Why don't Dean-haters realize that forgoing funds is not about them?

[jeter]

In fact, I would recommend that all candidates do the exact same thing.

Consider this.

Because of Terry McAuliffe, the DLC's favorite loser DNC chairman, the primaries are front loaded.

That means, we'll know exactly who the nominee will be by mid-March at the latest. Possibly even earlier.

So that means that all candidates will have about 8 to 10 weeks to campaign in the primaries. The limit for running in the primaries, if one accepts matching funds is $45 million.

Which means that most candidates will probably have more money in the bank than Howard Dean at the outset. Since, if you don't accept the $45 million restriction, you won't get matching funds.

Kerry right now has met the $45 million threshold. Others will soon follow.

So there will be no monetary disadvantage for any Democratic candidate running against Howard Dean in the primaries. The reason Dean is forgoing such easy money is because if Democrats attack each other without mercy, as they have been doing for the past two or three weeks, there will be no or little money left over to cover April, May, June, July.

George W. Bush will have a campaign war chest of about $100 million. He can then run ad after ad attacking Dean or whoever the Democratic candidate is.

The advantage of not accepting the limit is that Dean, or anyone else, can continue to raise money throughout the April to July period. Which means he'll always have the capacity to fight back.

Which is exactly why I suggest all Democrats stop pretending to be so offended, and actually do the same thing.

It's in all our interests.

[MercutioATC]

1. Not ALL of them. Some need that money.

Candidates that will be able to break $45M, though, absolutely. Why would they go into battle against Bush with a self-imposed handicap?

[Padraig18]

2. Just so.

The supporters of other candidates need to realize that it isn't about them, at all.

[Scott Lee]

3. This is DNC establishmentarianism at its best (or worst)

The recurring theme in the antiDean attacks when it comes to foregoing public funds, is that it goes against this fine "principle" of working to reduce the reliance of politics on ever increasing hills of cash.

All well and good, until we are faced with the REALITY that the opposition will commit to no such ethic.

This is the equivalent of bringing a nerf bat to a gunfight. Sure you can make a wonderful case as to why we should all limit ourselves to nerf bats, but when the shooting starts, who will prevail?

Wake up, statists. The Dean Revolution is upon you.

[tsipple]

4. Slight Correction: Kerry and the $45 Million

Kerry is close, but he raised "only" about $20 million through the end of the 3rd quarter -- almost $9 million of that from $2,000 contributors who are maxed out (and who are only matched for their first $250).

Kerry is in a real jam, actually, on this question. Let's say he raises another $3 million in the fourth quarter (which would be a very good quarter for him). And let's say that his $23 million would get him a match of about $10 million. (I think that's probably high, but let's just say that.) So that's $33 million -- about $12 million shy of the $45 million limit.

So what do you do? A multimillion dollar check from the government would be awfully nice to keep the lights on in January. On the other hand, if Kerry loses New Hampshire, there will be no lights to keep on.

Very tough decision. No wonder he's so pissed. Either way he's in a pickle.

[jeter]

5. I'm giving myself a bump

People need to read this before they spread any more disinformation.

[dsc]

6. The only criticism I have of Dean in this regard

is he should have promised to abide by the limits in the early, contested, primaries. As you point out the problem with the matching funds is the later primaries when it will be all but over anyhow.

[jeter]

7. I think he has to

I don't think the limits in NH or Iowa are tied to this.

I may be wrong though.

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. why do you consider it necessary to try and

marginalize or even demonize the people who have issues with Dean by calling them Dean haters? i can't remember ever hearing anyone actually say they hate Dean yet the term Dean hater seems to be growing in usage. i don't understand why since the practice is so....
well, so bushish.

they can't conceive that anyone has any issue oriented problems with bush so, of course anyone who disagrees with him must simply be a hater.

now some of the Dean people are following in the footsteps of bushco.


yeeeeech..

[jeter]

9. Because of their irrational attacks on him

They have made campaigns attacking Dean. Whereas Dean may make one comment about someone else. The others attack him in entire speeches.

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. okay..........

wtf:

i'd like to say i understand, but i can't.....

[Skinner]

10. I'm locking this thread.

It is inflammatory.

Skinner
DU Admin