Dean Will Not Accept Public Matching Funds in Primaries

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Your blind partisanship has forced you to not think clearly. You're beginning to objectify me and others on this board as mere "Deanites" who are so beholden to Dean as if he were our cult leader. Its kind of sad to witness a rational person lower himself to such views because of pure partisanship.

You keep on repeating how Dean's "excuse" makes no sense, but you never really stated exactly why it doesn't. You just slap yourself on the head over how people aren't understanding the difference between the primary season and general election season. How ignorant we truly are. WHY doesn't the argument I presented and the argument Dean laid out in the link I provided make sense? Please explain. You seem more bent on ad hominem attacks on us and Dean than attacks on the policy and decision.

It comes down to accepting and respecting, but not necessarily agreeing with, other people's viewpoints. It seems to me that you're now unable to do that. Statements like: Dean's "followers eat up his excuse like candy and try to spout the nonsense here" display this perfectly. Rational people tend not to make such outlandish claims.

Here's to CAD before blind partisanship got the best of him... :beer:

Buahahaha!!!!!
No - I don't have "blind partisanship" I don't agree with every thing Bush has done or continues to do - or did you conveniently miss that part? And yes - as some here have labeled anyone who supports Bush as a YABA - and likewise those who eagerly dismiss Dean's blatant flip-flop with silly excuses earn the label of YADA

I've stated exactly why Dean's "excuse" is bogus. He has NO reason to blame his decision on Bush. As you said :"To suggest that Bush isn't responsible for HIS CHOICE to raise so much money is ludicrous. Raising that amount of money was HIS CHOICE and his choice alone (well his campaign staff's too), he wasn't forced into doing it by the Democrats."
Now I will translate this for you this time.
To suggest that Dean isn't responsible for HIS CHOICE to raise so much money is ludicrous. Raising that amount of money was HIS CHOICE and his choice alone (well his campaign staff's too), he wasn't forced into doing it by Bush.

Do you understand yet? For Dean and his minions to say they were "forced" to so they can "compete" is asinine. Do I need to spell out the funding timetables? This is the primary season - their focus should be on getting the nomination - and then when they win the nomination to start in with the GENERAL ELECTION which both sides will be using the SAME funding rules as they most likely will not opt out. It's just more of the same - "blame it on Bush and people will follow you" tactics that have been in play so far this election cycle. Dean WAS the "anti-Bush", but now claims he has to be like Bush to beat Bush. Isn't that a slap in the face of those that supported him because of his anti-bush rhetoric? Or is political hypocrisy suddenly OK to his supporters?

You repeated claims of "personal attacks" are quite silly though, If you can't handle the ribbing then I suggest you leave. This is nothing compared to a real "personal attack" and you know it. I can't believe you actually think I am "attacking" you by using- "Deanite" or "a fool if...." Those are "if the shoe fits..wear it" remarks. The weak in the knees one was a joking example...but I see that you still have trouble comprehending such simple things. <--**ALERT!!! example of an "ad hom" or "personal attack"!
If you really think that I was "attacking" you then you did the same by saying "Rational people tend to...." You see? Were you attacking me<sniff>? According to your definition of ad hom - you were, because you were trying to insinuate that I wasn't of rational mind. And if that is the case then I will continue to use "a fool if...."

Monsta - you just go be a good Dean supporter - I don't care I just find it awfully funny how his supporters can dish the heat but can't take it. There are many examples and this flip-flop is just one more example.

I will support Bush until a better candidate comes along - and if I support them for taking specific stances and they backtrack they will no longer earn my vote when there are other candidates who support my positions. Bush has pushed me on issues I feel strongly about(but not blatantly flipflopped)...and I wish there were another candidate who was willing to stand up for those issues - there are no other ones - so Bush will retain my support. You call it partisanship - I call it standing on ideals and principles. I find it interesting that Bush is in a close race with an "generic" Democrat but yet is firmly ahead of all the candidates....partisanship? Hmmm...but I guess that is going off-topic. Back to Deans flip-flop...and excuses...

CkG

You still haven't explained why Dean's reasoning for opting out is bogus. You keep on harping back to this primary vs. general election timetable, but it seems you still don't understand the whole REALITY of the timetable. The fact of the matter is that Bush WON'T be using his $200 million for Republican primary related competition, because he has no competition. He'll be using it against the Democrat(s) in preparation for the general election. That's not illegal to do, so he'll do it. Dean's reasoning is that if and when he wins the nomination in early March, his warchest will be so drained because he was actually using primary money for the primary, that he won't have any left to defend himself from Bush's attacks. He'll be an open target who can't fight back for nearly 5 months.

I really don't see what's so ludicrous about that argument, which is why I'm perplexed as to your outrage over it, your inability to accept it, and what exactly your counterargument is (I still can't decipher it).

Why exactly did Bush feel the need to raise $200 million for an unopposed primary season? You're conveniently forgetting which campaign openly decided to opt out months ago.

What good reason would there be for Dean to opt out had Bush not publicly announce his foregoing of the matching funds and stated fundraising goal of $200 million for an unopposed primary season?

I like how you're now trying to paint me as some liberal wuss who can't take a little heat. Very classy...

 

[DealMonkey]

Yeah Cad, you're so busy screaming and dropping lil yellow winkies everyplace, I think you're missing the point. Which is (straight from Dean's mouth):

The front-loaded primary season, which forces participating candidates to reach spending limits early, leaves those who survive virtually penniless until the summer conventions. In the current cycle, a participating candidate would be battered every day on the public airwaves by an incumbent president with no primary challenger, no compunction about rejecting public financing and a war chest that could reach a quarter of a billion dollars. The spending limits are simply too low for modern campaigns, and leave serious candidates little choice but to opt out. And with the new, higher individual contribution limits, the 1-to-1 public match of the first $250 of every donation is less valuable than it once was.

So in a nutshell, what Dean is saying is that choosing to accept matching funds or opting out affects a candidates ability to spend after the primaries are over. How is that not shrewd strategy? Will you discuss it if we conceed it's a flip-flop? I know Monsta has. And now I do too. There you go...

As for the Cad partisanship issue: I have to say, from recollection about threads started by Cad around here, virtually ALL of them (especially lately) are negative threads about Dean and the other dem candidates. That would be fine, however there are none started by Cad nitpicking Bush. Where are the threads about Bush flip-flopping on the issues - especially his campaign pledges during the 2000 race?

Around here, that kind of thread-initiation-ratio is the basis for the "hatred" label or at very least "blind partisan." To paraphrase your own words in previous threads, Cad, if you're going to nitpick at the dems, you have to do so with Bush too - to be consistant.

Although, I suppose you can choose to not heed your own guidelines. Only that'll earn you a slightly different label.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
You still haven't explained why Dean's reasoning for opting out is bogus. You keep on harping back to this primary vs. general election timetable, but it seems you still don't understand the whole REALITY of the timetable. The fact of the matter is that Bush WON'T be using his $200 million for Republican primary related competition, because he has no competition. He'll be using it against the Democrat(s) in preparation for the general election. That's not illegal to do, so he'll do it. Dean's reasoning is that if and when he wins the nomination in early March, his warchest will be so drained because he was actually using primary money for the primary, that he won't have any left to defend himself from Bush's attacks. He'll be an open target who can't fight back for nearly 5 months.

I really don't see what's so ludicrous about that argument, which is why I'm perplexed as to your outrage over it, your inability to accept it, and what exactly your counterargument is (I still can't decipher it).

Why exactly did Bush feel the need to raise $200 million for an unopposed primary season?

I like how you're now trying to paint me as some liberal wuss who can't take a little heat. Very classy...

Hehe - you are amazing. There is no "outrage" - I've been long past this issue - it's you won't let it go- I assume because you don't like the fact that Dean is getting some heat from some of the others for breaking his promise and want to lessen it's negative impact by blaming it on Bush.
Now again - why is the excuse of Bush "forced" me too - OK? Didn't you say: ":"To suggest that Bush isn't responsible for HIS CHOICE to raise so much money is ludicrous. Raising that amount of money was HIS CHOICE and his choice alone (well his campaign staff's too), he wasn't forced into doing it by the Democrats." ?

Now again - that "forced me too" excuse is bogus and YOU brought it up I'm not sure why you think that the "forced me too" excuse is somehow valid for Dean when you say that my supposed "excuse"(which you misunderstood - but that's not the issue) for Bush is invalid. You don't seem to recognize the hypocrisy here. The excuse that he is "forced to because of xxx" - this is entirely false according to you...except when it comes to Dean I guess

If Dean wants to opt out - fine. I don't fault him for that because you know the other candidates aren't going to go down quietly but for Dean to blame his flip-flop on Bush is ridiculous. Remember - "to suggest that ... isn't responsible for HIS CHOICE to raise so much money is ludicrous. Raising that amount of money was HIS CHOICE and his choice alone ... he wasn't forced into doing it..."

Do you understand yet? His "Bush made me do it" excuse is bogus.

Also you fail to understand that EVERY SINGLE ad I've seen, heard, read from these "candidates" has been aimed at Bush. Some toss a dagger at the other candidates but not one gets on air without getting a jab in on Bush. So yes - Bush will be using his money against the Democrats - just as they are against him. But you see, no one "forced" Bush to do it(as you say) but yet you are fine with Dean's excuse that he was "forced to"

They are all focusing on Bush - and he will return in kind. Dean better hope he gets some money because sooner or later Bush will put him in his sights. Like I have repeatedly said - I don't care that Dean did it - I just won't buy his excuse that he was "forced to".

Baaaahhhh

CkG

PS - about the "liberal wuss" thing - you said it - not me Get over it already.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey...
As for the Cad partisanship issue: I have to say, from recollection about threads started by Cad around here, virtually ALL of them (especially lately) are negative threads about Dean and the other dem candidates. That would be fine, however there are none started by Cad nitpicking Bush. Where are the threads about Bush flip-flopping on the issues - especially his campaign pledges during the 2000 race?

Around here, that kind of thread-initiation-ratio is the basis for the "hatred" label or at very least "blind partisan." To paraphrase your own words in previous threads, Cad, if you're going to nitpick at the dems, you have to do so with Bush too - to be consistant.

Although, I suppose you can choose to not heed your own guidelines. Only that'll earn you a slightly different label.

Ahem - I do believe I started a number of threads(even one tonight about Gephardt and the Iowa freaks) that were NOT aimed at Dean, and one thread(flag) I actually almost defended him! <gasp>

I also have started numerous economy threads, and have started multiple threads on other issues. You guys seem to be getting your panties in a bunch every time a thread is started about your precious Dean or other candidate yet you seem perfectly content with the other threads that are started about Bush. And you have the nerve to call it "blind partisanship" and "nitpicking" while ignoring your own.

I will continue to post about the "candidates" just as you and the others post about Bush. I will also continue to post about other issues that I wish to discuss or air that are in the news.

CkG