Earlier today I wrote about accusations from the Dean and Clark campaign regarding the Democratic Party's desire to squelch a proposed Florida straw poll next month.
Here is their response:
DNC Response to Florida Straw Poll Accusations
Nothing is more important to Democratic Presidential campaigns as money and time. Why? Because George W. Bush and the RNC will raise close to $500 million for this election, not counting the fact that Bush controls the White House - the biggest microphone in the world.
As a result, the Democratic National Committee is working directly with all the various Presidential campaigns to help them maximize both money and time.
When the Democratic Presidential candidates asked the DNC to take the lead in organizing a series of debates, we did just that. The candidates and their campaigns were being besieged with debate requests, and they asked us to take charge of the process, to provide some reasonable order and boundaries.
Similarly, the Democratic Presidential candidates asked the DNC to enforce a long-standing rule to prevent straw polls. Why? Because straw polls cost campaigns huge amounts of time, money and effort. And most straw polls require cash to cast a ballot * and that's not really democratic.
The DNC did not mislead any campaign, nor are we being anti-democratic. We are doing exactly what the campaigns asked us to do. And we will continue to do so because we want to make sure we beat George W. Bush in 2004.
To that end, the DNC is working directly with the Florida Democratic Party to resolve this issue in a way that will showcase our Democratic candidates, highlight the importance of Florida in the 2004 elections, and maximize the level of grassroots activism in the Sunshine state.
Signed,
Phil McNamara,
DNC Director of Party Affairs
In short, the DNC argues it is merely trying to enforce the rules by which the candidates themselves agreed to abide.
The Dean, Clark and Edwards campaigns are all itching to compete in the straw poll (if it occurs). So if those campaigns did, indeed, agree to a "no straw poll" rule, then it does put the national party in a difficult situation.
It's still a stupid rule. Straw polls are expensive? So let each campaign prioritize its spending needs. Would the campaigns suffer that much if they spent $100,000 competing in that straw poll rather than running $100,000 in additional ads in Iowa, NH and/or SC? Either way, they're going to spend that $100,000.
It's not like our nominee will emerge from the primary battle with any coin in his bank account. Which is why -- segue here --
ePatriots is important. The link is back up. This is money the party will spend on behalf of our nominee as he's being pounded by $200 million in Bush attack ads.
Still, this whole issue is instructive in a key way -- there needs to be more transparency in how the party conducts its business. Read the following quote:
"Straw polls buy into a focus on a horse-race culture and detract from a debate on real issues," says Josh Wachs, chief operating officer of the Democratic National Committee. "Straw polls are artificial, expensive, and unnecessary."
Reading that quote, the impression we get is that the party has made a determination, and will enforce it on its candidates. Not the other way around.
If an agreement has been reached, we should know about it. I know that sounds quaint and perhaps a bit naive, but screw it. I want to see a news story or Kicking Ass blog post that says -- "The Democratic campaigns all agreed to boycott any and all straw polls this election cycle."
Why is this important? Because then we -- the party's supporters -- know the parameters and rules of the game. If a campaign breaks its own agreement, we can consider that as we make our voting decisions. It will eliminate any suspicions we may have about the party's motives. Who has the most to gain from this "no straw poll" rule? The campaigns with the least amount of money, a list which includes institutional stalwarths like Lieberman and even Gephardt. Who are the guys who want to compete in the straw poll? The two perceived outsiders (Dean and Clark) and the freshman Senator (Edwards) -- the three serious candidates least associated with the "institution".
If candidates are using the national party for cover when making unpopular decisions (like boycotting straw polls), that is lame as well. If they don't want to participate in the straw poll, have the force of conviction to say, "we have to spend our resources elsewhere." Or, build a strong grassroots army that can compete without spending too much money (the way Clark and Dean will likely do it).
But to use the party for political cover? Lame.
Yeah, I know many of you think I overreacted, and perhaps I did. But when two campaigns accuse the national party of lying to them, it's a serious charge.
I want a strong, united national party as we head into battle November 2004.