I respect Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and what he has done with this site, first of all, but I am a very ardent Edwards supporter, and an ardent supporter of public financing of presidential campaigns. I am extremely disappointed that the Daily Kos is coming down on my candidate for taking a lead on this issue, and I’m going to go into great detail why I think so. This may sound harsh, but I feel very strongly about my support of JRE and his lead on this issue and on poverty, even if that means taking risks. The failed lessons of 2004 should not be about Machiavellian fear, though I admit that some of that does matter, but not in this case.
Let me tell you why:
Let's just state the obvious off the bat -- if Edwards was raising money at the clip of Obama and Clinton, he wouldn't be opting into the public financing system. This is his way of leveling the playing field short term. That the decision comes on the heels of SEIU's decision to not endorse Edwards (or anyone else) at this time makes it particularly suspect. Edwards really needed their cash and boots, but SEIU is apparently still feeling burned from their 2003 Dean endorsement.
In any case, his campaign has released a "strategy memo" explaining the decision. So how do they respond to criticism that this will be unilateral disarmament?
First of all, this is opinion has nothing except the timing of the 3rd quarter fundraising deadline to back it up, but that is no valid reason to put intent behind Edwards proposal because of this. There is also no reason besides blatant speculation that Edwards is doing this, because of a lack endorsement from the SEIU. For one thing, I don’t think Edwards is suffering from lack of union support, despite the fact that their endorsement would be beneficial; he still has more union support than any other candidate, but now we’re going to embrace the MSM mime of desperation for JRE? I’m disappointed. Also, I hear all the time, that the union endorsements for Edwards are no big deal, which is false, but I hear that kind of nonsense all the time here. People love to point to Gephart, and how they didn’t help him, but what people don’t reveal about Gephart, was that he also voted for Bush’s tax cuts, as you have heard in the past from Arianna Huffington. When asked, he didn’t say, "I was wrong." He said, "let’s take this one step at a time."
I agree with Arianna here: "What is this? An AA meeting?"
That’s why a lot of people didn’t vote for Gephart.
You can’t have it both ways, so either way, this assumption is non-substantive like the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton on actually wanting public financing to cover her fake intention, like David Bonior says:
An aide to the campaign expounded: "He's been thinking about it for a while now and watching Clinton on the Sunday shows talk about how public financing was the answer to all this, [we] figured we'd call her bluff."
That’s what this is about, and I’m disappointed in this, "The sky is falling attitude from the Kos, because I have really grown to love the Daily Kos, even though I am new. I really admire Markos and what he has created, but is the Daily Kos, not for progressive values? Values that voters care about? If this was such a dangerous proposal, why didn’t HRC comments at the Daily Kos debate, go over well? They didn’t:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
However, another comment made by Clinton drew even greater levels of voter disagreement. At the same Yearly Kos convention, Clinton said ``A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans.'' Just 12% of voters agreed with that assessment and believe that many lobbyist represent real Americans. Seventy-one percent (71%) disagree.
This is about electing democrats (this site’s purpose, with all due respect) and this poll still stands to John Edwards point, regardless of HRC’s fluctuating good poll numbers lately, from her bad poll numbers in the past couple of months. This is about educating the general public who also, BTW, saw corruption as one of the big issues in 2006, besides the War in the mid term elections.
In case you didn’t notice, HRC has been using every single excuse in the book to offshoot her perception as the corporate candidate, by first saying that," Lobbyists represent real Americans at the Kos debate," and trying to par off her corporate war chest by saying that, "We all want public financing for elections in the future, but we can’t now." Well if she gets the nod and loses, like she will, it will be too late to expose her disingenuous nature on this issue. That’s what this is about; calling her out now; JRE is putting all the pressure of the netroots activists on her that she has written off, (Like a lot of the base of this wonderful site) and the Labor endorsements John has received, even though she has written labor off a long time ago. That doesn’t worry you? Really? Moving on...
Does this change our strategy?
No. We are on track and moving forward with our four-state strategy, focused on winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. We've said all along that we needed to raise $40 million before Iowa. With public matching funds we are very likely to exceed that goal.
But the key thing to remember is no candidate can buy votes in these states. You have to earn them with bold vision and real ideas. Substance counts a lot more than money in the places where voters can look you in the eye, judge you face to face, and question you in detail about your plans for the country. And when it comes to substance, there's no contest. John has led this race on ideas – from universal health care, to the war in Iraq, to education, global warming and helping American workers. With this decision, he extends his leadership into the critical area of restoring the essence of our democratic government.
John's leadership on issues is precisely why our momentum continues to grow in the states where he has been campaigning. And this growing momentum will carry us through to the general election.
If you can't buy votes, then why does he need the public funds? The strategy is clear -- he didn't have the $40 million they thing they need to win the early states, so they're going to the publicly financed system. The rest is marketing gooblygock to rationalize the decision.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe to clean up politics, like Edwards has been consistent in pointing out, so Washington lobbyists can’t write legislation like the Medicare Part D plan which will hand over $800 billion of our tax dollars to the drug and health insurance industry. I wouldn’t call that gooblyglock; I call that leading on this issue. Believe it or not, voters care about this issue.
More than three fourths of voters (78%) expect the issue of Government Ethics and Corruption to have a Very Important impact on their vote. Another 18% regard it as at least Somewhat Important, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll of Election 2008 Issues.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Moving on....
That's less than reassuring. What if they end up spending more to wrap up their primary than their current plan indicates?
If polling suggests, pre-Feb. 5, that they can win California or Florida with a last-minute push, are they really going to say, "well, we can't spend those millions because of our long-term Summer plan!" Hell no, they'll do whatever they need to do to win, and you couldn't begrudge them that decision.
Except that we end up with a broke or seriously underfunded nominee with six months before the convention. The Edwards campaign argues that the DNC can pick up the slack. And sure, Edwards could funnel money he can't raise to the DNC to act as a proxy. But as we've seen since forever, the RNC always grossly outraises and outspends the DNC. That could change next year, of course. But again, it's a gamble.
Edwards is still strong in Iowa despite not being out-raised by HRC and BO. This shows frugality, and we know where his money is going. I can’t say the same for HRC and BO. I think it’s important to know how to use money; not just know how to raise it. Especially if you are raising the money in a more ethical way in order to show the voters that John Edwards is serious about implementing public financing. Why should voters believe any other candidate, if they won’t take this step? As you saw in the latest debate, JRE calls HRC out on this. The importance of leading on the issues will be the defining factor in this election, as polls show, and we must remember that.
The DNC is getting better at competing with the RNC, since Howard Dean took the helm, and his 50 state strategy that prevailed in 2006 worked, even out-raising the RNC for a period in Congressional races shortly afterward. But still, we cannot assume that money will be the defining factor. Voters care about the issues in this race; I think that will be a defining factor, and Ethics in government will have the deserved sway, and with the clarity on this issue that JRE will present to the voters, so they know who is serious about actually empowering them, he will win the election. Not to mention he is the most electable; I don’t know why people aren’t more worried about the aura of inevitability HRC presents, when we all know the effectiveness of wedge issues against John Kerry.
He had enough money to compete, and fight back, but he didn’t. That’s what cost him the election in 2004, among other things. This shows that fundraising is overrated. It’s about how you run your campaign, and how you present your platform to the American people. With a 15-year attack book on HRC, they have more than enough fuel, despite whatever polling shows her in a positive light to destroy HRC. John Kerry was polling really well against GWB, if you remember. People forget that JRE was able to witness the mistakes of 2004, and that makes his decision to go this route, more viable. Fundraising was not the issue; campaign strategy was. BTW, if HRC supporters see Bob Shrum anywhere near her headquarters, which they probably will, it’s time to panic, because all the losers are there in line or follow his failed lead in 2004.
Here is a very good article on why trying and worrying about the same failed tactics of the past, will essentially bite us on the ass, if we don’t change our party and how our leadership is failing all of us, by not taking enough strides to fix a dirty, corroded system. Which is why if we did not give Howard dean the DNC, we would be nowhere at all, period. He did not employ the safe, tactics and worries of the past, despite dissent in the party who hated him for it, until the 2006 elections were a success.
http://www.blueoregon.com/...
Dick Gephardt is part of the party's triumverate of utter failure -- along with current DNC chair McAuliffe and the just-defeated Tom Daschle. They helped generate the failure of the 2000 presidential election cycle, the disaster of the 2002 midterm election cycle, and now the 2004 presidential election cycle.
This falls squarely into Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Allowing the Daschles, Gephardts, and McAuliffes of the party to retain control is nothing short of utter and complete lunacy.
To go back, then, to Jeff's broader dissent -- the suggestion that leadership isn't the problem, and that it's up to the grassroots to formulate some sort of "trickle-up" political cover. If you at all recall the primary campaign, you might remember that (yes) Howard Dean generated quite a substantial amount of grassroots energy, involvement, and money. And what happened? The leadership which Jeff says is not the problem -- FYI, that's the Daschles, Gephardts, and McAuliffes -- practically sh*t all over him for it.
In other words, the party leadership is precisely the problem. While grassroots ownership of the party indeed is the solution, as Jeff suggests, that solution only works if the party leadership actually wants it to, and isn't afraid of it.
Moving on....
I love Edwards on the merits. A lot. But not enough to put the White House at risk.
Edwards will not put the White House at risk by doing this. Only the wrong nomination will put the WH at risk. Only the failed policies of the past will put the WH at risk. Only non-substantive change will put the WH at risk. John Edwards is not necessarily going to use public financing at the detriment of his campaign, if his Republican opponent, who will get destroyed anyway, but still, does not meet his challenge. Here’s something you may have missed:
Clinton and Obama have said they support public financing of all elections but have made no move to accept public financing for this race. Edwards said he would also challenge the eventual Republican nominee to accept public financing, but he has also said his decision to accept matching funds in the general would depend on his opponent's decision.
In the memo Bonior wrote: "John Edwards believes the best thing and the right thing would be to operate the campaign under the public financing rules for the entire presidential campaign. But he also understands that almost none of the Republican candidates share this commitment. Accordingly, we will continue to raise money for the general election so we will be ready to compete against the Republican nominee.
"Once we win the nomination, John will challenge the Republican nominee to join him in accepting public financing. ... If they refuse, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it and make the decision at that time about whether to accept public financing."
The aide insisted, as Bonior did, that the decision was made on principle.
"[Voters] can choose between a candidate bought and sold by special interests or someone who's campaigning within the ethical guidelines established by public financing," the aide said.
So please calm down, and support the candidate who increasingly has the best chance to decisively gather a mandate of the vote, by his smart, sound, substantive policies that all the other candidates copied in order to compete with him. It’s not the failed MSM mime that says JRE is desperate. If he were desperate, why did HRC copy his plan? That is not really consistent with this whole argument. History still shows JRE has the best chance, like it or not, and true candidness with the general public that he is the only candidate that is serious about involving them in the process of really implementing UHC by cleaning up Washington. He has the courage to take risks, because he is a strong candidate, who sticks to issues that mean something to everyone, including public financing. Some people like to talk; John Edwards walks the walk. We can’t get drug down in a Machiavellian defeatist attitude, because JRE advisers are well prepared to meet these challenges or fears, if they were to come to fruition.
Competing in the GE is the last thing we need to worry about; we need to worry about getting the right candidate nominated, who really wants to represent me; the 37 million living in poverty by taking risks on that issue; fighting the big drug and insurance companies, like he has done his whole life; stating factually that you can’t sit down and work our UHC with them; and wanting to fight for us against the powers that be to get things done. This action shows his heavy consistency on this subject. Taking risks shows that passion to do what’s right; all while showing strategically, how he plans to overcome all the obstacles.
I am proud to support JRE, and as many of you know by now, I will stand with him, and support him till the end. I acknowledge you do the same, if you want to take back the WH and really mean cleaning up Washington and getting what the American people deserve. Not just saying it in a convenient way without sacrificing or taking any action to implement these said changes.