Clark is too conservative to be a Democrat.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

quote:

Originally posted by 3xx3r7 Clark is too conservative to be a Democrat.

Does that matter?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Does that matter?

Exactly.

quote:

The real problem with Clark is that he doesn't inspire people to take action, which can be seen in the Dean camp. For some reason, Dean has been able to mobilize a large chunk of voters that usually would not partake in an election (young voters). Clark needs to have that hardcore grassroots base in order to challenge Dean in the primaries, and since he has such a massive appeal it can be pretty much anybody.

The only reason why Dean has voters "taking action" as you like to call it, is because he's riding on a Bush-hate campaign. Take away all of his Bush bashing and snide comments on the Bush administration, and what do you have left? Nothing impressive.

I'm anxious to see Clark and Dean go agasint each other for the soul purpose that Dean is going to have to focus off of the Bush Admin. and onto his own campaign, though I expect all his answers to start off with "Well, the problem that Bush created with ....... so I'm not going to do that, I'm going to do something different ".

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by 3xx3r7 Clark is too conservative to be a Democrat.

I think he'd probably be like Clinton.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I think he'd probably be like Clinton.

yeah, minus the "screwing fat chicks" thing....

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade The only reason why Dean has voters "taking action" as you like to call it, is because he's riding on a Bush-hate campaign. Take away all of his Bush bashing and snide comments on the Bush administration, and what do you have left? Nothing impressive.

Dean supporters are honestly the only group in the Democratic Party that has that "zealous" motivation to do something, to make a change. It is correct that Dean is feeding off the anti-Bush sentiment, but what I find to be striking is that Dean is the only Democratic candidate that invokes emotion and purpose into his campaign...which may be why he is leading the Democratic primary polls. From what I see in the debates, the other Democratic candidates seem to be way too stoic and insipid to cause any such motivation like Dean’s. Yeah yeah I know it sounds like another McGovern scenario but at this point I’ll be happy with ANY Democrat in office, even Al Sharpton.

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX Dean supporters are honestly the only group in the Democratic Party that has that "zealous" motivation to do something, to make a change. It is correct that Dean is feeding off the anti-Bush sentiment, but what I find to be striking is that Dean is the only Democratic candidate that invokes emotion and purpose into his campaign...which may be why he is leading the Democratic primary polls. From what I see in the debates, the other Democratic candidates seem to be way too stoic and insipid to cause any such motivation like Dean’s. Yeah yeah I know it sounds like another McGovern scenario but at this point I’ll be happy with ANY Democrat in office, even Al Sharpton.

I think the world would have been much better off if McGovern was in office anyway. Seriously, Nixon was a lying bitch with an Administration that did nothing but polarize the nation/world with black/white views. Sound familiar?

If people want to compare Dean to McGovern, I'm all for it. If he loses on the basis of that comparison, then let history repeat itself and let the world see just how far Bush will take us over the edge with his outlandish politics. God knows I wouldn't want Cheney/Occrider in the office, however. Unless someone laces his heart meds. with strichnine or something .

(you know I love ya Occ).

quote:

But George McGovern Was Right By James Carroll The Boston Globe Tuesday 06 January 2004 The Democrats see a hobgoblin under the bed, and his name is George McGovern. Low-grade panic is beginning to set in as pundits forecast a repeat of 1972: "As Massachusetts goes, so goes the District of Columbia." The prospect of "another McGovern" whets the appetite of Bush partisans while generating gloom and shame among Democrats. Howard Dean, for one, flees the association, while other candidates tar him with it. Here's the problem: In 1972, McGovern was right. If there is shame attached to that election, it is America's for having so dramatically elected the wrong man. Apart from the rank dishonesty of Richard Nixon and his administration (a pattern of lies that would be exposed in Watergate), there were two world-historic issues that defined that election, and on both Nixon was wrong. 1972 was a fork in the road, and history shows that the United States made a turn into a moral wilderness from which it has yet to emerge. Obviously, the first issue was the Vietnam War. Having been elected in 1968 promising "peace with honor," Nixon was well on the way to neither. Ground forces had been "Vietnamized" (the last US combat units would be withdrawn a few months after the election), but a savage air war was underway throughout Vietnam (Nixon had spread it into Cambodia, too, disastrously). After the traumas of 1968, Americans had willfully accepted Nixon's sleight-of-hand on Vietnam, and the news media cooperated. As one NBC television producer recalled, news executives decided that after 1969, the "story" would be "the peace negotiations, not the fighting." By 1972, Americans did not want to hear about Vietnam. They pretended that Nixon had ended the war. "And he has ended the war," the NBC producer said that year, "because you don't see the war on the tube anymore. So the war has ended, though we are bombing the hell out of those poor people, more than ever." (On that media failure, see Godfrey Hodgson, "America In Our Time.") Five weeks after the election, Nixon would order the Christmas bombing of Hanoi, the most ferocious air attack since the firebombing of Japan. Instead of peace with honor, there would be defeat with disgrace -- after yet two more years of carnage. George McGovern faced the American people with the unwanted truth of what their government was doing. That is a source of shame? But there was an equally charged issue separating the two candidates in 1972. Nixon was the avatar of America's tragic Cold War mistake. His entire career was informed by a paranoid assessment of the Soviet threat. "It's a we/they world," Paul Nitze said when he served in the Nixon administration. "It's us against the Soviets. Either we get them first, or they get us first." (Nitze was Nixon's idea of an arms control negotiator.) This apocalyptic way of perceiving the enemy was already outmoded in the early '70s, but it would take American statesmen another two decades to see it. Nitze, Richard Perle, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney -- such apostles of the "we/they world" were empowered in 1972, and if their bipolar vision had not been undercut by Mikhail Gorbachev, the Cold War would still be on. Indeed, these men of 1972 are back, aiming to create another. McGovern was an opponent of the "we/they" vision. A prophet of detente, he has since been vindicated by history. He offered America a way out of the trap that opposes "realist" and "idealist" perspectives. McGovern understood not only that the Vietnam War was wrong but that in the nuclear age, the realist is the one who sees that the structures of war itself must be systematically dismantled. One hears the complaint from today's Democrats that McGovern, a decorated World War II bomber pilot, did not tout his war hero's record, but that entirely misses his most important point -- that fear of war and glorification of war are simply not to be exploited for political purposes, whether at the personal level or the national. What McGovern the candidate refused to do is what American presidents should refuse to do. George W. Bush obscenely exploits war for his own purposes. He sponsors a paranoid assessment of what threatens America now and draws political advantage from the resulting fear. The news media propagate that fear. Pundits continue the false opposition between "realist" and "idealist" visions, marginalizing anyone who dares question Garrison America. Meanwhile, the unnecessary Bush war rages, and not even the steady death toll of young GIs makes much news anymore. If a Democrat running for president dares to speak the truth about these things, it is the furthest thing from shame. And before feeling gloom about next November, ask what it means if the Democrat, to win, must do what Nixon did. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...vern_was_right/

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Good news! Clark's moving on up on Dean.

I like his comment on Dean's attacks. "I've been able to handle real bullets in my life, I'm sure I can hadle the verbal attacks." (or something along that line. I *am* quoting off of the news )

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

Okay, sorry for not being around much lately. I hate people who post a topic without replying, so I thought I'd better come back and clear up a few things before anyone marks me down as a "hit and run" poster. I've had a bit to drink so we'll see how this goes.

Firstly, I'm quite suprised at the amount of animosity directed towards Dean, even by Leftist leaning people. For all his faults, I still believe that Dean is by far the best of the Democratic candidates, and - most importantly - the one least afraid to act like a Democrat. Dean, despite what has been written about him any many major publications, is neither the most liberal nor the most leftist of the candidates. The conservative media, the competing Democrats and the Republican party seem desperate to portray Dean as a fringe-dwelling lunatic, unable to atract either the centrist voters or the moderate left, yet the fact is though (for reasons I'll explore here), this is not the case. Even our good friend politicalcompass.org agrees with me on this point(see here). According to this site (which may not be the most precise admittedly), Dean is classified as further to the right than all candidates excluding Edwards (who? ) and Lieberman ( ). This is largely irrelevent, but I just want to make the point that the nomination of the candidates should be based on policies rather than media-based stereotypes and head-hunting. Dean is not an unelectable extreme leftist and I think it's important to disregard any opinion that attempts to portray this as the state of affairs.

Anyway, as you may or may not have noticed, I'm a Dean supporter and have been since the day I first encountered him - ironically - on a Fox News profile. During a time when I was convinced that the Democrats - as I have said many times on this forum - are merely Republicans sans balls, to see this Democratic governor stand up in front of a large crowd and declare - amidst, at the time, a McCrarthian poltical climate of jingoistic paranoia - "We were told this was a war waged to rid Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction - where are the weapons Mr. Bush?", was something quite "liberating" for me, for want of a better word. This happened in probably June or July and - after a bit of research - I knew that Dr. Howard Dean was the man to back. He was absolutely right about the invalidity Iraq war and - at a time when most of the other Democrats were too afraid to take a stand - he was able to stand up and make his voice heard. With the possible exception of Kucinich, Dean was the only candidate with enough sense to see that the war on Iraq was a political folly waiting to happen, right from the outset. He never flip-flopped. He never said anything contrary. He was opposed to this war and he stuck by it, while other candidates (including the "anti-war general" Clark) didn't seem quite so sure.

And it's not merely his take on the Iraq war either: he also seems to have quite a good grasp on the invalidity of the "war on terror" in general, as it is currently being waged. When Dean had the temerity to suggest that the capture of Saddam Hussein had not made America any safer, the supposedly "liberal" media jumped on him at the drop of a hat, once again taking the opportunity to portray him as an unelectable far-leftist candidate with no grasp on what is needed to defeat the terrorists. The fact is, rhetoric aside, he was absolutely correct: the US isn't any safer now that he's been caught. When Saddam was in power he lacked the weapons necessary to pose any threat to the US or any other nation (as the lack of WMDs found in the desert-combing operation has proven) and - as the pictures of a dishelvled, dilusional man showed after his capture may prove - he had little, if anything, to do with the attacks on coalition troops within Iraq. The Afghanistan campagin, at least, unseated a major supporter of Al Qaeda (a campaign Dean heartily endorsed) but the war on Iraq was merely an $87 billion diversion. Iraq was not a threat to any other nation, nor did it have connections to terrorists. Still, to this day, Dean - again with the exception of Kucinich - is the only one of the candidates to have explicitly pointed this out and to have stuck with it unwaveringly all the way.

While the anti-war stance may be one of Dean's greatest vote-pulling strengths, it isn't the only reason to support him. Economically - while many of you may deride his abandoment of neo-liberal ideals (oh no, he must be a communist! Run! ) - he is precisely what the US needs. The greatest threat to the US economy isn't unemployment (even though that should be a concern given the job losses under Bush's regime) or GDP growth (things speeding along nicely last time I checked) it's the ballooning trade and budgetary deficits. Anyone who has even touched the surface of economic studies can tell you that monetary policy (through interest rates - that can't go much lower as it happens) or budgetary policy (through trade deficits) can be used to stimulate economic growth. We shouldn't be scared of budget deficits used to stimulate economic growth - nor should we be suprised when budget deficits lead to an increase in market growth - but we should become worried when overspending becomes unsustainable. Bush inherited a balanced budget from Clinton and - through reckless overspending - we are now seeing unprecented budget deficits that - in a worst case scenario - could continue for another decade. While many of the Democratic candidates pay lip-service to fiscal convervatism (the only tangible policy - for Lierberman and Gephardt at least - upon which they can disagree with Bush) Dean is the only one who can lay stake to the claim of 11 balanced budgets at state level, even though - and I can't find a source for this (though I must have read it somewhere) - Vermont is one of the few states in the US without legislature requiring sustainable budgetary equilibrium. Even the IMF (a mainstay of the neo-liberalistic ideal) have pointed to the dangers of US budgetary irresponsibility in the past few days (see here - read this in the paper today) and unless someone is willing to prove me wrong, Dean remains the best candidate to smooth over this problem - the greatest economic problem the US economy currently faces - via his established track record of fostering fiscal conservatism.

There are some other economic issues that need addressing (such as tax, welfare and healthcare) as well as foreign policy initiatives (which is where Dean is least controversial), but I'll leave it there for now because it's getting late and I want to respond to some of the other things posted in this topic first.

Imokruok:

quote:

Re: Howard Dean, he has made flat-out lies, and then attempted to defend them by making personal attacks against the authors of the stories. Not only is that dishonest, it's downright mean. The whole bit with his brother was the worst - not only was his brother not in the military, he was a peace activist who had visited with the Communists in Laos.

I'd be lying if I said that Dean hasn't said some - well - "careless" things during the campaign and this - at the end of the day - would be one of them. I can't vouch for the "personal attacks against the authors of the stories" (haven't seen anything about them in the media - which doesn't mean they don't exist of course) but just to clarify:

Dean said:

quote:

"...my brother is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead."

This is actually accurate. While he wasn't a member of the armed forces, Charlie Dean was indeed taken prisoner in Laos and you don't need to be a member of the armed forces to be considered POW or MIA. At the time of the interview - while the remains had been shipped back to the US at this point - no positive ID had been obtained, hence the suggestion that - while he is/was still considered a POW/MIA - he is most likely dead.

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that Charlie Dean may have actually been working for the CIA (see here). The fact that his remains were brought back to Hawaii for repatriation seems to hint more at a ceremony conducted by the "Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command" (JPAC - see here) than a service likely to be conducted for just "any" civilian. Why would they give a citizen - especially a citizen attempting to undermine US operations - such a burial if he weren't, shall we say, connected?

Either way, yes, Dean probably said the wrong thing. He was stupid to raise the issue and he was stupid - if what you are saying is accurate - to raise the issue with the journalists reporting the story. In any case, his "lie" about his brother being in the armed forces pales in comparison to the lies Bush has told about his reasons for waging war against another nation.

Imokruok again:

quote:

The strain is so unbearable! hahahaha... Dec. Factory Gains Fastest Since 1983; Hiring Ramping Up

I wouldn't laugh just yet. The amount of jobs invested in factories since 1983 can do nothing to hide the truth that - whether you care to admit it or not - the US economy is under strain:

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

Anuneventrade:

quote:

Dean is the most promising candidate? Dean's main strategy was to simply rip Bush off of his pedestal (which that was amusing- for a while) and to insult Bush and his tactics throughout his campaign.

Dean is waging a negative campaign? Have you watched any of these debates? Rather than wage a postive campaign of their own, most of the other Democratic candidates have merely done everything they can to undermine Dean's position ever since Dean emerged as the frontrunner. While Dean chooses to define his own stance - which is necessarily in opposition to Bush's, hence the "negativity" - the other Democrats - rather than doing something constructive like, say, creating grass-roots support even coming close to rivalling that which Dean can boast - have simply starting to base their position on the undermining of Dean. While these guys are meant to be of the same political party, I doubt that Dean will face as much pressure in the presidential campaign than he has in the Democratic candidacy campaign. To think of the vitriol meted out to him by those to which he is meant to idealogically linked and then to think that he has still come out on top says something about the man's staying power and the man's electability when the pressure's on.

Furthermore, the fact that you should cite Gephardt as a paragon of positivity considering the vitriol he's used against Dean and - to a lesser extent - Bush (as I say, considering the similarities between he and Bush, he has to cash in on Bush's economic irresponsibility - the one issue where they do differ - whenever possible and in the most rhetoric-laden way possible) does little to advance your perspective. Dean has used negative tactics, yes - as every opposition leader must do - but to suggest that his campaign has been more negative than any of the other candidates (especially given that he's been reluctant to act as negatively towards the campaigns of the other candidates as they have done to him) is quite inaccurate.

Imokruok (yet again):

quote:

The unemployment rate (5.9%) is already one of the lowest in the Western world. It continues to fall. Jobless claims are dropping. The rest of the economy has been strongly up for at least 6 months. Employment always comes last - the "lagging indicator," because businesses look to productivity gains before hiring more workers. Now that we've had sustained growth, the unemployment rate is falling into line.

While US unemployment has dropped steadily over the past couple of months, employment rates are still far worse than those under the Clinton administration (note how it was falling steadily for the seven years after Bush Snr was in office, until Bush Jnr took office?):

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyO...ame=LN_cpsbref3

And finally, my good friend Occrider:

quote:

Here's a topic for discussion, what do people dislike about Clark?

I, personally, have nothing against Clark - I just happen to prefer Dean. For what it's worth, Clark would by my second choice (ahead of Kerry, who pissed me off with his increasingly "anti-Dean" based campaign) and I certainly wouldn't go slashing my wrists if he got the Democratic nomination. I was hoping for a Dean/Clark ticket before Clark decided he had to go for president but, given what Clark's said about his presidential aspirations and his reluctance to offer himself as a VP, I guess that won't happen now.

(I still think that a team comprised of Dean - with his proactiveness and his willingness to criticise the incumbent Republicans - and Clark - with his nuts and bolts approach, and seemingly good rapport with the "moderates" and military folk - would make an unbeatable combination. Hopefully, if one gets the nomination, the other will see sense and run as VP.)

Either way, though, I still have some problems with Clark's candidacy. If you could clear them up for me, I may be more willing to advocate his candidacy:

1) As I alluded to before, he has flip-flopped over his support for the Iraqi war and the WOT in general as it is being waged. Even after announcing his candidacy as an "anti-war" general, he seems reluctant to overtly criticise the Iraqi campaign. If he is so uncertain about the Iraqi war, what happens if he becomes similarly wishy-washy about future wars that may or may not need to happen?

2) He wasn't a member of the Democratic party until very recently. You may question if it matters whether he is a "true Democrat" or not, but if it doesn't then why is he running under the Democratic party (as opposed to as an independant) to begin with?

3) He lacks political experience. What will happen when he is grilled by Bush (or, more to the point, Bush's speech-writers) during the presidential elections considering the shaky start he got off to in the relatively pressure-free enivonment of the Democratic elections - a poor start that almost cost him any shot at the leadership? How can we have any faith in the fact that he will make a good politician once he does make it into office? Can he inspire people in the same way Dean does?

Anyway, I'll leave it there. Much more to add, but it'll have to wait until a more godly (and sober) hour.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Jan-09-2004 at 18:49

As I stated earlier, if Clark is leaning a good portion toward the right, then why in the world he runs as a democrat? He is too conservative. He can't trully run as democrat.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

quote:

Originally posted by 3xx3r7 As I stated earlier, if Clark is leaning a good portion toward the right, then why in the world he runs as a democrat? He is too conservative. He can't trully run as democrat.

If more "conservatives" favored progressive taxation, Women's choice, and believed in enforcing enviornmental laws instead of gutting them, I'd probably vote for more of them.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And finally, my good friend Occrider: I, personally, have nothing against Clark - I just happen to prefer Dean. For what it's worth, Clark would by my second choice (ahead of Kerry, who pissed me off with his increasingly "anti-Dean" based campaign) and I certainly wouldn't go slashing my wrists if he got the Democratic nomination. I was hoping for a Dean/Clark ticket before Clark decided he had to go for president but, given what Clark's said about his presidential aspirations and his reluctance to offer himself as a VP, I guess that won't happen now. (I still think that a team comprised of Dean - with his proactiveness and his willingness to criticise the incumbent Republicans - and Clark - with his nuts and bolts approach, and seemingly good rapport with the "moderates" and military folk - would make an unbeatable combination. Hopefully, if one gets the nomination, the other will see sense and run as VP.)

I too would not be adverse to a Dean/Clark matchup. I think that part of my fears of a Dean nomination are that the democrats might be shooting themselves in the foot (of which I shall get into more later).

quote:

Either way, though, I still have some problems with Clark's candidacy. If you could clear them up for me, I may be more willing to advocate his candidacy: 1) As I alluded to before, he has flip-flopped over his support for the Iraqi war and the WOT in general as it is being waged. Even after announcing his candidacy as an "anti-war" general, he seems reluctant to overtly criticise the Iraqi campaign. If he is so uncertain about the Iraqi war, what happens if he becomes similarly wishy-washy about future wars that may or may not need to happen?

Well, to the best of my knowledge, Clark has not really changed his opinion of the war itself. I think that he has pretty much always been against the war. What he has flip-flopped on was the congressional resolution that authorized the use of force. That, he said that he probably would have voted for, and to a certain degree, I agree. I guess I was for authorizing bush the use of force only as a last resort in order to gain political leverage or if there really was an iminent threat posed by Iraq. I was against Bush's use of the resolution to go to war when we did ... it obviously not being a situtation of "last resort" such that war was truly needed. As such I suppose I learn from my mistakes and would be opposed to giving such blank checks to future presidancies. At any rate here's what Clark stated:

"Let's make one thing real clear: I would never have voted for this war," Clark told the AP. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of preemptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."

So I guess if you look at his approval for the congressional resolution as an endorsement for the war (which I don't) then you could consider him flip-flopping on the issue.

quote:

2) He wasn't a member of the Democratic party until very recently. You may question if it matters whether he is a "true Democrat" or not, but if it doesn't then why is he running under the Democratic party (as opposed to as an independant) to begin with?

Because he would have no chance in hell winning if he was not under one of the major parties . If you're trying to get in office and you're most certainly not a republican then you have to be a democrat. Unfortunately that's the game of politics I guess.

quote:

3) He lacks political experience. What will happen when he is grilled by Bush (or, more to the point, Bush's speech-writers) during the presidential elections considering the shaky start he got off to in the relatively pressure-free enivonment of the Democratic elections - a poor start that almost cost him any shot at the leadership? How can we have any faith in the fact that he will make a good politician once he does make it into office? Can he inspire people in the same way Dean does?

What issues are they going to attack him on? Can you imagine Bush attacking Clark on his patriotism, leadership, or his ability to make America "safe"? The man's a vietnam vet who was wounded four times, won the Silver Star, and two Bronze Stars. Clark said it best himself when asked how he would respond if Bush or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record (as Bush did with McCain in 2000): "I'll beat the shit out of them." So what can he attack him on? If America is so concerned with defending itself as Bush is claiming to accomplish than what better man to do that than a general? With regards to social policy Clark is for some kind of nationalized health care system and better education (although who isn't), and he's for gun ownership but considers it a state issue. Economically, he's against long term fiscal deficits, and he's against Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest segments of the population. So what issue can Bush attack him with? Bush's best attack against the dems are their ability to protect america. Remove that issue by putting him against clark and what's bush got left?

Now that said, I am not really so much against Dean as I've been in the past. He actually has somewhat of a record as a moderate as governor. I even would not be opposed to his repeal of the tax cuts as I feel that their economic stimulus have had their accomplished effect (unemployment is still a problem however I believe that that is a problem with an inevitable structural change to the labor market) and now we should focus on the deficit as the primary concern. I do fear his ability to win the general election however. I think the fact that he is perceived as a radical by most of America will hurt him in november. I think a lot of core conservatives are probably angry at Bush, however, they would be unwilling to vote for someone like Dean. Clark, however, I think could capture most of the democrats, a lot of the undecideds, and even some republicans.