To DUers who aren't big Clark fans, here's a way to end some Clark threads

It's pretty simple, really. It's worked twice for me now (last reply in a thread that just dropped away), then I decided to simply ignore the Clark threads for awile but now they're getting out of control again.

If you want to kill a SwooningForClark thead try posting this:

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm

ymmv

I remember when Dean caught on around here, it's fairly the same.

Clark isn't even a declared Democrat.

IF YOU WILL NOTICE IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH CLARK IS LISTED AS CONFIRMED TO ATTEND A TRUMAN DAY EVEN THROWN BY THE KNOXVILLE DEMOCRATS. . .hmmmmm

Truman Day - Candidate Night - Saturday, September 13th

The East Tennessee Truman Day Dinner 2003 has been scheduled for
Saturday, September 13th at 7:00 pm at the new Knoxville Convention
Center. The Dinner will be preceded by a VIP reception and a cocktail
hour each scheduled for 6:00 pm in the Cumberland and Henley Street
concourses.

We have invited all the Democratic Presidential candidates to join us
for this occasion. So far we have confirmed that GENERAL WESLEY CLARK
will be joining us. Other guest will include Governor Bredesen, TDP
Chairman Randy Button, Reps. Harold Ford, Jr. and Lincoln Davis plus
many of our East Tennessee General Assembly members and other
prominent Democrats.

This "2003 Truman Day" will be an evening of politics and
entertainment. During the cocktail hour and reception the Convention
Center concourses will be filled with music and booths from the
presidential campaigns, City candidates, area clubs and interest
groups. The candidates' booths will distribute campaign materials and
sign up volunteers.

Our dinner will feature gospel and other music plus speeches from the
candidates and others. For candidates who don't attend, we will be
showing video presentations during the dinner. We hope to inspire East
Tennessee Democrats in anticipation of the 2004 campaign season.

-snip-

http://www.knoxdemocrats.org/

infer his party affiliation by sideways guesswork.

Oh come on.

More room for the "Southern" threads, huh?

eom

Your point about being a declared candidate is a good point, but in my opinion a General has just as much qualification, if not more, to be president as a governor does.

He did more for this country than Dean ever will.

Democrat and a declared candidate.

A wee bit of difference, woudn't you say?

So it's against Dean supporter DU rules to discuss certain people now?

We can only discuss people who are declared Democratic candidates?

And it is charming that you would feel bothered by behavior that is so similar to the behavior others have exhibited (specifically, yeah, posts about Dean) in the past.

Why does it trouble you that there are Clark threads--to the point that you give instruction on how to sink them?

And again--should we only discuss the nine candidates for President on this forum?

same dynamic.

Neither is running on the Democratic ticket.

What do some of their "DraftHim" supporters have in common? I've seen posts from folks in both camps saying "If (Gore/Clark) isn't the Dem candidate I'll write him in anyway". :eyes:

DON'T CLICK ON CLARK THREADS!!!

. . .as a recall Eisenhower was a GENERAL like Clark. I do not believe he had a problem with elected another GENERAL he had a problem with the military industrial complex. I think the speech is instructive as it relates to Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al. . .but I fail to see how it applies to Clark.

Again did Eisenhower say we should never elect another GENERAL?

That advice has been ignored by many, and look where we are now.

It appears a GENERAL was the one who warned us against the military industrial complex, but he did not, I repeat did not warn against electing another GENERAL. Electing a GENERAL is not taking part in the military industrial complex.

Come again?

You do know Eisenhower was a GENERAL?

the risks involved for the longterm and warn us credibly?

(snip)

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

WHERE DID EISENHOWER SAY OR IMPLY THAT WE SHOULD NEVER EVER ELECT ANOTHER GENERAL? OR THAT ELECTING ANOTHER GENERAL WOULD IN FACT BE PATRONIZING THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX??

You can twist this speech to meet your objectives but can you actually point to where he explicity said that electing another General would be wrong?

As it relates to: "As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."

Did you know Clark believes we should take a 100 year view towards the environment? Sounds like he is not trying to mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren at all.

So what you're saying is that any military guy that enters politics is therefore bad.

So I guess Jimmy Carter (Navy), Harry Truman (Colonel, I believe), Al Gore (Army journalist) and the majority of our presidents have no right being in politics, right?

Sure hope you're not voting for Kerry.

did not declare his party affiliation until just before he decided to run. Many professional Military do not go public with their politics before retirement. Colin Powell didn't go Repuk until after he retired.

Ike warned us about the Military Industrial Complex that shrubya has become the figurehead of, our parents didn't listen, and look where it's gotten us.

So long as they're not attacking people, disrupting the board, or whatever, what need is there to shut them down?

FOR THE MOST PART....are pure babies.

Sorry, I call it like I see it(or read it).

i wonder sometimes what their average age is.

this was a board to discuss issues and candidates.

Nothing wrong with that, this is nothing compared to the 24-7 Dean threads that have been seen before.

I really don't see the problem with discussing a guy relative to people he'd be running against.

...what will be your rationale then?

I don't believe he will.

Furthermore, anyone that can not declare, in pubic, and proudly that they are a Democrat, is not someone I would support or vote for.

If he is not a candidate why is there such a need to bash him?

... sucking support and resources from the real candidates, the ones who had the guts to get out there and debate and campaign and put their lives and platforms under public scrutiny.

it's called FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), a sleazy marketing tactic made famous by IBM. back in the old days, when IBM had something of a monopoly stranglehold on the mainframe market... whenever a competitor would come out with something new and possibly better, IBM would make an announcement of their own new something... whether real or not. the announcement would often cause potential customers for the competitor's new and better thing to say, "hmm, maybe we should wait until IBM comes out with theirs...", thus diminishing the competitor's chances. and then it'd turn out that IBM's thing would either never arrive or be horrendously late. but in the meantime the competitor lost money.

So Clark is really an anti-Democrat, out to sabotage the Democratic Party. All these appearances on TV where he attacks Bush and Republicans are simply cover for his real mission.

Reason Democrats get their asses kicked #139

the response here from Dean's supporters is to deny its existence.

Whether or not you like it, Clark generates tons of support.

?

Clark is not a declared candidate. What if he doesn't run?

John

Dean is a declared candidate What if he doesnt win?

After all, what better way to end them than by that famously prescient and wise Eisenhower speech?

I think it does a great job of showing that the last retired general America elected preisdent was more respectful of the line between military and civilian life than most of the chickenhawks today.

As a Clark supporter, I must admit that I do find some of the pro-Clark threads to be a little overenthusiastic.

But almost all of the consciously anti-Clark threads strike me as significantly more ridiculous and more assuredly damaging to the cause of the person who started them--just like the anti-Dean threads.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He can't win the general election.

readers either fall asleep or wander off into musing the many crucial points it highlights.

Or, like me, keep paging back through it looking for anything relating to Clark's potential candidacy.

Any 'stop x' approach has to be a little despiriting when strong unity is needed to stop the real target: the aWol chimp and his bastard crew.

what is the reason for ending discussions of Clark?

or any discussions, for that matter. i thought this was a discussion board. you know, a place to have discussions..

who do you support as our candidate? i have an idea but i'll search first to make sure...

For someone who isn't even a declared candidate, or even a declared Dem, there has been (imho) way too much astroturfing going on here, some by people who seem to have little idea about how to conduct a civil discussion.

I'll save you the trouble of a search. I've been leaning towards Dean for awhile, I just haven't been spamming that all over DU repeatedly.

Give me a break. Ike's speech is not even close to on point and frankly, your dismissal of the opinion of those not in concert with your particular opinion rankles. Myself, I think that perhaps I have the right to support whomever I wish and to say whatever I wish.

Whether you like it or not, Clark's appeal is pretty evident, here and elsewhere.

And as I think real hard about it, I saw no objection from you on the Dean-walks-on-water threads or did I just miss it?

I'll say it AGAIN. Dr. Dean is a declared Democratic candidate with a record of being electable. Clark is an ex-general CNN talking head.

You also haven't seen me post a Dean-walks-on-water thread. Go ahead and search. It's the Clark-walks-on-water threads that are getting on my nerves.

if someone wants to swoon and post ridiculous pap about Dean, you're okay with it, seemingly so long as the people enthusiastic about a candidate are enthusiastic about your candidate.

You apply a double standard and anyone reading this exchange can see it.

For me, I didn't like the Dean-walks-on-water threads but I didn't try to scheme some way to make the people posting them stop.

Eisenhower's speech is completely in line with Clark's philosophy. He supports war only as a last resort, he has been very vocally critical of the war in Iraq, and has criticized superfluous defense spending. So...what's your point?

Isn't that worth discussing in this forum?

Or what about whether he should be running in the already crowded Democratic primaries, or as an independent?

Better discuss it now, because it will be too late once he makes his decision!

...distracting the Clark fans with a lengthy article about Eisenhower?

I don't want to be Sparta, even if Clark talks the talk of being a restrained Sparta.

Does Clark advocate a Sparta?

In the original speech Ike had to tone down, the phrase used was 'military-industrial-Congressional complex".

Truth on it's face, because the military and the industrial can complex all they want to, but if the complexing takes Money, that means 218 House members have to sign that voucher.

Are you suspicious of Dennis or Dick BECAUSE they are members?

I can understand a boredom with enthusiasm, maybe, but you seem to have more than boredom in your take on Clark.

Or are you being sarcastic?

What is so wrong with enthusiasm about a candidate? What kind of small mind does it take to object to people liking whatever they like for whatever reason? I have absolutely no problem with Dean fans being head over heels for their candidate - same for Kucinich, and Kerry and all the rest.

It's called generosity of spirit - check into it.

As for the Eisenhower bit - you are clearly underinformed about Clark.