IOWA: Tide of Second Thoughts Rises Among Democrats

NY Times ^ | January 9, 2004 | ADAM NAGOURNEY and CARL HULSE

[SunkenCiv]

Hello to all.

The tax payer participation has decreased every year since the inception of the program, from a high of 28% to the present 11%. This is insanity and why doesn't the media discuss this? Probably because they (the media) are the recipients of the bulk of the money! - leprechaun9

His willingness to threaten non-compliant media outlets with Anti-Trust litigation, based on their ideological beliefs, is what I think made so many newspapers turn on him. - cniredrum

But aren't the partisan media shills completely objective? Aren't they above reproach? *expressions of disgust* Getting rid of taxpayer financing of partisan campaigns should be a platform plank. Since it's matching funds, it doesn't do much to lower the financial bar for candidacy. It's just welfare for the idle rich.

They hate each other's guts. They endorsed different candidates and both want to control the party. In the end one of the going to come out the winner. - goldstategop

the Times is doing their part to push Dean aside for the Clinton candidate (Clark) as they dutifully sow seeds of doubt about his candidacy. - captnorm

All they're doing is setting up Hillary as the "Joan of Arc" who can save the Democrat Party from itself. It's all in the plan. - leroysmort

Hitlery won't run in 2004. This struggle is for 2008. It isn't ideological. The party is shredding itself. This has happened before. Sometimes that works (Andrew Jackson's schism was successful) and often it doesn't (the Whigs, the 1860 campaign, Bull Moose, the Dixiecrats, Nelson Rockefeller, John Anderson).

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>But aren't the partisan media shills completely objective? Aren't they above reproach? *expressions of disgust* Getting rid of taxpayer financing of partisan campaigns should be a platform plank. Since it's matching funds, it doesn't do much to lower the financial bar for candidacy. It's just welfare for the idle rich.

That's what I've always thought. It was designed as a cap on the price of a campaign rather than a method of leveling the playing field.

I've always hated that leveling the playing field crap. I've played rugby on level playing fields. They don't drain well and tend to turn into muddy, grassless swamps.

[LI conservative]

I don't think she'll run in either 04 or in 06 for her Senate seat. She knows the risks of losing this year are far too great and that no sitting US Senator besides JFK has been elected President in over 150 years. She also realizes the risks of running and losing to Rudy. Thus, I think she won't run this year, will not seek reelection to her Senate seat and will run for the Dem nomination in 08.

[Cyber Liberty]

Can Mr. Bush be beaten? "That's a real hard question," Mrs. Hansen, the retired Maytag worker, said in Newton. "Because, um, no."

That is table-pounding funny....

[SunkenCiv]

I've always hated that leveling the playing field crap.

The idea of a level playing field makes one think of the Handicapper General found in one of Vonnegut's short stories.