So Dean is gonig to take his ball and go home?

[Trek234]

Interesting thread suggesting Dean supporters will abandon the party if Dean fails. Let's actually look at who in fact might take the ball and go home though. (or worse)

If Clark does not win the primary (the guy who couldn't even say he was a Democrat until 3 weeks ago) I could see a VERY possible situation in which he would run as an independent. (think Nader X 5000)

Clark has NO established loyalty to the Democratic party. NONE! Hell he hasn't even voted Democratic when it was most important. (see Reagan/Nixon) It is not far fetched to assume he would switch sides if it benefited him to do so (some might say that was the case with Clinton… Or his recent Democratic affiliation which he supposedly <cough> had all along), and I am sure the BFEE would be willing to offer more benefits than you can imagine.

Rove is probably having an orgasm over the potential thought of recruiting Clark as an independent in such a situation. According to Clarks own words if Rove called he would be a Republican. A joke, perhaps, but the thought was obviously crossing his mind to even make the "joke". I'm sure Rove made a couple notes to him self on that one.

The only other candidate I can even remotely see this happening with would be Lieberman. He seems to be in early Jeffords syndrome, but on the other side. I could easily see him switching his party affiliation if the Democrats were to go much further to the left. (i.e. Dean, or by some amazingly unpredictable event Kucinich, were to gain the nomination) I seriously doubt he would turn against the Democrats in 04. However, I certainly see it happening sometime later though if the party moves left.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what Clark does if he looses the nomination. Hell, perhaps he is simply in the Democratic race at this point to pull as many Democrats as possible in to his fold before he goes independent.

I can see no greater benefit to Bush (short of the official disbanding of the Democratic party) than an independent Clark race. It's unfortunate the Democrats are giving support to such an unproven individual who could so easily back stab the party… an event that could mean certain defeat in 04.

No need to fix voting machines. No throwing away votes. No supreme court. No need to do anything illegal. Just get a plant in to the race that can pull enough support to garner a Democratic loss. Great plan IMO.

No need to worry about Dean - but keep your eye on Clark.

Edit: I'm going to add this because it's important -

You this actually makes the MOST sense compared to just about any other theory people have on shady Bush election possibilities.

ALL other such speculation I have seen would involve HIGHLY illegal activity. (i.e. mass computer voting fraud) Why would Bush risk practically everything on such illegal acts when he can achieve the same ends, but through legal means? Not only that - in those particular instances large numbers of people would have to be in on the scheme. So why would he NOT want to get an independent to run and take as many Democratic votes away as possible? It's legal - and it doesn't require large nubmers of people to know about it.

So here comes this guy who has a shady past regarding what side he is actually on practically out of nowhere. All of a sudden he is a front runner in many peoples minds over 9 other candidates practically instantly. Makes ya think.

I will find it ironic if any calls this "out there" when so many people here are suggesting massive voting conspiracy is going to happen.

[StephNW4Clark]

1. WOW

So first of all, people on this board who are skeptical about Clark think Clark is the "establishment" candidate, possibly set up as a "stalking horse" for Hillary Clinton. He's too close to the DLC - too many ties to Clinton & Gore. He's part of the vast Clinton conspiracy.

And NOW he's become the most likely to run as an INDEPENDENT?

[Trek234]

3. Out of all 10 candidates

Yes, he would have the HIGHEST chance to run as an independent because of his past republican affiliation, and various other factors.

Are you telling me you disagree? Which candidate do you think has a GREATER chance of doing this?

The point is that Dean is by no means the candidate we need worry about this with.

[StephNW4Clark]

6. God, you're counterproductive

You know - I'd actually not even ask ANY of the candidates this question. Because quite frankly ALL of them chose to put themselves under a microscope as DEM presidential hopefuls and I trust EACH AND EVERY ONE to do what is best come the general election for the party.

And if they don't - fine, then I'll be angry. But until any of them says something like you're alleging, I'd prefer to hear their opinions on issues and not throw completely meaningless and baseless rumors at ANY OF THEM.

[Trek234]

11. Chill

The point of my post was largely to suggest a similar scenario to what people are suggesting about Dean (and others). You think it's counterproductive? Yea, I think the posts about Dean with the same suggestion are too.

Where are you when people suggest this about Dean? On the bandwagon maybe?

[Orangepeel]

2. I highly doubt that Clark would run as an independent

He couldn't win and there would be no purpose other than to spoil. I don't see any good reason to assume that.

Of course, such speculation makes at least as much sense as speculation that Dean would run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination an I've seen threads that do that.

[Trek234]

7. Well that's the point

He wouldn't be running to win. Just to insure a Dem defeat. And of course the BFEE would no doubt always remember such a "favor".

You know it actually makes the MOST sense compared to just about any other theory people have on shady Bush election possibilities.

ALL other such speculation I have seen would involve HIGHLY illegal activity. (i.e. mass computer voting fraud) Why would Bush risk practically everything on such illegal acts when he can achieve the same ends, but through legal means? Not only that - in those particular instances large numbers of people would have to be in on the scheme. So why would he NOT want to get an independent to run and take as many Democratic votes away as possible? It's legal - and it doesn't require large nubmers of people to know about it.

So here comes this guy who has a shady past regarding what side he is actually on practically out of nowhere. All of a sudden he is a front runner over 9 other candidates. Makes ya think.

[StephNW4Clark]

10. Ever heard of Ockam's Razor?

The most simple solution is the most likely one?

"All of a sudden he is a front runner over 9 other candidates"

Well gee whiz - the media hasn't been portraying him as a potential candidate for the past 6 months then, I guess. And there was no grassroots movement called DraftWesleyClark.com or DraftClark2004.com that urged him to run for the past 9 months. And wow - in a time when America is fighting 2 wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) - a guy who served in the military isn't a good choice apparently.

[Trek234]

13. Hmmm

You mean the movements like "republicans for clark"? Yea, those movements sure are interesting.

And why has the media been giving him a free pass too? I've never seen Clark debated or asked hard questions on the mainstreme news. Odd how that is.

And as for the "wars" - all the more reason to choose a General as your plant.

[StephNW4Clark]

18. Is anything you say rational?

"You mean the movements like "republicans for clark"? Yea, those movements sure are interesting."

So what about this?
republicansfordean.blogspot.com
Are you going to accuse Dean of being a Republican now, too?

And why has the media been giving him a free pass too? I've never seen Clark debated or asked hard questions on the mainstreme news. Odd how that is.

Wow - he's been in the race 1 WEEK - and let's see how many negative stories have popped up about him. Seriously - Google. Most of them are either skeptical, critical or negative.

And as for the "wars" - all the more reason to choose a General as your plant.
Yeah - because he did such a terrible job in Kosovo, with no combat casualties and saving a region from ethnic genocide. SUCH a bad thing that when Clinton went back to the region, he got a hero's welcome.

[Trek234]

20. "with no combat casualties"

And how many civilian casualties did he have?

"he got a hero's welcome"

Yea, funny how the regime YOU install will like you so much.

"Wow - he's been in the race 1 WEEK - and let's see how many negative stories have popped up about him. Seriously - Google. Most of them are either skeptical, critical or negative."

How many of these stories are on CNN/FOX news/MSNBC? There is a reason I said MAINSTREME news. Of course you casually pass over that. Rove wouldn't give a damn about what an individual says about Clark on his little web site with 5 hits a year.

[StephNW4Clark]

23. Clinton got the hero's welcome

And "HE" didn't install any regime. God, read a book. It was turned over to NATO and UN peacekeepers. Incidentally, if you want blame, go check out the Dutch government who was charged with overseeing the reconstruction - they resigned because of charges that THEIR troops mishandled the post-war scenario.

Gen. Clark argued for ground troops to minimize civilian casualties, but was refused by the Pentagon and White House who were both still reticent because of what happened earlier in Mogadishu, Somalia.

And stories on CNN/FOX/MSNBC?

Let's take a quick Google, shall we?

Under fire, Clark releases economic plan to repeal $100 billion ...
San Francisco Chronicle, CA - 3 hours ago

Rivals Question Clark Commitment to Dems
ABC News - 3 hours ago

Neutral: Clark Offers Economic Plan in NY Speech
Washington Post, DC - 2 hours ago


So - is there any other criticism you have?? I've pretty much debunked everything you've had to say.

[Trek234]

25. Hmm

"And "HE" didn't install any regime."

True or false - the current government would be in power today if Clinton did not step in.

"Under fire, Clark releases economic plan to repeal $100 billion ...
San Francisco Chronicle, CA - 3 hours ago

Rivals Question Clark Commitment to Dems
ABC News - 3 hours ago"

"I've pretty much debunked everything you've had to say."

Wrong. Want to name some non-liberal or neutral sources? You know maybe FOX, CNN, MSNBC.

All you've come up with is 3 articles (STILL NOT from FOX/CNN/MSNBC i.e. mainstreme TV media that I originally mentioned). The first one isn't negative. Hell, it could even go over well with freepers who are pissed about the 87 billion.

The 2nd is from ABC which is largely one of the farest TV news medias. The article is simply reporting what rivals are saying, as a neutral source should do getting both sides of a story. (they have been both somewhat for and against on TV)

The third - by your own admission is neutral and shouldn't have even been provided.

[StephNW4Clark]

26. Well, there goes my credibility

...want to know why I can't give you TV news media? Cause I'm still AT WORK. So my sincere apologies for not having access to TV.

[Trek234]

28. Errr

Well they do have web sites.

However, it's not important that you provide those sources. You'll simply waste your time looking for something that largely isn't there.

However in all fairness to you I suspect it will be at a growing rate in the days to come.

[ShaneGR]

4. Since when did being a Clinton person become a BAD thing?

Seriously, last time I checked this wasn't the freerepublic.

[poskonig]

5. Clark may also have the DoD job in sight.

Being the boss of his former critics? Who wouldn't want that? If he doesn't win the nomination, he'll definitely be in the next admin, maybe even the VP.

[mandyky]

17. Clark would make a good DoD head,

just like Edwards would make a great Attorney General.

[Closer]

8. Clark

should run as a Republican. It's a no-brainer isn't it?

[Trek234]

9. Uh.. Not under the premise of my post

If he will run to get Bush elected - why would he split the Republican vote rather than the Democratic vote?

[w13rd0]

12. Actually...

...I'm thinking he's actually splitting a lil of both...

Depending on how things turn out, that might work out just fine. We'll have to wait and see...

[StephNW4Clark]

14. OF COURSE!!

Because he's pro-affirmative action, pro-gay rights in the military, pro-choice, and pro-environment. Because he wrote an amicus brief for University of Michigan urging them to keep affirmative action. Because he has supported military intervention for humanitarian disasters like Rwanda when no one else in the Pentagon would listen to him. Because he believes and has written about (far before he ever contemplated any public office) the need for multinational cooperation and the relevance of organizations like the UN and NATO.

Duh. Of course he should be a Republican. My bad.

And as for his vote for Nixon? Remember Clark spent a YEAR in rehab after getting shot in Vietnam, after seeing his friends getting killed on the battlefield. Remember Lyndon Johnson - a DEMOCRAT -escalated troop involvement in Vietnam. Remember that Nixon *promised* a way out of Vietnam. Now no one is arguing that Nixon - AFTER the election - turned out to be a right bastard. But can you tell me that his decision to vote for Nixon was completely irrational?

And let's just say one other thing: Clark could have lied. He could have said, "I voted Democrat my whole life." But he didn't because he was honest. And that counts for something.

[Trek234]

19. Says StephNW4Clark

Yea, you're probably right. Clark will likely NOT run as an indepedent.

Neither will Dean. You let me know, StephNW4Clark, when you go to the 200+ post thread about Dean defecting and post something against that.

Funny how you came here first, and how you still haven't made it to the much more noticeable thread.

Clarkies are so predictable. When the tables are turned it's a whole different story.

[StephNW4Clark]

24. WTF is your problem?

I'm a Clark supporter. I support my candidate. If you're a Dean supporter, go support yours.

What the hell is your deal?

[Trek234]

27. So now you resort to name calling?

Are you conceeding that you don't have a problem with other candidates being accused of potentialy defecting?

If so you should be able to take it better when the same argument is made against yours. If not, then why haven't you said anything about it when it is happening to another?

[StephNW4Clark]

30. No, I don't have a problem

Because I think it's a completely cowardly malicious attempt to undermine ANY candidate with spurious suggestions. As such, I know the most about Clark and the least about others like Edwards, Kucinich, etc. With the limited time I have, I defend my candidate. After all, given Dean's massive number of Internet-savvy supporters, I can be reasonably assured that posts accusing him of jumping ship will be put out as well.

Excuse me - but I thought that was the point of having supporters. Each one defends their candidate.

Incidentally, if you are so eager to promote civil political discourse and encourage people to take a reasonable look at your candidate, why do you even bother putting up posts like this?

[Trek234]

31. "why do you even bother putting up posts like this?"

<sigh> I already answered that. I won't do it again if you can't even read entire posts. I'll give you a hint though - it's "Because I think it's a completely cowardly malicious attempt to undermine ANY candidate with spurious suggestions."

It's called making a point by turning the tables and seeing how the other side likes it, and apparently they don't like it at all.

[boxster]

15. Please put down whatever foreign substance you ingested

and slowly back away.

Do you really believe this? You cannot be serious. Are you so desperate to bash Clark that you're coming up with theories even more insane than what Limbaugh, et al, could come up with?

He's not running as an independent. He'd never win that way.

He is not the spawn of aliens. (sorry-wrong post)

He is not Nader. Nobody is Nader. Not even Nader.

He did not kill JFK. Or the other JFK.

Wow, put the conspiracy theory generator away. You're not doing anyone any favors. Coming up with whacked ideas like this is only going to convince people that you're insane, and potentially, that your candidate is supported by a bunch of conspiracy nuts.

For the record, I like both Clark and Dean. But, this is just too much where's-my-tinfoil-hat for me. This is waaay over the top.

[mandyky]

16. Dean and his supporters will be the last standing!

I think a rude awakening is about to happen. Why would Dean quit - he's raising more money than any of the others, he has delegates endorsing him, and he has been right about Iraq from the beginnning - on facts not ideology.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

22. Clark has been the frontrunner for less than a week

...and already there are people are saying Dean is finished. It's too early to make this call.

[mandyky]

29. Clark may be polling ahead, but

front-runner is a tad much. I never even thought Dean was a front-runner, yet. I'll check the polls after the debate and see what I think then. I'll wait until about a month before the Iowa caucus, and see who the polls claim is the front-runner then.

[janekat]

21. You're grasping at straws - LOL! n/t

[retyred]

32. What do you see

in the dark.....when the demons come?

It must be hell when one man frightens you this much....then again You're not alone!



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[JVS]

33. Clark running as an independent would be great!

I think he would take many voters away from Bush and set up the Democratic candidate for a victory.

[Trek234]

34. That would be a HUGE gamble

Much safer to run someone like Ann Coulter to take away Bush's right wing extremeist base.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. Haven't seen this old chestnut

in a couple of weeks. Could the thread declaring Dean is "just like" Joseph Mengele be far away? :eyes: