We will never beat the rethugs by trying to be like them...

[sfecap]

It is interesting that the (un)candidate, former *Supreme* Commander Wesley Clark is bandied about as the "perfect" candidate for the Democrats.

In fact, the man has absolutely NO qualifications to assume the office of the President except he was a military General. He has never ben elected to any office, he has never governed (except for military "governance".) This is supposed to make him the "ideal" candidate for the Dems? To me, it just indicates how desparate some are. They will settle for a person who won't even publicly admit to BEING a Democrat, but obviously has the military "right stuff" that our country seems to admire and lust for.

Make no mistake about it...Gen. Clark is a brilliant man. He is educated, well spoken, respected in many circles, and looks good in a uniform. But what of his track record? He has none. He would make a perfect Secretary of Defense or maybe even Secretary of State.

Has it come to this? Dems are so panicked that they will play the "our military guy" card? Did we learn nothing in 2002? Ask Max Cleland how well that tactic works...

When a POS like Joe (the killer) Scarborough tacitly "endorses" him, I think it is time for concern.

We will NEVER take back this country by trying to be rethug lite.

[blm]

1. It didn't bother you that Dean aligned with the GOP for 11 years

and governed as a compromising centrist. Why should it bother you that many Dems are attracted to the Democrats with miltary experience?

And how is a Democrat who served in the military like the Republicans, anyway? Most of them are chickenhawks.

[sfecap]

4. Governing is all about compromise...

Giving orders is not.

In any legislative process compromise is necessary to get things done. There are always competing interests.

The fact is Clark is a very smart man who has given or been given orders all his life. That is the venue he worked in. Nothing wrong with that, but it leaves no record as to what he would do as a President. Like I said he is not even forthright about his party affiliation.

If Wes Clark wasn't a former General, people wouldn't be giving him the time of day.

Of course he does like to hang out with a lot of very right wing neocons who sit on the boards of the various think tanks he also sits on, so maybe in that respect he's much more aligned with the GOP than Dean, huh?

[blm]

7. Dean aligned with the Rethugs OVER the Dems

for 11 YEARS. Clark, at least, was part of a Democratic team during the Clinton administration. He also was ahead of the curve when he was one of the few who backed up Kerry on gays serving openly in the military.

[sfecap]

10. Sorry, Clark is the great waffler on gays in the military...

read the MTP transcript.

He won't ever answer the question directly.

Just like he won't say whether he is a Democrat.

[blm]

21. Back when Kerry was pushing for it,

Clark backed him up. WAY before many politicians would even consider lifting a finger to advocate for gay issues. But...who cares? Better to put them all down now, cuz, Dean is the ONLY politician BRAVE enough to EVER speak to gay issues. (uh, when was that again...AFTER the Vermont courts ruled?)

[sfecap]

22. He did? Then why doesn't he just say....

"As President, I would require my SecDef to insure that gay soldiers are not an issue, period."

"I approve of gay and lesbian military personnel being able to serve without prejudice."

Instead, (as I see it...) he waffled around the issue on MTP. YMMV

If Gen. Clark is a straight talker, why doesn't he talk straight?

Is there a link to his support of Kerry that you can refer me to?

I'd really like to read a definitive answer from him, because I think his answers on MTP were lame. That is not to say that he doesn't support the concept. IMO, he is not speaking directly to the question when he is asked, and that is a problem for me.

BTW, BLM, I know you really want to make this a Dean vs. Clark thread, but that is not the issue here. If you want to discuss Clark, fine. Let's do so.

The pseudo Dean trashing is inappropriate.

[blm]

25. It's appropriate to point out

if the poster accepts one candidate's centrism, but, not the perceived centrism of another. Not trashing...just context.

[sfecap]

26. Keep trying, BLM.

I haven't accepted or rejected anything here.

[blm]

28. Well, then maybe your title is misleading

and doesn't convey your actual intent? It seems reasonable people can view your post as implying that those who support a Democrat with military experience over a candidate with NO experience are acting like Republicans.

I submit that by respecting those who served in the military and their perspective is exactly the OPPOSITE of the Republicans who try to appear as if they have a monopoly on the miltary with NO military background or experience to back up their rhetoric.

[Racenut20]

2. General Clark

I listen very closely when he speaks on tv and I don't hear any "Bushspeak".
He is one of the few plain speaking ones left that the press will bother paying attention to or let speak against the current regime.

[sfecap]

6. You are right.

He does speak well. No doubt about it. Just not very directly. Read the MTP interview, he bobs and weaves all over the place...

I wonder why he doesn't speak a bit more clearly about his party affiliation.

Why the secret?

[genius]

3. Joe Scarborough has endorsed Clark?

This is interesting. Do you have a source on this? I actually haven't kept track of the guy with the dead intern or of Clark's endorsements. Incidentally, anyone for Dean can't really talk about Rethug lite.

[sfecap]

5. It was a closing remark Scarborough made last night...

I don't have the link but the transcript is probably up on their website...

Actually, Clark thoroughly kicked Scarboroughs ass. :-)

[blm]

8. Better than Frank Luntz endorsing Howard Dean.

Luntz's ONLY job is spreading GOP propaganda.

[sfecap]

11. Please post that link.

I'm interested in reading about Frank Luntz's personal endorsements.

[blm]

19. Hardball...

Luntz was "endorsing" Dean with his fawning praise of Dean at the Dem forum. I'm sure it was much more fawning than Joey with Clark.

There's a thread about the show here in P&C if you missed it.

[sfecap]

23. Could you point me to the thread or

give the date of the Hardball program?

I'd really like to read the Luntz endorsement.

[blm]

24. I bumped it for you...

It was an "endorsement" in the same vein as you offer in regard to Joe Scarborough and Clark.

With Luntz we KNOW it's his job to be deceitful for the GOP and against the Dems.

[sfecap]

27. Why don't you just post the link to the thread...

I don't know which one you are talking about.

On edit:

I found it...yeah I remember that thread. Luntz did NOT endorse Dean at all. Nowhere in that thread or the transcript of the program does he give a personal endorsement, does he? If Luntz comes out in a couple of months and says nice things about Clark will you be all over that, too? LOL.

Look, keep trashing Dean any way you can if it makes you feel better...you never miss an opportunity.

[blm]

30. Hahah...isn't that hypocritical?

Look, Luntz didn't "endorse" Dean that night, although he was fawning beyond belief. And Joe Scarborough didn't "endorse" Clark as you stated in your post. Is Luntz not a POS whose tacit "endorsement" of Dean is of no concern?

sfecap:
When a POS like Joe (the killer) Scarborough tacitly "endorses" him, I think it is time for concern.
We will NEVER take back this country by trying to be rethug lite.

[sfecap]

31. Probably to you...but then again, it's a POV...

I used quotation marks around the word "endorse" for a reason.

Luntz reported on a focus group, if I recall correctly. *He* didn't personally endorse Dean as you stated. (I guess you wouldn't be guilty of misleading statements, huh?

Go back and read the original post and then lighten up. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get to bash Dean in another thread today.

[blm]

32. Do you own a mirror?

I don't start threads bashing Dean, but, you seem to want to criticize me for my replies when you have started a few threads bashing other candidates.

YOU imply that Joey "endorsed" Clark. I could imply that Luntz "endorsed" Dean based on his performance on Hardball based on similar criteria to yours. In fact, Richard Galen that same night said that Dean was the ONLY serious candidate on that stage. And you wonder why some of us go, "Huh?"

[sfecap]

35. Imply whatever you wish...

Richard Galen offered an opinion. (And of course, Hardball is the defining talkshow for Presidential candidates, right?)

You simply follow Dean threads and attack. Whatever.

The interesting thing here is that I didn't even mention Dean. You did.

Huh, indeed.

[LoneStarLiberal]

9. I'll Have to Respectfully Disagree, sfecap

I don't think that Wesley Clark is Republican lite; on the contrary, after reading what I can find on his issue positions, I think he may be more liberal than Howard Dean and is definitely more liberal than any of the current DLC stable of candidates.

We're bombarded so much with comparisons of Clark to Eisenhower; that is bullshit, pure and simple. They are nowhere near alike. Clark is an intellectual and is well-spoken and charismatic; for all his accomplishments as SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander in Europe) during World War II, Ike was not that well spoken and was far more of an everyman as President. The only thing they have in common is military service and a history of achievement in the military.

Part of the promise Wesley Clark offers, in my mind, is that he is not a "political veteran" in terms of being a Representative or Senator. He has experience as a leader at a comparable hierarchical level (albeit in a very different environment than the White House) and has the experience of politicing at that level and in that environment.

I think Howard Dean offers many of the same qualities as a candidate and I will whole-heartedly and enthusiastically back either as a Democratic candidate for President. I feel Wesley Clark will be a candidate to best appeal to those who crossed over and voted for Bush in 2000 while remaining true to the liberal roots of the Democratic Party.

[sfecap]

13. Thanks for the reply, LoneStar...

You make some very good points.

I would just like to see some more directness from Clark.

[GOPBasher]

12. Why is Clark like a Republican?

I'm not arguing, just asking. You may know something I don't, but it seems that all his positions that I know of are left-of-center. He's pro-choice, pro-affermative action, pro-gay rights, against the Iraq war, for building coalitions and not being unilateral, anti-tax cuts, etc.

As for your criticism that he has no experience, well that's true. But I've always liked the idea of an outsider, and it seems to be a political plus these days.

[sfecap]

15. Not that he's like a rethug...

it just seems that the emphasis is on the military aspect of his appeal. Without a legislative or governing record, people seem to be singularly enamoured of his record as a military man, as the end all, be all, this will beat Karl Rove thing...

I read his MTP interview closely, and while he infers things, he seldom directly addresses questions on the issues. That bothers me, and I think it is a valid question to be asked. Why won't he just declare his party?

We can't simply depend on the pro military moderates, IMO.

[tameszu]

14. Transcript

I've got yer Clark vs. Scarborough http://www.msnbc.com/news/MSNBCTRANSCRIPTSMAIN_Front.asp">right here.

See, sfecap, even you have to admit that Clark behaved very much like an exemplary Dem in kicking Scarborough's ass! (Or, I could be snarky and note that this was kind of UN-Dem like, in that with the exception of Dean, there been a rather significant SHORTAGE of Democrat kicking of GOP ass recently)

}(

I know that you feel pretty strongly about this, but keep thinking about that interview: Clark is a multilateralist who strongly believes in international cooperation and institutions (namely international law). Is this GOP-lite?

No one wants to be GOP-lite. What Clark supporters think is that foreign policy and defense are important, and they also think that Clark has a very coherent vision that offers not only a strong critique of Bush, but also a concrete alternative. We wouldn't support him based on the stars alone, although we don't deny that they help give credibility to what he says. And we would argue that the American people are not completely wrong to also be concerned with foreign policy and defense, but we don't think they are justified in trusting the GOP over the Dems by a 40 point margin. And we think Clark gives us the best shot at fixing that, because of BOTH his vision AND his experience (the latter informs the former).

And Clark does have a track record, mostly concentrated in foreign affairs and diplomacy, admittedly: he helped negotiate the Dayton Accords with Richard Holbrook and negotiated with many different countries as NATO's military commander. I don't know if this qualifies him to be president, but I'm not sure if anything could qualify anyone to be president, with the possible exception of having been president once before. Actually, scratch that--in our liberal democracy, no one is qualified to be president. Instead, they are elected to lead and represent the people. If the people are in agreement with a person's vision and are confident in his or her ability to lead, then the resume doesn't have to matter--although I'd submit that Clark doesn't have a bad one. So I hope you'll keep an open mind regarding clark.

[sfecap]

16. Thanks, Tameszu...

Anytime Scarborough gets his head handed to him, I'm happy. :bounce:

Great post.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. "We will never beat the rethugs by trying to be like them..."

That's true.

But none of your argument seem to be related to it. Are you saying Clark is trying to be like Republicans? Have you heard him speak? He sure doesn't sound like he's trying to be like them to me.

And then, beyond words, there are actions. You are right that Clark has no elected experience. But of the candidates who do, which have acted like Democrats and which like Repub-lites? It is an important consideration, and I think a more accurate reflection of who they are than just what they say on the campaign trail.

[sfecap]

18. The header was deliberate...

I didn't want this to turn into a flamefest, hence I left Clark's name out of it.

But...what I am trying to get at is that I get the impression that the "military" thing far outweighs the rest of the man for many. Is that an appropriate tactic? It sure didn't work for Cleland, they destroyed him. Will that also happen to Clark? The guy does have some skeletons, whether they are true or not.

All of the posts here have raised some great points.

[pansypoo53219]

20. I do NOT want repug lite

which is Lieberputz and others(why did you vote for Iraq gep+kerry???)
But we need somone with cred to the middle to get the big one, which is WHY I like DEAN. enough left for me AND a fiscal responsible man. Do not let them take that away with that one anymore.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. I do NOT want repub lite

What do I want?

I want a President who will appoint judges who will protect our rights.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml


I want a President who can keep a promise.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/70189.html
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html

I want a President who stands for what he believes in, who is consistent, who does not shift positions with the winds of political expediency.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-02.htm
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40614


I want a President whose actions in office match the rhetoric on the campaign trail.

http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html

[ProfessorPlum]

33. "who does not shift positions with the winds of political expediency"

and you are for KERRY? Who was as firm in his war stance as a tumbleweed?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Consistency

Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent since 1997:

"Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction." - Kerry, 1997.

"While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if...we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." - Kerry, 1997.

----------------

LEBANON, N.H. (AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam"s regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

''I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied he lied to me personally,'' he said.

Addressing senior citizens in Hanover later in the evening, Kerry said he supported a congressional investigation because it was not clear whether Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicized intelligence.

"I don"t have the answer," he said. "I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-09.htm

[blm]

36. He was firm for those who bothered to

comprehend what he said instead of hiding behind the moronic claim that he gave Bush a "blank check."