Financing the Democrats against Bush in waiting

John Kerry, following Howard Dean in September of 2003, opted out of public financing with a challenge [thought up, no doubt, by some clever by seven-eighths consultant], saying:

"...the kind of President I will be. Today, I also issue a challenge to Governor Dean. Senator Russ Feingold has called on all Democratic candidates who forgo matching funds to pledge that they will not spend more than the limit of $45 million until the nomination is decided. I accept that – and I call on Howard Dean to do the same. To show America that his decision was about beating George Bush and the special interests and not just about grabbing an advantage in the primaries."

Kerry began January having spent about $27 million, leaving him $18 million to spend in the nominating season, to remain under the limit. For January:

Kerry raised about $4.1 million from contributors and spent $7.1 million, according to his campaign finance report for January, which was released yesterday. Kerry mortgaged his family's Boston home to finance campaign loans. The campaign began February with $2.1 million in the bank and $7.2 million in debts [Most of the debt was a $6.4 million loan he made to his own campaign].

Quick math would lead one to see that Kerry's spending in 2003 of $27 million added $11.2 million in January, putting him at over $38 million beginning in February.

So, for Kerry to keep his pledge to abide in spending less than $45 Million before the Democratic nominee was chosen, he'd had less than $7 million to spend beginning February 1st, three weeks ago, until... Hey, has Kerry's campaign yet admitted to breaking the pledge? The nominee has not been chosen, but the expenditure math thus far ($11M in Jan, 3 weeks into Feb) leads to the conclusion that Kerry has already spent $7 Million in Feb, and is now over $45 million.

John Edwards is abiding by the public financing laws for matching funds, so he's limited to $45 million in total expenditures. Through January, Edwards has raised $22.5 million, including $5 million in public financing. Beginning with February, that left Edwards with $22.5 million remaining in funds available to him, combined from both raised and matching (with the next public matching infusion due on March 1st).

As for Bush:

These figures stand in stark contrast to the position of the Bush-Cheney '04 Committee. With $104.4 million and no primary opposition, it is the richest presidential campaign in American history. The Bush campaign, which plans to raise an additional $25 million to $55 million, must spend all the money by the end of August, when the president is assured of renomination at the Republican convention. Bush and the Democratic candidates plan to accept about $75 million in public money for the post-convention election campaign.

The DNC will have about $15 million available by the end of March, which pales in comparison to the Bush money (not that money means everything). Not until the Dem convention in late July, 4 months from now, will the $75 million be available to the Democrats.

As for Edwards, in the short-term, with the matching funds, he's probably on parity with Kerry for the March primaries; but in the long-haul of the next four months, he's going to be riding on a shoestring and walloped in bought advertising.

For Kerry, he can always pile on Fleet-laden leveraged debt that Heinz can pay off later, and it is what it is. In the short-term against Edwards, Kerry's left with arguing some thin-cred nuance like, "the media has declared me the nominee". But if Edwards catches, Kerry's also going to have to figure out a way to nuance that his spending more than $45 million, besides breaking his pledge, is about beating George Bush and the special interests and not just about grabbing an advantage in the primaries.

Right now, "Kerry broke his pledge" is probably not the kind of headline that Kerry's campaign wants to see right now, but that's the gamble of a gimmick that he took.

•  Actually

  Kerry did not break his pledge. This thing is already over with.

  Kerry layed off all his field staff. All they have is D.C, Press and Political and whatever ads they need to buy.

  They won't need to spent 7 million before edwards drops out and becomes the V.P pick

  by Dour on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:22:32 PM PDT

  •  lol

    That'd be the "thin-cred nuance" rapid response team showing up for duty.

    And actually Dour, it's not "7 million before edwards drops out", it's 7 million since Feb 1st.

    Has Kerry really layed off all his field staff?  Everywhere?  Is he giving up or something?

    by Jack Straw on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:30:25 PM PDT

    •  Layoffs

      I think that all the candidates pretty much planned, in the event that they "won" the nomination, to save money by laying off the majority of staff.  The staff would then be hired by the DNC (or another allied group) until the convention, at which point the nominee, flush with cash, would rehire the staff.

      by Trapper John on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:46:10 PM PDT

•  Am I supposed to care about this?

  Seriously, am I supposed to care about how much money Kerry spent?

  Why can't Democrats just focus on winning?

  by KevinA on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:29:19 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    That was the exact attitude that most Deanies took when everyone was getting on Dean about opting out, given that he had previously been a big supporter of public financing.  "Who gives a shit," wisely said the Deanies.  "This is about beating Bush."  And they were right.  If you can press a money advantage, do so.  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and losers -- and choosing to honor a silly pledge about money that was made months before would be a foolish consistency.

    We would do well to remember the example of Dean and his supporters.  If Kerry needs to spend $100 million before the convention, and he can, no one on our side should have a problem with that.

    by Trapper John on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:38:05 PM PDT

    •  Hey, I agree

      I thought the argument for Dean and Kerry opting out was and is valid.  Why should we put a cap on our spending while the Republicans don't?

      I also agree with KevinA.  I have some problems with Kerry, but how much he spends is not one of them.

      Democrats seem incapable of keeping their eyes on the prize.

      by James Earl on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:17:22 PM PDT

    •  Come on

      You don't really believe that.  Sure, we're all behind Kerry (or Edwards if something radical happens), but it's sheer nonsense to maintain that this is the same as Dean opting out.  There was simply nothing inconsistent with Dean saying he supported a public financing system if he should get elected, and therefor have the opportunity to produce one, but then playing the cards he was dealt under the current system.  He had lots of money from small donors, which meant he was stronger against all comers, Democrat or Republican.  Kerry tried to limit that advantage by asking him to blunt his own advantage.  It was exactly the same as Gore pledging to pull his ads if Bradley would (with Gore near 100% name ID Bradley would have been a fool to shake on that deal).  Things worked out much differently than Kerry predicted and now he has to break the pledge.  Will it matter?  Probably not; it never seems to hurt those congressmen who go back on their term-limits pledges.  But the fact is, Kerry tried a gimick to gain an advantage on an opponent and now it's a problem for him.  Edwards will use it (if he is serious about being President) and Republicans will use it (as part of their "you just can't trust John Kerry" theme).  We can't just pretend it away by rallying around the front runner.

      by DCMike on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:18:08 PM PDT

      •  Well put

        Its not a big enough deal for me to sit out the election should Kerry win, but it is ABSOLUTELY fair game for Edwards to take him to task on this.  

        btw, Edwards is not going to be the next VP, neither Kerry nor Edwards want that.  If Kerry wins the nomination he will pick Gepheardt, Byah, Clealand or Richardson.  If Edwards wins he will pick Biden or Clealand.

        Its also difficult to see how Edwards gets another shot in 2008/20012.  He is not running for reelection in the Senate and will not have any sort of platform to run on, not to mention the Hillary factor.  So I think Edwards should see if Kerry has a glass jaw and start swinging!

        by Smokefilleddoom on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 07:01:55 PM PDT

        •  It won't be Biden

          Biden is up to his neck in Kerry-luv and laughed at the notion of Edwards being in the race after Edwards won SC.  Biden is as establishment as they come.  Try again.

          by Pontifex Minimus on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:23:12 PM PDT

          •  Biden is slime.

            by barnowl on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:38:03 PM PDT

            •  There is some truth to that

              But the way that he rips the Bushies on foreign policy is unmatchable by anyone.

              by Smokefilleddoom on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 10:05:45 PM PDT

              •  that is...

                ... when he doesn't agree with them.  I'll never forget seeing him on Charlie Rose at the start of the Iraqi war.  I can't remember specifically what was discussed but I do remember how arrogantly dismissive he was of the war protesters.

                by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:13:56 PM PDT

          •  Not getting your argument....

            He is full of Kerry Luv because he thinks Kerry is going to win the primary.  The fact that he is a little opportunistic is not that big of a deal breaker for me in VP.  If we want absolute idealism we go with people like Kucinich and looooose.

            The whole in Edwards bagel is that he lacks political experience so whoever he picks (In the long shot scenario where he wins) will absolutely be 'establishmnet' whether it is Biden or not.  
            

            by Smokefilleddoom on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:55:19 PM PDT

        •  On the other hand

          Edwards might go in 2008 if Kerry comes with as many strings attached as he appears to have.  I think Kerry has been crippled by promises he must have made to get where he is today.

          by Pontifex Minimus on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:25:36 PM PDT

        •  Byah god, boy, get a spellchecker

          "Gepheardt, Byah, Clealand"

          Or are you trying to be funny?  Cause you might be suceeding more than you know.

          by Bruce Webb on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 07:10:11 AM PDT

      •  this is just guesswork

        Jerome doesn't really know what he spent, what he will spend, if the staff is deferring or any real numbers.  And the reporting season that lets you know will be close to April, by which time there will be a putative nominee.

        I think Jerome is speculating based on his unfavorable opinion of John Kerry,  then he projects actions onto John Kerry  which he assumes are ipso facto bad.   Jerome's hypotheticals on hypothetical are just that - a series of if propositions and then he uses that to smear kerry.

        Edwards would be a fool and a bad politician to accuse someone of doing something he has no proof of other than Jerome' speculation..

           

        by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:04:08 AM PDT

      •  There is so many things

        we can't pretend away about John Kerry. He has a record of selling out the American people. He has a long and ugly record of taking bribes. His main fundraiser Torricelli is a known criminal.

        Kerry has pegged Rand Beers a perjurer as his Natonal Security Advisor. The man who was the architect of Plan Colombia. A plan to defoliate the Rainforest with poison in the name of a phony war on drugs. A man who lied to have a case brought by Ecuadorian villagers thrown out of DC courtroom citing National security, claiming FARC fighters in Colombia were trained in Afghanistan by Al-Qaeda. A whopper of a lie told under oath. A lie he later tried to back up with a newspaper clipping. A lie he later tried to retract citing ... bad intelligence!

        Kerry is as rotten as Bush. I can't vote for the guy and still sleep with myself.

        by Heywood Jabangme on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:38:50 AM PDT

        •  tinfoil hat alert

          "Kerry is as rotten as Bush"?!?

          Your moniker suggests you're an eighth or ninth grade boy who is perhaps having some fun, but I'll respond to you anyway...

          While Kerry is not my personal favorite, I think the idea that he's "as rotten as Bush" is simply untrue and is sloppy Naderite thinking.  Kerry has high rankings from liberal groups such as Americans for Democratic Action and the ACLU, etc.  He has a 19 year voting history in the Senate, and there's a certain transparency in that he has a record.  

          by Jeanniebean on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:18:54 AM PDT

          •  Jenniebean vs Jabangme

            Jennie bean is mature? Heywood and the Jabangmes is the name of my band! Fun Fun Fun.

            Yup what I would expect from Radical Right Wingers Ad Hominem! Check out the links. All of this is backed up by FACT. Be careful about Kerry endorsements some of them are bought with Heinz Ketchup Kash.

            Yes the GOPis smarter than you they already picked up on it. Interesting to check out the GOP site you get the strategy they will CREAM Kerry with in November.

            Tell me if this guy was GOP you would not be screaming to high heaven about this. Or this. Or this the scary thing about the last one is that Kerry was taking bribes from this company that wanted to track what we do on the Internet and what we watch on TV.

            I believe Kerry is very similar to Bush. The difference is one of Coke or Pepsi. Kerry will throw the middle class a little bone, but, the essentials of foreign policy based on phony war on terrorism will remain! Kerry told the same lies about WMD that Bush did. Even lied about what his vote meant.

            1984 is constant war. Orwell was only 20 years off.

            Don't come crying to me for telling the truth about a guy who is just not electable in the least. And puhleeze if you're going to drag out the same tired cliche every time someone has a valid beef with a candidate and expresses their view, even backing it up with fact, maybe the GOP has a blog where your insulting drivel would be more welcome.  

            by Heywood Jabangme on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 03:29:36 AM PDT

  •  RE:Agreed!!!

    I have to agree with those above - this is one of the silliest entrys I have ever read from Jerome, or for anyone else on this site in a long, long time.

    I would be surprised if anyone cares if Kerry breaks his challenge by a few million.  If they can raiseit , let them spend it, spending now helps for the general, IMHO.

    Was it Jerome's turn to field a front-page article and he was light on ideas?  If so, next time, call in a pinch-hitter ... [walks away shaking his head]

    by jg on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:13:37 PM PDT

•  Point of concern

  This particular issue doesn't concern me, but Kerry has a long history of this type of flip-flopping, and I am concerned about that history.  His opportunism is transparent.

  by Matt Stoller on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:36:15 PM PDT

  •  As far as I can tell...

    ...in my limited experience of being able to vote for political candidates, there's never going to be a candidate that completely matches what you are looking for.  Kerry "flip-flopping" about spending $45m and then spending more than that is not a very serious concern - I'm more worried about Bush unleashed for the next four years than Kerry breaking what was never a terribly important pledge anyway, and I think Kerry's pragmatism trumps his "flip-flopping".

    by tyelperion on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:11:34 PM PDT

•  What, u r surprised kerry broke his promise

  about sticking to sepnding limits?   Ask Bill Weld.

  Kerry only made the prolmise because he was trying to get advantage against Dean.   As soon as it suits him, he always breaks his word.

  Just another reason I will never vote for him.

  by teacherken on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:45:54 PM PDT

  •  So . . . you are voting for Bush?

    So . . . if you won't vote for Kerry, that means you are supporting Bush?

    Because those are the only two choices.

    by Charles K on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 05:54:07 PM PDT

    •  WRONG

      I live in CT. and still have not made up my mind if I will vote for kerry or not.I will probably donate money to kerry(no where near the amount I would have to Dean if he won)and may even do some work for him on the ground but if kerry doesn't win CT big then W's a shoe in.Teacherken may be coming from the same place as I am.

      by ctkeith on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:04:42 PM PDT

    •  oh the limited thought processes of some people

      for the nth time, I live in Virginia.  I was born in 1946.  In my life a Democrat has carried this state exactly twice   -  1948 and 1964.  So don't give me any of your bushwa that I am supporting Bush.   That kind of groupthink is part of what is wrong in American politics.

      It is precisely people like me who make it clear that Kerry is NOT electable, even if he might win the election because Bush is such a spectacularly weak candidate right now.

      And I feel no obligation to support the lesser of two evils, because it is still evil.  If others are dumb enough to jump on board the lemming express as Mr. Kerry drives it over a cliff on the grounds that he (jfk) is more "electable" then blame them if Bush gets reelected.  And if that is your mindset, then look in a mirror.

      Remember that many who supported Dean (and Clark, for that matter) were not Democrats.  Some did register as such (or as independents in states that were semi-open) in order to vote for the candidate of their choice.   I do not remember as a precondition of being able to vote in such a primary, or to give of their time and treasure, that they had to sign a suicide pact to drink the koolaid and support whatever conventional politician the DLC, media, and powerborkers decided to anoint as the Democratic nominee.

      We even how people insisting that now we should all et behind Kerry.  Excuse me?  He has less than 500 delegates, he needs more than 2100 to officially get the nomination, we have 10 states coming up in 9 days, and we are all supposed to jump on board now?

      If the Democrats lose this election, it will be precisely because far too many were unwilling to consider a real change in our political processes.    That would include meaningful electionr eform  --- IRV, or proportional or cngressional district distirbvution of electoral votes, non-partisan drafting of new legislative districts (which they have in IA).

      I refuse to be a lemming.  And all the things I said would be thrown at Kerry?  They are just starting.  And as soon as he again thinks he has had his coronation {courtesy of the AFL-CIO endorsement} he again goes back to Senate speak and being boring.

      Dean at least forced some life into the race.  And I haven't said that I wouldn't vote for Edwards.   So the entire premise of your little nasty to which I respond is wrong on several counts.

      Learn to think a bit before you make presumptions.

      by teacherken on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:44:10 PM PDT

  •  Ask Bill Weld?

    
    That whole Bill Weld crying game is exactly one of the reasons I like Kerry.  Nothing does a heart good to see a Democrat reduce Repubs to the sniveling little crybabies they claim Democrats are.  That's why I liked Bill Clinton and I especially liked that Democratic Senator from Montana.  Even if I don't necessarily agree with them all of the time.

    by BCF on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:01:17 PM PDT

    •  Yep

      That whole Bill Weld crying game is exactly one of the reasons I like Kerry.

      Kerry bashers always tell that story to show what a bastard he is, or something, but when I hear it I think that maybe John Kerry is the right bastard to take down Dubya.

      by KevinA on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 12:33:55 AM PDT

•  Flashback

  "Criticize Dean all you want. But if you want your guy to be the nominee and still compete head-on against Bush, you better hope he ditches the spending caps as well."

  True then, true now.

  by Trapper John on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:01:15 PM PDT

  •  maybe, but I didn't say it;)

    Besides, it's got nothing to do with the post I made.

    by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:38:05 PM PDT

    •  Can we stop attacking our own?

      Please?  

      Can we stop it?

      Having once been a reader of MyDD, I would have thought Mr. Armstrong was interested in winning this November more than ripping on Kerry.

      Besides, it's got nothing to do with the post I made.

      by KevinA on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 07:20:46 PM PDT

      •  Are we in November already?

        MyDD will be back up soon, this is just pre-season warmup...

        by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:58:55 PM PDT

  •  no spending cap = vote for Kerry

    The fact that Kerry can keep raising and spending money after the nomination is settled sometime in the next month at the latest, is just another reason that  Kerry ,like Dean, is a better general election candidate than Edwards.  Edwards will be dark and pummeled until July if he pulls out the long shot.  If Kerry had lost in Iowa and NH, among many reasons, that would have been why my fallback would have been Dean.

    This is not a small consideration when choosing a candidate to go against Bush.  

    by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:13:59 AM PDT

•  Sloppy blogging

  First of all, your link is broken.  Second of all, the paragraph you blockquoted does not appear anywhere in that article.  Third of all, you appear to arrive at the conclusion that Kerry spent 11.2 million in January by adding the 4.1 million he raised to the 7.1 million he spent.  That doesn't make any sense.  So that actually leaves Kerry with 11 million rather than 7 million to spend before he reaches his "cap."

  Finally, I think there's a subtle, but significant, difference between  not spending more than 45 million "until the nomination is decided" (Kerry's words) and not doing so "before the Democratic nominee was chosen" (your words).  In your version, it sounds a lot more like Kerry can't spend any more than 45 million before he's actually chosen at the convention.  I think that Kerry can plausibly claim that the nomination has been decided if not now, then very, very soon (like Super Tuesday at the latest).  In Kerry's formulation, he could then spend freely in order to counteract whatever spending Bush is going to do to knock him down.  The point was not to exceed 45 million against other Democrats, but it was never to hamstring Kerry against Bush.

  by few on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:04:45 PM PDT

  •  when all else fails attack the blogger

    Look, it's only Kerry's fault that he used the wording he did.  The nomination is decided at the convention, but it could certainly be argued earlier.  That would be when Kerry gets enough delegates to assure him the nomination.

    You are right, I did add in the amount raised with the amount spent, because I know that money raised is money spent in a campaign.  Kerry's pledge had $7 million further to raise, borrow, and spend, cumulative, beginning February 1st.

    "The point was not to exceed 45 million against other Democrats", I agree, that's all I'm saying that Kerry needs to abide by it against Edwards.  Actually, I'm not saying it at all, it's what Kerry said he'd do.

    by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:27:27 PM PDT

    •  Attack?

       Look, it's only Kerry's fault that he used the wording he did

      I have no problem with Kerry's wording.  You changed it.  I think Kerry could argue that he already has enough delegates to assure him the nomination.  He certainly will be able to argue that after March 2.

      You are right, I did add in the amount raised with the amount spent, because I know that money raised is money spent in a campaign.

      Then why does the report only say that Kerry spent $7.1 million?  You'll have to excuse me from relying upon what "you know" to be true.  Of course the money Kerry raises will be spent. The question is: has it been spent yet?  By adding it into the total, you're asserting that Kerry has already spent it.  Can you back that up or is it speculation on your part?

      Also, you never did bother to tell us where your second blockquote comes from.  It's not from the article you tried to link.  Sourcing matters.

      Finally, it occurs to me that Dean himself reported spending $31 million last year - $8 million more than Kerry.  Wasn't Kerry at least entitled to match Dean in spending?  To the extent that Kerry has surpassed Dean in spending at this time, it's only because he's been competitive far longer than Dean has.  So what's really the gripe here?

      I called your post "sloppy blogging."  If you think that qualifies as "attacking the blogger," then your skin is a little too thin for this line of work.

      by few on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 07:57:51 PM PDT

      •  oh boy

        " You'll have to excuse me from relying upon what "you know" to be true."

        OK, you're excused.  The way campaigns run is that money is spent 30-60 days prior, especially when the crunch is on, the collecting agency calling.

        What does this have to do with Dean?  Nothing, he's dropped out.  It's Kerry vs Edwards.

        (btw, wtf are you talking about with the links?)  

        by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:56:13 PM PDT

        •  Numbers don't add up

          The way campaigns run is that money is spent 30-60 days prior, especially when the crunch is on, the collecting agency calling.

          That still doesn't answer the question of when the money was spent.  If the money was spent 30-60 days prior to January, then it would have been included in the 23 million Kerry spent through December, no?  The money counts as spent whether it's financed as debt or paid in cash.  If Kerry later raises the money to pay off that debt, it doesn't get spent again.  You're double counting it.  

          And the Buffalo News article itself says Kerry has spent 30.8 million "through January."  That's the 23 million and change he spent last year plus the 7.1 million he spent in January.  The rest is in your imagination.

          WRT the links, when I tried to follow your "For January" link earlier, it kept taking me to a broken link on the Sun-Times.  I tracked down this article there, which was what I thought you were linking (the address was the same only with a %22 on the end).  It appears to work now.  Maybe the problem was on my end.

          by few on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 10:40:36 PM PDT

        •  A First

          Disclaimer--until mid-November I was uncommitted, from then until when he dropped out I supported Clark.  My state has already voted, so I no longer have a horse in this race.

          Shortly after the 2002 election I discovered blogs; it was through MyDD that I discovered Daily Kos.  While I was fairly taken with Dean early on, my interest faded around the time that Markos started working for Dean.  

          Having read this blog mostly for the war and the occassional political analysis prior to Kos' consulting gig with Dean, I had a bit of background against which I could decide that Markos' pieces seemed to take on a slightly Dean-colored-glasses hue after he began his (fully disclosed) association with the Dean campaign.  However, never for a second did I think that Markos was deliberately trying to prop up Dean at the expense of any of the other Dem candidates.  Had I thought he was deliberately or even sloppily shilling for Dean, I wouldn't have asked to be considered as a guest blogger.  

          In my posts prior to the Michigan caucuses I tried to steer fairly clear of the primary campaign.  Since then, some have gotten the impression that I'm somehow anti-Edwards.  Oh well.  I guess some folks will make up their minds about what you say based upon why they think you said it.  And I also know that I'm not immune to letting my allegiances, when I have them, from bleeding through what I do, say and write.  Finally, while I try not to, I'm still capable of misjudging or misinterpreting somebody's comments based on what I believe to be their motives or allegiances.

          Having said all that, I now have to say that this is the first front-page post on Daily Kos that I suspected might be intended as a hatchet job.  Sure, it hewed somewhat close to the relevent facts.  But as many have already said (including many that aren't Kerry supporters):  Who gives a rat's ass if Kerry's going to break the $45 million cap?  Is there any evidence that Edwards, who's largely avoided any attacks on Kerry, will bring up this (non)issue?  If so, I'd love to see the evidence.  In the absence of any evidence that any such criticism coming from Edwards is likely, or that the issue has any relevence, I wonder why the heck it's even on the front page.

          Having said all that, I'll submit that I may be partially responsible for this being on the front page.  I'm working on a post about the ethical implications of Nader's candidacy, and it's been a bit of a struggle to put together my thoughts in form brief enough for a cogent post on DKos.  So, maybe in the absence of a post from either me or MeteorBlade this afternoon, Jerome took it upon himself to put up some fresh content, and this is what he could throw together.

          If, however, this was conceived as a post because he made a thoughtful choice to take a whack at a Kerry on a very silly issue, then I have to conclude this is far below the standard Markos has established for Daily Kos.  
          

          by DHinMI on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 10:59:17 PM PDT

          •  RE: Shark Jumping?

            I now have to say that this is the first front-page post on Daily Kos that I suspected might be intended as a hatchet job.

            I was actually surprised when this same idea entered my cortex after reading Jerome's piece (btw, I too first came here via mydd).
            IMHO, with this piece, Jerome Armstrong has "jumped the shark".

            In any case, since you, DHinMI, are a Kos contributor, can you help explain why the following Kos policy hasn't also been instituted for Edwards AND Kerry?

            It is clear that our nominee will be either Dean or Clark. No one else has a shot. Therefore, I will not criticize or point to criticism of either of those two candidates. Each one of those guys has his plusses and his cons, and each one of them can beat Bush. That's all that matters.

            I sincerely suggest you footsoldiers in the Dean vs. Clark flamewars start reconsidering your tactics. Stick to being positive about your guys. Don't gleefully point to every anti-Dean or anti-Clark smear coming from a wingnut or mediawhore. You are doing their bidding.

            We are all on the same team, and the time to "merge the tribes" is just a month or two away. We need to start coming together for the sake of the party and our country.  Kos on 12/18/03

            Many of the Dean supporters cheered and supported Kos when this policy was instiuted while those that supported other candidates thought it nonsensical and premature.  

            Can someone explain what the hell is going on here?

             

            by jg on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 11:57:42 PM PDT

            •  Good Suggestion

              Good point on calling for an end to the flame wars.  

              However, we should be a little careful calling for the end to the flame wars because it's clear that the nominee will be either Kerry or Edwards.  The last time Kos did declared an end to the flame wars because it had obviously become a two-man race (and I'll include myself in his prognostications, since I also figured it would come down to Clark and Dean), both of them went into the tank.

              So, since I don't want the race to come down to Sharpton v Kucinich, maybe we shouldn't declare it a two-person race until it's settled.

              by DHinMI on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 12:17:24 AM PDT

              •  RE:

                DHinMI, this is a joke right?  You are being sarcastic about the possible ramifications of Kos calling the race for two men again, right?  

                Also, you didn't really answer my question about what the hell is going on here with one policy for Dean/Clark and a different policy for Kerry/Edwards?

                What about all that ... Each one of those guys has his plusses and his cons, and each one of them can beat Bush. That's all that matters. ... "We are all on the same team, and the time to "merge the tribes" is just a month or two away. We need to start coming together for the sake of the party and our country", which is what Kos wrote about Dean and Clark on 12/18/03.

                I guess this need to come together is only true if Dean or Clark looks like the eventual nominee.

                So, when Dean is the front-runner, Kos calls for an end to the flame-wars and instituties a non-critical policy of Dean and Clark.  Kerry the front-runner and we get no call for an end to the flame wars and this piece by Armstrong.  

                I don't mind Kos having open biases against or for certain candidates, but to press his biases by urging the community to "coming together for the sake of the party and our country" when Dean rather Kerry is the front-runner seems just a tad ___ , oh I don't know, but it is something ...

                by jg on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 12:37:22 AM PDT

                •  Yeah jg,

                  I'm joking.

                  If I thought we could affect the race by making inaccurate predictions, I would have gone to the front page back in December and declared Clark out of the race.

                  As for the rest, I said it was a good suggestion.  I don't set policy around this joint, I'm only one of the caretakers on weekends and when Markos is on the road.  However, I think it's a worthwhile suggestion, which is why I publically agreed with you.  

                  Send Markos an email; he's a reasonable guy, maybe he'll act on your idea.

                  by DHinMI on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:00:53 AM PDT

                  •  RE:

                    Hmmm, I know you don't set policy here, but I really just wanted your opinion, in light of your criticism of Armstrong's piece, on why when there is a Dean and Clark flame-war, Kos calls for calm and appeals to our sense of team and to come together "for the sake of the party and our country."  WHen it is an Edwards/Kerry flame war, or just flaming Kerry, we don't receive requests from Kos to stop the circling firing squad and rally around the Democratic banner, rather he hands out more ammunition (Armstrong's piece).

                    A single email from me to Kos ain't a bad idea, but perhaps a public calling-out is more effective, because then Kos might then receive emails from Kossacks other than me on this issue.

                    by jg on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:14:27 AM PDT

                    •  I agree

                      whatever you want to do.  A diary or an email.  I am so glad you found that piece of Kos's from December.  I kept thinking about it.  Good work, and good vibes.  This is too important for this country and this community.  

                      Ron Brownstein  of the LA Times and others of the press have been urging a mud fest between Edwards and Kerry.  I don't think he has the interests of the Demoratic party in mind.  We do.  If Edwards win, I'll fall in line.

                      by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:27:32 AM PDT

                  •  thanks

                    I agree with you this post by Jerome has stepped beyond some invisible line and is not what this site needs.  I know Kos doesn't like Kerry, but I am hoping that his concern for the integrity of this site as a Democratic party site will make him reconsider in terms of the types and amount of slag being slung.

                    Again, thank you for your thoughtful replies

                    by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:32:58 AM PDT

                  •  check post that says thanks

                    ditto to my subject line

                    by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:37:27 AM PDT

              •  good point

                Good point on calling for an end to the flame wars.

                Indeed it is.  I've seen Kerry ripped on this forum every day in language that you might expect Dems to use for Tom DeLay.  It is one thing for people to rip Kerry in the diaries, but for Armstrong to do it on the front page...blech.

                by KevinA on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 12:47:43 AM PDT

          •  well

            I thought it was interesting that Kerry's busting his pledge, and I think Edwards will make it an issue if he's smart, and wants to win.  It's something that the press should look into and call him on it. It's laughable that some posters here are trying to claim that he's still under it, and just bizarre to see some here verge into purists.  

            Certainly I don't hide my bias, but to call delivering facts a hachet job is just pointing toward your bias.  You are a get along and go along Democrat that takes what your party serves and partisanly defends anything.  I'm a idealistic and principled independent that votes Democratic because their candidates usually are closer in line with my values.  

            The only standard I think is worthy in terms of blogging is to hold candidates and politicians accountable.

            And one other thing, You think it's over, and Kerry is a done deal, I don't. and support Edwards, and hopes he wins (more on that in a later post;)

            by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:22:25 AM PDT

            •  Yup,

              Hide behind ad hominems.

              Yup, I'm just a amoral hack, and you're a Visionary, a Wizard, a True Star.

              I don't really care all that much which of the two remaining major candidates wins the nomination.  I'm fine with both of them.  But what if I posted the pay-outs John Edwards earned for his successful civil suits?  It would show him to have made a ton of money in a pursuit the Repubs call "ambulance chasing."  [And I have no problem with trial lawyers--not only are "some of my best friends trial lawyers," I've worked for the Trial Lawyer Association...so I've even been a hack for John Edwards' most prominent funders.]  And for the sake of argument (because I really don't know any thing about this), let's say Edwards has given almost nothing to charity.  If I did a piece like that, it would be "delivering facts."  And it would still be a hatchet job.  

              If I got called on it, I guess I could always say I'm righteous, and the person asking legitmate questions is nothing more than a hack.  

              But I wouldn't do that, because only hacks defend themselves like that.

              by DHinMI on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:43:15 AM PDT

              •  let's see

                Hachet's hack, and you don't.  Got it.

                by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:26:49 AM PDT

            •  RE:

              " ... I think Edwards will make it an issue if he's smart, and wants to win."

              I really hopes that Edwards ignores your advice (if they are reading dKos these days) and if such advice is typical of the advice you would offer Democratic candidates, I do hope that you and Kos (Armstrong & Zuniga) stick to working for "candidates, organization, and interest groups building community-focused websites and implementing technological solutions" rather than advising on  OpResearch and/or attack strategies.  I mean this with all due respect because I did once enjoy your writing over at mydd, even though iirc you were often wrong about your predictions, and you are likely wrong about this race being over as well.  

              by jg on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:20:37 AM PDT

              •  thanks

                we will.  And actually, in 2000-2001, I was pretty damn accurate, 2002 sucked, but didn't we all... let's see how 2004 turns out before you write my obit, later.

                by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:30:55 AM PDT

  •  Ah the arrogance

    few,
    1.  The Democratic nomination is decided when someone gets the around 2100 delegates that constitutes a majority.  John Forbes Kerry doesn't get to decide who the nominee of the Democratic Party is, the voters in the Democratic primaries get to.  What typical hubris.  Afraid of 9 March aren't ya?
    Note that Kerry has receied only 42% of the votes in the primaries so far, hardly a dominating preformance, and hardly demonstration that the Party is behind him (in fact a majority is not).
    2.  The convoluted justifications (what is the definition of decided) is so typical of your candidate.  No wonder people are already tiring of him.

    by philgoblue on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:49:32 PM PDT

    •  Delegates

      FYI, I didn't even vote for Kerry in my primary.  So spare me the "your candidate" histrionics.

      I do think he has the nomination locked up, though.  Kerry has more than triple the number of delegates that Edwards has.  Delegates from the remaining states will be distibuted proportionately to Kerry and Edwards.  That means that if Edwards is going to catch up to Kerry, he not only needs to start beating him (which is unlikely enough), but he needs to start crushing him.  Edwards could win every March 9 state and still be out of the race for the nomination.  So yes, unless a live boy or dead girl turns up, the nomination is Kerry's.  And that's not hubris.

      by few on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:08:06 PM PDT

      •  Were Edwards to win all those states

        even if Kerry is ahead, the nomination is Edwards'.  We could not nominate a guy who lost at the end.  It just wouldn't happen.

        We'd have a brokered convention in that case. Which should make all us political junkies deliriously happy.

        by DrFrankLives on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:21:50 PM PDT

        •  Not likely

          Well, to be clearer I should have said that Edwards could win all of the March 9 states and still be way, way behind in the delegate count.  Anyway, the odds of that happening are pretty long.

          A brokered convention would be very cool, though.

          by few on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:38:35 PM PDT

        •  Brokered will not

          be allowed. Heck we aren't even allowed to have any competition in our state conventions.
          It's all decided before we vote. At the Michigan state conventions anyway.  The unions have the final say.

          by barnowl on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:45:59 PM PDT

      •  It is kinda hard to do...

        when the person you are running against can spend unlimited funds to ensure that you do not have a surge....

        Gee, now I wonder why the Senator from MA would want to violate that pledge now? I'm sure it's because he has the best intentions of the Party in mind....right?

        by Nazgul35 on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 11:40:00 PM PDT

  •  second look

    Actually few, I did miss the numbers, but not in a way you'd like.  This, "$2.1 million in the bank and $7.2 million in debts" means that Kerry's already spent an additional $7.2 million that he owes.

    by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 10:17:54 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, but

      Those debts are counted as expenditures when the money is spent, not when Kerry raises the money to pay off the loan.  You're counting the money twice (once when the expenditure happens, and again when the money is raised to pay off the debt).  That's why your numbers are too high.

      It seems to me that Kerry has closer to $11-15 million left before he hits $45 million.  I don't think he's in much danger of busting that limit before he finishes Edwards off by any reasonable measure.  And even if he did, big deal.

      by few on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 10:48:02 PM PDT

    •  many ways to count

      There are many ways to count expenditures.  You are hypothesizing what the debt means. That few has come up with different numbers than you have just shows how difficult and how hard to pin down these speculations on your part are .  Few talks like he has had some accounting experience.

      I also think that Edwards is too good a politician to attack on something that is sheer speculation.  The reporting period for the 1st quarter is not until nearly April.  The nomination battle should be over by then. Without that he has too little to fall back on if he should make that an issue.

      But to me, not being bound by Federal financing guidelines was one of the many reasons I would have supported Howard Dean as my seond choice.  That is a plus for Kerry in the lead up to the convention and a liability for Edwards if he should emerge as the nominee.

      It is informative that you have considered yourself an Independent more than a Democrat.  I am a Demorat above all and so I don't think Dems shooting at each other is good for the party or the general election in 2004.  It seems that that is not your first priority, but it is mine and I hope it will be a viewpoint that Kos can be persuaded to reembrace.

      by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:58:28 AM PDT

    •   Jerome Armstrong, many ways to count for you

      I must be doing something wrong but that post was a direct response to you

      by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:01:45 AM PDT

•  Question?

  The DEMs get approximately $75 million at the end of July to spend until Nov.  When does the General election clock start running for the GOP, at the same time as the DEMs or after the GOP convention in Sept?  Very clever on the part of Rove if it is the latter.

  by Marie on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:05:41 PM PDT

  •  It's different

    The GOP get their's after, and can spend freely up until their convention.  It was a very good move, but it also leaves them with having to pull off their convention without a hitch, having it so late.

    But yea, the GOP will probably spend $75 million from the time the Dems get their money in late July, to six weeks later, when the GOP gets theirs.

    And for the last 8 weeks of the campaign, it translates into the Dems having about $800K per day, to the GOP having about $1.3 Million per day.  A startling financial advantage.
    

    by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:33:52 PM PDT

    •  Thanks - that's what I suspected

      So while everybody is running around screaming about the shamelessly of the GOP to hold their convention near the 9/11 anniversary -- good cover - nobody has noticed the huge spending adavantage the GOP will have in the last two months.  Rove is good.

      (For all my criticisms of Kerry, this isn't one of them.  IMHO, he and Dean were the only two reasonable choices because the DEM must absolutely be competitive with the GOP on spending from April-July.  Otherwise a win depends on GWB imploding and anybody could beat him then.)

      by Marie on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 11:41:29 PM PDT

  •  Kudos for raising a great question

    We should move our convention. This decision needs to be made now.

    This is a huge disadvantage.  In short, we will be outspent by nearly 2 to 1 from now until november.

    You know, some bloggers here have been trying to get people interested in the DNC. In giving money to it.  And then you find out something like this, and you want to explode.

    WHO WAS THE DUMBASS THAT MADE THIS DECISION?   DOES ANYBODY AT THE FUCKING DNC HAVE A BRAIN!

    by fladem on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 11:36:50 PM PDT

    •  double dealing by Rove

      Initially the Repub onvention was August, but then after the Democratic one was set for Boston the RNC changed the date.

      Traditionally the challenger's convention is before the convention on the theory that the challenger could use the additional time to campaign and to introduce themselves to the public positively before the other party started going negative.

      Now those were the traditional notions behind convention timing.  They were formulated when each candidate and each party had equal amounts of funds and when the National Committees stayed out of the race before the convention. That part of playing with the system hadn't started.  I think for the next cycle, we should think anew about some of these issues.
      

      by debcoop on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:12:44 AM PDT

•  You can help Edwards

  By clicking on this link to theObjects in your mirror fundraiser and donating all you can give.

  In order to confront George Bush and John Kerry, the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of big money politics, Edwards needs all the help he can get.

  Together, we can do this.

  by DrFrankLives on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:06:26 PM PDT

•  Spend money fighting Bush

  Kerry can only benefit from the media going dark on him for a few months. Let everyone focus on what a truly disastrous president Bush has been, with the knowledge that there's a Democrat -- what's his name -- oh right, Kerry -- people seem to really like him -- ready to take his place.

  August, September and October are more than enough time for Kerry to have center stage. (I'm praying it's not too much time.) Between now and August we need to concentrate on funding organizations like moveon that can keep Bush on the defense and, better yet, state and local candidates who can weaken the Rethugs and Bush at their foundations.

  Bush needs to become so unpopular that people will vote against him no matter how bored and dissatisfied they know they will be over four l-o-n-g years of a Kerry presidency.

  In a nutsell: Don't carry Kerry; BEAT Bush.
  

  by matt n nyc on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:07:40 PM PDT

•  Mo' Money

  It's all starting to be a little bit crazy.  The amount of money that will be spent this year will be astronomical.  How much cash is really needed to win the Presidency?  Since the advent of 24 hour television, we have not seen a election cycle based soley on records alone.  So the candidates have to resort to attacking each other.  Bush has to have the most money because of how terrible his years in office have been.  I can't wait for the debates.

  by nosey on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:38:00 PM PDT

•  Why?

  Jerome,

  I've read the post and the comments, and ...

  I'm not sure why I should give a fuck about how much Kerry spent, in fact thanks for the research but your time as someone who posts on the front page could have been better suited lexis-nexis about what Saxby Chmablis really said on the conference call the other day, and why the rightwing potion of the blogosphere is blowing shit out of it's ass for feining offense.

  I say that with all due respect, but please can we talk about something else besides what Kerry said to Dean 4 months ago.

  by laddy on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:46:07 PM PDT

•  Contribute to Edwards

  Speaking of finances, Edwards has a graphic and a goal finally on his blog! Go Contribute! Be the change that you want.

  by realAmerican on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:47:03 PM PDT

•  ummm

  is Jerome doing oppo for the RNC now that the Dean Dream is dead?

  by OldDemocrat on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 07:19:06 PM PDT

•  Poor Maths Skills

  Jerome has very poor maths skills.

  From the numbers given here, Kerry has spent 27 + 7 = 34 M DOLLARS, which let him spend 11 M dollars, a lot more than needed before Edwards drops on March 2.

  The maths error or bad faith probably, is that you added what he raised and what he spent.

  Please, if you want to be credible, at least be honest.

  by votekerry on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 07:42:57 PM PDT

•  No problem for Kerry

  Back tracking and double talking are not things Kerry has ever shied away from. If he needs to spend more and can get the money he'll find a weasel word way to explain it.

  And Tammany Hall Democrats won't care. It's what they want and expect from their leaders.

  by Sitka on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 07:58:16 PM PDT

  •  Your damn right we don't

    ABB

    by Dour on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:30:26 PM PDT

    •  ABB

      An even more inspiring slogan to charge to defeat under than "Electability!" and "Where's the Beef?"

      Ah, Mondale! Now there was a candidate who could inspire people the way Kerry does!

      by Sitka on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:15:03 PM PDT

  •  Tammany Hall Democrats

    Hillarious, and exactly on the money. I'll have to remember that phrase.

    by ElitistJohn on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:20:20 PM PDT

  •  Tammany Hall Democrats

    Sign me up too.  To the victors belong the spoils.  Do we get Derby hats and big cigars?  I could certainly use a nice patronage job.

    by John R on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:37:21 PM PDT

•  double standard?

  Lord knows I'm no Kerry booster, but I don't seem to recall postings on the front page of dKos blasting Dean when he was blowing past the state spending caps in Iowa and when he was swamping his primary rivals with the cash that he claimed he was raising simply to "take on Bush," helping to accelerate an ad-spending arms race that drained his competitors' coffers and forced everyone else to spend even more money (or mortgage their houses...) simply to keep up. So there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to campaign-spending chicanery and it seems disingenuous and unfair to single Kerry out on this issue.

  by WendellGee on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:00:21 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but Dean wasn't

    running around, demanding that Kerry limit his spending.

    by dfarrah on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:20:52 PM PDT

    •  We must fight Bush

      Just remind that, should Edwards be the nominee, he would be limited by the $M 45 against Bush.  How would he win.

      By the way, Kerry said he would limit his spending against his democratic opponents, but he has spent the last primaries fighting against Bush, which will be good for the general election.

      by votekerry on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:08:01 PM PDT

    •  For Kerry, hypocrisy is...

      ...a comfortable old slipper.

      by Sitka on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:17:36 PM PDT

•  Kerry and campaign spending

  I am a longtime reader and mostly admirer of Kos but this is perhaps the single most stupid post I have ever read, not merely here but in the blogs.

  This nomination, while nominally still being contested, is over.  I voted for Edwards in the primary and wish he were the nominee but the fact is he will not be.  Like it or not, Kerry is the nominee and I hope he spends all the catsup money from here to the convention.   Now is exactly the right time to exploit the weakness Bush is suffering and if it takes spending money, for goodness sakes, spend it.  All the Deaniacs need to get over it and do as I was prepared to do if Dean prevailed--fully and completely support the nominee.  

  by dmh on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:25:21 PM PDT

•  I say this as a Republican

  this is front page material???  Strange.

  by HappyWarrior on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 08:37:11 PM PDT

•  RE:

  Does anyone remember this dKos policy issued back in December?  If such a policy was appropriate for Dean and Clark, why isn't it appropriate for Edwards AND Kerry?

  Kos writes:
  It is clear that our nominee will be either Dean or Clark. No one else has a shot. Therefore, I will not criticize or point to criticism of either of those two candidates. Each one of those guys has his plusses and his cons, and each one of them can beat Bush. That's all that matters.

  I sincerely suggest you footsoldiers in the Dean vs. Clark flamewars start reconsidering your tactics. Stick to being positive about your guys. Don't gleefully point to every anti-Dean or anti-Clark smear coming from a wingnut or mediawhore. You are doing their bidding.

  We are all on the same team, and the time to "merge the tribes" is just a month or two away. We need to start coming together for the sake of the party and our country.  12/18/03

  "For the sake of the party and our country"

  Indeed.
  

  by jg on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:21:54 PM PDT

  •  Anti-Kerry vitriol

    I haven't experienced anything like this since the anti-Clinton barrage about this time 12 years ago.  Getting it both from Tsongas (read Dean) and Brown (read Edwards) people, united by their hatred of Bill Clinton.  He stood for nothing and was absolutely unelectable.  I remember Tsongas in the debate holding up a teddy bear and calling Clinton "pander-bear."  And Brown fighting for the "heart and soul of the Democratic party."

    I was on staff for Clinton in California (in a menial position) and it pleased me to see these same folks who had excoriated my candidate (both Brown and Tsongas people)working at my side after the convention.  Hope the same thing happens here, with the same result--victory.

    by John R on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:50:56 PM PDT

•  My dream for today...

  Every candidate gets equal airtime, a real debate, and a one-day national primary. Message to corporations: save your money for the taxes or employees.

  by fitzov rules on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:43:20 PM PDT

•  Are Kerry's loans legit?

  From : Political Money Line's email alert:

  The campaign finance report and its delayed release raised several questions in regards to the details of the December and January loans to the committee. There appeared to be differences between what was on the Kerry website and what was made available by the FEC. There were differences in the addresses listed for various loans, including Boston, MA, Providence, RI and Pittsburgh, PA. There were also no listed guarantors or endorsers of the loans, and there was no bank representative's name or date shown.

  by El Payo on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:51:35 PM PDT

•  When will Busk's spendathon start?

  You say:
       The Bush campaign, which plans to raise an additional $25 million to $55 million, must spend all the money by the end of August

  This mean that they need to burn through $129 to $159 million before their convention.  This ain't trivial!

  So when will we start to see shurb & company spending their money?  Its gotta start soon else they will super saturate the air waves this Summer.

  by mwfolsom on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 11:12:35 PM PDT

•  has he laid off

  Torricelli? This guy's main fundraiser is a mafiaso criminal crime boss! Hey how many politicians have a two part series on them at American Mafia.com?

  Kerry has no credibility at all. He lied to us about what he knew about WMD. He continues to lie about what his vote meant.

  Why would someone lie to the American public for a reason to go to war? The American people are beautiful people. We will fight and die for our brothers and sisters in a noble cause.

  Why?

  by Heywood Jabangme on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 01:10:31 AM PDT

•  Be honest with yourselves.

  I thought that Dean's contribution to campaign finance reform was to have a lot of people give small contributions.

  How is it possible that Edwards fits this profile?  At the end of 2003, more than 60 % of his contributions were coming from lawyers.  He had more high contributions than anybody else including Bush (in %).  This not including the allegations in The Hill saying that some of these contributions are too good to be true (people at 30 k$ a year giving 2,000 $ for example, all from law firms).

  That you dont like Kerry is one thing, but at least, vote for somebody who follows Dean's ideas Kucinich, for example.  Edwards is a total Washington insider, made his money by takin 50 % of what poor people won from trials, and has the worst record in campaign finance.  BTW, who here knows that he paid for his Senate campaign ($M 6 out of 9).  Hope those of you who reproach Kerr 6 M out of 20 feel comfortable with that.

  I could personnaly vote for Edwards,  despite his moderate record and these questions, but at least, I would do it eyes open.

  by votekerry on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:06:28 AM PDT