A serious question for Clark supporters, and well, everybody really.

If any of the 9 democrats running had gone to a republican fundraiser in 2001 and said:

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

or they had said...

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."


Or if they said...


"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Would you just give them a pass? If Dean or Edwards or Lieberman etc. had NO record of democratic service or positions, never held office before, were not even registered as democrats, and said the things I quoted above, would you just brush it off?

I know I wouldn't. Hell even with their records and experience, if I found out tomorrow that Dean had said some crap like that about Bush and Reagan and Rummy and W... I'd seriously have to reconsider my support for him.

I am amazed at the Clark supporters who are blowing this off. It seems every day we find out something new about Clark lying about being a registered dem or saying he would have voted for the iraq war resolution... add that to his lack of a record, lack of experience, and lack of honesty about the whole thing and i can't understand why any democrat would support him.

Whenever someone asks about these things, the Clark supporters respond by attacking Dean or attacking whoever asked the questions.

Can anybody defend this stuff?

I like Wes Clark, but there is clearly a double standard going on. But then, with regarding to Lieberman, there has ALWAYS been a double standard.

to me. I read person after person say "anybody but Bush or Lieberman," and that was accepted. But if you state "anybody but Bush or Clark" you will find a cyber posse hunting you down on DU. There are some here who have relentlessly pounded Lieberman as Repug-lite and the same now excuse all signs of Clark's Republican-lite status. It is something that I did not even realize until today when reading posts.

I don't like any of the DLC fans of PNAC crowd. You are right though. Clark suporters will let anything slide, almost like they are getting paid to work the net for the guy. Very creepy and it seems it's not fooling very many people judging from the "is Clark a mole" poll.

This is nothing more than the DLC's last stand and people are going to start hopping off the Clark bandwagon as soon as they realize what he's really about. He makes Lieberman look like an angel in comparison.

Clark is nothing more than the DLC's replacement for Lieberman. IMO, he's talking a nice liberal game because the stakes are so high but that doesn't make his words true. Anybody who trusts someone at his word is a naive fool.

Another interesting coincidence... Where have all the former Lieberman supporters gone? And why are so many of them pushing Clark? And why are some of the most hawkish Dems yelling the loudest about what a great Liberal Clark? Have all the tigers suddenly changed their stripes and seen the light?

Must have been that recent Mars juxtaposition :shrug:

As i've said in another thread, the more probable reason Clark is getting backing from many in Washington is because they think he has not only the better chance of getting elected, they believe he can have a greater positive effect on getting congressional Democratic candidates elected than the 9 others running. They think they smell a winner.

A true winner.

I'd certainly vote for him against a Republican.

Lieberman is the biggest hawk in the field. Just a couple of months ago he was still saying the Dems should support whatever Bush was doing in Iraq. That's why I really, really do not want him to get the nomination. We need someone who can be counted on to change the nation's course to a significant degree, and I don't think Lieberman will do that. He'll tweak it a bit, but that's it.

and he has an established record of democratic service and policies. Yet he's been attacked, mainly for his war support, but the fact is Clark said he'd have voted for the resolution Lieberman voted for.


I don't like Lieberman myself, but I would vote for him if he got the nomination.


However I seriously doubt I'd vote for Clark.

And so hypocritical too, considering that Lieberman supported the TIPS program, which Senator Leahy compared to the American Protective League which operated during WWI, and actually did lynch people--by which I mean murdered them.

Bet you would get your knickers all in a twist if anyone tried to compare the Likud government's vile treatment of the Palestinians to "ethnic cleansing" or the Holocaust, though.

Feh.

Lieberman used to look like the dog of this race, but at least the man has integrity and a consistent record, albeit too far to the right for me.

Had Republican friends. I don't know how many times I've seen him on TV saying nice things about various Republicans. Calling Larry King to say kind and generous things about Bob Dole..... It is not being a traitor to have good relationships on both sides of the aisle. It is good politics.

That made the Dems the official Losers Party awhile back. I thought we'd gotten over that. A healthy political party should not insist on ideological purity.

They love to lose. Winners can't whine and bitch.

great...another charmer :eyes:

sigh.

Demanding ideological purity is a disease. That's what neocons and ditto heads and freepers do. Let's not do it, too.

FYI there are three candidates I am rooting for, four I can live with with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and three I really want to go away asap. If that makes me a "Clarkie," so be it.

Can you get me one of those please because in 3 years on DU I've never heard anyone use that slur. Lots of words and phrases showing all of a sudden and a dictionary would be so handy because you know how progressives like to keep up with all these New movements.

What's the term of endearment for the DLC? Or the Reagan Democrats? I can't wait to hear what juicy word you have for the Republicans.

Well sheesh, this Progressive is proud to be called a Greenhole. At least they know what party they belong to ;)

Let me just seize this opportunity to thank the New Dem Party for the last 2 victories defeats they engineered.

Looks like they're determined to do it again.

Is General Clark-Kent really SuPNACman?

They never seem to be seen together.

What is a party all about if not 'ideological purity'? If anyone can claim to be a member, such that you can't tell the difference without looking at the label, then what's the point?

I've got a ton of... least thoughtful thoughtless posts book-marked.

I think this week's Talking Points Memo must have addressed party unity, ironically, regardless of labels.

Oh the irony. Fabiani must not be getting enough sleep.

Where have all the Lieberman supporters gone?

Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

If clinton had said that crap, without a democratic record, and without being in the democratic party, then he suddenly wanted to run for president on the dem ticket... I wouldn't have voted for him.

Clark apparently did as recently as 2 yrs ago. That bothers me a lot.

he still thought bush was doing a good job he wouldn't be running against him. Clark has an extensive record of speaking out about bushco. But you overlook that.

Ever since Rove refused to return his calls?

Underneath the uniform of mild mannered General Clark-Kent beats the robust Republican heart of the Man of Steal:

SuPNACman!

It did at first, but then I read all about the circumstances and I also know what he says now. I also know a lot more about his background and some sniper on DU ain't gonna change my mind.

( You sure do make a lot of posts about Clark )

In all fairness, you ALSO make a lot of positive posts about Clark. This is a PRIMARY, this is a LEGITIMATE issue, it's OKAY for someone to "make a lot of posts about Clark" - even if they're negative!

Of course, you are in Oklahoma. A lot of nice people, but a state that has Democrats you can't tell from Republicans. Perfect territory for a rightwing Democrat like Wesley K. Clark! And no, I pay **no attention at all** what he's saying NOW. I am smart enough to know he is saying what he needs to say to fool enough people to get the nomination of a party - he doesn't even BELONG TO! I could never support an impostor of his magnitude and am shocked how many Clark supporters there are on a PROGRESSIVE board. Only in Orwell's America.

So Clark has now lied about his voter registration in Arkansas? Would you mind supporting that accusation with a cite?

Don't you know the rules?

he stated publically that he was a democrat.

He's not.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

One must file the proper papers with the government in order to join the Democratic Party.

I never knew that!

to join a party?

I was taught that in school over thirty years ago.

Formal party registration is optional for Arkansas voters. Here's the Arkansas voter registration form: http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf

Additionally, here's a little something from the website of the Democratic Party of Arkansas (http://www.arkdems.org/home.html) :

Dear Loyal Democrat:

Yesterday, I stood on the platform with General Wesley Clark as he announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States and I was filled with the hope and confidence that we have the power to give our country back to the people.

**snip**

The Democratic Party of Arkansas has hit the ground running to take America back-and we must have your support to be successful! It is imperative that we take advantage of the Bush administration's fatal errors, and once again, make sure that a Democrat {that's Clark, if you weren't paying attention} is leading our nation.

**snip**

Together, we can elect another Arkansan to the White House. Please join with us in making this commitment. Your support is imperative to our success!

Sincerely,
Ron L. Oliver, Chair
Democratic Party of Arkansas

It seems to me that the local Democratic Party has clearly embraced Clark as a member of the party. The chairman even stated (in so many words, as seen above) that Clark is a Democrat. THEY consider him a member of the party, and that holds a hell of a lot more weight with me than the rantings of people who want to see Clark fail.

and the members of the party may be fooled and they may SAY he is a democrat.

But none of that changes the fact that Clark lied and he is not a registered democrat...

you DON'T have to file papers to be a Republican, but you DO in order to be a Democrat.

... will that make you happy? This is a really silly issue.

the guy says he became a dem in 1992... yet in the last 12 years he hasn't found time to register?


I thik he was waiting... remember when he wouldn't even say he was a dem? He was waiting to see which side made the best offer.

He said be voted for Clinton in 1992. Whether he was registered as an independent (no party) or as a Democrat probably didn't seem to be important to him at the time. Some people vote for the person, not the party.

registered before. He wasn't.

Anyway, my problem with this is that Clark's campaign should have seen this coming months ago and filed the papers. This is amateurish. An amateur won't be able to take on the best funded campaign in the history of the world (Bush's).

He was registered without party affiliation. In some states you can do that. If he were to change the party affiliation he'd have to re-register to vote.

As for whether the "amateur" will be able to beat Bush, I think it's too early to make judgments like that. Some people might actually find his voter registration record a plus.

The fact that I want an actual Democrat to win the Democratic nomination for president is a "silly issue?" Registering as a Democrat may be optional to vote in Arkansas, but it shouldn't be optional for someone who wants to represent the Democratic party in a national election.

If he doesn't want to be a Democrat, he doesn't have to be. But then let him run with no party affiliation. If he's not a member of the party, he isn't qualified to run on the party ticket.

I read today on Josh Marshall's blog that the Arkansas Democratic Party invited Clark to be their candidate for governor last election. The details of his registration bothered them not at all.

I think you are going way off the scales on this issue. If Clark does well in the campaign and wins primaries, what will you say then?

He told Judy Woodruff in mid -September that he had finally decided to register as a Democrat. His supporters tried to hide this story on thread kicking day but hell, here it is again. One of the stories that was just supposed to go away quietly come back to bite is with fanfare. What further excitement should we be expecting? I think I'm going to sign up for the "Talking Point Memo" Fabiani is "meming" for Clark just to know what words to google every morning.

I'll bet you a nickel though that he would have registered by Inauguration Day.

This is too funny for words though... For months his supporters swore up and down the wall that he was not only a Democrat but a Liberal Democrat. This is some really funny, sorry-assed shit. The freepers have been laughing their heads off about this from the start. Gee, really wish I could join in the fun- the DLC must be laughing their heads off too.



Thursday, September 18, 2003

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/047eravy.asp

Clark has encouraged Howard Dean's insurgency. And he's voted in Democratic primaries in Arkansas--an act that requires him to be a registered Democrat.



http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm


"A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat. "

You seem to be confusing Clark himself with the "Clark campaign spokesman" quoted in the article.

You have yet to prove that Clark himself lied, i.e., said something that he knew to be untrue, in this matter.

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html




Sort of sad and desperate when you have to defend CLark's lies by claiming that his campaign spokesperson doesn;t speak for him or his campaign.

Would you at least admit his campaign spokesperson lied for Clark?

Because a lie is more than a statement contrary to fact. Telling a lie requires a person to say something that he/she knows to be untrue or (more broadly) has no reason to believe is true.

I don't know what was going on inside the head of the person who made the statement at issue. Maybe there was miscommunication between Clark, the spokesperson, and one or more intermediaries. Maybe Clark's change in registration is sitting in someone's inbox in the relevant state bureaucracy. Maybe some Clark staffer filled out the form incorrectly. Based on what I know about Clark, I find any of those explanations to be more probable than "Clark lied."

The world is much more complicated than some of the more ardent Clark bashers would have us believe. But, hey . . . I wouldn't expect any less from people who are so hung up on paperwork.

But if any other candidate running did the things CLark has done, they'd be out of the running for the Dem nomination. If the Dean campaign said Dean was registered as a democrat and then it turned out he was an independant, can you honestly say that you'd be saying it was no big deal, not a lie, and just silly paperwork?

If Edwards had gone to a republican fundraiser in 2001 and said, "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."what would happen?


"I wouldn't expect any less from people who are so hung up on paperwork."


This whole country is built on, and held together by, a piece of paperwork.

"And he's voted in Democratic primaries in Arkansas--an act that requires him to be a registered Democrat."

I don't think that's true--the second part, anyway. Arkansas has open primaries, so any voter can choose to cast a ballot in the Democratic primary or the Republican primary (not both, of course). The state keeps a record of which ballot a voter cast, but I don't think that's tantamount to registration with a particular party.

Here's the actual language from a voter guide published by the state (http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/0310_votepub.pdf):

+ In a primary election, you must state which party
ballot you want to vote (as of 1/2000, Democratic or
Republican).

+ In a primary election, you are allowed to vote only
one party’s ballot.

+ In a primary election, the election official records
which party ballot you vote.

And he's voted in Democratic primaries in Arkansas--an act that requires him to be a registered Democrat.


you don't have to pick a party in Arkansas to vote, you just vote


And as far as the content of this thread, what was done or said 2-3-20 years ago means squat, if that bothers you, don't vote for the guy.

And personally, I couldn't care less if those that say they won't support Clark if nominated take their ball and go home, cry in their beer and pout, it only proves how shallow and self centered they are. They only want to win if it is their guy winning. Screw you, I want to beat bush, and I will support the party nominee whoever it is, this is not about me, this is about us.

And as far as Clark is concerned, I have met the man, I have talked to the man and what he says now convinces me he is the only chance we have to get rid of "flightsuit"


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

but that independant who used to work for Henry Kissinger, and goes to republican fund raisers to heap praise on Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Ronny, and W... I won't be voting for him.

You'd rather see Bush in the White House than Clark because he made some schmoozing bread-and-butter remarks about the Bushies in a speech? Do you have any idea how juvenile that is? Well, of course, you don't. Never mind.

from which such obscenities are to be expected and that inarticulate frat-boy is so clumsy that they get caught and the entire machination exposed. With Bush we know exactly what we're up against but Clark is not an inarticulate frat-boy, he's a brilliant Rhoads scholar who knows exactly what he's saying. No, this, while I was out protesting these people, this I can NOT forgive:

March 2003

Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

(Deputy Secretary of Defense) Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. (Deputy National Security Advisor) Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with (Pentagon advisor) Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Do you disagree with them on their worldview?

I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.

But certainly you're contemplating running for president -- I understand you haven't made a decision -- so even though you root for their success, you can't agree with their methods.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/print.html

Let's shoot him now. (sarcasm off)

I think every campaign is looking for reasons to not like 'the other guy/gal', and I don't think this sort of stuff helps OUR candidate at all. It just makes us look like we're upset because someone has stepped forward to challenge Howard--- mean, petty, spiteful, self-righteous.

It's not helpful at ALL, IMHO, to keep slinging this same tired old shit, because you can't sling shit without some of it sticking to you, you know? It's time we took a huge chill pill on this sort of stuff.

My 2 cent's worth.

I prefer to reserve my savage attacks for *! :)

ABB! :kick:

How to Clark supporters rationalize this?

I was excited about Clark until I started looking at more than the hype fromt eh draft Clark folks.

The fact that you can't see this is profoundly disturbing.

I will arrange for the martian mind control rays to be turned up high enough to burn right through that tin foil hat.

I'm really sick of this shit, in other words.

I have yet to see a Clark supporter answer the question.

So are you going to answer it or not?

.. in a dozen DU messages today. I'm getting tired of opening messages and seeing the same crap.

And it's nearly 2 a.m. and I'm giving up for now. I may tackle it later.

I won the Cold War, by the way!

And please can this be the last thread on this topic? Not because I want to stifle debate, but the same comments and reactions are being recycled daily. Can't we just archive the arguments somewhere?

1) How we judge who is a Democrat. If you asked me, "What is more important, having the party affiliation to provide instant legitimacy or living and conducting one's life by the principles and values of the Democratic Party?" I would say "The latter option." And that is why Clark is a Democrat. Because before he was ever in the media spotlight, he wrote an affirmative action brief and he and his wife worked to improve healthcare and education for the troops that were under his command. Because while in the army he received recognition from the Audobon Society for protection of a species of tortiose and a species of woodpecker. Because he has always and consistently urged a multilateral approach to foreign policy.

2) He was non-party affiliated for most of his life. We've explained this again and again. Military, esp. those high in rank, cannot declare party affiliation.

3) Politics end at the water's edge. Working abroad for American interests gives Clark a different perspective than domestic politicians. America is represented by its government officials, and whether or not we like them, we should want them to do well because it affects how America is perceived and treated in the world. Quote from General Clark. "I hadn't voted for them - I voted for Al Gore - but I wanted them to succeed for the good of America," he said, "but a lot's changed since May 2001."

And interestingly enough, leading Senate Democrats said similar praise during the confirmation hearings of each of those people nominated. Lieberman, Kennedy, Biden, Torricelli all participated in the confirmation process. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that no one could possibly know it would turn out so badly?

4) Clark's "lies": He did not say he was a registered Dem; it was a campaign official who made that mistake. The Iraq resolution is not as simple as you make it out to be - Clark was saying use the resolution as leverage to prod the UN into a diplomatic solution, but let Congress have the last say in the declaration of war.

5) "Lack of honesty": What has he flat-out lied about? Or are the "lies" the media snipping out quotes and inserting them into stories without proper context?

If FDR or JFK suddenly came to life and ran against Dean, the Deanbots would be busy sliming them.

and the people trashing Dean act the exact same way.If Dean walked on water some Clark supporters would claim it's because he couldn't swim.

about Dean supporters? I can't tell you the number of times I've jumped into threads to defend Clark. I'm beginning to really resent being called names because of a minority of my compatriots. BTW, this thread may be redundant, but I hardly think it qualifies as sliming.

There are some very decent Dean people that I respect on this board, but there are others, who will remain unnamed, that have spent most of the last 18 hours in a constant barrage of attacks against Clark and all of his supporters. We have had our intelligence, decency, courage, motives and ideology attacked and demeaned. I have yet to attack Dean, who is my second choice, but I categorically reserve the right to defend myself and my choices.

Sliming is the correct word for what is taking place here. The charges raised have been answered ad nauseum. Take a count of how many Clark bashing threads there are, who started them...then tell me what you would do if the situation were reversed. OK?

but the tables were already reversed.Dean and Kerry have already gone through this same thing.

after the November debacle. I just came back last weekend, so I missed the other candidates' free-for-alls. I think that the thing that is most offensive are the bashers that say they will not vote for the eventual candidate, unless it is the their candidate. I will not take prisoners when engaging with that sort of idiocy.

I dont like the "take my ball and go home" mentality either,although I do admit to having a real hard time with the thought of voting for Lieberman.Other than that no one has been excluded in my opinion.

just as I said.


One person actualy tries to answer, and you still have to jump in with the attacks.

Are you not capable of memorizing more than a few sentences? Inquiring minds want to know?

My question to you is, why did Clark vote for Nixon and Reagan?

What values did he share with them at the time, and what values does he still share?

Did he have a conversion? If not, will those values be reflected in his platform? And if not, why?

I don't doubt that Clark is an honorable man. But will he be true to our parties principles, or is he using us to achieve what he believes to be a greater end?

---

These are my current concerns. Any insight would be appreciated.

You can start with that article.

Thanks for the tip.

"As for Ronald Reagan, there were some things done well, some things done poorly, but one of the biggest things was it was the administration in which inflation came under control as the result of a lot of tough policies, some of them begun by Reagan's predecessor to attack the expectations that had built up in this country as a result of trying to do guns and butter during Vietnam. And it took years to drive these expectations out of the business community, out of the financial community. But as they disappeared and people began to accept core inflation rates of less than two and three percent and they didn't build cost escalators into everything, you established a much firmer sense of purpose and success in America. That's a bipartisan effort. I loved Reagan's speech at Pointe du Hoc. I was at the Pentagon, I was at the Pentagon as a colonel when he gave it on D-Day."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm
--

Good stuff so far, but nothing conclusive yet. I will try to find a transcript on the Pointe Du Hoc speech now.

On edit: Here's the link:

http://www.gmhonline.com/reagan/index.html

Reading it now.

I can see now see how an apolitical military man could vote for Reagan.
I don't agree with the vote, but I can understand it.

I never voted for the man, but we got a minimal 4% raise, just like clockwork every year and my take home was WAY better then when I got out. That is not to say that the Repugs did not waste a $hitload of money on defense contractors and campaign donors, or that they couldn't have done more for the troops.

After reading it, I can see where it would resonate with Clark, being a veteran, as well as the daughter of someone that landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. Probably the only speech or action of Reagan's that I agree with.

Clark has also talked about being inspired by JFK, another quality that I can identify with, as well as see in his statements.

:-)

"1) How we judge who is a Democrat. If you asked me, "What is more important, having the party affiliation to provide instant legitimacy or living and conducting one's life by the principles and values of the Democratic Party?" I would say "The latter option." And that is why Clark is a Democrat. Because before he was ever in the media spotlight, he wrote an affirmative action brief and he and his wife worked to improve healthcare and education for the troops that were under his command. Because while in the army he received recognition from the Audobon Society for protection of a species of tortiose and a species of woodpecker. Because he has always and consistently urged a multilateral approach to foreign policy."

I disagree, first that saying you're a democrat when you're registered independant is dishonest and misleading. Saying you've registered as a dem, when you have not is also.

Second I do not agree that Cark has lived a life consistent with democratic values. Bombing hospitals, using DU rounds in civilian centers, and bombing journalists... not democratic values.

PRaising Bush I and II and reagan and Rummy at repuke fundraisers is not the actions of a democratic individual. Clark dishonestly claims he became a dem in 92 because of Clinton, yet here we are 12 years later and he's still not registered as a democrat? And in 2001 he was shilling for republicans.



"2) He was non-party affiliated for most of his life. We've explained this again and again. Military, esp. those high in rank, cannot declare party affiliation.


That is false, military can declare party affiliation, they just can't speak out on political issues. Are you seriously claiming that soldiers and officers are not allowed to be registered republicans or democrats?


"3) Politics end at the water's edge. Working abroad for American interests gives Clark a different perspective than domestic politicians. America is represented by its government officials, and whether or not we like them, we should want them to do well because it affects how America is perceived and treated in the world. Quote from General Clark. "I hadn't voted for them - I voted for Al Gore - but I wanted them to succeed for the good of America," he said, "but a lot's changed since May 2001."


Sorry but this is a bullshit argument... we should all want Bush to do well because when he looks good america looks good?

Sorry no, I don't buy it. That doesn't excuse Clark's shilling for republicans and lobbying for Henry Kissinger.



"And interestingly enough, leading Senate Democrats said similar praise during the confirmation hearings of each of those people nominated. Lieberman, Kennedy, Biden, Torricelli all participated in the confirmation process. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that no one could possibly know it would turn out so badly?"

Your argumetn seems to have drifted here. Are you talking about the war... I hope not because a hell of a lot of people knew it would turn out badly, and were saying so from the start.


"4) Clark's "lies": He did not say he was a registered Dem; it was a campaign official who made that mistake."


Seems like a pretty big mistake for the campaign spokesperson to not even know if the candidate is registered in the party where he is seeking the nomination. And Clark told a CNN reporter he was registering Dem, and that has not happened.



"The Iraq resolution is not as simple as you make it out to be - Clark was saying use the resolution as leverage to prod the UN into a diplomatic solution, but let Congress have the last say in the declaration of war."

He said he would vote for it and he said he wouldn't have voted for it... he's riding the fence on the issue.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030922-105420-9821r.htm

Since entering the race, Mr. Clark has made a series of gaffes.
He waffled last week over whether he would have voted for the resolution to launch war against Iraq. Eventually, he settled on saying, "I don't know whether I would have or not. I've said it both ways."

Mr. Clark also confused some supporters over the depth of his Democratic credentials. After voting for Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan for president, Mr. Clark said he became a Democrat listening to Mr. Clinton's early presidential campaign speeches. Then, it was revealed, he spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser in 2001 and was registered as an independent.
Telephone messages left with Mr. Clark's campaign office in Arkansas were not returned.




"5) "Lack of honesty": What has he flat-out lied about? Or are the "lies" the media snipping out quotes and inserting them into stories without proper context?"

Well counter punch has some great examples of how he lied about mission objectives and damage in Kosovo. However i was talking about the fact his campaign spokeperson lied and said he was registered dem when he was not, and the fact Clark says he was against the war when several statements he made before the war show that not to be accurate.


Also, while you made an effert to answer my questions without attacks on Dean or me for darign to ask... you've not answered the big question. Why is CLark being given a pass on things, that if any other candidate did, they'd be roundly attacked?

I bet Dean never said nice things about Republicans before. I wonder if Clark will say nice things about the dictators in China if he hosts them. I thought diplomacy was a good thing.

And gushing like a school girl over the profoundly amazing leadership and vision of Bush.

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

I mean come on....

April 21, 1999

Obviously frustrated with increasing signs that Russia is definitely going to send an armada of warships to protect their legitimate interests in the Balkans, Clark told NATO personnel (and a few journalists as well) that we (meaning NATO and the U.S.) 'Should just bomb any Russian warship that sets foot in the Mediterranean.' In an attempt to spin this gaffe, one staffer immediately tried to qualified Clark's outburst by proclaiming that Clark 'obviously needs some sleep.' <snip>

http://www.siri-us.com/backissues/1999/SIT-4-23-NATOvYugoslavia.html


Even one of the House members recommended this: "I think the general might need a little sleep." April 17, 1999
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=1999/4/17/071704

Yeah the quote was reported by Novak but since party loyalties don't matter anymore, what the hell :shrug:

Anyway, I think all these yawning people need a little sleep.

This is a crucial issue. The Clark people don't want to talk about it and prefer to pretend these things didn't happen and call all discussion of it "smears." The fact is, these episodes involving Clark caused his early recall from Europe and shows the instability of this man - who has always been known as a hothead in the Pentagon. The Oval Office is the LAST place for a man like this. Yeah, the hot-headed Patton was a great general - but would anyone have wanted George Patton in the White House?

Clark people must wake-up and PAY ATTENTION. Look at this man's history and quit making excuses for the truck loads of missteps by this man!

Don't particularly like it, but that's what they often do.....
Since Clark was military,(bi-partisan) and a politically independent thinker, he definitely gets a pass from me on this.

DemEx

Stop making a big deal about nothing. Freepers are dying to use this garbage against us if Clark gets the nom.

And there is no double-standard with regard to Lieberman. Clark is now against the war; Lieberman isn't. Lieberman still refuses to make ANY cogent argument against Bush. In French news articles when Lieberman is mentioned as a Democratic presidential candidate he always has "conservateur" (conservative) in parentheses next to his name.

Stop nitpicking Clark. It's beyond ridiculous.

1. He was at a republican fundraiser. I've got republican friends that I'd go to bat for again and again. It is entirely possible he was at that fundraiser for any myriad of reasons and when asked to speak he certainly wouldn't slag them. You can say nice things about people (yes even those we villify) and still hold your own principles. I don't know when in 2001 this was said but after 9/11 there was a lot of solidarity between people for a time being. Even if it was before 9/11, these are people he had come in contact with before. It could even be a case of "Im not running for office, Im just a military guy and I'll say good things about the commander in chief and his team"

Seriously, I dont know the answer to this one but I can see where it is plausible to say. In fact I think if you look you could find many democratic people who may have said something like that at one time.

2. Whats wrong with this quote? As a military man he knew that reagans strong defence stance was gonna bolster the military...call it job security. I may or may not like my boss but if he makes my work environment better then I won't complain. That doesn't mean I share his views.

3. More of the same as #2, whether you like it or not Reagan ended the cold war (Yes the process had been started long before reagan took office but reagan hit the last hammer stroke to the nail in the coffin). The military did like reagan...it is the truth.

4. I don't know which Bush he was talking about but it doesnt really matter. As a general in the army he knows chain of command is very important and not being in the political field at the time he has no reason to go against the commander in chief, what is the point. You have to look at the time he said this and in what circumstances. Now that he is in the political arena and retired military he can share his views with what really bothers him It shows a good deal of discipline to be able to do your job, to like or support people not like you, and to put personal viewpoints to the side while you do your job.

I worked on capitol hill for some time and it may surprise you that there isn't a democratic side and repuke side to each of the office buildings. There is no velvet rope keeping them away from each other, no neatly arranged tables in the cafeterias labelled "democrat" or "republican". No designated smoking times for republicans/democrats only. These people coexist with each other like other humans do, they eat lunch together, get haircuts together, joke with each other etc. Sure there are those that can't stand the other sied, but many of them keep the fighting to the floor of the house and not in their daily life.

I kinda got side tracked but my main point is that it is perfectly acceptable to me that Wesley Clark has fraternized with the "enemy" because his viewpoints on all the issues that matter to me are consistant with what I think. I can say the same for Howard Dean or Kucinich some days.

just my 48 cents.

Wherein you will learn what it takes to be an EFFECTIVE diplomat and political advocate.

In part one must learn to APPEAR moderate even while one's agenda might be quite radical.

Also, one must learn not to burn bridges or alienate someone with whom one might have to work with later.

Franklin never cut himself off from England and was therefore able to play England and France off against each other
before and during the Revolutionary War. It was his communications and seeming negotiating with England, that
pushed France to aid us militarily and financially.

I believe this might be called "triangulation"?

Alot of Franklin's editorials were, in fact, written with psuedonymns precisely so that he would be able to maintain his
viablilty as a diplomat. In fact, MOST politicians of his time wrote critiques and "slams" anonymously for that reason.

And there were a few pols who Franklin had public feuds with who he actually worked TOGETHER with later on.

In short, only a political novice would "smack down" an opponent.

There's a world of difference between critiquing or lampooning the opposition and insulting them.

good post.

It is one thing to be civil and polite, it is another to saythings like:

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Now if you applaud these men as great leaders, you can not then turn around and say you are a member of the party which is supposedly based on being opposed to the exact leaders and style of leadership that this guy was just applauding.

It would be like some guy saying he's not a racist and has been against racism for 12 years, yet he was at a KKK rally two years prior talking about what a great leader the grand wizard was.

So no, this is not simply being nice and civil and building bridges... this is being a two faced phony.

Is that they do not have to.
The media will not pick up on this until at least after the primary, and will continue to give Clark air time that puts him in a good light like they did so obviously tonight on CNN 360
The story was about Limbaugh and they have Clark answer the softball question about his comments. Then the story was about recall and guess who they had on stage supporting the Demo? You guest it Clark again. He gets no hard questions and most of the attention.

I think he was being too diplomatous. In the
long run, I think he was just trying to help fellow
Americans.

Did he hurt anybody by doing this? NO!

And that's why this is just political Red Herring stuff.

How about if you give him credit for his efforts to
stem the genocide in Rwanda while being blocked by a
Democratic President and let the two cancel themselves
out. What I mean is "look at the big picture" and don't
get hung up on labels.

All the politicians say nice stuff about each other, even
if they hate each other. It happens all the time on Meet
the Press.

Clark's good points outweigh the few gaffes that he has made.

Clark made those statements in May of 2001.... Before the shrub attacked Iraq, ruined our economy, lost 3 million jobs and before he lied in the SOTU. He has seen the light! No, I don't fault him and I do give him a pass.

I'm a Dean...supporter. Maybe a Clark supporter. Haven't decided yet. I've donated money and time to Dean's campaign but, I do like Clark.

The stuff about Ronny and Bush I... there's no such excuse.



Clark claims he voted for Gore in 2000, yet 7 months later he is talking at a repuke fundraiser about what great leaders Reagan and Bush I & II were.

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Yet, Clark claims he voted against Bush I in 92.

I get the feeling that Clark's positions change depending on who he is talking to.

Any fool that does deserves what unfortunately we wil all be getting. Anyone who can ignore these statements and still backs Clark deserves no credibility and should not be allowed to have any influence in the party. They can go start the fans of PNAC party on their own dime.

I was worried about Dean being the DLC spoiler but Clark entering the race cleared that up for me.

If you had done any research you would know that clark is no where near a PNAC advocate.

If the only way you can build up your candidate is by stabbing at another candidate then you are the same as the republicans. You just have a different viewpoint.

to the Clark supporters on this thread who have attacked Dean as a defense of Clark?

If the only way you can build up your candidate is by stabbing at another candidate then you are the same as the republicans

It's not productive either way you look at it.

I agree totally.

I used to have the same worry about Dean but he pales in comparison to this. Dean seems practically "Green" in comparison.

Because the fact is, some of the early Revolutionary Patriots accused Benjamin Franklin of being an English Crown sympathizer.

They thought him a traitor- because he did not stand up as a "radical" but choose to act the moderate statesmen & diplomate while furthering the Patriot's radical agenda.

Yet it was Benjamin Franklin who secured the French's support and it is also he who convinced the disparate elements to compromise at the Convention and sign the Constitiution.

Deans record as governor involves him vetoing a lot of legislation, most of it put forth by democratic party candidates, and many Vermont Democratic elected officials pointed to Dean forming political alliances with Vermont Republicans in order to oppose that legislation.

So which is worse, casting one vote for a Republican president several times, or actively opposing your own party, its basic platform and siding with republican elected officialscin order to do so...

It is a matter of perspective. I would prefer Clark to someone with a record of making statements that opposed important Democratic programs, long fought for, and hard won, as well as opposing democratic party solutions to budget crises and fiscal problems in his own venue.

And you have to rememmber, in the end Clarke was forced into retirement by Pentagon insiders, with support from congressional Republicans.

That the act of voting in an election is the equivalent experience of being Govern of a state and dealing with the legislation?
If that is not the perfect example of spin I have never seen one.

I trust Clark. After reading his interviews, watching him, listening to him talk, etc., etc., I am very impressed by him. I could care less whether he was a registered democrat, said good things about Bush... What matters to me is the future, and I trust Clark.

If I am naive and being duped, well I'll have to accept the consequences and with Clark I am prepared to do so.

Right now I am 50-50 between Clark and Edwards.

No offense, but I really hope you're not one of those people who trusted Bush last time because they got their asses handed to them and now many of them are over here because of their total disgust at Bush and the Clark campaign's big "Welcome Home Reagan Democrats" invitation. If that applies to you, well welcome home but damn- you can't vote on trust! Lots of disappointed people walking around embarrassed and feeling betrayed because they voted Bush in on trust. How many times do the American people want their ass handed to them? You don't vote on trust. You vote

1. on the record
2. on the history
3. on the issues

How can you vote on words not backed by action or a record? Do you really believe Clark went from Bush lover to Bush hater in a few short months? It was just 6 months ago that Clark was heaping roses on Bush and his entire PNAC cabal- March 2003 to be exact during the Salon interview at the same time that he was being "coy" with the Democrats.

This is going to be one sorry election. And by the way- I'm not voting for him but Edwards has a bright future in front of him and I kind of like him.

and I've been one all my life. Just didn't like the idea of signing up for one party. I signed up because this is the first time I've felt anywhere near definite about my choice in the primaries. That's because I've never really liked a candidate that had a shot at winning before. But - and this is important - I'm not at all sure that the registration is going to go through in time for the primaries. I have to call the board of elections and basically stay on their backs because lots of people have had problems when they changed their registration in this county. Could this have happened with Clark? I don't know. One guy at the last Clark meeting said that he'd changed from independent to Dem a couple of years ago. He changed it on his driver's license and sent in a form when that didn't take and it still didn't go through. Around here, changing party registration is apparently not a priority with our board of elections.

Clark is running for President. This speaks more about the campaign then it does about the man. Clark's staff should have handled this before it became an issue. Clark is starting off late; if he wants to catch up, he has to make fewer mistakes.

and I mean that sincerely please. I look forward to your posts and gettig future viewpoints of yours because that was certainly a thoughtful response. :hi: But it's still going to be a battle for the soul of the party- the fault is not yours though. What a sad mess.

http://www.opednews.com/kall_wesley_clark.htm

TLM you bring up some very good concerns. I think people have a bit of ("GI JOE"-ism) goin on. They want to one up Bush's flight suit 'dress up' game with the real deal. Problem is, we don't know if he's the real deal Democratically speaking?

I'm still watching. But, I'd feel 'safer' with someone who's a proven Democrat.

In this report, Clark discusses the Balkans. I offer it as an opportunity to gain insight into some of his thoughts on the Balkan situation. It's pretty long, scroll down to find where Clark enters the discussion.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has076000.000/has076000_0f.htm

"We are also concerned about the quality-of-life issues because quality of life directly affects not only morale but it affects our readiness, our retention, our military values, family life, and ultimately mission accomplishment. In many respects it is the cornerstone of everything we do. And our biggest quality-of-life problem, frankly, lies in the condition of barracks and housing. Many of these units are simply deplorable. Some 11,000 family quarters were built in the early 1950s. They have never been renovated. Problems associated with shortages of construction and major repair funds are compounded by shortages of real property maintenance funds.

A second key area of quality of life I would like to highlight is education for the children of our service members. We are engaged right now in studies, working with the Department of Defense and the DOD Education Administration to improve our programs in-theater. This is a vital area. Every survey, every conversation with our soldiers and our service members, illustrates the importance of excellence in DOD education for our young people."

war on terrorism using superlatives. That was then. This is now. Bush has demonstrated a pattern of deceit and guile over the past two years. If someone praises him post Iraq war I wouldn't accept that at all. If Clark had praised Clark post Iraq, I wouldn't be supporting him at all. The fact that he has strongly criticized bushco time and time again publically, on television, demonstrates clearly that like us, he is on to them.

He speaks in terms of holding them accountable. Not only for Iraq but for 9/11 too. What is your candidate's position on holding the bushies accountable?

if Lieberman or Dean said any of that they would be called DINO's which of course Lieberman already is on this board. I think too many people are looking the other way with the General because they want to win so badly they think the only way we can do it is by nominating a ex-republican with strong national security credentials.

...I became more of a "lurker" type rather than being active around here.

First, it was because of the rabid Dean fans that came out of the woodwork a few months ago. You all know them, they're the guys who think that Dean is the second coming of Jesus Christ straight off the cross here to set up a great, glorious, prosperous, perfect America, and that no one else can even come close.

I hid, mainly because, as a Dean supporter, I didn't like being associated with those people. It had gotten to the point where people were wary around ALL Dean supporters (and with good reason, though I think the stereotyping was entirely unnecessary).

And now, I'm about ready to come back here full-rime, seeing as how the WH is crumbling thanks to the CIA, Limp-baugh is finally about ot get his, and Clear Channel may lose their FCC license (if I find the site where I read that, I'll post a link somewhere). I figured that maybe the hysteria had calmed down enough for me to show my face and get into some friendly debates and discussions like I intended to when I signed up.

But no, that's not going to happen. Why? Because Clark, in the middle of my lurking, declared his candidacy. And if you thought Dean's rabid psychos were bad, you haven't met the latest breed...the nutty Clarkers.

This is the reason I regret being a DU member sometimes. This is the reason I haven't spoken out here very much. It's because many of "us" get so blinded by the supposedly perfect candiate that nothing and no one matters anymore. We're so focused on tearing each other's candidates apart, dismissing valid points without answering, and all sorts of other pathetic attempts to "win" arguments. What is going on here, people? Did we all suddenly lose our collective minds?

I'm one of the people who think that to get supporters for your chosen candidate, you should tell us why to vote for him (or her), not why NOT to vote for the others. But I have seen some very valid questions brought up regarding Clark that have, as of yet, gone unanswered.

On one hand, I'm currently a bit wary about Clark. I still hold the blief that anyone ie better than * getting a second term, but this whole recent revelations business is making me move Clark down on my list (he once was #2, and that was in a tie with Kerry right below Dean). I'll still vote for the man if he wins the nomination, but I can't support him in the primaries until some issues get cleared up.

On the other hand, however, falewars, tollbaiting, andf the like are no ways of getting answers from someone. I'd like the questions answered, yes, but I'm not going to be hostile about getting them. I can't wait long, obviously, but I can wait until they decide to give the answers. I'll reserve full judgment until I know all of the story, not just a small bit of it.

We here at DU need to grow up a bit, learn to be mature about these things. Not everyone is going to agree with us all of the time. Get out of the Preoperational Stage here, people (side note: I love my Psych class). We're not two and three year olds.

I may support Dean most of all, but I also happen to believe that we have 10 very capable candidates for president, I would find myself easily able to support any of them in the fight against * (yes, that includes Lieberman). I can still be persuaded to support Kerry, Gephardt, Kucinich, or Graham in the primaries (I couldn't bring myself to support any of the others until the heneral election, for various reasons). But you're notr going to get my full attention with childish bickering and flaming. That stuff should be saved for use against the children currently running our country.

What a load of crap.

So PNAC and the DLC doesn't have to!

on all of this Clark history close to the vest but I will say this:

If Dean could have such quotes/actions attributed to him we would be hearing about it day and night.

Julie