NationStates Jolt Archive

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean’s management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee’s cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle, ROLL CALL reports.

Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee’s $34 million.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhd.htm

All I can say is you get what you pay for. I remember quite a few people 'round here were very happy with his election. :)

Now wait for people to say, "it's not true because it was on Drudge".

Hate to break it to you, it's in Roll Call.

5.5 million isn't enough to do squat in helping out in districts where Democrats might want to swing the vote.

Wow.....wow, thats so terrible I should be crying, but for some reason I can't stop laughing. Whose side is he on?

You're right. There were PLENTY of people happy about his election. Most were Republicans! :p

Wow.....wow, thats so terrible I should be crying, but for some reason I can't stop laughing. Whose side is he on?

He's probably really the long lost brother of George W. and Jeb...

wow. who would have thought that democrats couldn't handle money? hmmmm...

You all quit picking on Dean. If media matters gets line on him they will spend the last 5 million in getting rid of him and finding someone who's effective instead of funny.

You all quit picking on Dean. If media matters gets line on him they will spend the last 5 million in getting rid of him and finding someone who's effective instead of funny.

yeah, we wouldn't want the dems to get organized.

You're right. There were PLENTY of people happy about his election. Most were Republicans! :p
Yeah, alot were. It seemed to be about the only thing everyone round here could get behind.

Luckily for the Democrats, the DCCC has about $12 million cash on hand, and the DSCC has about $22 million.

What's happening with Dean is exactly what was predicted before he took over there - he wouldn't be able to fundraise. He's never been able to fundraise.

Luckily for the Democrats, the DCCC has about $12 million cash on hand, and the DSCC has about $22 million.

What's happening with Dean is exactly what was predicted before he took over there - he wouldn't be able to fundraise. He's never been able to fundraise.


ummm, Didn't he set RECORDS for fundraising on the internet??

Wow.....wow, thats so terrible I should be crying, but for some reason I can't stop laughing. Whose side is he on?
He's a mole! Howard Dean is a Republican in Democratic clothing! He's a mole, I tell you! It's the only possible explanation! :eek:

wow. who would have thought that democrats couldn't handle money? hmmmm...
I don't think that the republicans can handle money either. Had a look at your enormous defecit lately?

I don't think that the republicans can handle money either. Had a look at your enormous defecit lately?

Skill at handling one's own money doesn't necessarily translate into skill at managing other people's.

Skill at handling one's own money doesn't necessarily translate into skill at managing other people's.
If you're running a country, the money belonging to the country should matter more than the money belonging to your party.

If you're running a country, the money belonging to the country should matter more than the money belonging to your party.
Very true, which is why the phrase "We owe it to ourselves" was so unfortunate. :(

Waiting for Eutrusca's inevitable crack about Dean's sanity....

I have the feeling that the inability to raise money is representative of an internal division in the Democratic Party - old school vs. new school.

Unfortunately, the old school is the part with the money.

I would like to see these "party Dems" put Bush "under fire." Say, for blatantly violating the rule of law, and then shamelessly admitting to it.

It might actually accomplish more than attacking Howard Dean.

Waiting for Eutrusca's inevitable crack about Dean's sanity....
Crack? Don't you mean diatribe?

Looks like we have a brand spankin' new Drudge attributing Right Wing Troll (Trollop?)

Welcome.

He's probably really the long lost brother of George W. and Jeb...
Marvin? the brother that snorted cocaine with W. at Camp David while their daddy was off being president?

I love it. This is better than one of those wretched Fox reality shows any day of the week.

"When Democrats Self-Destruct!" And be sure to stay tuned afterwards for a new post election special episode of "Lost", starring Dianne Feinstein.

I love it. This is better than one of those wretched Fox reality shows any day of the week.

"When Democrats Self-Destruct!" And be sure to stay tuned afterwards for a new post election special episode of "Lost", starring Dianne Feinstein.
Won't quite be nearly as entertaining as "When Republicans Self-Destruct!" when the Abraham Jackoff scandal hits the fan.

Won't quite be nearly as entertaining as "When Republicans Self-Destruct!" when the Abraham Jackoff scandal hits the fan.

Actually I kind of look forward to when that happens. :) Hope you don't mind losing Harry Reid and half your own Senators when it happens! :p

But shall we all take a moment to bow to the liberal skills at trying to change the subject? ;) Maybe the liberals should take a moment to audit Howard Dean. :D

Won't quite be nearly as entertaining as "When Republicans Self-Destruct!" when the Abraham Jackoff scandal hits the fan.

I am afraid you will be disappointed with that one. Have you by chance noticed that the remedies from both sides are almost carbon copies of one another and barely even scratch the surface when it comes to a real cure for all the bribery?
All those fuckers want to keep getting the money so they won't push it past a duck and a jab. Even if they do, it will not matter because the Republicans hold the trump card. All they have to say, is, "Democrats cannot be trusted with National Security." It will be, "Game Over, see you in two"

Actually I kind of look forward to when that happens. :) Hope you don't mind losing Harry Reid and half your own Senators when it happens! :p

But shall we all take a moment to bow to the liberal skills at trying to change the subject? ;) Maybe the liberals should take a moment to audit Howard Dean. :D

Almost forgot about good ol Harry introducing legislation that benefited one person! His son the lobbiest!

Luckily for the Democrats, the DCCC has about $12 million cash on hand, and the DSCC has about $22 million.

What's happening with Dean is exactly what was predicted before he took over there - he wouldn't be able to fundraise. He's never been able to fundraise.Hate to burst your bubble, but Dean has, in fact, set fundraising records for the Democrats since taking over as DNC chair. He raised more money in 2005 that Terry McAuliffe did in 2003, and that's comparing a post-presidential election to a pre-election year.

But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good bashing.

Here's what has actually been happening.

Dean's been spending money in the states, rebuilding local parties that were left to wither throughout the 90s. He's spent the money he's raised on organizing, on training, and on GOTV (get out the vote) efforts, which is what the Republican party has been doing for quite some time now. And I give credit where it's due--the Republican party has been kicking ass in their GOTV and organizing efforts, no question.

McAuliffe (the last DNC chair) was raising money to spend on tv ads, and the Democratic party consulting firms which handled the ad buys got a cut, so they had a vested interest in spending money on tv and nowhere else. This is another place where the republicans have it right--their media consultants get a flat rate, so when tv isn't needed anymore, they don't have any reason to keep pushing it. They get out the vote. That's a large part of why they've been winning elections.

Dean's rebuilding the party from the ground up, and that means spending money on grassroots organizing. The other thing it means is that when Dean goes into states to fundraise, the money stays with the state parties--under McAuliffe, it came back to Washington.

So the traditional Democratic powers are pissy, because they're being cut out, and they're wanting to make their cash come election day, so they're talking shit--anonymously, I might add, the chickenshit fuckers--trying to make Dean look bad. But Dean is spending the money wisely, and he'll raise more. He's doing what has to be done to win elections in the long run. He has learned from the enemy, and now is trying to turn some of that knowledge to good use.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Dean has, in fact, set fundraising records for the Democrats since taking over as DNC chair. He raised more money in 2005 that Terry McAuliffe did in 2003, and that's comparing a post-presidential election to a pre-election year.

But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good bashing.

Here's what has actually been happening.

Dean's been spending money in the states, rebuilding local parties that were left to wither throughout the 90s. He's spent the money he's raised on organizing, on training, and on GOTV (get out the vote) efforts, which is what the Republican party has been doing for quite some time now. And I give credit where it's due--the Republican party has been kicking ass in their GOTV and organizing efforts, no question.

McAuliffe (the last DNC chair) was raising money to spend on tv ads, and the Democratic party consulting firms which handled the ad buys got a cut, so they had a vested interest in spending money on tv and nowhere else. This is another place where the republicans have it right--their media consultants get a flat rate, so when tv isn't needed anymore, they don't have any reason to keep pushing it. They get out the vote. That's a large part of why they've been winning elections.

Dean's rebuilding the party from the ground up, and that means spending money on grassroots organizing. The other thing it means is that when Dean goes into states to fundraise, the money stays with the state parties--under McAuliffe, it came back to Washington.

So the traditional Democratic powers are pissy, because they're being cut out, and they're wanting to make their cash come election day, so they're talking shit--anonymously, I might add, the chickenshit fuckers--trying to make Dean look bad. But Dean is spending the money wisely, and he'll raise more. He's doing what has to be done to win elections in the long run. He has learned from the enemy, and now is trying to turn some of that knowledge to good use.


In other words, the reason so little money is left is because it has been spent.

If this is bad money management, then George Bush (from surplus to record deficit, to a ever-so-slight lessening of the record deficit,) is the worst money-managing President ever.

Oh wait, he is.

Funny how the Conservative sound machine picks and chooses the criteria by which they judge (and then don't apply it to themselves.)

Actually I kind of look forward to when that happens. :) Hope you don't mind losing Harry Reid and half your own Senators when it happens! :p

But shall we all take a moment to bow to the liberal skills at trying to change the subject? ;) Maybe the liberals should take a moment to audit Howard Dean. :D

I think you'll find the rot is much more prevalent in the Republican party. After all, it's simply not as profitable to bribe the minority party.

In order to believe the corruption is as bad in the Dem party, you have to believe the lobbyists are both unethical and stupid.

I think you'll find the rot is much more prevalent in the Republican party. After all, it's simply not as profitable to bribe the minority party.

In order to believe the corruption is as bad in the Dem party, you have to believe the lobbyists are both unethical and stupid.
Absolutely. I have no illusions that if the situation was reversed, it would be Democrats neck deep in Abramoff money instead of Republicans, but it is what it is, and Republicans would be wise to remember the lessons of 1994, when they inflicted great damage on a Democratic party that had gotten hubristic and unethical. It could happen to them.

Dean's rebuilding the party from the ground up, and that means spending money on grassroots organizing. The other thing it means is that when Dean goes into states to fundraise, the money stays with the state parties--under McAuliffe, it came back to Washington.

So the traditional Democratic powers are pissy, because they're being cut out, and they're wanting to make their cash come election day, so they're talking shit--anonymously, I might add, the chickenshit fuckers--trying to make Dean look bad. But Dean is spending the money wisely, and he'll raise more. He's doing what has to be done to win elections in the long run. He has learned from the enemy, and now is trying to turn some of that knowledge to good use.

Aha! That is a logical explanation. The true proof of how well that works will come this November. Good luck with you guys until then. ;)

Aha! That is a logical explanation. The true proof of how well that works will come this November. Good luck with you guys until then. ;)
Yep. I was expecting to have to get harsh when I saw you had replied. I'm glad I was wrong. :)

Looks like we have a brand spankin' new Drudge attributing Right Wing Troll (Trollop?)

Welcome.

Knew you would make that mistake. The story actually comes from Roll Call.

Hate to burst your bubble,
Ah, c'mon, Nazz, let the rightwingers have a little fun, all in one little room with no window and no working fan, 5-o'clock shadows grown WAY beyond neglect, occasional spittle flying and crunchy coffee in permanently lipsticked-mugs.
They've got little other shelter together in the real world to do their shadow-boxing. It's kinda like the room downstairs for Sunday school. ;)

But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good bashing.
They never, NEVER do ... :)

Dean's rebuilding the party from the ground up, and that means spending money on grassroots organizing. The other thing it means is that when Dean goes into states to fundraise, the money stays with the state parties--under McAuliffe, it came back to Washington.

So the traditional Democratic powers are pissy, because they're being cut out, and they're wanting to make their cash come election day, so they're talking shit--anonymously, I might add, the chickenshit fuckers--trying to make Dean look bad. But Dean is spending the money wisely, and he'll raise more. He's doing what has to be done to win elections in the long run. He has learned from the enemy, and now is trying to turn some of that knowledge to good use.

Hey, I have absolutely no problem with you guys letting the guy who ran the most inept field organization in Iowa in a decade plan the field organization nationwide for you all.

If he knew what he was doing, he'd have been the Democratic nominee. I hope he's learned from his mistakes, for your sakes.

In any event, the Republicans are going to spend the DNC into the ground. The Democratic leadership has every right to be nervous about the disparity because the same base of people they're tapping for fundraising for the DNC are going to be the same ones hit up by the DCCC and the DSCC, not to mention all the members, and they're going to get tapped out. You don't blow your load before the election season has even started.

Then again, if I were the Democrats, I wouldn't go balls to the wall in November anyway because structurally there's just too small a chance to win back either house to make it worth wasting all your resources when 2008 isn't that far away and you've got a very good chance of taking back the White House.

I don't think that the republicans can handle money either. Had a look at your enormous defecit lately?

Well, if I lend someone my credit card, and he maxes it out with cash advances, then invests it wisely and skips town without givning me a forwarding address, can he really be said to have incured a deficit?

Of course, Republican voters gave him our collective credit card, but yes, Dems have handled their money badly by not voting the Republicans out of office.

Hey Sally Lemons, what are "non party dems" ?

Hey, I have absolutely no problem with you guys letting the guy who ran the most inept field organization in Iowa in a decade plan the field organization nationwide for you all.

If he knew what he was doing, he'd have been the Democratic nominee. I hope he's learned from his mistakes, for your sakes.

In any event, the Republicans are going to spend the DNC into the ground. The Democratic leadership has every right to be nervous about the disparity because the same base of people they're tapping for fundraising for the DNC are going to be the same ones hit up by the DCCC and the DSCC, not to mention all the members, and they're going to get tapped out. You don't blow your load before the election season has even started.

Then again, if I were the Democrats, I wouldn't go balls to the wall in November anyway because structurally there's just too small a chance to win back either house to make it worth wasting all your resources when 2008 isn't that far away and you've got a very good chance of taking back the White House.I'm sure the DNC will take your well-intentioned advice under advisement. :rolleyes:

You know why I like Dean?

Because the Republicans are so irrationally scared of him!

You know why I like Dean?

Because the Republicans are so irrationally scared of him!
I may not be a Republican, but close enough for this forum, I guess. And I LOVE Dean! He shows the true lunacy and iraationalism of the far left loonies! :D

Hell, I would have voted for him for head of the DNC if I could have. Now all we have to do is get Sheeham elected, and the left will drown in it's own bile.

I'm sure the DNC will take your well-intentioned advice under advisement. :rolleyes:

They usually do. I'm a big contributor.

I may not be a Republican, but close enough for this forum, I guess. And I LOVE Dean! He shows the true lunacy and iraationalism of the far left loonies! :D

Hell, I would have voted for him for head of the DNC if I could have. Now all we have to do is get Sheeham elected, and the left will drown in it's own bile.

Put a list of Dean quotes next to a list of Bush quotes and YOU tell me who the bigger loon is.

Also, finding a crazy member of the left and focusing on them (and more and more, Sheehan is becoming a caricature,) is no more valid than me characterizing the entire political right as reflections of Pat Robertson.

We are not scared of him at all, we actually secretly got him elected as DNC chief. Nice to know we have that much pull in the opposing party's innerworkings.

Put a list of Dean quotes next to a list of Bush quotes and YOU tell me who the bigger loon is.

Also, finding a crazy member of the left and focusing on them (and more and more, Sheehan is becoming a caricature,) is no more valid than me characterizing the entire political right as reflections of Pat Robertson.
Fair's fair. I like your challenge in the first line, too. If you need help, well ... you know. ;)

I may not be a Republican, but close enough for this forum, I guess. And I LOVE Dean! He shows the true lunacy and iraationalism of the far left loonies! :D

I am a "far left loonie."

Dean is a reactionary who is more competent at running an effective campaign than most of the establishment Democrats.

His threat is not that he will change things - he will not - but that he will get people to think that they can change things, an even more dangerous attitude.

I am a "far left loonie."

Dean is a reactionary who is more competent at running an effective campaign than most of the establishment Democrats.

His threat is not that he will change things - he will not - but that he will get people to think that they can change things, an even more dangerous attitude.
And that's what makes establishment, beltway democrats feel like they've just gotten an ice-cube enema. Can't have the filthy unwashed crashing the party after all.

Dean is a reactionary who is more competent at running an effective campaign than most of the establishment Democrats.

I don't get how you can say that. Most of the establishment Democrats have won multiple campaigns. Dean hasn't one a single federal level election ever. Running for Vermont House, Lt. Governor and Governor doesn't give you a clue about how to run a national or a major campaign. His state is small enough that he could literally knock on every door and meet every voter.

His Presidential campaign was horrible. Just bad. He went into Iowa with arguably one of the worst field campaigns ever. He had 19 year olds covered in piercings with green hair knocking doors in rural Iowa. The nomination was his to lose and he lost it. A buddy of mine was on the ground working for Bob Graham and EVERYONE thought the Dean people were a joke.

The establishment Democrats may be establishment but they recognize that appealing to the far left in the party is a recipe for disaster. And going into an election year with no money because you've spent it creating a "national grassroots plan" FROM WASHINGTON is a recipe for failure.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. 2006 won't be an effective test though, because there's little to no chance that the Democrats will take back either house. We'll have to wait until 2008 to see if this plan worked, but I can almost guarantee that when the Dems don't win in 2006, they'll blame Dean and find a way to force him out.

I don't get how you can say that. Most of the establishment Democrats have won multiple campaigns. Dean hasn't one a single federal level election ever. Running for Vermont House, Lt. Governor and Governor doesn't give you a clue about how to run a national or a major campaign. His state is small enough that he could literally knock on every door and meet every voter.

His Presidential campaign was horrible. Just bad. He went into Iowa with arguably one of the worst field campaigns ever. He had 19 year olds covered in piercings with green hair knocking doors in rural Iowa. The nomination was his to lose and he lost it. A buddy of mine was on the ground working for Bob Graham and EVERYONE thought the Dean people were a joke.

The establishment Democrats may be establishment but they recognize that appealing to the far left in the party is a recipe for disaster. And going into an election year with no money because you've spent it creating a "national grassroots plan" FROM WASHINGTON is a recipe for failure.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. 2006 won't be an effective test though, because there's little to no chance that the Democrats will take back either house. We'll have to wait until 2008 to see if this plan worked, but I can almost guarantee that when the Dems don't win in 2006, they'll blame Dean and find a way to force him out.

Would you like to eat your words with ketchup or mustard when you are proven wrong?

I don't get how you can say that. Most of the establishment Democrats have won multiple campaigns. Dean hasn't one a single federal level election ever. Running for Vermont House, Lt. Governor and Governor doesn't give you a clue about how to run a national or a major campaign. His state is small enough that he could literally knock on every door and meet every voter.

His Presidential campaign was horrible. Just bad. He went into Iowa with arguably one of the worst field campaigns ever. He had 19 year olds covered in piercings with green hair knocking doors in rural Iowa. The nomination was his to lose and he lost it. A buddy of mine was on the ground working for Bob Graham and EVERYONE thought the Dean people were a joke.

The establishment Democrats may be establishment but they recognize that appealing to the far left in the party is a recipe for disaster. And going into an election year with no money because you've spent it creating a "national grassroots plan" FROM WASHINGTON is a recipe for failure.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. 2006 won't be an effective test though, because there's little to no chance that the Democrats will take back either house. We'll have to wait until 2008 to see if this plan worked, but I can almost guarantee that when the Dems don't win in 2006, they'll blame Dean and find a way to force him out.

An obscure Vermont governor managed to capture the national attention on an anti-war plank that was very inconvenient at the time (though would not have been six months later.)

That is an accomplishment.

He did all this while thumbing his nose as the party leadership, which does not believe in opposition parties but rather in occassionally hesitating on the genuflecting.

Dean returned a few vertebrae to the Democratic Party, especially on the issue of the war, when they had been hopelessly outflanked since 9/11/01.

In his current incarnation he seems to have the right idea about how to run things - hit them hard, rebuild an ineffective campaign structure - and I think it will show somewhat in 2006.

He is severely handicapped by having elected party members who publicly denounce the statements he makes, and who themselves are hesitant to actually do anything.

It still amazes me - Bush practically admitted to violating the rule of law. What did we hear from the elected Democrats? Almost nothing. They should have shouted for impeachment a long time ago, but they were just handed the opportunity on a silver platter, and they ignored it.

And that's what makes establishment, beltway democrats feel like they've just gotten an ice-cube enema. Can't have the filthy unwashed crashing the party after all.

They're profoundly afraid of their own people. It's obvious, and it's pathetic.

They are spineless cowards, but the Democratic base is not, and aren't planning on standing for it any more.

I don't get how you can say that. Most of the establishment Democrats have won multiple campaigns. Dean hasn't one a single federal level election ever. Running for Vermont House, Lt. Governor and Governor doesn't give you a clue about how to run a national or a major campaign. His state is small enough that he could literally knock on every door and meet every voter.

His Presidential campaign was horrible. Just bad. He went into Iowa with arguably one of the worst field campaigns ever. He had 19 year olds covered in piercings with green hair knocking doors in rural Iowa. The nomination was his to lose and he lost it. A buddy of mine was on the ground working for Bob Graham and EVERYONE thought the Dean people were a joke.

The establishment Democrats may be establishment but they recognize that appealing to the far left in the party is a recipe for disaster. And going into an election year with no money because you've spent it creating a "national grassroots plan" FROM WASHINGTON is a recipe for failure.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. 2006 won't be an effective test though, because there's little to no chance that the Democrats will take back either house. We'll have to wait until 2008 to see if this plan worked, but I can almost guarantee that when the Dems don't win in 2006, they'll blame Dean and find a way to force him out.
He hasn't been creating it from Washington--he's been out in the states working with local leaders and trying to rejuvenate the party at the roots. Like I said in an earlier post, the Republicans have done that for years, and they've done it well. The Democrats are now trying to replicate their work, thanks to Dean. If not for him, the DNC would still be doing the same-old same-old and we'd still be losing elections left and right. The work has already shown some minor results in special elections. Will it result in a majority in 2006? I'd like to see it happen, but it's a major hurdle to overcome thanks to gerrymandering. But I think we'll certainly make gains, and what's more important, local officials will feel empowered again.