Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

It's beginning

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 11:38 PM
Original message
It's beginning
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 12:08 AM by ProSense
The MSM reports about the Democrats

Democratic Leaders Question Whether Dean's Right on the Money

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


Money Talks for Kerry


The prospect of a second presidential bid for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) sometimes draws chortling -- or even mockery -- from many Democratic Party insiders. But Kerry's fundraising ability, especially over the Internet, is ensuring that he remains a serious presence on the national political stage.

The most recent example is an e-mail Kerry sent from his political action committee, Keeping America's Promise. It asked donors to contribute to three Iraq war veterans running for Congress as Democrats: Tammy Duckworth in Illinois' 6th District, Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania's 8th District and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's 7th District.

"You and I both know how Rove-style Republicans treat veterans who speak the truth," Kerry wrote. "I know something firsthand about the Swift Boat-style Republican attack ads of the last election -- but you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask John McCain. Ask Max Cleland. Ask Jack Murtha."

As of Friday, Kerry's appeal had raised about $300,000 for the three candidates, Kerry advisers said. The 2004 nominee followed up his first e-mail with a second appeal late last week -- this one seeking to raise campaign cash for Tim Walz, who is running for Minnesota's 1st District seat, and Jay Fawcett, the only Democrat seeking the seat of retiring Rep. Joel Hefley (R) in Colorado's 5th District. It brought in $52,000 in its first four hours.

Kerry has raised more than $1 million for Democratic candidates over the Internet in the past six months, according to calculations made by his aides.

During his 2004 bid for president, Kerry raised more than $80 million via the Internet, and in the process compiled an e-mail list of 3 million names. Should Kerry decide to run again, his Internet fundraising capability will be key. If he takes a pass, he becomes a major power broker by deciding which candidate can use (or buy) the list.


They all better focus on winning in 2006. Kerry is out there putting his mouth and money behind candidates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
globalvillage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Apparently, the 'Democratic party insiders'
are out of touch with what's going on outside the beltway. They don't seem to understand the power of Kerry.
Maybe John should loan them some cash so they can buy a clue.

I'm disappointed, too, that they're not embracing the 50 state strategy. The repubs are weakened even in the red states. Is it crazy to think we can gain some ground in the south and midwest? I agree with focusing our resources where we can pick up seats this fall, but the iron is hot and we have to court red state moderates while bush* and crew are bottoming out.

I like Dean's strategy. I don't think I can take another nail-biter in '08.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I would assume that even with the 50 state strategy
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 12:36 AM by karynnj
that all states are not being treated equally. I assume Dean knows that fixing swing state grassroots IS with the electoral congress more important than fixing Texas or Massachusetts and is allocating money accordingly. Concentrating so exclusively on the swing states did hurt Kerry in 2004 in the national totals. As the challanger and the one who had far less media, he didn't get many blue state votes he could have had.(In prior years, the press coverage mitigated this problem.)

At this time, we need to play the game as it is - with the electoral congress. The candidate has to concentrate on the swing states. If there are strong red and Blue state Democratic parties, they can help the candidate get his/her message out in the states not targeted.
Things could change. One promising idea is an effort by ex-legislators, including Birch Bayh(D) and John Anderson(R) to effectively get rid of the electoral congress.

I always thought it would be impossible - that changing the constitution was impossible because too many low population states and swing states lose from this. They have an end run around this. They are asking states to pass STATE legislation that calls on their legislature to select electors for the party that won the National party vote. A provision would make this change kick in as soon as enough states passed it to elect the national winner (271?). What's cool is large states - like CA, NY, TX etc that are either very blue or very red may be tempted to do this as it will give them more say.

It is constitutional, because the power to determine how to select the electors is given to the state legislatures by the constitution. My guess is that the red states will back away from it as a National election would favor the Democrats. What is easier, many huge urban rallies or rallying the heartland? Even in red states, we control the cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. The article also makes the same mistake
that other articles did when they speak of Kerry as a major power broker who can choose who to sell his list to (or who he lets use it).

Like you said, they are ignoring that Kerry is genuinely concentrating on 2006. The Dean comments are interesting as they were enamored with the 50 state plan after the election - criticising Kerry's strategy which came very close to winning. (It may well be that Cahill has been unfairly critisized.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Umm...
But he can sell his list if he wants to or let someone use it, if he so chooses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. and Reid being one of the major critics of it
remember how he even then went complaining to the media about how Kerry didn't focus in other areas which tend to lean conservative.

but now he complains about Dean's 50 state strategy. wtf ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. I saw this and I am thinking a compromise should be able to be worked
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 12:33 AM by wisteria
out. 2006 is extremely important and maybe we should concentrate our resources where they will do the most good. It should of course be agreed upon together. There is still plenty of time after the election to continue with the expansion of the 50 state plan.I agree we need representation in all 50 states. It will be a long haul in many of the Southern state though, so what is the hurry there? Major wins in 2006 could bring even more money into the party and benefit Dean's plans further.

I am however, becoming increasingly annoyed at Reid and in this instance Pelosi also. They are trying to win using old tactics and it won't work. We need to be out reaching the people and getting our messages out. They are backing the DLC method for success and don't want to take any risks at all. I, for one will be glad when Clinton no longer has so much influence and control over the party. His straegy only works for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
6. Reid needs to stop leaking his "concerns" to the media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Methinks Harry Reid likes to see his name in the papers
He seems like a supreme egotist whose "leadership role" in the party has gone to his head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Your post and others make me wonder
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 08:38 AM by ProSense
who is actually the source of this information? Is it really Reid? How is it that we never see these type of articles about the behind-the-scenes dealings of the RNC and the Republican leadership?

While Reid and Pelosi are in the wrong here, this is negotiable (as in able to be overcome with a MYOB or STFU) and I'm pretty sure Dean can handle it. It just seems these articles are a distraction. I can't understand why any Democratic leader would want to take focus away from the election and holding Bush accountable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Reid and or his staff seem to have a pattern of this
They were supposedly the source of the Kerry wasn't supposed to respond on Iraq, Reed was nonsense that was leaked to DKos. In that case, it was stupid as Kerry had the right to speak to the press on his own - he needed noone's permission. As long as he didn't say he was speaking for the Senate Democratic leadership and that he was offering his own opinions, there should have been no problem.

Kerry after all was chosen by the Democrats to be their last nominee - in one of the earliest, clearest set of primaries ever for a non- incumbent. Reid, on the other hand, was elected by Nevada and became leader - almost because he was a non-entity, not because he was picked to be the arbiter of all things Democratic.

The resultant Reed/Kerry press conference was clearly better than a solo Reed one would have been. As it was, it got little attention - Kerry's presence increased not decreased that. Kerry was head and shoulders better in quickly analyzing and commenting on Bush's plan. I realize that Reid agreed more with Reed, but I really think that we need to learn from the Republicans on this as well. They even kept Bob Dole as a spokesman after he lost in a land slide - but he was articulate and had name recognition.

Reid (or staffers) also likely leaked that very early 2005 story that Kerry wanted to more aggressively put forth an agenda than Reid did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Most of the leaks seem to relate to Reid (whether it is him
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 10:57 AM by Mass
or somebody in his office, unknown to Reid):

-Balz's article saying that Kerry tried to give an advice to Reid on how to deal with SS, but that Reid snapped back at Kerry (early last year),

- Noises that Reid was mad at Kerry speaking on Iraq last November,

- Noises that Reid was totally opposed to the Alito filibuster,

- This last rumor and earlier rumors that Reid objected to something that Dean said (earlier last year).

There are a lot of rumors about things that Reid supposedly said or did that are never really confirmed but stay in the background. Either Reid is behind them or he is doing a lousy job at leading.

Also, you never find these articles about the House and what Pelosi is supposed to have said. It is usually on the record, either stated by Pelosi or by another representative, but the only times you see something like that concerning Pelosi is when she is with Reid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I agree with you
and Karyn. It has to be coming from someone inside (if it's leaked inoformation and not a malicious rumor), but I question who? I would understand if it's a member of his staff, but if it's Reid, he's got issues and shouldn't be the Democratic Senate leader. If it is a member of his staff and he isn't aware of this, then I question his leadership in not rectifying the situation.

To the last point about Reid and Pelosi, it seems to me that someone really has it in for Reid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Not sure if it's Reid, but if it's not,
then one of his top priorities should be to find out who these "Democratic sources" are, and stop inviting them to "private" meetings.

Unless of course they have a purpose in stirring this stuff in the media. I can't see what good it does though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
9. Every state is critical - every election matters.
Looking at my state - a red state - written off in the past as a state not to even bother with.
But think of the last year, and how the Senate would have been better off without Senator Vyl, and his rubber stamp to this administration while sitting on the Judiciary committee. No, it may not be considered a crucial Senate race. But it is. Kyl has been a bsh enabler for long enough. All states have their own crucial races. Dean is right. There are democrats in every state. And every election matters.

Between you and me, I am getting a little fed up with Reid and like to see him replaced. But that's for another thread.

How much money has Reid raised for the Dems v Kerry?
How much has Reid even done for the dem candidates v Kerry?

I sincerely hope that Dean told them to Shut Up, in a nice way of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Part of the concern
it seems is that the DNC has far less to play with than the RNC. It could be a problem at crunch time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
11. So Reid and Pelosi still dont understand that we need to build
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 08:29 AM by Mass
the grassroots again. They still dont understand that what was missing in 2004 was local networks that could campaign for the candidate on the local issues. And yes, you need to build them in the whole country, if anything because there are LOCAL races that need to be won in the red states so that we have the future congresspeople and senators of 2010, 2012.

What the Republicans have understood 40 years ago is that this is a long term goal and that you cant start that six months before a presidential election - I am happy that Dean sees (as Kerry does) it and not surprised that Reid does not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nolies32fouettes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
17. IMO, every race is vital.
There is no reason why Mississippi can not vote Democratic and why the Republicans should be "gifted" certain states. Each state requires capable management, and a continual organization and response towards current events. No matter what people want to say about Kerry in 04, the ultimate story is that Democrats have a history of laying down to Republicans and of being disorganized and bickering amonst themselves. That has to stop. Here, where I live, the Democratic party in 04 was fairly useless, and I have a friend in N.C. who had NO real democratic office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-06-06 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
18. delete
Edited on Mon Mar-06-06 08:14 AM by TayTay
I moved it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 19th 2017, 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC