June 17, 2004
DNC Releases "trustees" List; Can't be Found
The DNC released a list of “trustees,” fundraisers who bring in $250,000 or more for the party and its presidential nominee, and “Patriots,” who raise at least $100,000. The Washington Post has an editorial on it in “Patriot Names” (haha, get it? Like Patriot Games? Okay, lame). Anyways, that editorial isn’t all that interesting, but it’s a good idea to release the list.
The really interesting thing was American Dynamics' digging to actually find the list. He couldn't, and explained his aggravation in "Name That Trustee":
A search directly on the DNC site for "trustee" their name for $250,000 plus donors turns up nothing relevant. Google likewise has failed me. Wonder if perhaps they'd rather the "release" be kept off the internet and inside the beltway...
I tried searching as well, to no avail. So I called the DNC headquarters to determine just where the list was, and was told that it was supposed to be put up yesterday. When asked if it was accesible from the front page and how to find it, I was told to ask the tech department. Multiple calls to the tech department was equally frustrating as it continuously went to voicemail. I tried asking other people, and no one was aware of where the document was on the website.
Maybe it's a fluke, but this could be something bigger.
Patriot Names [Washington Post]
Name That Trustee [American Dynamics]
Search Results [DNC]
ceejayoz: I don’t want to speculate at this time, but the DNC said it put out the list and then no one can find it. I want to make sure they keep their word.
I think every party should have to put this list out, so I’m not just picking on the Dems, but if they only gave the list to WaPo (which I assume they have), then that’s not exactly public release.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 17, 2004 06:24 PMceejayoz, how about links to donors they would rather not have known publicly?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 17, 2004 06:50 PMJohn Kerry regularly scorches the management of Enron. Yet the much-maligned Ken Lay has been a longtime member of the board of trustees of the Heinz Center, an environmental group founded by the candidate’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. She’s the group’s vice chairman, and Lay left the small board earlier this year after serving for nearly a decade.
John Kerry is a two-faced flip flopping medal throwing America-hating fascist. And the DNC supporst this guy? ug!
Posted by: Fisk at June 17, 2004 09:11 PMFisk:
To quote our recently departed former president, “There you go again.”
Would you please provide some backup to your claim that “John Kerry is a two-faced, flip-flopping, medal-throwing America-hating fascist.”
Wait. Never mind. As I read this I realize the lack of credibility in a statement like that about a man who has dedicated his life to serving his country.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at June 17, 2004 09:35 PMIn January, New England’s largest gay-targeted newspaper, In Newsweekly, cited Kerry’s “flip-flops” on the issue of gay marriage in an editorial endorsing his rival, Senator John Edwards. But you probably won’t believe it even if it comes from a liberal mouthpiece.
David - they’re required to report all that, so hiding it now would just mean embarrassment closer to the election.
Not to mention people jumping on them for not releasing what they’d promised.
Fisk - I’m missing your point in your linking of Lay and Kerry… the fact that Lay and Kerry’s wife served on a board of directors together means what, exactly, for Kerry?
As for Kerry being a flip-flopper, even if it were true, I’d prefer a guy who’s right half the time by chance to a guy who seems to unerringly pick the wrong side of an issue.
Posted by: ceejayoz at June 17, 2004 10:14 PMIf In Newsweekly wanted a consistent pro-gay-marriage candidate, then they should have endorsed Dennis Kucinich. Edwards is against gay marriage, just like Kerry.
Posted by: Woody Mena at June 17, 2004 10:56 PM… then again, maybe being a “liberal mouthpiece” they just didn’t want to endorse a “fascist” (and a flip-flopping fascist to boot, which we all know is the worst kind)
Posted by: Woody Mena at June 17, 2004 11:03 PMThere are times when I have a hard time deciding which representative of which culture represents me least: Texas right-wingers who drag knuckles to the pickup drug muttering homophobic rants; or Massachussets limousine liberals who want you to think they know what it’s like to struggle to make a living, sipping their effete, metrosexual wine and talking down their nose at a guy in the midwest who makes about $90K and doesn’t want to give $50K of it to wasteful pork spending.
Can’t politics produce someone normal?
Freudian slip: “pickup drug” should be “pickup truck”.
That’s your smoking gun, Fisk? That the “companion to New England’s largest Gay and Lesbian News & Entertainment Weekly” says Kerry flip-flopped over the issue of gay marriage?
You know that In Newsweekly endorsed Governor Dean in the New Hampshire primary? They then switched to Edwards at the end of February when Dean fell out of the race. So who’s flip-flopping?
Truth be told, I’m delighted that In Newsweekly has problems with John Kerry’s candidacy. I firmly believe that anyone in politics who gets heat from extremists on both sides of a sensitive, divisive issue is doing something right. And Kerry is smart enough to know that he’s got the gay and lesbian vote, as well as most of New England sewed up. So while the In Newsweekly editorial staff are all worked up about Kerry failing to show up for Boston Gay Pride Day, they also admit that “any gay or lesbian person who does not vote Democrat needs brain surgery or all the therapy GOP money can buy.”
http://www.innewsweekly.com/Pages/NewsStories/current%20week/1344/chuck062404.htm
To me, this is another indication that Kerry is more of a Centrist than the Leftist his opponents portray him to be. I frankly wouldn’t mind if undecided voters in Ohio, Florida, and Missouri who worry that Kerry is too liberal were told that the left-wing, liberal, largest gay and lesbian news weekly in New England did not endorse Kerry TWICE in the Democratic primaries.
As for your statement about his flip-flops, etc.—if that’s the best you can do, Fisk, I’m going to have to stick with Kerry for President.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at June 18, 2004 08:48 AMJermone:
Here is one analysis of Kerry that shows he is, indeed, futher left than you may think. I’ve checked this site out because they have many local races (we have a Senate run-off next week) but on many of those candidates the data points are too low to make their model work (IMO). But check it out…..
Kerry the Centrist
Thank you, George. I’m hoping your comments show up soon on the “big board” rather than just under the “comments” section.
I’m well acquainted with the “On the Issues” site. I’ve used it, in part, to reaffirm my positions on the candidates. It’s an interesting site, even if its candidate ratings formula is far from scientific (as the site readily admits). I also take issue with the accuracy of many of the candidate ratings; for one, they describe George W. Bush as a moderate conservative.
But even that site supports my contention that Kerry isn’t as far to the left as his opponents claim he is.
According to On the Issues, Kerry is a “libertarian-leaning liberal.” In their explanation of their definitions, they define Kerry’s position as libertarian on personal issues and liberal on economic issues. In both cases, he falls just outside the moderate range (10 percentage points or less of the break point).
By contrast, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Carol Mosely Braun, and Dennis Kucinich are all considered “hard-core liberals.” So those who claim that Kerry is “left of Ted Kennedy” are not supported by this site.
Kerry’s rating is also very close to those of John Edwards and Dick Gephardt. Joe Leiberman scores the same as Kerry on economic issues, but is slightly less libertarian on personal issues.
The true value of On the Issues comes from taking the time to read the candidate’s actual votes, positions, and statements on important issues. It’s one source for cutting through the rhetoric being spewed by both sides.
On the Issues’ candidate labels, while fun and somewhat telling, can’t come close to providing a true and full picture.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at June 18, 2004 05:34 PMOh yeh I agree on your assessment about On the Issues. The best information there is in the categorization of public comments that make up the ratings.
But when you stated that he was more of a Centrist, to me that means more of a Bill Clinton. Clinton I think defines that term better than any, along with the term “New Democrat.” My point was not so much that Kerry was not left of Kennedy, Dean, or Kucinich, but that he is not a Centrist or anywhere close to a Bill Clinton.
It’s funny when I take those tests. I never seem to match up with any of the national candidates! That’s because my views swing from socialist on a local scale to libertarian on a national scale, and that doesn’t translate well for their models.
George:
And I never meant to imply that Kerry was as centrist as Clinton. Just nowhere near the “ultra-liberal” that his opponents claim he is.
For the record, I was wrong about Kucinich. On the Issues labels him a “Populist-Leaning Liberal.” Whatever that means.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at June 19, 2004 10:45 AMJerome-
I agree with you on the ultra labeling as well; election year politics tend to be a little over the top.
I think of the national candidates Nader’s rating might be the most surprising. More moderate than probably most people think about him. I guess my opinion of him though is still pinned to the Covair!
Take care
I did the “on the issues quiz” (the 20 question beta), and the results were rather wierd. The candidates I’m closest too, from closest to farthest, according to the quiz, are:
John Edwards
Dick Cheney (WHAT the HELL?)
Dennis Kucinich
Al Sharpton (LOL!)
Wesley Clark
George W. Bush (snort!)
Howard Dean (yeeeeaaaaaaaargh!)
Ralph Nader
John Kerry
Joe Lieberman
Carol Mosely-Braun
Bob Graham
Dick Gephardt
===============
Uhm, I think they have a bit more of a testing cycle to go through in their programming, LOL!
