Dean Will Not Accept Public Matching Funds in Primaries

[CADsortaGUY]

Howard Dean became the first Democrat to opt out of the presidential public financing system in 30 years

<snip>
Dr. Dean's Democratic rivals were quick to attack his decision when the announcement was signaled earlier this week, noting that he supported public financing earlier this year and filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to accept matching funds.
...
"It's his choice," Mr. Kerry said this week of Dr. Dean. "If he goes out he invites somebody else to go out. If he will stay in, I will stay in."
</snip>

Did anyone really think Dean wasn't going to opt out?

CkG

 

[TheBDB]

Facing an incumbent President with over a hundred million dollars to spend and no primaries.....I think he is screwed either way.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Howard Dean became the first Democrat to opt out of the presidential public financing system in 30 years

<snip>
Dr. Dean's Democratic rivals were quick to attack his decision when the announcement was signaled earlier this week, noting that he supported public financing earlier this year and filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to accept matching funds.
...
"It's his choice," Mr. Kerry said this week of Dr. Dean. "If he goes out he invites somebody else to go out. If he will stay in, I will stay in."
</snip>

Did anyone really think Dean wasn't going to opt out?

Repost

I find it amusing that no one replied to my thread, especially you Cad who seems to love Dean-related news. Was it because my thread was too boring and didn't contain any negativity towards Dean? I know those are rare around here...

 

[privatebreyer]

Well, he's got guts, more than brains it seems.

Of course the idea that you need oddles of money to get elected is faulty. It only works if people are convinced by the shear number of TV ads they see. Dean got all the support hes got thus far with very little.

 

[DealMonkey]

Well, you know how the "teevee" is God in this country.

Just think of all the "USS Abraham Lincoln - mission accomplished - Bush struttin' with socks stuffed down his crotch" ads the repubs could run with matching funds? Damn, what a shame.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Well, he's got guts, more than brains it seems.

Of course the idea that you need oddles of money to get elected is faulty. It only works if people are convinced by the shear number of TV ads they see. Dean got all the support hes got thus far with very little.

Brains needed anyway???

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Howard Dean became the first Democrat to opt out of the presidential public financing system in 30 years

<snip>
Dr. Dean's Democratic rivals were quick to attack his decision when the announcement was signaled earlier this week, noting that he supported public financing earlier this year and filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to accept matching funds.
...
"It's his choice," Mr. Kerry said this week of Dr. Dean. "If he goes out he invites somebody else to go out. If he will stay in, I will stay in."
</snip>

Did anyone really think Dean wasn't going to opt out?

Repost

I find it amusing that no one replied to my thread, especially you Cad who seems to love Dean-related news. Was it because my thread was too boring and didn't contain any negativity towards Dean? I know those are rare around here...

I had nothing to say about the subject at the time. This however is NEWS(and not a repost

) because the decision has been made. You could have updated your thread if you wanted but since I don't control your threads - I posted the news that a decision has been made and the fall out from it.
Hehe and you have some nerve coming in here and whining about "negativity" Have you read any of the threads ...oh say in the last 9 months(or whenever this forum started).

And to reply about the claim that "Bush has millions more..." - It doesn't matter - It's only for PRIMARY timetables - Not the one on one campaign period. Bush and whoever the Dems pick most likely will NOT opt out of public funding for the one on one sprint to the finish. There are 2 different funding periods. What Bush is doing makes little to zero difference in the Democrats primary as they are supposed to be trying to get the nomination yet they are running ads against Bush - and very little aimed at each other. Add up all the $ the Dems have - it is approx what Bush has to spend during the primary. He will spend it against the Dems - just like they spend it against him. Once the Dems pick a candidate - the playing field will level as it is a one on one comparison and both will likely NOT opt out of public financing. I suggest some of you educate yourself as the the funding process instead of lapping up the whiny spin about "Bush has more" - this PRIMARY isn't about Bush - it's about the DEMOCRAT nomination.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Wow - some pretty stinging remarks by a couple candidates.

CkG

PS - I know this thread/post is neither DealMonkey or Insane3D approved....tough - deal with it

 

[DealMonkey]

Oh, I guess I misunderstood the thread topic. I guess the issue is that Dean has vowed to forgo the matching funds in order to also avoid the associated spending limits? Do I have it? It sounds pretty underhanded, personally I don't see a reason for the dem candidates to try and outspend each other for the primaries. I expect more of the other candidates to start ganging up on Dean. Not that they haven't already.

 

[AEB]

i hate the washington post!

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Howard Dean became the first Democrat to opt out of the presidential public financing system in 30 years

<snip>
Dr. Dean's Democratic rivals were quick to attack his decision when the announcement was signaled earlier this week, noting that he supported public financing earlier this year and filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to accept matching funds.
...
"It's his choice," Mr. Kerry said this week of Dr. Dean. "If he goes out he invites somebody else to go out. If he will stay in, I will stay in."
</snip>

Did anyone really think Dean wasn't going to opt out?

Repost

I find it amusing that no one replied to my thread, especially you Cad who seems to love Dean-related news. Was it because my thread was too boring and didn't contain any negativity towards Dean? I know those are rare around here...

I had nothing to say about the subject at the time. This however is NEWS(and not a repost

) because the decision has been made. You could have updated your thread if you wanted but since I don't control your threads - I posted the news that a decision has been made and the fall out from it.
Hehe and you have some nerve coming in here and whining about "negativity" Have you read any of the threads ...oh say in the last 9 months(or whenever this forum started).

And to reply about the claim that "Bush has millions more..." - It doesn't matter - It's only for PRIMARY timetables - Not the one on one campaign period. Bush and whoever the Dems pick most likely will NOT opt out of public funding for the one on one sprint to the finish. There are 2 different funding periods. What Bush is doing makes little to zero difference in the Democrats primary as they are supposed to be trying to get the nomination yet they are running ads against Bush - and very little aimed at each other. Add up all the $ the Dems have - it is approx what Bush has to spend during the primary. He will spend it against the Dems - just like they spend it against him. Once the Dems pick a candidate - the playing field will level as it is a one on one comparison and both will likely NOT opt out of public financing. I suggest some of you educate yourself as the the funding process instead of lapping up the whiny spin about "Bush has more" - this PRIMARY isn't about Bush - it's about the DEMOCRAT nomination.

CkG

I'm very educated about this topic. I find it amusing that you try to act as Bush is the victim, that he's "forced" to raise $200 million for his unopposed primary season because of those attack dog Democrats. That couldn't be further from the truth. If he didn't announce a stated goal of $200 million for the primary season, no Democrat would need to raise that much money in opposition. 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. Trying to equate a choice to an absolute necessity sounds like the same slippery slope logic that got us into Iraq. But I digress. The simple question of why exactly Bush needs to raise $200 million for an unopposed primary has never been given a straight answer. I would assume (though I don't know) is that since the Republicans chose to have their convention unusually late, that a war chest is needed for the summer to attack the Democrat. Whose choice was it to have the convention so late? Can this be blamed on the attack dog Democrats as well???

Secondly, you need to understand that the Democratic nominee will be known on the first Wednesday of March (the day after Super Tuesday). The Democratic convention isn't until late July. This is a nearly 5 month window where the nominee will not be privy to use the general election funds of $75 million. The amount of $45 million that they would be able to spend is a quarter of Bush's $200 million. Dean makes no bones about it. This decision to forego is NOT to use against his Democratic opponents. Its to use against Bush. You can't try to spin it any other way. So your argument that the "playing field will be level once the Dems pick a candidate" is false. The Republicans have already chosen their candidate. Once the Dems choose their candidate in early March and that candidate doesn't have $200 million, how will that be a level playing field?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh, I guess I misunderstood the thread topic. I guess the issue is that Dean has vowed to forgo the matching funds in order to also avoid the associated spending limits? Do I have it? It sounds pretty underhanded, personally I don't see a reason for the dem candidates to try and outspend each other for the primaries. I expect more of the other candidates to start ganging up on Dean. Not that they haven't already.

The money isn't to use against the Democratic candidates. Its to use against Bush after March. I personally doubt, as do most people in the campaign, that enough money can be raised before Super Tuesday to truly make this decision advantageous for Dean during the Democratic primaries. See my post up above.

 

[AEB]

even tho he went agianst his word? if anyone pays attention to that part of it i dont think he will have an advantage

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: AEB
even tho he went agianst his word? if anyone pays attention to that part of it i dont think he will have an advantage

No one will. His 500,000+ current supports definitely don't...

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Also, Dean's agenda for campaign finace reform:

If elected president, I will pursue an aggressive agenda to restore American democracy through effective campaign finance and election reforms. We will attack these problems on multiple fronts:

1. Fix the Presidential Public Finance System. For more than a generation, the public financing of presidential elections had widespread support and helped keep campaign spending in check. But today the system is on the brink of failure. Candidates have dwindling incentive to participate ? and may doom their chances of election if they do.

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.

Within the first months of my Administration I will present Congress with legislation that will take these necessary steps to save the program:

Increase the public match. The fund should match the first $100 of every donation on a five-to-one basis. That would make every $100 donation worth $600 to a campaign, and help put a candidate?s focus back where it should be: on small donors, rather than wealthy contributors and special interests. Candidates should opt into the system for both the primary and the general election to receive matching funds.

Improve incentives for candidates to accept public funding. One way to encourage participation in the public financing system is to make it less of an advantage to opt out of the system. If one candidate opts out of public financing and exceeds the spending limits, his opponents should receive additional public funds to level the playing field.

Raise the primary spending limits. Primary candidates need more resources to get their message across, so voters know where they stand. They also need to be heard above the roar of wealthy special interest groups that buy huge amounts of advertising at election time. We should double the primary limit, placing it at the same level as limits for the general election, which should remain as they are.

Fix the funding mechanism. The presidential public financing program is funded by a ?check off? box on our income tax forms. Too many people fail to check the box because they incorrectly believe it will cost them more money, and simply have no idea where the money goes. To ensure that the program is on sound financial footing, the amount that taxpayers can choose to direct to the program should be raised from $3 to $5 and a program of public education should make clear what this program is all about: limiting the influence of big donors and special interests.

In addressing this issue, we will draw on the work of experts from across the political spectrum who have thought long and hard about the best way to save the system, including nonpartisan groups like Democracy 21 and the Campaign Finance Institute.

There's much more after that. I don't want to create too long of a post on another person's thread, but I suggest following Cad's advice and educating yourself further.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I'm very educated about this topic. I find it amusing that you try to act as Bush is the victim, that he's "forced" to raise $200 million for his unopposed primary season because of those attack dog Democrats. That couldn't be further from the truth. If he didn't announce a stated goal of $200 million for the primary season, no Democrat would need to raise that much money in opposition. 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. Trying to equate a choice to an absolute necessity sounds like the same slippery slope logic that got us into Iraq. But I digress. The simple question of why exactly Bush needs to raise $200 million for an unopposed primary has never been given a straight answer. I would assume (though I don't know) is that since the Republicans chose to have their convention unusually late, that a war chest is needed for the summer to attack the Democrat. Whose choice was it to have the convention so late? Can this be blamed on the attack dog Democrats as well???

Secondly, you need to understand that the Democratic nominee will be known on the first Wednesday of March (the day after Super Tuesday). The Democratic convention isn't until late July. This is a nearly 5 month window where the nominee will not be privy to use the general election funds of $75 million. The amount of $45 million that they would be able to spend is a quarter of Bush's $200 million. Dean makes no bones about it. This decision to forego is NOT to use against his Democratic opponents. Its to use against Bush. You can't try to spin it any other way. So your argument that the "playing field will be level once the Dems pick a candidate" is false. The Republicans have already chosen their candidate. Once the Dems choose their candidate in early March and that candidate doesn't have $200 million, how will that be a level playing field?

No, Bush isn't a victim and neither is your precious(pathetic) little Dean. What Bush does MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE DEMOCRATS PRIMARY!
Your words: "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." OK - now replace "Bush" with "Dean" and also "Democrats" with "Bush". See my point yet?

For YOU or Dean to whine about how much Bush has to spend in the PRIMARY season is ridiculous because they are not directly against each other

Oh, and I do "understand" that the supposed nomonee will most likely be chosen earlier than the convention - for you to insinuate that I am not educated on this topic is asinine. You still seem to be the one who is uneducated as to the separation of funding/spending rules. Do the Democrats not have upwards of 200million? And Bush has ~200million. No one is saying that Bush is a "victim" but by the same token Dean is hardly a "victim" which forced him to have to opt out of a publically financed PRIMARY. He easily can out spend his Democrat opponents while staying within the public funding guidelines...which he promised to...right? The primary season is for picking the party candidates...is it not? Why do YOU and Dean(and others) keep whining about how much Bush has to spend in the primary season? Dean isn't up against Bush for the nomination - he's up against the other 8 dwarves.

Listen - you can whine all you want but the PRIMARY SEASON's funding is different than the GENERAL ELECTION season's funding. For you to whine about what the Republican side is doing just shows how weak your party really is. Do they not have 200million on the Democrat side? Are they not using it against Bush? You are a fool if you think that what Bush has to spend "forces" a Democrat to opt out of public financing FOR THE PRIMARY.

Meh - I see Dean has you hog tied and fooled so think what you wish.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: AEB
even tho he went agianst his word? if anyone pays attention to that part of it i dont think he will have an advantage

No one will. His 500,000+ current supports definitely don't...

Exactly - they don't care that the "straight talker" is not really what they were told he was.

Baahhhhh

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

This part of Dean's agenda makes sense and if true, means that opting out of the matching funds for the primaries does have an effect on the campaign after March:

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.

It seems like a good strategy for Dean to opt-out, especially considering the amount of spending Bush will do after the primaries, regardless of what he may have said previously. By the way, does anyone have a link or quote where Dean said he wouldn't bypass the presidential public financing system?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I'm very educated about this topic. I find it amusing that you try to act as Bush is the victim, that he's "forced" to raise $200 million for his unopposed primary season because of those attack dog Democrats. That couldn't be further from the truth. If he didn't announce a stated goal of $200 million for the primary season, no Democrat would need to raise that much money in opposition. 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. Trying to equate a choice to an absolute necessity sounds like the same slippery slope logic that got us into Iraq. But I digress. The simple question of why exactly Bush needs to raise $200 million for an unopposed primary has never been given a straight answer. I would assume (though I don't know) is that since the Republicans chose to have their convention unusually late, that a war chest is needed for the summer to attack the Democrat. Whose choice was it to have the convention so late? Can this be blamed on the attack dog Democrats as well???

Secondly, you need to understand that the Democratic nominee will be known on the first Wednesday of March (the day after Super Tuesday). The Democratic convention isn't until late July. This is a nearly 5 month window where the nominee will not be privy to use the general election funds of $75 million. The amount of $45 million that they would be able to spend is a quarter of Bush's $200 million. Dean makes no bones about it. This decision to forego is NOT to use against his Democratic opponents. Its to use against Bush. You can't try to spin it any other way. So your argument that the "playing field will be level once the Dems pick a candidate" is false. The Republicans have already chosen their candidate. Once the Dems choose their candidate in early March and that candidate doesn't have $200 million, how will that be a level playing field?

No, Bush isn't a victim and neither is your precious(pathetic) little Dean. What Bush does MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE DEMOCRATS PRIMARY!
Your words: "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." OK - now replace "Bush" with "Dean" and also "Democrats" with "Bush". See my point yet?

For YOU or Dean to whine about how much Bush has to spend in the PRIMARY season is ridiculous because they are not directly against each other

Oh, and I do "understand" that the supposed nomonee will most likely be chosen earlier than the convention - for you to insinuate that I am not educated on this topic is asinine. You still seem to be the one who is uneducated as to the separation of funding/spending rules. Do the Democrats not have upwards of 200million? And Bush has ~200million. No one is saying that Bush is a "victim" but by the same token Dean is hardly a "victim" which forced him to have to opt out of a publically financed PRIMARY. He easily can out spend his Democrat opponents while staying within the public funding guidelines...which he promised to...right? The primary season is for picking the party candidates...is it not? Why do YOU and Dean(and others) keep whining about how much Bush has to spend in the primary season? Dean isn't up against Bush for the nomination - he's up against the other 8 dwarves.

Listen - you can whine all you want but the PRIMARY SEASON's funding is different than the GENERAL ELECTION season's funding. For you to whine about what the Republican side is doing just shows how weak your party really is. Do they not have 200million on the Democrat side? Are they not using it against Bush? You are a fool if you think that what Bush has to spend "forces" a Democrat to opt out of public financing FOR THE PRIMARY.

Meh - I see Dean has you hog tied and fooled so think what you wish.

CkG

Wow. I must have struck a nerve. I haven't been personally attacked like that since etech attacked me for suggesting that those oddball urban myths Iraqis had about our soldiers (eg air conditioned underwear) were "funny".

Of course Dean backtracked, switched, flipflopped, etc. He doesn't have me hogtied. I'm not gonna drink the Kool-Aid. I was simply defending his decision and his reasoning behind it. Yes he flipflopped. I personally think it was a correct flipflop, and that it isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Exactly why this is so upsetting to you is inexplicable to me...

 

[DealMonkey]

All this nitpicking Cad does with Dean, but doesn't do with Bush, signals that Cad is simply a hateful partisan who hypes every little issue about the democratic candidates. At least, that's the case using the logic many use around here when confronted with any criticism of Bush. Hold the presses! You mean it goes both ways?!? Inconceivable.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This part of Dean's agenda makes sense and if true, means that opting out of the matching funds for the primaries does have an effect on the campaign after March:

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.

It seems like a good strategy for Dean to opt-out, especially considering the amount of spending Bush will do after the primaries, regardless of what he may have said previously. By the way, does anyone have a link or quote where Dean said he wouldn't bypass the presidential public financing system?

I don't have a link, but he has said it. All the other Dem. candidates are slamming him because it seems in private conversations months ago that they all decided to stick with the system. I'm sure Dean said the same in public before as well.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Wow. I must have struck a nerve. I haven't been personally attacked like that since etech attacked me for suggesting that those oddball urban myths Iraqis had about our soldiers (eg air conditioned underwear) were "funny".

Of course Dean backtracked, switched, flipflopped, etc. He doesn't have me hogtied. I'm not gonna drink the Kool-Aid. I was simply defending his decision and his reasoning behind it. Yes he flipflopped. I personally think it was a correct flipflop, and that it isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Exactly why this is so upsetting to you is inexplicable to me...

No - no nerve. It's just that people don't seem to understand that this is a PRIMARY funding issue - not a general election issue. As you pointed out - he's flip-flopped and NOT been the "straight" talker people claimed he was - but yet these same people call Bush a hypocrite and don't look at who they want to replace him with. I don't think I've ever said Bush was "the best President" and infact I don't agree with some things he has done and continues to do, but I also know that these people who are now trying to make excuses for Dean opting out are wrong if they think he "had to do it" because Bush has so much money to spend in the Primary.

None of this is "upsetting" to me, infact I find it interestingly funny The "straight-talking outsider" isn't really who people though he was - is he? I don't care if he opts out, it's his choice - but to claim that it's because of Bush is asinine because there is GENERAL ELECTION funding that neither candidate will dare opt out of.

You must be pretty weak in the knees if you think that my post was an "personal attack" <-that was more of a "personal attack" than the other post You Deanites are getting quite hilarious in your defense of him...and you call Bush supporters YABAs hehe - ask moonie if you can borrow his mirror.

DM - none of my posts have been "hateful" - to ANY of the "candidates". Infact I think I've been quite gracious to Dean, because I haven't ONLY picked on him or posted threads about him. I think I even posted a thread where I almost kind of defended him I don't give a rats ass about Dean opting out, but I will not let his "excuse" and spin slide - which is not "nit-picking". You guys go to extremes with Bush's stances all the time and make everything a "big" deal. This post about Dean's flip-flop is not an "extreme" as his flip-flop is quite blatant so no extrapolation is needed - yet his followers eat up his excuse like candy and try to spout the nonsense here. I don't care about the issue(opting out) but more to show people that Dean isn't the guy they claim he is, and there have been plenty of opportunities to point that out...but I guess people don't care - they just hate Bush and will take whoever they can to replace him. Baaaaahhhhhh

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
DM - none of my posts have been "hateful" - to ANY of the "candidates". Infact I think I've been quite gracious to Dean, because I haven't ONLY picked on him or posted threads about him. I think I even posted a thread where I almost kind of defended him I don't give a rats ass about Dean opting out, but I will not let his "excuse" and spin slide - which is not "nit-picking". You guys go to extremes with Bush's stances all the time and make everything a "big" deal. This post about Dean's flip-flop is not an "extreme" as his flip-flop is quite blatant so no extrapolation is needed - yet his followers eat up his excuse like candy and try to spout the nonsense here. I don't care about the issue(opting out) but more to show people that Dean isn't the guy they claim he is, and there have been plenty of opportunities to point that out...but I guess people don't care - they just hate Bush and will take whoever they can to replace him. Baaaaahhhhhh

CkG

Well ... there you go again. I was trying to make a point about how STUPID it looks when people mistake criticism for "hate." It goes on all the time around here. Feel free to miss my point completely though.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No - no nerve. It's just that people don't seem to understand that this is a PRIMARY funding issue - not a general election issue. As you pointed out - he's flip-flopped and NOT been the "straight" talker people claimed he was - but yet these same people call Bush a hypocrite and don't look at who they want to replace him with. I don't think I've ever said Bush was "the best President" and infact I don't agree with some things he has done and continues to do, but I also know that these people who are now trying to make excuses for Dean opting out are wrong if they think he "had to do it" because Bush has so much money to spend in the Primary.

None of this is "upsetting" to me, infact I find it interestingly funny The "straight-talking outsider" isn't really who people though he was - is he? I don't care if he opts out, it's his choice - but to claim that it's because of Bush is asinine because there is GENERAL ELECTION funding that neither candidate will dare opt out of.

You must be pretty weak in the knees if you think that my post was an "personal attack" <-that was more of a "personal attack" than the other post You Deanites are getting quite hilarious in your defense of him...and you call Bush supporters YABAs hehe - ask moonie if you can borrow his mirror.

DM - none of my posts have been "hateful" - to ANY of the "candidates". Infact I think I've been quite gracious to Dean, because I haven't ONLY picked on him or posted threads about him. I think I even posted a thread where I almost kind of defended him I don't give a rats ass about Dean opting out, but I will not let his "excuse" and spin slide - which is not "nit-picking". You guys go to extremes with Bush's stances all the time and make everything a "big" deal. This post about Dean's flip-flop is not an "extreme" as his flip-flop is quite blatant so no extrapolation is needed - yet his followers eat up his excuse like candy and try to spout the nonsense here. I don't care about the issue(opting out) but more to show people that Dean isn't the guy they claim he is, and there have been plenty of opportunities to point that out...but I guess people don't care - they just hate Bush and will take whoever they can to replace him. Baaaaahhhhhh

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:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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