"Anything you can do, I can do better..."

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-27 11:35pm

"I can do anything better than you."

The Dean presidential campaign this weekend has raised $250,733.20 (with just over 24 hours left until the deadline of midnight Monday) at a rate of roughly $54.16 per donor.

In other news, Dr. Dean is leading a poll of Massachussetts Democrats by more than the margin of error - 28% Dean, 25% Kerry, with Lieberman and Edwards trailing with a paltry 11% and 9% respectively. This is significant because Dean leads MA native Kerry in his own home state.

The title comes because on Monday, Vice-President Cheney will be having a $2,000 a plate invitation-only campaign luncheon to raise $250,000 for the Bush re-election campaign.

Oh, did I mention that virtually the totality of the Dean funds raised are eligable for matching funds (because they're below the $250 matching limit set by the FEC) but the Cheney funds raised aren't? So effectively the $250,000 that Dean has raised becomes $500,000 after the FEC matching funds kick in.

So let me ask the room: What's really better for democracy? A handful of fat cats ponying up $2,000 for some barbecue, or thousands of ordinary citizens donating $50 per person, expecting nothing but to participate in their country's democratic process, some of them for the first time in their lives?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-27 11:37pm

Oh no, you said "fat cats" with regards to rich people who try to buy government influence. You also spoke against a Republican. This must mean that you're a commie and an anti-American, and you should be locked up for sedition. Heil Ashcroft!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-27 11:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:Oh no, you said "fat cats" with regards to rich people who try to buy government influence. You also spoke against a Republican. This must mean that you're a commie and an anti-American, and you should be locked up for sedition. Heil Ashcroft!

*hits Mike with a tranq dart*

They got to him. Quick, get him to Detox. He needs 30cc of porn, STAT! Let's go people!

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-27 11:41pm

Should you go public with this information, I regret to inform you that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh will have no choice but to throw you off Niagra Falls.

And no, you don't get a barrel.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-07-27 11:46pm

Now that is an ingenious use of the medium.

Gotta give the guy credit... or at least the advisor who thought it up.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-27 11:57pm

To paraphrase the movie Seabiscuit,

"We've got a candidate who's too short, odds that are too long, and I'm too stupid to know the difference!"

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-28 12:11am

Iceberg wrote: Oh, did I mention that virtually the totality of the Dean funds raised are eligable for matching funds (because they're below the $250 matching limit set by the FEC) but the Cheney funds raised aren't? So effectively the $250,000 that Dean has raised becomes $500,000 after the FEC matching funds kick in.

...

So let me ask the room: What's really better for democracy? A handful of fat cats ponying up $2,000 for some barbecue, or thousands of ordinary citizens donating $50 per person, expecting nothing but to participate in their country's democratic process, some of them for the first time in their lives?

The Fat Cats ponying up THEIR own money, not the idiot ripping the
Federal Treasury off for $250 grand

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-28 12:12am

The Fat Cats ponying up THEIR own money, not the idiot ripping the
Federal Treasury off for $250 grand

Now let's be fair, Republicans except federal matching funds too.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-28 12:13am

"except" should be "accept."

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-28 12:16am

Darth Wong wrote:Oh no, you said "fat cats" with regards to rich people who try to buy government influence. You also spoke against a Republican. This must mean that you're a commie and an anti-American, and you should be locked up for sedition. Heil Ashcroft!

People who donate $2,000 dollars to an election are "fat cats"? Upper middle class, and committed, perhaps. Most of the democrats' problems with fund-raising have actually come from McCain's legislation, as they always relied on the wealthy elitist sorts of support, and Dean's ability to mobility a populist base is actually faring surprising (I'll concede that). However, it is yet another, if more subtle, demonstration of his general far-left un-appeal to the majority of the American electorate. If Dean wins the Primaries, the Democrat Party is going down.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-28 12:17am

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Oh, did I mention that virtually the totality of the Dean funds raised are eligable for matching funds (because they're below the $250 matching limit set by the FEC) but the Cheney funds raised aren't? So effectively the $250,000 that Dean has raised becomes $500,000 after the FEC matching funds kick in.

...

So let me ask the room: What's really better for democracy? A handful of fat cats ponying up $2,000 for some barbecue, or thousands of ordinary citizens donating $50 per person, expecting nothing but to participate in their country's democratic process, some of them for the first time in their lives?
The Fat Cats ponying up THEIR own money, not the idiot ripping the
Federal Treasury off for $250 grand

Perhaps Shep missed the part where Dean's got over 250k already, before the Matching Funds. Of course, the big bad democrat taking advantage of the laws that help the supporter of the common man must be a thief...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-28 12:17am

Durran Korr wrote: Now let's be fair, Republicans except federal matching funds too.

Perhaps, but they don't make it the centerpiece of their campaign and
carefully calculate each donation so that they can double it thru Federal
Money.....

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-28 12:18am

MKSheppard wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: Now let's be fair, Republicans except federal matching funds too.
Perhaps, but they don't make it the centerpiece of their campaign and
carefully calculate each donation so that they can double it thru Federal
Money.....

You will, of course, provide proof this happened, I hope.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-28 12:18am

Any sort of campaign finance-laws are, however, a violation of free speech, and I've always been disgusted by McCain's willingness to support them. We should eliminate every single one of them--including those from the seventies--and eliminate the matching money as well. Simply enact a full disclosure law and make sure that there are requirements for the disclosed information about donors to become easily available. Then anyone can donate as much money as they want to a candidate... And any voter can find out about it, too.

I rather think that much more reasonable than the labyrinthian ridiculousness of the current system.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-28 12:20am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Any sort of campaign finance-laws are, however, a violation of free speech, and I've always been disgusted by McCain's willingness to support them. We should eliminate every single one of them--including those from the seventies--and eliminate the matching money as well. Simply enact a full disclosure law and make sure that there are requirements for the disclosed information about donors to become easily available. Then anyone can donate as much money as they want to a candidate... And any voter can find out about it, too.

I rather think that much more reasonable than the labyrinthian ridiculousness of the current system.

I endorse the position of the Duchess.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-28 12:20am

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Oh, did I mention that virtually the totality of the Dean funds raised are eligable for matching funds (because they're below the $250 matching limit set by the FEC) but the Cheney funds raised aren't? So effectively the $250,000 that Dean has raised becomes $500,000 after the FEC matching funds kick in.

...

So let me ask the room: What's really better for democracy? A handful of fat cats ponying up $2,000 for some barbecue, or thousands of ordinary citizens donating $50 per person, expecting nothing but to participate in their country's democratic process, some of them for the first time in their lives?
The Fat Cats ponying up THEIR own money, not the idiot ripping the
Federal Treasury off for $250 grand

And if Republicans didn't also accept Federal matching funds, you might have a point, Shep. Try again.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-28 12:21am

Durran Korr wrote: I endorse the position of the Duchess.

I also endorse her position. I don't want my damn tax money going to that
kook John Dean, or for whatever sort of nutbar who wants Federal
Matching Funds - Can we say the American Nazi Party?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-28 12:22am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Oh no, you said "fat cats" with regards to rich people who try to buy government influence. You also spoke against a Republican. This must mean that you're a commie and an anti-American, and you should be locked up for sedition. Heil Ashcroft!
People who donate $2,000 dollars to an election are "fat cats"? Upper middle class, and committed, perhaps. Most of the democrats' problems with fund-raising have actually come from McCain's legislation, as they always relied on the wealthy elitist sorts of support, and Dean's ability to mobility a populist base is actually faring surprising (I'll concede that). However, it is yet another, if more subtle, demonstration of his general far-left un-appeal to the majority of the American electorate. If Dean wins the Primaries, the Democrat Party is going down.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Reading Karl Rove's playbook much, Marina?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-28 12:23am

MKSheppard wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: I endorse the position of the Duchess.
I also endorse her position. I don't want my damn tax money going to that
kook John Dean, or for whatever sort of nutbar who wants Federal
Matching Funds - Can we say the American Nazi Party?

No, the American Nazi Party is so small to be nonexistent. You have to be somewhat large to get the funds; Buchanan, for example, took a couple million in 2000.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-28 12:26am

Durran Korr wrote: No, the American Nazi Party is so small to be nonexistent. You have to be somewhat large to get the funds; Buchanan, for example, took a couple million in 2000.

Ugh.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-28 12:27am

Iceberg wrote: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Reading Karl Rove's playbook much, Marina?

I wouldn't mind, actually, as the man seems very clever and I'd probably find some useful business strategies in it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-28 12:28am

MKSheppard wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: No, the American Nazi Party is so small to be nonexistent. You have to be somewhat large to get the funds; Buchanan, for example, took a couple million in 2000.
Ugh.

Scratch that, actually. He didn't take a few million, he took 16 million.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-28 12:28am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I wouldn't mind, actually, as the man seems very clever and I'd probably find some useful business strategies in it.

Why is Karl Rove so hated, while Dick Morris is consistently held up as a
excellent political strategist?

Both Rove and Morris both achieved the impossible, they either:

ran against prosperity or defeated a sitting president

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-07-28 12:32am

Iceberg wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:If Dean wins the Primaries, the Democrat Party is going down.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Reading Karl Rove's playbook much, Marina?

I would not sound so smug if I were you. Dean is so unabashedly liberal, even a significant number of Democrats fear him getting the nomination, and for the same reason that many Democrats spoke out strongly against Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader after Dick Gephardt. Both she and Dean are very liberal, and these more moderate Democrats know that that is simply not a popular position with most of the American voting public.

You may dismiss the idea that Dean will get trounced in the election, but consider the record. McGovern,Mondale, Dukakis - every time the Democrats run an openly very liberal candidate for president their man loses by landslides. Carter and Clinton were able to win only because they presented themselves as moderates. Dean is not a moderate, and I doubt he'll be any more acceptable to the majority of Americans than McGovern, Mondale or Dukakis was.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-28 12:33am

I recall Al Gore once saying that a New England liberal would be a disaster for the Democratic party.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Anything you can do, I can do better..."

"Anything you can do, I can do better..."

Re: "Anything you can do, I can do better..."

Re: "Anything you can do, I can do better..."

Re: "Anything you can do, I can do better..."