundraising is FAR above previous non-presidential election years (better than any in the last ten years)

[BeachBuckeye]

64. I'm afraid you have your head up your ass on this one

Dean's fund raising is ahead of the last election cycle's pace. Frankly.....screw Harry and Nancy on this one!

[mikeanike]

71. so what

So are the rethugs. You could explain the increase away through population rates rising.

[radio4progressives]

74. huh?

[mikeanike]

94. the rate of increase in campaign contributions

can be explained due to the constant rise in the population i.e. more people to give money. Look at the baby boomers, they are about to hit retirement. A trend that has occurred for a long time is political interest increase with age. Simply saying he has acquired more money than the past really doesn't mean much. Has there ever been a DNC leader that has not done better than his predecessor?

[TankLV]

97. We give you concrete examples of why you're blowin' it out of you ass

WRONG to make the claims you did, then you present a strawman EXCUSE.

You really are somethin.

The dollars and numbers are up no matter how you look at it all around.

This proves that Dean had been A GODSEND for the party.

You know NOTHING.

[mikeanike]

115. really I couldn't find any examples that you have given me

All I read were attacks towards me. So what he has a rep in every state! We have no idea who the hell these people are and how strong their organizational skills are. I assume that that one single rep is not the only person coordinating dem efforts. So who are they? I have never seen a list of any sort regarding these operatives. If you have a list please provide it I would love to see it.

[TankLV]

145. And now you bring up ANOTHER straw man!

You are on a role, honey!

Proven WRONG by the EVIDENCE of INCREASED RECORD fundraising and money flowing INTO party coffers, and you ask STUPID questions and make idiotic statements that have NOTHING to do with your assertions that Dean has been "horrible for democrats".

You are a riot.

Your pants are down around your ankles.

Better pull them up, honey!

[cigsandcoffee]

146. He's not all that off base, and it's not just money

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400998.html

Democratic congressional leaders are particularly worried because the Republican National Committee holds a huge financial advantage over the DNC. One congressional Democrat complained that Dean has -- at an alarming rate -- burned through the money the DNC raised, and that Republicans may be able to swamp Democrats in close races with an infusion of RNC money.

In its most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission, the DNC reported raising $50.1 million so far in the 2005-2006 cycle and had $5.8 million cash on hand at the end of last year. The RNC had raised $103 million and had $34 million cash on hand






http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860_pf.html

Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle

With Private Effort on Voter Information, Ickes and Soros Challenge Dean and DNC

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A01

A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.

The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.

Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros.

[mikeanike]

149. hey try answering the question

That may be tough since you clearly just feel like making ad hominem attacks towards me. Can you tell me who in the hell is actually in the states. All I hear is the vague, "we got a rep in every state" line and all I want is more info on that. Instead you call my questions stupid. Thanks for the help, I hope your not one of the reps, cuz we would be in a deep pile of dog-shit.

[Cha]

77. I don't believe you...

you better have backup and not just those words you're typing out.

[Talismom]

89. Based on what? His numbers are fantastic! n/t

[mikeanike]

114. 5 million in the bank is good?

That is really really bad! You can barely hold one decent senate campaign with that!

[Yuugal]

33. The Doctor is in!

I think Pelosi and Reid need a spoonful of sugar to make the hard medicine go down. Awwwwwww, there there. Dr Howie will give you a lolly for being a good sport. :eyes:

Let the man do his job, which is to rebuild the party for the 21st century. We should be geting our message out to the midwest and the rural south much better than we are and the good doctor is working on that as we speak.

[derby378]

34. This makes me feel better...

Dean isn't about to write off any states, unlike some other folks on the Hill.

[klook]

36. People in all 50 states can write checks

and send credit card contributions, or so I've been told. Showing up in person once in a while motivates them to contribute, and to volunteer their time and services. I haven't seen one mention of this in the original article or in any of these posts.

Having a Democratic presence in states with entrenched Republican majorities is not just a way to turn the tide in those states in the long run. It's a way to fill the party's war chest in the short run, and to get some more strong arms to help with the heavy lifting the Democrats have ahead over the next few months.

[lostnfound]

47. You said what I was thinking. Thank you!

I couldn't find the words to say it but you've said it well.

I also think that the extreme red states can be like 'bad apples' in a barrel, i.e., spreading confusion and misinformation through their friends and relatives in other states.

My old boss used to say "if you take a person that is 'counterproductive' and make them 'nonproductive', you've made a big improvement." Take a person or group of persons that is extremely misinformed and resolute in their distorted views, and make them doubt their information or their views, and you've made a big improvement.

[radio4progressives]

49. exactly.. hell even in 2004 - the party was "no where in site" in CA.

though there were so called regional offices with a telephone and answering machine, the only functioning office in the entire state was Santa Monica - this during the heat of the presidential election campaign.

absolutely insane.

[NJmaverick]

106. Exactly

in the long run this program pays for itself. There is ALWAYS the temptation to skip the long term goal, but we will lose in the end if we do.

[enough already]

39. Dean is right as usual

We need to compete everywhere. The next time the entrenched-in-Washington Democratic crowd is right will be the first in a long time.

[msgadget]

41. Self-sabotage

This 'leak', like the 'leak' re Hackett must be covert messages to whatever elusive voter they're aiming toward, something along the lines of, "We're not like THEM, you can trust us." WTF?? Pelosi needs to go, Dean needs to quit and get back in the presidential race. Her strategy seems to be to let the republicans do their worst, wait until its widely reported and THEN come out with a statement and a letter. I don't see a lot of republicans quoting from the newspapers but she always does. She doesn't get out in front of issues and when she addresses them she chooses one issue and if that issue goes away...well, we saw her response to Katrina, which was to blame Brownie. When Brownie went away...

I have to go out so...argue amongst yourselves if you must. I've said what I have to say and I'm not going to defend it or change my mind.

[Sawkrates]

42. Over the long term I'd agree with Dean's strategy...

Though considering the crucial importance of the upcoming election, I find it hard to justify not just pouring every cent we have into places like PA. MS can wait at least a little while, but I'm not sure the country can take two more years of unfettered rule by W.

[radio4progressives]

45. the "crucial" states where Reid and Pelosi are most concerned with

they have the DCCC to target races in those areas.

and as far as unfettered rule by W., the entire strategy relying on winning 2006 mid terms in order to "move ahead" with corrective action wrt to the executive branch - (vis a vis impeachment) is a very bad strategy, imo.

We shouldn't be stuck with a president's whose ratings are in the skids - based on extremely dire and deadly serious issues. there are republicans who know bush should be impeached and would support it - maybe not the majority of republicans but certainly enough to make the numbers in the hosue a majority to move forard now on that.

[SaveElmer]

44. Yeah I agree with Dean on this one...

The reason we have been having to use a targeting strategy is because we have let organizations lapse in some of these states. Having said that, as we get closer to the elction some diversion of funds will probably be needed.

[Tarc]

48. I'm with Dean, too

We all know that the 2006 elections are critical, as getting Democrats back in the driver's seat will make the White House extremely uncomfortable/miserable for it's last two years in office. But dumping truckloads of cash on battleground states along is a short-term plan, and this party needs a long-term, sustainable agenda to get the power reigns back...not just because of voter backlash on the GOP, but for a real and concrete base.

[TankLV]

52. Dean's right on this one, too.

So far, he's been right on everything.

I trust Dean more than Reid and Pelosi any day.

He at least has a track record of IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SINCE HE ASSUMED HIS POST!

[timbnyc44]

54. I agree with Dean

You have to build and build and build...it's useless to write places off. It feels like the opinion is really turning - whether that turns into votes or not, who knows, but you have to be ready to pounce on the opportunity.

[xxqqqzme]

57. Reid and Pelosi should be amazingly

familiar w/ squandering opportunities.

STFU and go back 2 your capitol offices - Howard is doing a job NO ONE else can do. Wasn't there some sort of promise when Dean took over the DNC chair? I seem to remember pelosi & reid making Dean promise that he would not issue policy statements? Didn't they say thEy would butt out of running the DNC?

[radio4progressives]

75. "squandering opportunities" is something Pelosi & Reid does very well..

in fact they're professionals at it!

[DemDogs]

60. I have heard locals complain about Dean too

I am afraid our local Dem party people are complaining, too, about the absence of a real 50 state strategy. The complaint is that we are raising money in 50 states, but we are not spending it in 50, or close to it.

[NCarolinawoman]

80. North Carolina grassroots really appreciate Howard Dean,

and, yes, we have received money in my state.

The establishment Dems, who are quite strong here in North Carolina (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc.) are not so keen on him. But the people who go out and actually knock on doors are energized and have hopes of winning a couple of Congressional seats in places that have previously been Republican shoo-ins. The establishment Dems wouldn't have even considered this a possiblity.

Dean is inspiring us to work on getting a "farm team" of futute leaders. And let me add that I am a "Clarkie" who really enjoys working with Dean's people; as do all the other "Clarkies" I know.

[sendero]

66. Harry Reid and Pelosi.,.

.... wrote the fucking book on "squandered opportunities". These two hacks have let us down over and over and over and frankly their opinion means jack shit to anyone with two functioning brain cells.

Tell y'all what Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, you learn to do your jobs and let Dr. Dean do his. He's doing a helluva lot better at his job than you two lap dogs, that is for sure.

[Punkingal]

67. Pelosi and Reid can go piss up a tree....

They don't know how to win. Let Dean go at it, I say.

[Cha]

76. Dean said this from The Start!

And reid and pelosi can butt out if this article is not just some trouble making making up shit as they go along article.

I also thought 50 states made sense and since the other freakin' strategy wasn't working ANYWAY!

[katinmn]

79. There they go again, attacking their own

And you call this leadership?

[OzarkDem]

81. Good for Dean, keep it up

I hate to say it, but Pelosi nor Reid wouldn't know a good idea if it bit them in the ass.

[Mr Bungle 34]

85. What view do you want to take?

I don't see a right or wrong answer here. For short term results I think you should focus and spend on the key battles. However, if you want to change the nation as a whole you go the Dean route, this will take time though and maybe just can't work due to the mass ignorance, bigotry, etc of some regions.

[sendero]

93. Simple..

... I want to take the view of supporting someone who is at least making a credible effort to advance the Democratic agenda.

Reid and Pelosi couldn't advance an agenda if their lives depended on it. They simply SUCK at what they do, and they have no credibility compared to Dr. Dean.

And oh yeah, the long view has to be taken someday, it is the short-term view of corporate and government "leadership" that is SINKING AMERICA.

[radio4progressives]

101. The only thing Pelosi is good at is arm twisting for the DLC..

She does that very well, and all over the place- here in California (state assemply, Democractic Party Caucus - clear on to Washington ) she's just everywhere and has daughters working behind the scenes.

but is she responsive to her Constituents? Hell no!

[Talismom]

84. Yeah, well I'm not so damned happy with Reid and Pelosi either! Go

Dean!

[leyton]

86. Frankly, the checks were written to Dean.

Dean's appeals for dollars, as far as I can remember, usually tout his 50-state effort. He asked to funds to pay for a full-time staffer in North Carolina and West Virginia and Mississippi. Frankly, he doesn't owe Pelosi and Reid a dime.

[mistertrickster]

95. When the DNC comes a-calling, and they always do, tell 'em you want

Howard to get the money.

Donating to the DNC is not only the right thing to do, it gives us some clout to say where it goes.

[leesa]

103. Reid and Pelosi are champs at squandering opportunities.

They will let us lose to the worst GOP government in history with their bad ideas.

[NJmaverick]

105. EVEN IF YOU DON'T WIN THE STATE

You get money and keep make the Republicans work for their victory. Dean is doing the smart and right thing. He stays this course and the Republicans are in BIG trouble. I don't think Mississippi is a lost cause. You have 36% of the population is black, which traditionally votes strongly Democratic. Even with an unfavorable split in the White Population there is no reason to think that the Dems can't win here. More importantly with the right state organization it's possible to pick up a house seat or Senate seat.
Secondly strong state organizations will result in more donations to the Dems, so in the long run this program will more than pay for itself.

[RhodaGrits]

107. The DCCC has been hitting me hard for a substantial

contribution and renewal for 2006 and I have had mixed feelings and had held back. Reading this clinched it for me. I just emailed the DCCC with the following:

"I've given this a lot of thought and I am not going to renew my membership nor contribute or support the DCCC or the DLC this year because of their actions and choices in the last election cycle. I also believe that our Democratic congressional representatives have let us down. I will be making a substantial contribution to the DNC under Howard Dean’s leadership because I believe that he is one of the few Democratic leaders that understand how we need to turn this country around."

I'm mailing the DNC a big fat check.

[radio4progressives]

108. Woohoo!!

:applause: :woohoo:

[radio4progressives]

109. It's the Iraq War and Impeachment Now (Stupid!)

The problem with Reid and Pelosi as "Leaders" are too many to enumerate here.. Let's just put it all in a simple nutshell, when calling out their "spinelessness" what exactly are we mostly referring to?

It's their unwillingness to take the lead on pulling out of Iraq and moving forward on impeachment proceedings now!

We really don't need to list item by item the prima facia evidence for impeachment - but apparently, these appointed idiots seem to need it drilled into their thick stupid skulls.

These are emblematic as to why funding contributions to the DCCC and the DSCC is essentially drying up, or at an all time low - and it's why they're harassing Howard Dean and the DNC for more funding - because a lot of people see the difference between these idiots and what Dean is trying to do, and they want to direct their hard earned resources with care.

One would think these idiots who think of themselves as leaders would get it by now.

[saracat]

110. Neither of these sides are right. Howard is just blowing money on

kids who don't know what they are doing and Pelosi and Reid want to target only a few favorite candidates. BTW, Howard is "targeting" too. The one thing all none targeted Dems have to understand in every state is that NO One is going to really help you. Not the DNC, not the DCCC ,not anyone. I am working for two viable candidates , my husband and a congressional candidates. This is exactly as it has always been and exactly as it will always be. There is little difference between what Howard is doing and what the leadership is doing. Howard is wasting money in all states, on employing green kids who don't know anything, just as he wasted his campaign money, (on cheese, chocolates and celebrity entertainment)(Look it up he admitted it!) and the leadership want to wast money on quid pro quo candidates who can't win. Go figure. We are on own.And if you don't believe me, call the DNC , push them and ask! They will tell you "all races are winnable' and then ask what they are prepared to do to assist candidates who aren't targeted. They will admit they will do nothing. If a major candidate is even walking in your District, they won't even carry your literature along with their own. When they call Districts, they will call for three candidates but when they call your campaign district, they will NOT mention your name though it is your District. We are on our own.

[radio4progressives]

111. Interesting Report.. I'm saddened but not really surprised..

I think it would be educational for all of us if you created another thread to report on what you've personally experienced and discuss these contradictions..

[ReadTomPaine]

126. This would make an interesting thread of its own....

Radio4Progressives is right - you should expand on this and break it out into its own discussion.

[napi21]

116. I already sent emails to all THREE!

I thinked Dean for what he's done already and continues to do, and I also told him about the emails I was sending to Reid & Pelosi. I thold them they've had a long time to fix the Dem Party, and it obviously hasn't worked! We, the VOTERS, aren't happy with your results! If you don't want ot change, then just retire and go HOME!

[AX10]

137. Dean is right, again.

The Democrats need be in all fifty states.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

143. My .02

It's up to the local Democratic Party to win local races. The DNC can't get involved in micro-managing a nationwide race every two years. The DNC should do precisely what Dean is attempting to do -- set up the infrastructure for the Democratic Party to be successful and give local party organizations the tools they need to get the job done.

I would hasten to point out that pouring money into "battleground" states hasn't exactly worked lately.

[w4rma]

147. Dean's strategy is the correct one. It avoids the law of diminishing

returns where you spend so much on a few races that some folks get sick of it. It also forces Repugs to waste money in other places, and spread their focus to other places which, because of their strict top down management they aren't as good at as Dems.

[mdmc]

150. DEAN