Dean pleads for help to pay bills

WASHINGTON - One-time presidential candidate Howard Dean, whose campaign fund went from boom to bust, is pleading with donors to open their pocketbooks one more time and help him retire at least $400,000 in debt.

You guys better get busy and help out

Story here

•  The DNC Should Pay It

  With Dean, the Dems would be dead in the water waiting for the shark bite. McAuliffe should cut him a check out of his personal lunch budget.

  by easong on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:56:35 PM PDT

•  Same old, same old.

  "Most of these expenses are small businessmen, printers who created brochures, yard signs and stationery, family restaurants who provided gallons of coffee and thousands of doughnuts for volunteers, and local merchants who provided buses, microphones and staging equipment," Dean wrote.

  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

  •  You've never

    run up a bill, in the honest expectation that you'd see the next check?

    Ooooh, can I have a trust fund too?

    by ogre on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45 PM PDT

    •  Is that a serious question?

      No, I've never run up a bill I couldn't cover.

      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

      •  Sauce for the goose

        "But I'm the one who gets the trust fund comments."

        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

        •  Ah, it's a bag of tricks contest.

          OK, I'm up for it.

          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

          •  Touched a nerve?

            I didn't say anything about whether or not you had a trust fund.  I really don't care.  

            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

            •  Got a nerve?

              I didn't say anything about whether or not you had a trust fund.

              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

          •  Ok.

            But don't ask me that. Ask better questions.

             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

            •  State your question.

              And you shall have an answer.

              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

      •  No bill you couldn't cover?

        Then you've never lived pay-check to pay-check.

        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

        •  Hmm . . .

          I know people who've run up bills they knew they could cover--only to find out that their assumptions were flawed.

          Sound like any sitting US President we know?

          "The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." -- Marquis de Sade

          by Tlacolotl on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:49:29 PM PDT

        •  No bill I couldn't cover. Shocker.

          Then you've never lived pay-check to pay-check.

          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...

          What, exactly, is it that you're bitching about?

          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

      •  Actually

        Trippi put up a request for contributions to retire the debt the day Dean asked for help.

        And the notion that he got rich off of DFA is just stupid. Check the facts a little closer.

        by Bill Rehm on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:51:08 PM PDT

        •  I'd like to know if you got the notion.

          Got rich?

          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

        •  Oh, plus one unfair shot.

          Trippi put up a request for contributions to retire the debt the day Dean asked for help.

          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

  •  sales pitch

    honestly, don't you think this is a sales pitch? Don't you think they're thinking he'll get more money if he says it's for coffee, doughnuts, and small businesses than for consultant expenses? And wouldn't you have something negative to say if he had said he needed the money for consultants? Let's not overthink this...

    by JMS on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:21:06 PM PDT

    •  That sounds more like it.

      Yes, absolutely. You're 100% right.

      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

      •  well it wasn't *all* routine

        not to me anyway. But the money has really been the oddest and most troubling part of the Dean rise and fall, less in and of itself, and more because it kind of undermines Dean's pitch of being "good with money".

        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

        •  No, of course not.

          And naturally, I give Dean plenty of credit for the things he's done in jump-starting this campaign.

          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

•  An idea

  Maybe Dean could mortage his hou... oh wait. ;)

  by MartinRiggs on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:03:45 PM PDT

  •  well

    he could get sell (liquidate, what's the correct verb for this kind of thing?) one of his cash accounts, or morgage some of his land.  That would do it.  

    by skiddie on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:12:04 PM PDT

•  I'll chip in another sawbuck...

  It's still a small price to pay for the six months of hope and optimism.

  by nevsky42 on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:12:29 PM PDT

  •  I was never

    a supporter of his, but I cant say he doesnt deserve help for all he has contributed to the primary and the debate.

    It is troubling how Trippi's firms made so much money, and I tend to lay a lot more blame on Joe for Deans demise then most people here.

    I certainly hope to see Dean remain part of the debate on some level, he deserves to be there, mixing it up with the rethugs and helping recaptute the WH and maybe more.

    Damn if Dean could help recapture one of the houses, he could name his price.

    by mickey on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:21:06 PM PDT

    •  Grrrr

      I really wish the desperate bashers would stop puching that phony meme.

      There was a large total expenditure on advertising, not on Trippi, McMahon and Squire. the number you folks keep pushing was the total including air time costs, which is the bulk of the expenditures.

      In reality, TMS took a 7% commission on ads, which is about half the normal rate for this stuff. They certainly didn't do poorly, but they didn't walk away with all the money as you imply.

      In fact, I would bet Kerry and Clark's consultants took a much bigger piece of the pie.

      by ElitistJohn on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:50:51 PM PDT

    •  about your ratings

      a supporter of his,

      That's something of an understatement

      but I cant say he doesnt deserve help for all he has contributed to the primary and the debate.

      And yet your ratings for posts in this thread say otherwise and reveal your agenda for posting this in the first place.

      by colleen on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:31:30 PM PDT

      •  get a grip colleen

        agenda? right that must be it.

        And you're one to talk about ratings, the way you abuse them, so dont be lecturing me about ratings.
        I rate on the post, not on my own biases and favorites as so many here do, and I think I've earned some respect from others who take contrary positions but still have an open mind, unlike you.

        by mickey on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:02:57 PM PDT

•  Send the bill to T-Mac

  And let him pass it around to Geppy, Kerry, Eddy, and Loserman.  

  by Subterranean on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:18:38 PM PDT

•  And yet...

  Staying in when Wisconsin was clearly unwinnable was necessary why?

  Good for him if he gets Deaniacs to fund some more.  

  Meanwhile, Bush has 200 million to spend on the eventual nominee.  Let's hope some of this money can be available when it actually counts.

  by blueinbrooklyn on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:19:28 PM PDT

  •  Staying in when . . .

    . . . Wisconsin was clearly unwinnable was necessary why?

    Because I didn't have enough pictures of me with the Gov. yet?

    More likely, because Wisconsin, in the days after New Hampshire, was still a good bet.  Even post mini-Tuesday--hell, even the day be-friggin-fore the primary--Dean was polling a respectable second by some measures.

    And better to go out fighting than to pack it up like a rained-out camper.

    by folkbum on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:35:05 PM PDT

    •  well...

      Fair enough.

      I'm just glad Clark isn't asking me to pay for shit after wasting more money than nearly all the other candidates raised combined...

      Well, if he's askin', I ain't payin'!

      by blueinbrooklyn on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:35:45 PM PDT

  •  What?

    You think any of these guys deserve my cash?

    I maxed out for Dean. Lots and lots of people (a couple hundred thousand) donated to his campaign.

    What did the Dem party get out of it? A spine. A platform. A real shot at beating Bush.

    We did our part. Before telling us how we should spend our money, let's hear about the 2 grand you dropped on your candidate.

    by Bill Rehm on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:56:21 PM PDT

    •  It's not about amount...

      I gave as much as I could give without breaking my piggy bank.  That it doesn't come out to $2000 doesn't mean I care less or have less to say about it.

      All I'm saying is that before you pay for debts accrued in Wisconsin, remember this campaign as a whole isn't about Dean...it never WAS...despite what many online would have you believe. That focus on the movement and not the goal is ultimately why he lost.

      It's about unseating the Chimp in chief.

      I couldnt' agree more that Dean gave this party its spine.  That's great.  But to act as if the race is over because your car crashed is to ignore that elections have winners and losers.  My guy lost too.

      by blueinbrooklyn on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:22:57 AM PDT

      •  I'm not acting like the race is over

        I'm just acting like I give money to candidates I believe in.

        Sorry, neither Kerry or Edwards float my boat. If they had taken the positions that Dean had taken before Dean was successful, instead of after, they might well have received money from me.

        As far as unseating the chimp goes, there are many avenues to pursue that goal. I pursue and donate and work with a number of them. MoveOn gets the most money, at present.

        Just because I can't bring myself to back one of these guys with my time and treasure doesn't mean I'm not working to get Bush kicked out of office.

        by Bill Rehm on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:31:33 PM PDT

•  You know, I'd like to help

  But I honestly can't afford it.  I've got a lot of personal stuff I put off while I was giving Dean every penny I could scrape together--running up credit card bills that took me months to pay, because I knew they were spending the money on important stuff (::sob!::)--and now I've got to go to the damn dentist.  

  And I'm giving money to congressional candidates, and I'm giving money to Kerry.  Yes, Kerry.

  Who risked his OWN MONEY.  

  I will always prefer some aspects of the Dean Campaign, and Dean himself, to all the other options--but let's just say that I find it ironic that Mr. Fiscal Responsibility is looking to get bailed out.  

  I'm sure he genuinely regrets having to put off paying these people, but yes, it is pretty telling that Trippi's firm got paid in full, for the crappy campaign-destroying job they did.

  by pisher on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:23:04 PM PDT

  •  Actually

    Trippi's firm was listed among those not paid in full yet on the FEC.

    But don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

    BTW - A couple of points. Kerry's mortgage was for almost double the estimated value of the property. How much of our tax money in special access deals will pay for that favor I wonder? Also, had he lost, his wife could easily have used a miniscule fraction of the Ketchup money to pay it...and he would have gotten handed "Unity Dinner" money to cover it as well.

    So between the false statement and the spin...please spare me.

    by ElitistJohn on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:03:43 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the info

      But Trippi's firm did very well indeed, as you well know.  So quote the facts as selectively as you like.  The ads still sucked.  But I bet the doughnuts were fine.  And do you think that maybe small businesses have a little more to worry about unpaid bills than Trippi's firm does?  

      As to the spin--spare ME.  You're spinning so fast, I can barely see you.  No wonder you look so dizzy.

      ;-)

      by pisher on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:57:50 PM PDT

•  Clark

  Didn't Clark people get hit up for money so that they could put their names on a plaque? (and pay the bills?) At least Dean was I think rather shockingly honest in saying he needed help paying the bills.

  Plus, doesn't Gephardt still owe Trippi money from 88?

  by JMS on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:23:38 PM PDT

•  Ed Feighen

  send it to Ed, somewhere in the Ohio hustings, since the 527 has dissolved.

  by Marisacat on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:28:33 PM PDT

•  Beating up on Dean & Trippi

  Seems to be the latest sport.

  The truth is the only thing unusual about this situation and subsequent request is the fact that the amount of debt the campaign racked up is so small.

  by hyperbolic pants explosion on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:38:12 PM PDT

  •  My other one and only.

    The truth is the only thing unusual about this situation and subsequent request is the fact that the amount of debt the campaign racked up is so small.

    I'll agree, minus the "only."

    This is an extraordinarily small debt for a top-tier presidential campaign. Amazingly small. Ridiculously small.

    But to me, the other unusual thing is how, well, usual it is not to take special care to pay the donut people.

    by Kagro X on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:39:09 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    I was reading through these comments wondering why no one had noted the small size of the debt.  

    In presidential campaign terms, this is like forgetting that your student loan payment was in the mail and ending up overdrawn by $100 on your bank account.  It creates a short term problem, but one that isn't too hard to correct.  

    I expect Dean will easily retire the debt by sometime next week.  

    It also may shed light on the timing of Dean suspending his campaign.  Realizing that he was beginning to operate in the red, Dean did the fiscally responsible thing and called a halt to spending and campaigning while he could still easily recover.  

    I'd send him money, but I maxed out back in Q3 and suspect I still cannot contribute...since he's still technically in the race.  I do plan to contribute to the future endeavors of DFA.

    by Jaime Schulte on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:44:16 PM PDT

  •  They got so much money

    And they kept right on getting it, even after they stopped running a lot of ads.

    So wise up.  A lot of the money that was supposedly raised to keep DFA alive, was actually being raised to shrink the debt.  So that once the money dried up, there happily wasn't too much left.

    I may forgive Dean for that lying email about Wisconsin.

    Someday.

    by pisher on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:00:34 PM PDT