| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
DEAN UNDER FIRE FROM PARTY DEMS; NEARLY ALL CASH SPENT
Mon Jan 30 2006 10:52:31 ET
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.
Senate and House Minority Leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with the Senate and House campaign committee chairmen Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have made their concerns -- directly or indirectly -- known to Dean, claims the paper.
Emanuel was particularly upset last week upon seeing the latest DNC numbers.
"A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what's going on," said one senior Democratic aide.
Another Democratic source familiar with the party fundraising apparatus said there is "obvious displeasure" among the leaders.
What Happened To Dean's Money?
This item is buried in a Wall Street Journal story on yesterday's primary: "The major Democratic contenders all have nearly exhausted their campaign treasuries; advisers say that even Mr. Dean, who raised an unmatched $40 million in 2003, has less than $5 million left. That leaves all the candidates largely dependent on attention from the news media to reach voters as they move from small venues and intensive personal campaigning to far-flung contests that play out almost entirely on television screens."
Dan Conley makes the same observation and notes "the Dean campaign has burned through it's treasury faster than a five pool table dot-com company."
This irresponsible, unreliable loose cannon wanted to be President.
#1
#2This is one of the odd thinking patterns of the Left. If two things are similar in one way, the Left jumps to the conclusion that they are identical in every way.
A person who's mistaken says something that's not true and a liar says something that's not true? The Left says the two things are identical and both are cases of "lying" -- despite the dictionary definition of the word.
One official is inexplicably low on cash, having spent it on unspecified items -- and another has spent it in a highly publicized campaign of which his supporters approved? In your comment you argue for the Left that the two things are identical.
But let me ask you something. You're a reasonable guy. Would you really argue that GWB "lied" about WMDs in Iraq?
#3Except I didn't say they were "identical in every way." The word I used was "similarly." Clearly the situations are not identical: Only Schwarzenegger was so unreliable and irresponsible that he actually went into the red.
"A highly publicized campaign of which his supporters approved"? Isn't that exactly what the 2004 Dean article concerns? What distinction do you believe you have made?
Bush? WMDs in Iraq? Are you kidding? You sure seem eager to change the subject.
#4“A highly publicized campaign of which his supporters approved”? Isn’t that exactly what the 2004 Dean article concerns? What distinction do you believe you have made?
Check the 2006 info in the post.
Bush? WMDs in Iraq? Are you kidding? You sure seem eager to change the subject.
And I notice you didn't answer.
#5You acknowledge that the 2004 Dean article and the Schwarzenegger article describe essentially the same situation. You offered the Dean article as evidence that Dean is "irresponsible" and "unreliable." Why doesn't the same argument apply to Schwarzenegger?
As for the 2006 article, your characterization of it includes a detail which is not supported by the article itself. I am referring to your use of the word "inexplicably." Did you simply make that up?
#6You acknowledge that the 2004 Dean article and the Schwarzenegger article describe essentially the same situation.
Those are your words, not mine.
As for the 2006 article, your characterization of it includes a detail which is not supported by the article itself. I am referring to your use of the word “inexplicably.” Did you simply make that up?
The 2006 article says:
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.
Senate and House Minority Leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with the Senate and House campaign committee chairmen Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have made their concerns -- directly or indirectly -- known to Dean, claims the paper.
Emanuel was particularly upset last week upon seeing the latest DNC numbers.
"A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what's going on," said one senior Democratic aide.
The Dems were "furious" to learn it and now "A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what's going on." In other words, they find it inexplicable.
in·ex·pli·ca·ble Pronunciation Key (n-kspl-k-bl, nk-splk-bl)
adj.
Difficult or impossible to explain or account for.
Did you really not even read the text of my post before criticizing it? Or perhaps you weren't familiar with the meaning of the word you were using.
#7Those are your words, not mine.
Your words were: "a highly publicized campaign of which his supporters approved." Are you seriously trying to argue that Dean's presidential run was not a highly publicized campaign of which his supporters approved?
The Dems were “furious” to learn it and now “A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what’s going on.” In other words, they find it inexplicable.
"A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what's going on" is not the same thing as "difficult or impossible to explain or account for." You appear unable to differentiate between "unexplained" and "inexplicable."
#8And it's cute that you pretend those words are synonymous in the same thread where you brought up the irrelevant argument about lying versus being mistaken.
#9“A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what’s going on” is not the same thing as “difficult or impossible to explain or account for.”
That appears to be an insupportable assertion. Please attempt to come up with an argument that supports this statement.
#10I already explained it in the sentence just after the one you quoted, but just for fun I'll explain it again. If you have a question which has not been answered, that does not necessarily mean that the question is unanswerable or even that it is difficult to answer. In this case, the article does not even claim that the "senior Democratic aide" has attempted to have his questions answered, so you are making quite a leap in logic in assuming that they are difficult or impossible to answer.
This article describes military commanders in both the US and the UK "scratching their heads" over Bush's Iraq strategy. Does this mean that Bush's Iraq strategy is "inexplicable"? Or, as I suspect, is this yet another case where you have offered an argument which only applies when it supports your preferred conclusion?
I notice that in spite of your indignant "those are your words, not mine" remark, you have refused to support your contention that Howard Dean's presidential bid was something other than "a highly publicized campaign of which his supporters approved." This is disappointing but hardly surprising given the circumstances.
#11If you have a question which has not been answered, that does not necessarily mean that the question is unanswerable or even that it is difficult to answer.
"Congressional leaders were furious last week ... 'A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what’s going on'" That means they find the missing money to be difficult or impossible to explain or account for.
#12It does not mean any such thing. You are inventing details and connections which are not supported by any of the facts in the article.
#13That appears to be an insupportable assertion.
So is Arnold Schwarzenegger similarly "irresponsible" and "unreliable"?
Or is this another of your criticisms which only applies to Democrats?