Dean turns down public money
 

Story

I understand why he did it, but it almost seems hypocritical, particularly for a Democrat.

Re: Dean turns down public money
 

Welcome to realpolitik. Dean has to follow Bushs lead. Its amazing that even the less than rabid conservative talk shows are admitting that Bush is lost in Iraq. However, if the president pulls a few more names off of his dad's Christmas card list, pumps tens of millions of dollars into TV ads, Bush can still change the message.

Money = Message in politics today.

I appreciate absolute moral conviction. I think the Green Party has an important message. However, I still think that some of them are looking at the prospect of drilling in ANWAR and surveys into coastal oil and wondering if they chose the right path in the last election.

My wife already intercepted a call from an Army recruiter who wanted to speak to my 17-year-old son. For me the issues in this next election are clear and I need for not-Bush to win. I am not happy with some of the Democratic candidates, but any of the top four are at the very worst, literally, the lesser of two evils.

If we cannot get in someone competent to manage the military and foreign policy to get us help in Iraq, then we will end up building another wall near the Washington monument. It won't be 493.50 feet long and have 58,175 (est) names on it, but it will be big enough for the people who visit it.

If I go to the Vietnam Memorial it will be as a tourist, and the men and women I pay my respects to will be strangers. There will not be any name there for me to bring flowers to, or to cry over. You have to wonder about the parents who visit their children whose names are in the middle and end panels, the ones who died later in war. Do they question how they voted, or their views on the war and the statements they made about it before their child was called up? If they knew what was going to happen, would they have voted for McCarthy?

The war in Iraq is the most critical issue for the US and will be for years. We could have finished Iraq in the first war, but decided not to. We could have waited to build support so that we would have had a truly international presence there, maybe even from countries in the region, but we didn't.

We are stuck there right now by a White House which is hampered by one HUGE problem. They must fix a serious problem without admitting that they made a mistake or that the problem is at all serious. This is impossible.

For this reason, the next president cannot be Bush if we want to fix Iraq. If he were willing to step down, it could be another Republican, but Bush is unwilling to do what it takes to fix his own mess.

In my opninion, Dean can and should do whatever he legally can to win. We already have a White House steeped in the influence of corporate and wealthy contributers. Add the fact that they are getting American soldiers needlessly killed and there is not much worse that Dean can do.

I agree. He didn't do it because he didn't want money stolen from Americans in the form of taxes and then spent for his private campaign, (like Harry Browne) he did it so he wouldn't have any spending limits. Democrats and Republicans love not having limits on spending, lthough 99 times out of 100 that's with our money.

Dean is averaging $70 some dollars per donation, as opposed to Bush's $2000. I think its a gutsy move and I applaud it. Its all on his ability to continue to generate donations, to see if he can play with the big money. Move-on is helping out by raising $ for national ads that will offer a critique to Bush. I'm sure the conservative media is ponying up as well. Should be interesting. A good time to consider Tivo.

Regarding the recruiting calls that your 17 year old male is receiving: I remember hearing from a principal about a provision that was added to the misnamed unfunded mandate "No Child Left Behind" that requires schools receiving federal funds to allow military recruiting offices complete access to student records of unregistered male students, without seeking the previously required parental permission. This information is not available to any other public or private agency without parental permission. On second thought, maybe the mandate's name is not so incorrect.

I was watching one of the dem debates, Planned Parenthood NH I think, and the question was asked of the candidates if they supported requiring all 18 yr old females to register for the draft. Interesting responses. Dean said yes, if males have to, females should have to and extended it to include not only military but other civic service models. I agreed, Its only fair. But the thought of registering any kid makes me queezy. I wish we didnt have to require it of anyone's child. Kerry and Clark said yes. Kucinich said no, stop the military machine. And Mosely-Braun also said no, adding not until women are treated equally in the service (the topic of soldier's lack of access to legal medical procedures, abortion came up.) It was an interesting question.

That George Soros just gave $5M to move-on. Real money.

Yikes! Let the games begin! Who's George Soros?

Tycoon who enjoys financing his favorite causes. I think he was the major money behind the drives to put medical marijuana on the ballot in states with referendums.

This is George Soros.

Like I said, I understand why Dean made the decision. But the Dems always seem to be the main ones that whine about campaign finance reform. And while lots of money certainly can't hurt, it doesn't necessarily equal "win". Not to mention, any money Dean raises is going to have to go to fighting off 9 other people. Bush's $96 million plus is his and his alone.

In the end though, whomever wins the Dem nomination is going to be the beneficiary of Bill Clinton's amazing fund-raising skills.

Soros is a major league war profiteer. He makes Cheney look like a piker.

I'm not saying you're wrong... or that I don't agree. But let's face it. It's not actually required to get a social security number for a newborn baby. But it's required if you intend to do certain things, such as claim the kid as a dependent on your tax return. And once they've got an SSN and been listed on somebody's tax return every year, who needs to register?? Selective Service registration may be repugnant, but it's not the first or worst government invasion of privacy to ever come along.

It's not required to get a SS for your child when they're born but most hospitals automatically assign one to newborn babies and some will not allow you to have your child born there without them assigning one. My friend just had his child born at home with a midwife to avoid this.

But unless you plan on living under the radar (no pun intended) all your life, you'll have to get one eventually.

I was talking more specifically about 18-26 year olds, currently male only, mandatory registration for selective service. Incidently, this not only includes any kid not already in the military, but also resident aliens (like my spouse) and illegal immigrants,which seems kinda weird to note in their specifications. I popped by the website and they are quick to note that the latest solicitations for new draft board members is a coincidence of natural attrition and not connected to any planned draft. It seems only fair that if males are forced to register, females be too. Why is it less horrific to lose a son than a daughter to forced military service?

I was also talking about new levels of school-based recruiting that allows students' private records to be opened to recruiters without parental, or even child permission. I think some schools/states have tried to fight this. I'll see if I can find a case or something. Its not surprising, just another notch of privacy erroding. that, and it's wartime.

This said, I have respect for anyone choosing to work in the armed services. But like religion, I dont like crafty missionaries.

Hmm. I found some dense legal doc from a school district site that looks like an ed privacy policy point was added in 2002 that all parents must be notified once (I guess per year) about the policy regarding the release of info and can request in writing to "opt out" of the listing. And it only effects HS juniors and seniors.

at least he had his supporters vote on it (i voted that he should) instead of just deciding to go ahead with it. and if bush is gonna walk away from the matching funds why should the dems limit themselves? It seems stupid. yes, of course we should have serious campaign finance reform, but we don't and calling dean a hypocrit over this now isn't gonna make it a reality. Getting bush out of office is the first step towards that.