Mary Mostert
Are Republicans contributing to Howard Dean’s campaign?
By Mary Mostert
The 2004 Election Year could be very good for Republicans. Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings, who will have represented South Carolina for almost 36 years when his 6th term as Senator expires in 2004, has decided not to run again for office. He is quoted as saying “It wouldn't be easy for anybody who's a Democrat in this state to get elected," Hollings said.”
Things must be really bad in Democrat circles. I cannot ever remember a Southern politician of Hollings stature in effect conceding defeat for his party, almost a year and a half before the election.
Then, we have Howard Dean, who made it as cover boy on two major news magazines this month —Newsweek and Time. Time has an accompanying article that positively gushes with enthusiasm for their boy: “Then Dean's forces burst from their blogs (weblogs are the jungle drums of the Internet age) and made themselves heard in the old-fashioned language the political establishment understands: money. They deluged his campaign with $7.6 million in the second quarter (ended June 30), which was $1.7 million more than presumed front runner John Kerry, $2.5 million more than poll-topping Joe Lieberman, $3.1 million more than glamorous newcomer John Edwards, $3.8 million more than seasoned Dick Gephardt. As for the rest of the field—including a Senator, a Congressman, a former ambassador, and a civil rights leader—not one raised even a third of what Dean had.
“A year ago, Dean, 54, predicted he would come in ‘dead last in fund raising.’ Now he's ahead, and he has done it the hard way: $20, $50, and $125 at a time. Half of it, he claims, came from people who had never before given to a politician. Small individual contributions have leverage because only the first $250 gets federal matching funds. And donors who haven't hit their $2,000 legal limit can be tapped again. So there's more where that came from.”
Dean’s primary claim to fame centers on his unrivaled ability to (1) bash Bush and (2) resurrect 1960s Democrat issues and (3) and most important apparently to Democrats, raise money. Of course, presumably this money will be going to pay for the Democrats’ primary battles around the country, a problem that George W. Bush will not have. Even so, while no one is mentioning it, George W. Bush already has in his 2004 campaign kitty more than double the money that Howard Dean has, and although the media and Dean tell us that Bush’s campaign contributors are the “rich,” not just ordinary “people” according to the record keepers on this sort of thing, George W. Bush has more than double the number of contributors as does Howard Dean.
Well, of course so far Bush is raising money in a leisurely way via GOP dinners, since he won’t have a primary race, but to date he has almost 2 ½ times the number of individual contributors as Howard Dean and his per donor average is $1,583 compared with Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards’ donor average of $1,341. Bush only attracts the rich and Edwards and Dean attract the “middle class?” I don’t think so.
Also, while I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, I suspect there are a bunch of Republicans out there who are contributing to Howard Dean’s war chest. It probably would save the Republicans a whole lot of money if Howard Dean were the opposing candidate. I can think of a number of Republicans who would be happy to contribute to Dean’s campaign to help him get nominated. He would be really easy to beat. All the worn-out 1960s socialism programs that have not already been implemented by past Democrat administration are clumped together in Dean’s platform. For example, he tells us on his website that he proposes:
I do have a few questions I’d like to ask Mr. Dean about this tantalizing program. Raising the minimum wage always causes jobs to be lost, not created. If he were so sure that raising the minimum wage would create jobs, why would he need to simultaneously expand unemployment insurance? Exactly how would his expansion of aid to state and local governments for homeland security improve on what George W. Bush and the Congress already implemented? More money from the federal government for infrastructure sounds like a return to make-believe depression era spending. That increases the federal deficit, without increasing permanent jobs.
As a doctor, I’m sure he knows that the cost of medical insurance and medical care continues to go up, not down. If the employers are not going to pay these increasing costs, who is? The citizen? The taxpayers?
And, as for turning back the clock on trade policy to protect $75 a hour Union jobs, that is a recipe for inflation and increasing the higher cost of living for Americans. (Remember stagflation during the Carter administration?) This is why so many American jobs were exported overseas. The totally out-of-scale Union hourly costs is what sent so many people scurrying to purchase less expensive, foreign-made automobiles, refrigerators, and other products.
Strangely, Howard Dean claims on his website that his goal is “about bringing people together” as he encourages class warfare with his speeches and his program.
While that may resonate with the far left of the Democratic Party and those in the Republican party who would like to see the Democrats totally squashed next year, somehow I can’t see the majority of the American people going for it.
© Mary Mostert
The 2004 Election Year could be very good for Republicans. Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings, who will have represented South Carolina for almost 36 years when his 6th term as Senator expires in 2004, has decided not to run again for office. He is quoted as saying “It wouldn't be easy for anybody who's a Democrat in this state to get elected," Hollings said.”
Things must be really bad in Democrat circles. I cannot ever remember a Southern politician of Hollings stature in effect conceding defeat for his party, almost a year and a half before the election.
Then, we have Howard Dean, who made it as cover boy on two major news magazines this month —Newsweek and Time. Time has an accompanying article that positively gushes with enthusiasm for their boy: “Then Dean's forces burst from their blogs (weblogs are the jungle drums of the Internet age) and made themselves heard in the old-fashioned language the political establishment understands: money. They deluged his campaign with $7.6 million in the second quarter (ended June 30), which was $1.7 million more than presumed front runner John Kerry, $2.5 million more than poll-topping Joe Lieberman, $3.1 million more than glamorous newcomer John Edwards, $3.8 million more than seasoned Dick Gephardt. As for the rest of the field—including a Senator, a Congressman, a former ambassador, and a civil rights leader—not one raised even a third of what Dean had.
“A year ago, Dean, 54, predicted he would come in ‘dead last in fund raising.’ Now he's ahead, and he has done it the hard way: $20, $50, and $125 at a time. Half of it, he claims, came from people who had never before given to a politician. Small individual contributions have leverage because only the first $250 gets federal matching funds. And donors who haven't hit their $2,000 legal limit can be tapped again. So there's more where that came from.”
Dean’s primary claim to fame centers on his unrivaled ability to (1) bash Bush and (2) resurrect 1960s Democrat issues and (3) and most important apparently to Democrats, raise money. Of course, presumably this money will be going to pay for the Democrats’ primary battles around the country, a problem that George W. Bush will not have. Even so, while no one is mentioning it, George W. Bush already has in his 2004 campaign kitty more than double the money that Howard Dean has, and although the media and Dean tell us that Bush’s campaign contributors are the “rich,” not just ordinary “people” according to the record keepers on this sort of thing, George W. Bush has more than double the number of contributors as does Howard Dean.
Well, of course so far Bush is raising money in a leisurely way via GOP dinners, since he won’t have a primary race, but to date he has almost 2 ½ times the number of individual contributors as Howard Dean and his per donor average is $1,583 compared with Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards’ donor average of $1,341. Bush only attracts the rich and Edwards and Dean attract the “middle class?” I don’t think so.
Also, while I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, I suspect there are a bunch of Republicans out there who are contributing to Howard Dean’s war chest. It probably would save the Republicans a whole lot of money if Howard Dean were the opposing candidate. I can think of a number of Republicans who would be happy to contribute to Dean’s campaign to help him get nominated. He would be really easy to beat. All the worn-out 1960s socialism programs that have not already been implemented by past Democrat administration are clumped together in Dean’s platform. For example, he tells us on his website that he proposes:
-
—Raising the minimum wage
—Expand unemployment insurance
—Expand aid to state and local government for homeland security
—More money in “job-creating infrastructure programs like school construction and increasing rural broadband access
—A federal health care plan that reduces costs to employers. (apparently taxpayer funded)
—A trade policy that ensures that strong and enforceable labor provisions are included in all trade agreements—to ensure that trade helps both us and our trading partners shore up middle class jobs.
I do have a few questions I’d like to ask Mr. Dean about this tantalizing program. Raising the minimum wage always causes jobs to be lost, not created. If he were so sure that raising the minimum wage would create jobs, why would he need to simultaneously expand unemployment insurance? Exactly how would his expansion of aid to state and local governments for homeland security improve on what George W. Bush and the Congress already implemented? More money from the federal government for infrastructure sounds like a return to make-believe depression era spending. That increases the federal deficit, without increasing permanent jobs.
As a doctor, I’m sure he knows that the cost of medical insurance and medical care continues to go up, not down. If the employers are not going to pay these increasing costs, who is? The citizen? The taxpayers?
And, as for turning back the clock on trade policy to protect $75 a hour Union jobs, that is a recipe for inflation and increasing the higher cost of living for Americans. (Remember stagflation during the Carter administration?) This is why so many American jobs were exported overseas. The totally out-of-scale Union hourly costs is what sent so many people scurrying to purchase less expensive, foreign-made automobiles, refrigerators, and other products.
Strangely, Howard Dean claims on his website that his goal is “about bringing people together” as he encourages class warfare with his speeches and his program.
While that may resonate with the far left of the Democratic Party and those in the Republican party who would like to see the Democrats totally squashed next year, somehow I can’t see the majority of the American people going for it.
© Mary Mostert
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
