Dean Campaign Blasts Bush for lying about Grassroots Power

[slinkerwink]

Snake in The Grassroots
Last week, the campaign of George W. Bush sent out six million emails under the banner: “Action Alert! President Bush's grassroots vs. liberal billionaires.” Warning of a liberal plot to “funnel millions in illegal soft money donations,” the note called on supporters to donate “whatever you can afford” to defeat the billionaires.

It’s further evidence that what you’ve done—building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era—has got them worried. They know that a united American people will defeat their special interest war chest.

So they’re scrambling to distort the meaning of the word “grassroots” in order to disguise who writes the checks and who receives political favors in the Bush Administration.

Far from being a grassroots campaign, the President’s money machine has raised over $110 million by bundling contributions from the special interests and lobbyists who write our laws in the Bush administration. Bush’s 203 Pioneers bundle more than $100,000 each, while his 106 Rangers bundle more than $200,000 each.

Compare the make-up of Bush’s funds to your campaign:

In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, 73% of their contributions come in the form of $2,000 checks—compared to just 11% in your campaign.

In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, only 11% of their contributions are raised from individuals giving $200 or less—compared to an incredible 56% in your campaign.

We are not surprised that Rove and company have bent over backwards to distort the meaning of grassroots—and to distort what it is you are fighting for in this election. This is same administration that has asked the American people to believe that “clean skies” means rolling back the Clean Air Act for polluters, “healthy forests” means giving loopholes to logging corporations, and “tax cuts” means shifting the cost of government from the Pioneers and Rangers to working families and the middle class.

As Bush’s handlers hear the growing thunder of what you have achieved in the past year, they have tried to adapt. They launched what they called a “blog,” but instead of an interactive hub of discourse and community, it is a static mouthpiece for official propaganda. And now, the Bush machine—a lobby of the most powerful corporate interests in the nation, intent on maintaining control of our country’s political process—is calling itself the “grassroots.”

Will anyone believe them?

Statistics apply to funds raised through third quarter of 2003 Sources: Center for Responsive Politics at opensecrets.org, Texans for Public Justice, and White House for Sale.

http://blog.deanforamerica.com

[Julien Sorel]

1. I like propaganda, but this is garbage for the Kool-aid impaired.

'Your campaign.' :eyes: Dean is busily making deals with every 'Washington insider' he can get to listen to him.

But the numerical charlatanism here is disgusting:

In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, 73% of their contributions come in the form of $2,000 checks—compared to just 11% in your campaign.

That means that about 30 million -- more than Dean has raised in totality -- wasn't. Bush has actually outraised Dean, by far, in donations of less than $2,000.

Are Bush's donations somehow less meaningful because they are larger? Is a wealthy person involved in a grassroots campaign less grass rootsy than a non-wealthy person? I guess so, to listen to Dean. But if that same wealthy person decided to donate his or her $2k to Dean, they'd quickly become an honest to goodness grassroots campaigner, by God and Howard Dean!

In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, only 11% of their contributions are raised from individuals giving $200 or less—compared to an incredible 56% in your campaign.

This is about breakeven with Dean's total figures: $12 million for
Bush; about 13 million for Dean.

Bush hasn't even begun to tap his smaller donors yet; Dean has been sucking his dry for months now. Traditionally, Republicans get more total donations from more total donors than Democrats, so Dean is barking up the wrong tree here. But when has truth ever stood in the way of Dean and a good propaganda trick for the swillers.

Bottoms up.

[Don Claybrook]

2. Wow

You seem to have a keenly-developed sense of hatred for Howard Dean. What gives? Why expend all the energy required for the hate?

[Julien Sorel]

6. I dislike dishonesty.

Dean is dishonest. I dislike Dean.

Easily penetrated propaganda like this only tells me how contemptuously Dean feels about his followers. That his followers are so ... blinded, let us say, convinces me this party is going down the wrong road.

[poskonig]

16. I dislike Republicans.

;-)

[Dr.Phool]

23. So, I assume you're a Lieberman man

[stickdog]

33. Here's the gig. The initial post was 100% honest and accurate.

It made obvious, cogent and 100% accurate comparisons between the two campaigns.

You responded with a pro-Bush, Repuke talking point analysis worthy of the Hoover Institute.

I would dissect it bit by bit, if I wasn't simply so disgusted to see that type of propaganda on my beloved DU.

If I want to see shit like that, I'll go over to the Free Republic.

[Julien Sorel]

37. Oh, my loss.

I'm sure your 'dissection' would be priceless.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Julien Sorel]

49. I suppose this was the dissection you spared me?

[stickdog]

52. Spare me. I come here to get away from Repuke propaganda. (nm)

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

93. Not afraid

thats you my friend. Thanks for posting that. We do seem to be headed down the wrong road.

Most Americans do not trust politicians farther than they can throw them. Dean has to garner that trust factor to beat bush.

[poskonig]

3. Bush isn't beholden to special interests. Dean is.

I'm convinced!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don Claybrook]

5. I think poskonig was being facetious n/t

[JohnKleeb]

7. Bush thinks hes more grassroots than Dean

Is that what I am reading Don? *laughs*
George you silly bastard, oil exectives and etc arent the grassroots, its the people you dumbass. :eyes: To think that Dubya thinks he is grassroots.

[tameszu]

8. Actually Billy has a point--some of the grassroots is pretty ignorant

and right wing. Seriously.

Grassroots, populist movements can be for good or they can be for ill. Bush has a lot of everyday, grassroots support from family values/religious folks in red states. During the 2000 campaign, the average contribution to the Bush campaign was something like $50. I am not making this up. Think about all those everyday working class ultrareligious folks in the Bible Belt who attend weekly bible studies, PTAs, knitting circles and so on. These are the people who make up much of the 87% of the U.S. population who thinks that there was at least 1 Iraqi among the Sept. 11 hijackers, or the 60% of the U.S. population who "don't think it matters" if the U.S. ever actually finds WMD in Iraq.

Sad and scary but true.

Although I should add, Billy, if you want to make your points stick, you don't need to add the invective.

[JohnKleeb]

9. I am not mad at what billy said

It seems to me that our cowboy in the white house thinks he's grassroots. Interesting points though taz.

[Julien Sorel]

10. I thought these people were supposed to like straight talk?

:shrug:

[stickdog]

41. Dude, your "straight talk" is like O'Lielly's "no spin zone."

You just defended Bush's fucking fundraising -- the most disgusting display of political whoring in US history versus Dean's average $82 donations from regular folks pissed off enough about their country being sold to the highest bidders to tighten their belts just to send a few of their hard earned dollars to the most successful, truly grassroots national campaign in US history.

In your world, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and Bush's campaign is grassroots.

[burning bush]

50. We Love Straight Talk

but you don't talk straight.

Get off your bender Bunter, you don't have any desire to talk straight, and your grasping attempts at making Dean seem dishonest are transparently designed to hurt the man that is hurting your candidate.

If Lieberman, Kerry, or Edwards were as threatening to Clark as Dean, you wouldn't care less about Dean, so please don't try to hide behind some "I just want the truth" shield.

Come clean, admit you are just doing whatever you can to attack your biggest threat, and then we can try discuss honesty honestly.

[Julien Sorel]

63. Actually, the biggest threats to Clark right now

are Lieberman and Edwards, if you understood campaign strategies. You'll have to come up with some other twisted motivating factor.

[stickdog]

65. We all have. It's just against the rules for us to say it. (nm)

[Don Claybrook]

Zing!

I congratulate you on your quick wit and your astute observation!

[Code_Name_D]

27. I agree

If you doubt this, then go attend a fundy religuse service. I never had the guts to attend one myself, but I did talk to a Minister who had, and he said it was the most disgusting thing he ever saw.

Mind you, that this was before 2000, but the preacher would jump off on a tired about how Clintion and his black helicopters were coming after you. He would go on with grafic discritions about what the children would face. He saw he saw a woman brake down in tears in a complet emotionl panic.

Its the kind of thing that gives rise to mobs. And of course, they awyas ask for money to fight back. And they give it. Donating there way right into the poor house.

[stickdog]

46. Sorry, but your numbers are full of shit Repuke propaganda. (nm)

[Don Claybrook]

12. Bush may get lots of cash from ordinary red-staters

But I think the point goes straight to who Bush is indebted to. He can and will jump through whatever hoops his largest contributors want him to jump through. For the GOP to even pretend that he cares about anyone who makes less than 750K per year is ridiculous on its face. But you knew that already. :)

[JohnKleeb]

15. I heard one of the CEOs only makes a million a year

GOP grassroots, we call it GOP cashroots.

[Julien Sorel]

18. Yes, it's the wealthy who are responsible for the anti-abortion plank

in the Republican platform. It's the wealthy who are responsible for the pro-guns stance of the Republicans. It's the wealthy who are responsible for the pro-religious attitude of the Republicans. It's the wealthy who are pro-death penalty.

Eventually, one of these years, the so-called 'activists' of this party are going to wake up and understand that there are large numbers of ordinary people who operate on a different set of ethical principles than they do, and if we can't figure out a way to appeal to or nullify those people, we will never again be a dominating party. Simply telling them they have to stop considering 'God, gays and guns' isn't going to do a thing as long as people like yourself see Republicans for something other than what they are. Republicans are certainly 'for the rich,' but they also represent other interests. Attacking the wealth component, while ignoring the rest of Republicanism, loses, because it doesn't deal with one of the primary appeals Republicanism holds.

[Don Claybrook]

24. I refuse to be as one-dimensional as you'd like me to be

If you think that the NRA and the Christian Coalition aren't Big Money interests who rake in lots of favor and money from the Bush Administration, you're mistaken. Of course these issues are red meat for the rank-and-file Republican, and they throw them a bone once in awhile to make sure the votes are still there. But these issues benefit big business and make them big money, no two ways about it.

I'm not aware of any push to have Republican or swing voters stop considering God, gays, and guns. I'm aware of an effort on Howard Dean's part to convince those voters that the issues are very personal and subjective and that they shouldn't be make-or-break issues when considering whether or not to vote for a Democrat. I believe he's saying that there are more important issues that should unite us than those that divide us. And I think his message is getting through.

We'll never be a dominating party as long as people like yourself continue to infer that we should abandon the traditional Democratic base in order to try to appeal to the basest elements of the lower socio-economic rungs of the Republican Party.

[Julien Sorel]

25. What?

Of course these issues are red meat for the rank-and-file Republican, and they throw them a bone once in awhile to make sure the votes are still there. But these issues benefit big business and make them big money, no two ways about it.

Exactly how do God, gays and guns benefit big business?

I'm not aware of any push to have Republican or swing voters stop considering God, gays, and guns. I'm aware of an effort on Howard Dean's part to convince those voters that the issues are very personal and subjective and that they shouldn't be make-or-break issues when considering whether or not to vote for a Democrat. I believe he's saying that there are more important issues that should unite us than those that divide us. And I think his message is getting through.

Really? Based on what evidence do you believe this? The polls I see have Dean getting crushed, and faring worse than a generic Democrat. Is that evidence that his message is getting through?

We'll never be a dominating party as long as people like yourself continue to infer that we should abandon the traditional Democratic base in order to try to appeal to the basest elements of the lower socio-economic rungs of the Republican Party.

I didn't 'infer' it -- you did. I said 'appeal to or nullify.' That would imply bringing new people into the party, or finding a way to seperate them from the rest of the Republicans (the more realistic approach, I believe). But as long as we are the anti-business party, we have no chance of seperating the money interests from the rank and file Republicans. Clinton made a start, and now the efforts are at a standstill, with Dean's faux-leftism.

[Don Claybrook]

31. OK, let's do this again

1. Gun manufacturers, arms dealers, prison industries, faith-based government money giveaways.

2. It seems to me that the polls indicate Dean is beating the living hell out of all of the other Democratic candidates. His message resonates, theirs doesn't. As for the vs. Bush, you seem like a bright enough fellow: you tell me what the incumbent ALWAYS looks like at this stage of campaigning, before the challenger's name is known to a large percentage of voters.

3. See #2. But don't get stuck in an infinite loop on this one (hint: de-emphasizing G, G, &G and putting more emphasis on health care, education, and jobs really is the answer, as found above). By the way, just because you gave an either/or choice (appeal to/nullify) doesn't detract from the 'appeal to' portion. Again, 'nullify' is covered in #2, above. 'Appeal to' is covered by Zell Miller, Dick Gephardt, Terry MacAuliffe, Tom Daschle, and Donna Brazille. What a resounding success that's been.

Finally, it's nice that you want to treat big business even better than Bush does, but I just don't think our Constitution or our country could hold up under the weight of that much added treachery.

Good evening.

[Julien Sorel]

47. Perhaps the third time will be the charm?

1. Gun manufacturers, arms dealers, prison industries, faith-based government money giveaways.

Arms dealers and gun manufacturers are different industries, first of all. Gun manufacturing is a tiny, tiny business in the big scale of things. 'Faith-based government money giveaways?' What the hell is that? How much money? Where does it go? how does it benefit the Republican machine?

. It seems to me that the polls indicate Dean is beating the living hell out of all of the other Democratic candidates. His message resonates, theirs doesn't. As for the vs. Bush, you seem like a bright enough fellow: you tell me what the incumbent ALWAYS looks like at this stage of campaigning, before the challenger's name is known to a large percentage of voters.

I hadn't realized that people who were motivated by guns, gays, and God were voting in a Democratic primary. My bad.

The second half of your post fails to answer my question: you stated that Dean's message on God, guns and gays is 'getting through.' Based on what evidence? You have still presented none. It isn't in the polls, where Dean fares worse than a generic Democrat against the party of God, guns, and gays. Where is it?

Finally, it's nice that you want to treat big business even better than Bush does, but I just don't think our Constitution or our country could hold up under the weight of that much added treachery.

Yet another Deanite strawman. Clinton did fine without treating big business better than Bush -- a point I already made.

Good evening.

Yep.

[Don Claybrook]

54. Perhaps not

I finally got around to looking at the rest of the thread and noticed that you're kind of, um, a moderate zealot (yeah, it's a bizarre term, but would you disagree?). You have your dogma and you're not going to listen to anyone else, no matter what they have to say.

I have but one question left for you, BillyBunter: how will you vote in the General Election if Howard Dean is the nominee?

I'd be really interested in hearing the answer to that question.

Have a moderate day.

[Julien Sorel]

62. A moderate zealot.

Interesting. A centrist zealot who finds the centrist Dean repugnant. I presume you are out of arguments, then. So the third time wasn't a charm :-(

[Don Claybrook]

68. I bow to your omnipotent moderation

I'm going out first thing in the morning to volunteer for the McCain/Breaux/Miller/Lieberman/Specter campaign. You've talked me into it.

By the way, I didn't catch your answer about how you'd vote if Dean won the primary. Maybe it's this new Mozilla browser I'm using. Would you mind reiterating for me?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

51. We all know they Repukes have forged an unholy alliance with fundies

and culture warriors in order to get 30%-40% of the nation to support an agenda of the rich, for the rich and by the rich.

The first step in stopping this is to recognize and talk about the problem. Only Dean is doing this.

Dean's solution: Educate people that they are voting against their own interests.

Your solution: Nominate a quasi-Repuke, morph into a quasi-Repuke or at least pretend that you're a quasi-Repuke.

[Demobrat]

14. I hope so.

*

[slinkerwink]

11. POOP

I can't believe you're defending Bush.

[Julien Sorel]

13. Who's defending Bush?

What makes me laugh is the total lack of comment about Dean's lying. Here Dean is, 'blasting' the Republicans for lying about grassroots, when it's Dean himself who is doing the lying. Shall I pretend a lie isn't a lie when it's about Bush?

[slinkerwink]

19. actually, most of Bush's contributions this primary cycle came from

"bundled" checks from corporations. This is not real grassroots.

[Julien Sorel]

20. I hate to admit my shock,

but I don't think you understood my original post. As far as 'grassroots' donations go, smaller donations, Bush wipes the floor with Dean; historically the Republicans wipe the floor with Democrats. So by Dean's, and now your, logic, the Republicans are the true grassroots party. Maybe measuring donations isn't the best way to gauge 'grassroots' support, although since money is what made Dean, I can understand the focus.

[slinkerwink]

21. look, the republican idea of grassroots is different from the grassroots

ideal for the Dean campaign. An example of grassroots power is having 10,000 people show up at a Dean rally, etcetera. Bush has to "select" supporters to show up at his events. Besides, Bush has more PAC money than Dean does. That's not grassroots---that's being bought for by corporations.

Your definition of grassroots is different from mine.

[Julien Sorel]

29. Bush has more money of every kind than Dean does.

Bush has a mailing list with 6 million people on it. Every year, the Republicans get more money, and more small-dollar donations, than do the Democrats.

Your definition of grassroots is different from mine.

And your definition of grassroots is different from Dean's, which was my point. It was Dean who chose to define grassroots as a function of donations, not me.

[slinkerwink]

40. I don't think that Bush really has a mailing list of six million people

and besides, it's such an obvious RW talking point to say that Bush's corporate donations are far better than Dean's and that represents grassroots power.

You're ignoring the redefinition of grassroots---besides, before Dean came onto the scene, Bush never called his campaign "grassroots"

[SahaleArm]

45. Bush most definitely has a mailing list that large...

and a voter-ID list that is much larger; he is running unopposed. Bush has access to all the data the GOP has gathered over the past 50+ years, including mailing lists from every GOP candidates that ran for office the past 12+ years.

[slinkerwink]

56. that's different from Dean's mailing list

because when Dean's mailing list was started, he only had about 400 people on it, and now it's gone up to 538,000-----that's a real example of grassroots power.

[SahaleArm]

69. Of course it's different - but it still nets them cash...

And that's what we are up against in this election.

[slinkerwink]

95. so you concede that the Bush people aren't real grassroots

[Julien Sorel]

53. Who cares what it's called? Grassroots is grassroots.

Dean didn't invent the word or the concept. It's been called that since at least the time of William Jennings Bryan, who had the original great grassroots campaign. He lost, by the way. Badly.

[SahaleArm]

35. Really - yet how do Republicans get 50-Million votes?

There's not enough CEO's, PAC's, or select supporters to get that many votes. Spouting the company-line doesn't address what Billy pointed out.

[slinkerwink]

48. Bush duped republicans by being a compassionate conservative

and he stole the election. period.

[stickdog]

59. They fool idiots with the culture war schtick. We all know that.

Jesus, is this really DU?

[slinkerwink]

61. hey---I'll PM you

[SahaleArm]

72. Quite obvious but far too simplistic - the question of how to get...

them to vote Democrat is much more complex and pertinent to winning the election. As much as I love GOTV, it hasn't been nearly as successful as Democrats would have hoped.

[stickdog]

76. Because we don't give people enough reason to vote. (nm)

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. I can.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eileen_d]

32. edit

before you tell me I should be banned too! :scared:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eileen_d]

36. Oh, so *you're* the one who determines who's who around here.

Please check next to my checkbox so I can sleep soundly tonight.

[SahaleArm]

38. Deanocrats to Democrats - "You're either with us or against us" n/t

[stickdog]

66. ABDer's on DU: We can disrupt with pro-Bush bullshit. We're above

the rules.

[SahaleArm]

73. Deanocrats break rules just like their master - Call everyone Bushlite n/t

[stickdog]

77. You can't equate the two. One is inherently pro-Repuke while the

other is inherently anti-Repuke.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Julien Sorel]

39. So pointing out Howard Dean lying is a bannable offense?

Spare me. I've likely been involved in Democratic politics as long as you've been alive, or close to it, so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for being a True Democrat.

[slinkerwink]

42. no, but defending bush is a bannable offense

which is what you're doing in this post.

[Julien Sorel]

55. No, I'm not.

If Dean calls Bush an ax murderer, and I say that's a lie, is that a bannable offense? I'm calling Dean a liar. I'm sorry that hurts you so much that you have to try this 'Defending Bush' nonsense as a defense, but it really demonstrates a lack of character. On the other hand, it does fit in with the usual Deanite tactic of shooting the messenger.

When the Republicans attack Dean for his lies, are you going to call them Republicans as a 'defense?' Ridiculous.

[slinkerwink]

58. look.......

You apparently don't know the difference between grassroots when it comes to Bush and Dean.

Bush got his mailing list from the RNC.

Dean built his mailing list from the ground up.

Bush gets his $$$ from corporations.

Dean gets his $$$ from the people.

There, get it?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Julien Sorel]

67. Calling people Republicans is breaking the rules here.

And a tiresome and weak tactic.

[poskonig]

70. But *being* a Republican is not?

The moderators need to know about this.

[Julien Sorel]

78. Look, I'm tired of this.

Prove I'm a Republican, or put a smelly sock in it.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[windansea]

94. wrong

he has clearly exposed the BS in original post with simple math a 6th grader would understand...your attempt to smear him as a repug is a pathetic failure

it's obvious that BB is a REAL democrat and that you don't support free speech or democratic principles

[Don Claybrook]

80. If I might direct your attention to Posts #54 & 68

I see that you're busy here in the lower parts of this thread, but if you get a chance, would you bop on up to the little conversation we had above? With you avoiding that last question, I'm not feeling any closure.

To keep you from having to trouble yourself with scrolling all over the place, I'll ask again here, for the third time.

If Dean happens to be the Democratic nominee, how will you vote in the General Election?

I ask that because you seem to hate Howard Dean, and I'm not using hate in any pedestrian sort of way. I'm talking visceral hatred. So if he gets the nod, how will you resolve to support your party and vote for him? Call it a wild hunch, but it doesn't seem like the Green Party would be a relief-valve mechanism for you. Mark me curious.

And thanks!

[Julien Sorel]

84. Zing!

:eyes:

[Don Claybrook]

85. Will Zing be a write-in candidate?

It's WAY to late for me to be up. I think I have my answer anyway.

Goodnight, and may God continue to bless America and provide tax relief for working American families.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[windansea]

90. don't understand the math? (NT)

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[windansea]

87. BB = Hero...destroyer of the borg

I salute you for your courage and insight

the rest of you are so sadly delusional...not one person here has put the tiniest dent in BB's points...faced with facts all you can do is attempt pathetic repug smears

just like your candidate does...birds of a feather

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[windansea]

89. disruptor = exposing Dean?

democracy in action...when you have a REAL reply to BB's points feel free to post them...

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

96. I am locking this thread since I had to delete

a good portion of it due to personal attacks.

Please remember that calling someone a disruptor, a freeper or saying that someone should be tombstoned is a DU rule violation. If you feel that someone is a disruptor, please use the alert button so that the mods and Admins can evaluate the situation.


Slinkerwink....please feel free to repost this topic.


Thank you.


DU Moderator