Serious questions about the "Unity Dinner"

[no name no slogan]

Sorry to seem like a wet blanket on the Unity Dinner lovefest, but I have some questions about what we're really saying with this event.

Apparently it was $1000 to get into this event. I don't know about you, but as a person of fairly modest means that's a lot of money. It's more than some working people take home in a month.

What kind of message are we sending to the party rank-and-file? Are we saying that "sure, you can play with us, but only if you've got a pile of cash to give us. Otherwise, get lost-- except at the voting booth".

Most people in this country are cynical about politicians for this very reason: it looks like it's all about the money, and your opinion doesn't mean fcukall if you aren't willing to pony up. Events like this one DO NOT help our image with potential voters of modest means (what used to be called "our base" back in the old days). All it does is alienate them from the party-- which is EXACTLY what the Repubs are hoping for this fall.

Does anybody remember the first Clinton inaugural? IIRC, instead of a formal ball, Bubba had "backyard barbecue" that cost only a few bucks to get into. He opened it up to everybody. Although I later came to disagree with many of his policies, this one move showed that at least he gave half a damn about those folk of modest means could participate in.

Sure, we should celebrate unity. But what kind of "unity" are we celebrating with events that only the richest 5% of the population can afford to attend?

[Melodybe]

1. It was $1000 to get in.

[no name no slogan]

2. Thanks. I'll edit my original post... :D

[flpoljunkie]

66. There was an event afterward at a DC nightclub with $50 admission...

After the dinner, Mr. Carter, Mr. Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the Rev. Al Sharpton went over to Dream, a Washington nightclub, where they received a tumultuous reception.

http://nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/campaign/26DEMS.html

[JI7]

3. there are many fundraisers including free events that people can attend

you assume his is the only fundraiser that they are having. there are many fundraisers, some cost into the thousands , others are less. and there are also many events which are totally free if you want to see the candidate. bush has over a 100 million dollars, kerry before this fundraiser had only about 2 million dollars on hand. money isn't everything, but it sure makes things a lot easier in terms of getting the message out.

[AngryYoungMan]

4. Oh, come on

You can't have it both ways. If Democrats want to be contemptuous of wealthy donors because they support Republicans, shouldn't we applaud wealthy donors who support Democrats? (Especially since they're voting directly against their own financial interests and, in so doing, displaying an unusual degree of moral certitude.)

Furthermore, Kerry raised $10 million in TEN DAYS on the Internet, finishing this on the very day that "Internet pioneer" Howard Dean warmly endorsed him.

So Kerry is raking it in from the bottom AND the top of the financial totem pole. Isn't this what politicians are supposed to do? What are conscientious rich people supposed to do? Sit this election out?

I'm sorry, but I can't see the logic underlying your complaint. Fundraising dinners are a great way to raise money for good causes. I worked for a non-profit for years, and we raised more than half of our million-dollar annual costs in one day, with a fancy award luncheon at a glitzy hotel. It was that fancy luncheon that allowed us to hold all our other functions and pay the staff and pay all our expenses.

You are well-intentioned but, I think, wrongheaded.

[Thrill]

5. Be Realistic

its a fundraiser. They are trying to compete. You want them to charge 100 dollars while repukes are charging 2500 a plate? Get Real

[no name no slogan]

7. I AM being realistic.

I've been busting my ass for Democrats since the 80s, when it was a dirty word. I've sadly watched this party suckle at the corporate teats, and move away from its loyal base of working people, civil libertarians, racial/ethnic minorities and liberals-- most of whom don't make much money, but work their butts off every year for the Democrats.

Money does NOT buy us victory. Look at 2000: GeeDubya outspent Gore by $60 MILLION and still won on a technicality. Paul Wellstone won his first US Senate race after being outspent 10-to-1 by his Repub opponent.

We don't win elections by selling out our base. We win elections when we're true to our base (who are still the majority of eligible voters in this country) and by running as true blue DEMOCRATS, not as Republican wanna-bes.

We risk alienating our base at our own peril. We've done it consistently for the last 12 years, and the toll has been huge. If we continue along this path, we'll be as relevant as the Whigs.

[JI7]

13. john kerry campaigned for paul wellstone

[no name no slogan]

16. so did Dennis Kucinich, but that doesn't make him Paul, either

Dennis was here in the fall of 2002, doorknocking for Paul Wellstone, who was the only Senator who ever took an interest in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, btw.

[JI7]

17. paul wellstone voted for doma

paul wellstone voted for the anti gay defense of marriage act, and he later regret doing so and said it had mostly to do with being up for reelection that year. if du had existed then people might have been calling him anti gay and bashing him on here.

[JI7]

21. and Dennis Kucinich voted against abortion rights for years

i remember when i first got interest in kucinich i loved almost everything about him, but then i saw his record on abortion rights and it disappointed me. but i still continued to like him and support what he was doing in the areas i agreed with him on. i never called him a right winger or not part of the democratic party or base or anything like that. i'm glad he has changed his views on that area. but i never hated him or bashed him for it.

[no name no slogan]

25. You keep talking and keep saying nothing

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, as all you want to do is turn this thread into a "liberaler-than-thou" pissing match.

I raised a serious question about the image we want to project to our base, and you start playing "mine's bigger than yours".

Frankly, I don't get it. So I'll quit playing. Buh-bye.

[JI7]

27. what image did kucinich send by voting against women's rights ?

[no name no slogan]

30. The same one Al Gore sent up until 1988

...or did you forget that? Yep, Al Gore was solidly anti-choice until he ran for president in 1988.

Dick Gephardt, the same way. He was consistently anti-choice until 1986, two years before he first ran for president.

Look, I know you have a personal problem with Kucinich. I really don't care. If you need to start a "bash Kucinich" thread to vent your spleen, go for it.

[JI7]

36. yes, i know al gore was anti choice at one point as kucinich was

and i said in the first post about kucinich that i never said he wasn't part of the democratic party or base or bashed him for being anti choice. you seem upset at me for just brining up the fact that kucinich WAS anti choice for years. but it just shows there are many people in the democratic party with different views. many democrats support nafta and some oppose abortion rights as kucinich did for years, it doesn't mean they are not part of the democratic party or base.

[dpbrown]

68. That characterization is overbroad

Kucinich voted against bills related to overseas funding of clinics, and furnishing abortion services at military hospitals overseas.

And while those are positions over which he eventually saw the light, once he put things into an equality perspective, while he was making those votes, he also voted for: 1) access to contraceptives, 2) sex education, 3) forcing federal health plans to carry contraceptive coverage, and 4) dozens of other bills related to health care, education, pre- and post-natal care, and many other "choice empowering" provisions.

Dennis' reticence to come on board with the whole pro-abortion agenda was more than set off, even when he was casting those votes for which he was castigated, by his deep determination to empower everyone at all levels by targeting lack of education, lack of housing, lack of health care, and lack of jobs.

Being able to get an abortion when you can't get a job, can't get health care, couldn't learn about sex in school, and have no access to contraception is a hollow victory indeed.

Thank you, Dennis Kucinich, for focusing on the real weapons of mass destruction your entire career.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[countmyvote4real]

23. You can watch it on C-SPAN.

You do have to pay for cable, but that doesn't offer a choice for either a chicken, beef or fish entree.

Damn, I had beans for dinner. (rimshot)

Seriously, I did.

[no name no slogan]

41. Yeah, I have cable

mainly because I can write it off on my taxes (I'm an unemployed computer programming guy, and I have hi-speed internet via cable), but the TV in my home office isn't wired for cable-- so I watched Rummy on ABC making a bigger ass of himself than I thought possible. So maybe I'll catch the rerun.

Oh, and I had spaghetti for dinner, with my wife's homemade sauce. Who'da thunk a German/Czech would know anything about spaghetti sauce?

;)

[billybob537]

9. One of the smartest

Democrats ever Henry Ford, Raised wages in his factory to $5.00 a day in the late 20s. A huge amount of money by the standards of the day. This led to competition for workers and a demand for consumer goods that drove the wheels of industry for decades. You would think this raise was not in Ford's best interest. But Ford quickly out sold every other auto manufacturer.

[incapsulated]

6. There are different kinds of fundraisers

Some are big ticket, like tonight, others go for $100 or even less.

With a lineup like this, they can ask for the bank, and get people to pay, so why shouldn't they? Don't you want Kerry to get as much money as he can? This is the way the game is played. Big speakers, big price tag.

I gave $10 bucks to Kerry's 10 million drive because that's all I could afford right now. But it helped him reach his goal, and that's all that matters.

:hi:

[Thrill]

8. Repukes

are charging 2000 a plate at some events. The Dems have every right to charge 1000 for one of their biggest fundraisers

[no name no slogan]

12. So Democrats should act like Republicans, then?

This is why Nader got so many votes in 2000: people were hard-pressed to tell the difference between the two major parties.

And who can blame them? Gore and Shrub were very close on several key issues: NAFTA, the death penalty, the "war on drugs", living wages, and many others. Sure, we "party faithful" knew there was a difference between them, but most ordinary folk didn't see it.

Democrats win by being DEMOCRATS, not by being donkeys in elephant suits.

[JI7]

15. middle class tends to support war on drugs

middle class, especially mothers tend to support war on drugs. these women also tend to be prochoice. and the richest democrats are usually those that support gay rights, including same sex marriage, and the poorer ones tend to oppose it.

[Thrill]

22. Stop being so naive

You very well they need money to counter the Ads. The Dems by no means should be charging 100 bucks a plate while their opponents charge thousands.

[no name no slogan]

Who's naive here?

There has not been a Democratic president since FDR who has EVER won by outspending their Republican opponent. This is a simple fact that so many Democrats, in their rush to out-fundraise (and out Repub) the Repubs, seem to forget.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't fund-raise-- that's naive, and it's part of the process. However, I think we send a message by the WAYS we fund-raise. How credible are we as a party of "regular people" if we raise our money by sucking up to millionaires?

The Repubs raised boatloads of money in the 1980s by not only hitting up the rich donors, but by getting the evangelical Christians to BELIEVE their "family values" message and send in a small check.

I'm not being naive at all. I'm citing political history. Democrats don't win by spending more money than the Reps. They win by appealing to more voters (and potential voters) than do the Repubs.

[Trajan]

63. This is a false correlation ...

The amount of money needed to wage a successful campaign may not need to be astronomical, but it must be sufficient ...

It can NEVER be ZERO ...

Whether or not one has the 'most money' matters not if one has the most persuasive message .... The fact that FDR won has more to do with the state of the nation at the time than on a pure count of the monetary value in the campaign coffers ... You are attributing a false cause as the reason for any success former Democrats have had in elections ...

No: .. Kerry DOESNT need to get MORE money than Bush, but he needs ENOUGH to wage a competitive campaign ... His message will be the same as FDR's ... HE will win or lose according to his message ...

THAT Dinner, and its speakers, were a wonderful source of inspiration for US as Democrats ...

I loved every bit of it ....

[no name no slogan]

67. Please check it again-- I never said we don't NEED money

I said that we're sending a bad message to our potential supporters by showing that our "unity" is all about $1000-a-plate fundraisers-- especially when the speakers are out there talking about how they'll protect "our interests", and they're all multi-millionaires to boot.

If I was somebody working 55 hours a week for minimum wage, trying to stay current on my rent and keep the wolves from the door, I would have very little sympathy for some party that shows its unity by having a dinner that costs more than I take home each month.

[no name no slogan]

10. Good points, but I disagree on one point

I stated in another post that we don't necessarily win elections by spending more money than the Repubs: we win them when we speak up for our core Democratic issues: fair trade, worker's rights, personal freedom, and economic justice.

GeeDubya's daddy outspent Bubba in 1992, and still lost. Why? A large part is his personal charisma, but he also talked about how much most Americans were getting kicked in the ass by the Reagan/Bush economic policies. That resonated with people, and they voted for him, despite Ross Perot and Bubba's "bimbo eruptions".

Shrub outspent Gore by $60 million in 2000, and only won by a 5-4 SCOTUS vote. Paul Wellstone was consistantly outspent by his Repub opponents, and he still won. He was outspent 10-1 in 1990, and won a squeeker. His opponent returned in 1996, spent a pile of his personal fortune, and lost by an even bigger margin.

Democrats hardly EVER win by outspending their Repub opponents, they win by addressing the needs of the majority of eligible voters, and by getting them involved in the process.

When we start campaigning like Republicans, we start talking like them. When we start talking like them, we start thinking like them. When we start thinking like them, we govern like them.

It's a slippery slope-- one that this party can ill afford to go down if they truly want to win this fall.

[Leilani]

24. It's not pretty, but it's the world we live in!

You want Kerry to run for president on a different playing field than Bush?

Face it, Kerry will NOT have as much money as the other side, but he needs enough to be competitive.

Why not turn your energies towards TRUE campaign finance reform?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. *cough*

we win them when we speak up for our core Democratic issues: fair trade, worker's rights, personal freedom, and economic justice

Well isn't that a coincidence? I heard EACH of those items given far more than lip service by all the speakers this evening including Carter's most excellent speech about human rights.

[no name no slogan]

33. I hope it's more than lip service...

especially with Carter, since he continued funding and sending $$ to Suharto in Indonesia while he was mass-murdering the people of East Timor from 1976 onward. 200,000+ people (out of a population of 700,000) were murdered, and countless more are still missing, because our government insisted on funding Suharto's homicidal reign of terror.

Talk is cheap. Anybody can promise anything to anyone-- Clinton proved that in 1992, when he promised populism but delivered the best damned Republican administration since Eisenhower.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. As regards Suharto he was brutal. The difference between Carter

and any of his predecessors in that ordeal was that he continued to work to make good on that error long after his presidency and through to the elections there. If one relates to the past as an unforgivable act framed in a moment in time, yes Carter erred. If one relates to the past as also the future actions that came out of it such as Carter's commitment to see it through the free and fair elections in Indonesia...then it doesn't appear to be simply lip service.

[no name no slogan]

43. I agree-- Carter has done the best he can

I'm glad Carter has seen the error of his ways. I only wish that the Democrats that came after him would have seen this, too.

Bill Clinton called Suharto "our kind of guy" in the early '90s before he was overthrown. Even though it was common knowledge by that time that Suharto was responsible for the deaths of over 1 million "communists" and leftists in Indonesia since 1965, when he overthrew the democratically-elected government.

I'm really hoping the best for Kerry, but I have several serious concerns about some of his statements of late. I've said before that I'll vote for him. However, I know of several other races where needy Democrats could use my time and efforts, too.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. Well I've not seen Kerry cozy up to dictators

and there will always be issues with some of the nations where we are involved. I do feel Kerry will be better than Bush in this regard even though no one has a perfect record. YOu might recall however, it was Ford and Kissinger that were actually a bit more complicit in those dealings.

[NWHarkness]

11. The message it sends? We intend to win

[salinen]

14. I bet the food is better

at dem fundraisers.

[blondeatlast]

57. Spicier and less white, at least! nt

[WitchWay]

18. Yep

It's too bad but Kerry probably thinks $1000 is reasonable, anyways.

I don't think Kerry really could ever have any compassion for most people of a lower socio-economic status. If he did, he wouldn't be living the way he lives. He wouldn't be voting for free trade like he does. He wouldn't have joined the Elitist Skull and Bones in college -- where he is STILL a bonesbrother of Bush. You've got to remember that. I guess, though, we can't know what kind of allegiance bush and him have because its "secret" (wouldn't want to let the common people know about the secrecy being used to fuck them over, now, woould we?)

Sorry, I'm a Kucinich supporter and the last few days have made me feel incredibly disgusted at Kerry. I think he's a horrible nominee, and I think the Unity dinner is a bunch of bullshit. The democratic party is disgusting for the way they pushed Kerry before he's been determined to be the nominee.

But, it really isn't about the "cost" of the Unity Dinner. It's about the "Unity" dinner and all the stupid Unity crap anyways. It's been unity from the beginning -- just to make people shut up and not have any demands for real representation and accept a multimillionaire, corporatist Bonesman as a candidate (who would've thunk?). There shouldn't be this sort of propagandistic unity dinner crap. It's all to shut everyone up before the convention, so as to stifle real debate -- especially concerning the war.

[Dookus]

20. LOL

Skull and bones!! Skull and bones!!!

You guys crack me up.

[WitchWay]

31. Then get ready to really be craked up

If you think its so funny -- than you should find Kerry a rather ridiculous, inane, stupid person for having joined it, shouldn't you?
Why the fuck is Kerry joining (and as an adult, participating in) this "Laughable" secret society?

I personally do not find it the least bit funny that Kerry might potentially have a secret allegiance to Bush. It's sort of strange that he helps bush at opportune moments -- IWR, patriot Act, Fast Track, Chavez?

But, its so much easier to laugh it off like skull and bones is cute or something. I frankly don't think there's anything cute about rich white boys getting together in order to get richer and more powerful. I think its disgusting and unethical, as well as elitist, hateful and undemocratic.

BTW, When I talk about Skull and Bones -- I don't give a shit about the ritualism and crap -- After all, it's more like a mafia type of organization, or a "union" for elite corporatist multimillionaires.

Secrecy and secret "conspiring" is a potent weapon. It's downright foolish and ignorant to trust those who have entered into a society whose purpose is the use of secrecy in order to gain power. It's downright foolish to trust someone who would do something like join Skull and Bones.

[Dookus]

32. i reserve the right to laugh at anybody

who takes a college fraternity that seriously.

LOLOLOLOLOL

[WitchWay]

45. No Thank you to Aristocratic Rule!

I don't like fraternities, myself. I went to a school in which there were no college fraternities or sororities, and I'm glad of it! I think that its much more egalitarian and democratic for schools to not have these sorts of organizations. Fraternities are elitist in nature, and I have little respect for them, and do think there are serious problems with them. I don't laugh at fraternities, because I do think that they pose socio-economic inequities and barriers based in sexism, classism and racism. Some fraternities are more benigh, but some are very snobby and cliqueish and do hurt others by seclusion. But, I don't think Skull and Bones is just some fraternity.

But, Skull and Bones is not simply a college Fraternity. You can't pledge to it or anything. You are "tapped" (or chosen)...you are basically born into it, since it evolves around family lines. There are not that many people in it, like a fraternity, either. So, that's not very democratic...thats ARISTOCRATIC. But, if you think aristocratic rule is funny, be my guest. If you want Aristocratic control over this nation, go ahead and take it as a joke all you want.

[Dookus]

47. and I laugh again

LOLOLOLOL

It's a fucking fraternity. Get over it.

[blondeatlast]

58. Wish I'd said that.

[Dookus]

19. Nobody is saying that money wins elections

BUT... that doesn't mean that LESS money is better.

Yes, we will be outspent. But we shouldn't purposely cripple ourselves. This is one of the biggest Democratic events of the year, with the biggest "name" speakers imaginable.

It's supremely silly to contend that it should be a give-away. This isn't dinner at Wendy's. It's a huge event. I'm surprised they didn't charge more.

[vetwife]

35. Food at an event like this

What my hubby and I went to was nowhere close but Lord have Mercy ! The Food is beyond belief. We went to the 10th anniversary of the ADA Free of Charge (invitation) Nope not a campaign doner...I am an activist and did a little good up in Tennessee bringing about some changes in Nashville. Jose Feliciano and Peter Yarrow were the entertainment. The Huge tent was set up on the lawn of VP Gore's residence at the Naval observatory. The food was Buffet style (sorta) Beverages you had best stay seated.

The only thing I recognized was the veal and rice but I tell you those folks do not eat as we do. That was the best meal my husband and I have ever sat down to. The dessert was undescribable and un recognizable as well. But it was good ! The water did not even taste like water. It was mineral water of some sort with fizz and like a touch of lemon. This stuff was really really good. When I went up to get another beverage, my husband thank God, knew I was not supposed to do that...Someone would get fired. We just motioned for the folks to come to the table and the glasses were filled. The waiters had draped towels on their arms and it was kind of hard eating knowing the secret service was standing not 10 feet with those little curly wires around their ears from you. I tried to remember my southern manners and not eat but in small bites and elbows off the table. I couldn't really grasp what was wrapped up in a little foiled creape that tasted like brocoli or cauliflower but still not sure. We then went inside VP Gore's residence which was awesome and hung out in the dining room with Peter Yarrow. Upstairs was the main residence and no one was allowed there but as I sat on that front porch for a minute & I was a bit spellbound by where I was and the history that surrounded me. Beans and taters never really got that great to me after that ordeal but it was a once in a lifetime experience and I think when you are surrounded by Leaders of the free World, you don't really want a McDonalds. This is something you expect and glad was there. To dine next to Senator Kennedy, Harkin, Gephardt, watching people laugh and come over and share a joke or introduce themselves from all over the world.....well its really is not very hard to imagine that th food would be great and would last in your memory banks forever.

[redqueen]

73. Obscene

That's all I have to say.

Children starve, and leftists gorge on 'fine' food because 'world leaders' are there.

Great stuff to use to bolster our credibility. We really care!

[no name no slogan]

38. I agree, we should still raise money

but I think it sends a bad message to have a "unity" event that costs more than many folks take home each paycheck.

If you want to show unity, have Bubba Clinton go back to Little Rock and host the World's Biggest Weenie Roast®. Charge $5 admission, have a cash bar, and get somebody to donate a truckload of hot dogs. Turn it into an event that almost anybody could afford to attend.

What a message that would send to the country, huh? GeeDubya may be the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, but the Democrats would be the ones who show the country that they're the ones working for regular folk!

:D

[flaminbats]

26. another reason we need publicly financed campaigns...

every candidate should get the same amount of money during an election, a free website, and no private contributions.

Until this is enacted the DNC has alot of catching up to do if we hope to win this year. Hopefully Democrats will recognize the importance of human rights stressed by Carter, and will end the growing abuse of basic civil liberties committed under the cover of patriotism.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. You could have gotten ten people to sponsor you at 100 bucks each

Ingenuity might be called for, but there is nothing elitist about raising funds for a very expensive election.

I've been to many events that were $1000.00 a plate. The people I have met were not all the richest 5%. I'm not the richest 5 %.

The message sent to the party rank and file tonight is that the issues they care about matter to our past and present candidates.

I think the only person that could reasonably be alienated by tonight's event is someone LOOKING to be.

[JI7]

34. kind of like the idaho vacation

where people complained about kerry skiing saying it was elitist or some other nonsense. yet if kerry had gone golfing nobody would probably have said anything about it even though it's probably more likely to be much more expensive than a ski vacation in idaho.

[no name no slogan]

65. I don't have friends who can spare $100 to "sponsor" me.

Most people I know are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and have just enough gas in their cars to get to where they're going next. I myself am unemployed.

$100 may not seem like a lot of money to you, but it is to me and MANY other people like me. That $100 is enough for me to live off for two or three weeks-- if I spend it wisely and don't get sick, or my car doesn't break down.

[redqueen]

69. Hear hear

I hate getting asked to network for money. I always want to lecture them about how I have had to give up breakfast and lunch for the past eight months in order to donate as much as I have.

Do these fundraisers not realize how many are out of work or underemployeed? Wait... when was the last time a Dem mentioned underemployment?

:grr:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. Last night

and I might add the biggest waste of money is a guy flying around campaigning that KNOWS he has lost...progressive funds could CLEARLY be put to better use.

[redqueen]

72. Really?

Well at least they're talking about it, right? We should just be happy with that.

Thanks!

As far as your crack about funds for guys who know they're going to lose, that's the only guy that's going to get them.

Kerry can get money from the people he caters to.

[zulchzulu]

37. Sorry, you need to face reality...NOW.

It's time NOW to get behind the candidate who IS going to BEAT Bush.

Enough of the BS.

Get on the train. Or get out of the way.

This is NO joke.

Save the mealy-mouthed parlor talk for Tuesday mornings. At 3AM.

We need all the people we can to get the Chimp on a one-way ticket to Crawford.

Grow up. Smell the coffee. Smoke the joint. Or not.

Look what Chimpy is doing to America and the World. NOW.

Do your part. Volunteer. We need your energy.

Stop wasting time.

It's time to mobilize. Not whine.

[flaminbats]

40. you shouldn't be posting this about Kerry...

Get on the train. Or get out of the way.

This is NO joke.

What...does that include you? :wow:

[zulchzulu]

42. All I'm saying is that others I know see the Enemy

I've met people who backed Dean, Kucinich and others who...

GET IT.

They see that they need to back Kerry. They may not like it. They may not be totally healed from their candidate's loss. But they know that all of us real Democrats agree on 95% of all the issues and we must face the Enemy hard and fight hard. Or we fail.

We unite or we lose.

Either you want to whine like a lazy child dragging everybody else down or you see the objective.

We need to get rid of the Chimp.

That's all.

Period.

[flaminbats]

46. either-or never convinced me...

"Either you want to whine like a lazy child dragging everybody else down or you see the objective."

This statement places all of the burden on Kucinich supporters and none on Kerry backers. If unity is what we want, then both camps must work to shoulder this!

[zulchzulu]

49. We must join forces or fail

That's all.

The only burden on anyone is their responsibility to face reality.

Either you want to drag your feet and not help, thus helping the Enemy, or you want to join in and fight.

This is no time to finger-wave and hip-hold your way out of what needs to be done.

Join. Unite.

Or get out of the way.

[flaminbats]

50. Then first try this by following your advice sir!

"This is no time to finger-wave and hip-hold your way out of what needs to be done."

Get out of the way, or Join and Unite. :grouphug:

[blondeatlast]

59. I'm guessing you are young.

There are no perfect candidates. I voted DK in the primary, even though he was a vocal opponent of choice for years, and I still don't buy his conversion.

There are no perfect candidates.

There IS evil in the White House.

Vote as you please, but don't come back to DU on November 3rd crying because Bush won. I'm working to defeat him, even though I'm a Kucinich supporter.

I don't need to wait for the (fictional) "great purge" of DU.

[flaminbats]

61. Who's demanding the purge?

I don't need to wait for the (fictional) "great purge" of DU.

What does being young have to do with this? As a Bradley supporter I later voted for Gore in 2000. As a Kucinich voter I intend to support Kerry.

So what's the problem?

I have always taken the view that there are no perfect candidates...which is why I am never swayed by such Either-Or arguments! What is so unrealistic about this approach to voting?

[molly]

54. I agree

we need MONEY to win back this country. I can't afford that anymore, but I do not begrudge anyone who can. More power to them. We can help in other ways instead of using our energy feeding the green eyed monster.

[no name no slogan]

64. FYI,

I have stated before that I will vote for Kerry this fall. NOWHERE in ANY post on this thread did I say I WOULD NOT BACK THE NOMINEE.

I am questioning, however, the appearance of a "Unity Dinner", supposedly representing the Democratic party (you know, the party of "average people") showing its unity with a $1000-a-plate event.

Is that REALLY the message we want to send to the rest of the country? That you are welcome to our party, but only if you come to us wallet first?

And btw, I've been volunteering for my party for damn near 20 years now, in damn near every conceivable capacity-- from door-knocking, to writing campaign literature, to designing and running candidate web sites. I've been a delegate to numerous county conventions, to my state convention (twice), and am running for the state party's Central Committee this year. I think I know a little more about "volunteering" than somebody spouting totalitarian insults to fellow Democrats on some internet message board.

Your attitude will do NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, to bring new voices into this party. If anything, you will alienate the other 55% of the primary electorate who didn't vote for Kerry. This is not a winning strategy-- and certainly NOT one I would expect from a so-called "Democrat".

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. FYI

Your attitude will do NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, to bring new voices into this party. If anything, you will alienate the other 55% of the primary electorate who didn't vote for Kerry. This is not a winning strategy-- and certainly NOT one I would expect from a so-called "Democrat".

[no name no slogan]

76. Too late, I've already brought new voters into this party

COUNTLESS times to list here.

My "attitude" is the one that made this party the party of "the little guy", the underdog, the ones who were not afraid to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.

Also, I'll repeat it here, I've NEVER said that I WOULD NOT vote for the party nominee. When Kerry is the official nominee at the convention, I'll get behind him.

What I DO question is the use of these types of events to promote "unity". What is the message we send to our base by having such unity events that cost $1000? Do you know what that says to people of modest means?

It says that you can be united with us if you're willing to fork over money. Otherwise, we don't care about you-- other than your vote.

It's this elitist attitude that has cost this party dearly in the last twelve years-- one that threatens our very existence at a time when we could be most relevant.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. You propose we should not have any big ticket fundraisers?

The message it sends is that we were able to raise $11 million to help defeat Bush.

[no name no slogan]

81. So Howard Dean's $40 mil was raised with big ticket fundraisers?

Although I didn't support him, you have to give Dean credit for his fundraising ability.

He raised over $40 mil, mostly in SMALL donations, just for the primary race. IMHO that's pretty darn impressive, considering most of it was in small amounts.

And even though he had all that money, he still didn't get the nomination. So in a way it's a double lesson: you CAN raise large amounts of $$ with many small donations, but it STILL can't buy you victory. If that were true, Ross Perot would have been sworn in as president in January 2003.

If somebody wants to pony up their $2000 to the candidate, that's their prerogative. However, I think it sends a bad message about our party when our "unity dinner" is priced out of the range of our supposed base constituency. That's a rather strange kind of "unity", when it shuts out 99% of the constituency of our party.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. Don't kid yourself. Plenty of people maxed out on their contributions

to Dean and not everything is as it appears on your little bats..it was made to look that way though.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. You just keep repeating the same things

over and over regardless of what anyone says to you. :wtf:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Above all, candidates need votes

Money may buy ads, but it won't necessarily buy votes.

The surefire way to get people's votes is to make them feel involved and feel that you care about their issues.

A current member of the Metro Council that oversees the Portland area won his position running against an old pol type who had six figures worth of corporate contributions. I didn't count up the total that the challenger had, but he had literally hundreds of contributions under $50. And he won. According to "the rules,' the old pol should have won, but the challenger had the issues and a crowd of dedicated supporters who shared his belief that the old pol was getting too cozy with the developers and other corporate types.

I would like to see Dem candidates--not just Kerry, but candidates at all levels--having fundraisers for every socioeconomic group: $1000 a plate for the rich people, $100-500 for the merely affluent, $35 pizza and beer for the average joes and josephines, and even $10 coffee and cookies for lower income people.

[blondeatlast]

60. Sadly, ads get votes. And Bush has $100 million more of them.

ONE HUNDRED MILLION.

$100,000,000,000.

ELEVEN zeroes.

Politics is ugly and it involves money. Sad, but true.

[redqueen]

70. See post #10 n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. This has to be one of the all time most idiotic posts I've ever read.

We shouldn't raise money? :wtf:


And just what are the 'serious questions' being asked?

[robbedvoter]

52. There were free events around the country - democratic meet-ups

The idea was to do it at all levels - candidates, supporters - and have a fundraiser too.

[AgadorSparticus]

53. just my 2 cents about the $1000 plate and being hypocritical...

Just as a nipple should not be reduced to just a sexual object, the concept of "Unity" should not be reduced to just finances.

Though not everyone can afford the admission, it should not mean that we are not united for the same cause or hold the same ideals. Especially when there are other venues to encompass all parts of the democratic spectrum.

At the end of the day, the relevant questions still pertain to laws, programs, budgets, bills, policies, etc.---not how much a fundraising plate costs.

[PATRICK]

55. No, the issue is not now, but the future

yes it is dangerous and compromising and partly very agreeable to Dem pols as much as any other, but any decent candidate is partly repulsed by these necessities. There can be a popular support for reform. After all most people won't surrender everything for the rights of millionaires to finance buy and staff their government.

Rather than tar and hamstring our hope for reform while letting the horrendous counterexample of the other side go by the boards and make things infinitely worse, suppressing all hope, it would be good to UNITE with the rich who want more than unfair giveaways, no law and protection from useless thugs, with anyone decent in fact to turn us away from an abyss.

The issue is the future and holding Dems accountable to get rid of the prime swampland of private campaign financing. Without reform after all, they know their party will be relegated to Humpty-Dumpty parity and weakness before corporate overlordship, with weak hopes to attract the common people who otherwise would easily make the Dems the dominant- responsible- party and the uncertain future that THAT implies, because then it would be healthy climate for new parties to grow. I understand, but cannot let go by, the ease with which people are turned off by any issue or flaw to surrender us in a huff to the Bush gang. The ease with which sometimes the media disposes of a candidate for trivial reasons.Of course not every one would take that step but that is exactly the direction where we are pointed.

Make notes to the future, not grumpy frustrations that idealism is not the fairy tale world to be delivered to us with the next positive Gallup Poll.

Or we could march Kerry in sackcloth from town to town shouting "Repent" and feel despairingly righteous when it doesn't save us from destruction.

[union_maid]

56. I'm a voter of modest means and I love it.

The Republicans have many $2000 donors. The campaign finance reform that we've gotten so far has worked in their favor and not in ours. The Democrats need to use every tool available to raise money. I sent what I could, but it's a tiny amount. I'm very happy if those who are able are enticed to contribute the maximum.

I work for a non-profit organization that provides services to people of virtually no means at all. They have an annual dinner. I can't afford to go and our clients can't afford to go but no one minds. They know the point of the dinner is one of the tools we have to get funding to provide services and pay our salaries. Think of it as voluntary income redistribution.

[Trajan]

62. Much ado about nuthin ...

The Unity Dinner was superb ...

I couldnt afford to pay that either: but this doesnt mean such a gathering is a 'bad thing' ...

The money was for the cause: ... Getting Kerry elected and showing Bush the door ....

[dryan]

75. To the person who started this thread - GROW UP!

I am a person of modest means. Frankly, I think its great that there are people in our party who are able to give $1,000 to help John Kerry get elected. How do you think the brochures are printed, the ads played on TV and radio, the staff are paid, planes are flown, etc.? No matter who the nominee would have been the DNC would have held an event like this. These types of events (and I have been to some and put on some) help the party with expenses and help get good PR for the party. Take a dose of reality!

[no name no slogan]

77. Dude, I AM grown up.

I'm 34 years old. I've been active in this party since I was 18, in one way or another. I've been a delegate, TWICE, to my state convention, and even served on the board of my county party when I was in college.

I've phone banked, canvassed, organized, driven voters to polls, and co-ordinated precinct caucuses for candidates for all this time.

I'm unemployed right now, and don't have medical insurance. I have a chronic illness which costs me at least $300 per month to treat-- that's just for my medications, and does not include doctor's visits. If I don't get my meds, I don't function-- PERIOD.

If you actually read my post, you'd see that I have NOTHING against fundraising for the party. What I DO have a problem with is the image we, as a party, are projecting to the electorate when we have a so-called "unity" event that costs $1000 to attend. What does that say to those working people, who work 50+ hours a week making minimum wage (or just a little bit above that)?

I'm unemployed right now, and don't have medical insurance. I have a chronic illness which costs me at least $300 per month to treat-- that's just for my medications, and does not include doctor's visits. If I don't get my meds, I don't function-- PERIOD.

Events that promote "party unity" that are inaccessible for the average party member are like a giant fuck you to the very people who are our natural constituency: working people who need things like health care, fair wages, job security and a future to look forward to.

[TankLV]

80. Ooooo 34! You're sooooo old!

Sorry, bub, I've got you beat.

I've NEVER missed an election since I could vote since I was 18, and I'm 52.

I've also been a precinct captain, and walked the streets for many a candidate.

So spare me your self-righteous "I'm better than you crap".

The repukes re-defined the rules of the game. You can play by your own rules and lose, or play by the new rules and actually COMPETE!

This is just one goddamned event for a chance to raise serious change from those who enjoy that sort of thing. It does NOT prevent other types of fund raising that you support.

It DOES spread the "image" that "we can compete just as well as the thugs and we will do everything we can to win".

It would be nice if everyone would play your game, but they aren't.

I'm so sick and tired of crybabies sabatoging us anytime we approach, let alone succeed, in leveling the playing field.

The game is politics, not Sunday School.

Either be a play by the rules, or get benched or be a water boy, if that's what you prefer.

We prefer to kick some serious butt!

[arewethereyet]

79. Clinton made up for the BBQ with Lincoln Bedroom invites

it all evens out

[Dr Fate]

85. Rush Limbaugh slept in the Lincoln Bedroom under Bush Sr.

But you dont hear about that one as much...

[mbee]

82. I don't know about $1000 dinners, but as a member of my local

Democratic Club they many times get tickets for Democratic events at a reduced rate. For instance recently one fundraising event was $250 and as a club member you could go for $25.

[Piperay]

86. The Democrats need to raise

funds and they aren't going to do it if they sell tickets for 10 bucks apiece. :-( The machine runs on "green grease" and we are going to have to grease it but good if we expect to beat the chimp. Once the campaign gets going there will be plenty of rallys and free stuff for those who are cash challeged to attend. :-)