View Story | 43 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
So the doughnut and coffee guys got screwed, but Trippi's firm got paid.
Truly a quantum leap from politics as ususal.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:02:19 PM PDT
Ooooh, can I have a trust fund too?
We need not think alike to love alike -- Ferenc Dávid
by ogre on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
And you seriously think that's the kind of behavior that indicates I have a trust fund? It used to be called "living within your means."
But now that I've dispensed with your, let's say lackluster, retort, I know full well that campaigns don't run on a cash and carry basis. Not surprisingly, neither do campaign consultants.
But doughnut shops do.
I just think it's worth noting that even behind the barricades of the revolution, the insiders get paid while the locals get the shaft.
You'd let it pass without comment. As would Trippi, now relaxing on his "farm." But I'm the one who gets the trust fund comments. OK. See you at the next Range Rover Revolution.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:17:33 PM PDT
Well, you're the one who made the original snarky remark. It's a nice rhetorical trick (Tacitus, are you out there?) to play the victim after playing the provocateur.
by Blue the Wild Dog on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:31:52 PM PDT
How many "wrongs" does it take to make a "right" in a revolution against politics as usual? I just want to be sure I have the rules straight.
Besides, "playing the victim" would be crying about it. Pointing out the baselessness of it is another matter. Trippi's paid and the doughnut shops aren't. A routine infraction by politicians, but perhaps of some small note when committed by self-styled anti-politicians.
Snarky? (I hate that word.) Perhaps. Baseless? No. On the other hand, why not tell us what it was about what I said that lent logical basis for suppositions about a trust fund?
If you ask me, I'm not playing victim so much as debate cop.
But don't ask me that. Ask better questions. Did doughnut shops get stiffed? Did Trippi's firm get paid? Did that seem fair? Do I have a trust fund? Where can I get one? Does it make my ass look fat? And if I had one, how would that ultimately weigh on the validity of Howard Dean's debt?
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:48:49 PM PDT
I just pointed out that you made a sarcastic comment and then whined about the nature of the response you got. That's a standard trick - annoy your opponent and then complain about the treatment you get as a result.
You seem to be the one who wants to play games. Sorry, not interested.
by Blue the Wild Dog on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:58:43 PM PDT
Not yourself, no. But that's the comment we were talking about. To borrow a phrase: you know it, I know it, and the American people know it.
Speaking of "standard tricks," what do you call it when you make someone else's comments the basis for your argument, and then run away from it, saying you never said it yourself? Would this have been OK if British intelligence had said I had a trust fund?
You don't want to play games? Nobody's forcing you. Have a nice day.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:21:33 PM PDT
Why is this any of your concern? You've been consistently hostile to Dean and his supporters for a long time. Why do you continue to obsess on his campaign?
You may not like this question but an honest answer would be a lot more interesting to Dean supporters here than anything else you have to say.
by colleen on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:04:52 PM PDT
Why is what any of my concern? Dean's debt? In a strict sense, it's not. It's his. And yours.
My concern is with the irony, as discussed elsewhere in the thread.
Why be concerned with irony? It's, uh, ironic. And that's reason in itself.
I have been consistently hostile to Dean supporters on certain issues, yes. Those issues almost always centered on whether or not the Dean campaign really, truly, cross-your-heart-and-hope-to-die was "the one," whatever that may be. Because I didn't believe it was.
There was more messianic fervor for Dean than I've seen for any other candidate for a long time, and while this was not the case with all Dean supporters, neither was I hostile with all Dean supporters. The issues that consistently drew me out were the ones that were being spun as proof that Dean's campaign was unlike any other. And I came out to spin it back, to show that seen in another light (and there always is another one), it was in fact quite like every other.
And here's another one.
I never expected the Dean supporters who thought the man could do no wrong to see it my way. But my way was my way, and I said so. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it wrong. But it is what it is, and I felt I should say it. Which ironically (there's that word again) is remarkably similar to what attracted so many people to a certain person's campaign.
So, no, I quite like your question. I've answered ones like it before. It gives me another opportunity to say that I liked Howard Dean a lot more than I liked a good number of his supporters (and his consultants), which is something a lot of people have said since. And which is a tremendous shame both for the candidate himself as well as the substantial numbers of his supporters I still respect.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:32:38 PM PDT
Take a look at the article cited. Gen. Clark's campaign's trailing $3.4 million in debt.
$400,000? Dean's not welching on the debt, he's getting it paid off, and trying to do so quickly.
Dean's campaign was different, yes. But you're acting as if it was supposed to be utterly alien, bearing no resemblence to any other political campaign. People were excited by what they saw as honest, ethical and pragmatic stands.
If donut shops (etc) are cash and carry, then why's there a debt to them? Because they took the risk of doing business and accepting payment later. Welcome to reality. There's nothing unusual there.
I know people who've run up bills they knew they could cover--only to find out that their assumptions were flawed. The paycheck for the weeks they'd already worked didn't come; the money wasn't there. At least, not for them.
But yeah, I find your remarks haughty and snide. You assume that people have been screwed. Really typical -- I've worked with printers -- is "30 days"--some are longer.
Dean's campaign ran up bills, and he's trying to get them paid.
Given the history of Dean supporters and the bat... I'd bet he covers it in a few days.
What, exactly, is it that you're bitching about?
by ogre on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:35:19 PM PDT
Sound like any sitting US President we know?
by Tlacolotl on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:49:29 PM PDT
Ah, I see. It was a proletarian revolution. Only the struggling need apply, and the input of people with steady incomes and budgets to match -- architects, doctors, dry cleaners for that matter -- are of no interest.
I've lived on Ramen noodles before. I've always thought of them as practical as well as economical, but I never credited them with ennobling my arguments. At least, no moreso than selling what I needed to to pay my bills on time.
You assume that people have been screwed. Really typical -- I've worked with printers -- is "30 days"--some are longer.
I myself work (work! mercy me!) on a net 30 basis. Yes, it's typical for printers. It's also typical for campaign consultants. So...
Exactly this: the irony of it all. It doesn't make Dean or any of his supporters hypocrites. Paying the "insiders" before the "outsiders" is too common a campaign game to do that. What I find ironic, of course, is that the one and only un-candidate escapes serious reproach precisely because of the commonality of it all.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:06:18 PM PDT
And the notion that he got rich off of DFA is just stupid. Check the facts a little closer.
God bless America. God bless our troops. God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.
by Bill Rehm on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:51:08 PM PDT
Rich has very little to do with it.
Got paid is the issue.
Consultants should let it ride. Doughnut vendors need to get paid.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:10:37 PM PDT
This is probably not his reasoning, but it bears mentioning that that's what I'd have done if I didn't want anybody to focus on the fact that most of my bills were paid while the donut guys weren't.
Or, the theory could be that the donuts underperformed to the same extent that the TV spots did, so it's all a wash anyway.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:31:20 PM PDT
Barack Obama will only become president if enough people pay attention, so pay attention, dammit!
by JMS on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:21:06 PM PDT
Of course, that means we're not getting the straight dope. Which puts us right back where I started from, what with that quantum thingy and all.
This kind of debt retirement is routine. In fact, no matter which kind of debt Dean owes -- to concessionaires or consultants -- that's entirely routine, too.
Which is my point. Behind the scenes and in close contact, it seems it was all routine.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:33:23 PM PDT
On the other hand, I'm not really sure what people were expecting. That Dean was running on internet ether and meetups alone? That all his supporters would be disappointed that he wasn't? He was running for the dem nomination, not as a 3rd or 4th or 5th party. Of course a lot of what he did was going to be the way everyone else did it. But not all. It's possible to keep both of those thoughts in your head at the same time.
by JMS on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:40:24 PM PDT
But if you had to pick one issue of campaign mechanics on which Dean might have taken a little more care, might it not have been... the money?
We all know the virtues of having raised his money from small operators -- and if we didn't, we've now certainly been well drilled in them. But how about a little more attention to the virtues of spending money on small operators? To be precise: paying them first.
It's a spin, to be sure. But it's a little too easy to make. Small money in the front door, big money out the back. You're practically forced to ask, given the fact that such a big deal was made of Joe Trippi taking no salary (as such), why the firm of Trippi/McMahon couldn't have been asked to wait another 30 days on some of that $400K? I mean, maybe T/M needed that money on account of Trippi's zealous personal chivalry. Or maybe that chivalry was easier to sell back on the farm because the firm's money was a hard lock.
I don't know. Just asking.
Can I imagine a scenario in which a perfectly honest person would be forced to pay the big boys first while the little guys twisted in the wind for a while? Sure. It happens every day, in every business.
But that's the point. It wasn't supposed to be like that. Or at least, not when the curtain was open.
by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:16:50 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 43 comments