Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark was going to run as a Republican...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:37 PM
Original message
Clark was going to run as a Republican...
A DU poster put this out for all to see, relying on this story:

"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."

Of course, America's involvement does help prevent war. What is the problem here?

Then:

"Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:"

Good for them. Looks like Wesley didn't want anything to do with them. Maybe because, as he noted, they were more concerned with placing what was good for the party over what was good for America.

Then:

"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."

Which 'insiders' might these be? Clark insiders or gop insiders? The article doesn't say nor does the linked material.

"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."

Oh my GOD! He praised gops when speaking to the gops! He didn't call Ronnie a self-fouling old dodderer! Nor did he call them names! How DARE he?!?!?

"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."

So? Could it be for the reasons he enumerated? We won't know from this hogwash, will we?

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Praising Clinton at a GOP fund-raiser
wouldn't be too smart, would it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jumptheshadow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. LOL
Oh, what a funny image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. Probably SPEAKING at a GOP fundraiser wouldn't be too smart
if one is a Democrat. What Dem would help the GOP raise funds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. I guess I'm a freak
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 03:47 PM by Padraig18
I have NO interest in joining in the "Let's all pile on General Clark" Club, which has substantial membership from both the Dean and Kerry camps. I frankly am in the "Great! One more Democrat to pile on the BFEE!" camp, and a Dean supporter. *shrug*

Welcome to the Democratic Party, General. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I Used To Be That Way...
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 03:56 PM by tsipple
Dean is my first pick. I was curious about Clark. Now I'm getting turned off by Clark in a big way since learning about his Arkansas fundraising for the GOP in May, 2001.

Bitter disappointment. I feel duped, to be honest.

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's find the next DUer who registers and posts two messages. We'll make that person DU's new system administrator! What do you say? Sound like a plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KC21304 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. This Kerry supporter is with you on this, Padraig18.
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 04:34 PM by Kerryfan
Some of the people on this board are getting dumber by the minute. What are they thinking of ? Are they really DU er's ? Maybe we should invite them to start their own board, Dummys Underground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. I KNOW!
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 04:16 PM by Padraig18
What part of (South Side Chi-CAW-go accent) "we ain't gonna control NUTTIN' if we don't get da most votes" do they NOT understand? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Info on Clark's Troubled Past
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. all right ...
a compendium of Clark slurs, virtually all of which have been addressed here.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
21.  Excuse me, but this website states that
George Bush looks attractive compared to Wesley Clark????? Right, uh huh, sure, well then just go ahead and vote for the POS. Better yet, try to find another argument, because this is more than lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
64. NOW we know why Clark is the frontrunner. He is the best connected...
to the Powers that Be.

Thank you for this valuable assorttment of material which should be read by each and every one of us.

The material by Cohen at this link has yet to be verified regarding the camps and Haitians -- but Clark was at one point responsible for military operations involving Haiti so the story may be partially true.


Our good friends here who comprise the CLARK cheerleading squad LOVE to say that these issues are like old news or have been refuted somehow.

They have NOT been refuted by any means BUT...


They are NEW INFO for many folks who are still trying to figure out whether they should support Clark or not.

SO I SAY IGNORE THOSE WHO TELL YOU NOT TO READ THIS STUFF.

READ IT.

READ IT ALL AGAIN.

CHECK THE FACTS.

INEVITABLY THERE MAY BE ERRORS OR EVEN BLACKOPS TYPE MISINFORMATION - PSYOPS IS TRICKY.


don't TAKE anybody's word FOR anything.

STUDY CLARK'S RECORD AND HIS ASSOCIATIONS.


THEN


LOOK AT OUR REAL DEMOCRATIC LEADERS


AND CHOOSE A DEMOCRAT.

NOT A REPUBLICAN WHO CONVERTED DUE TO HIS EGO.


As for Clark saying Bush or Rove did not return his phone calls - Clark's LOBBYIST filings (and why the fuck would we elect a fucking military LOBBYIST ANYWAY???) show that he had contacts with both the White House AND the CIA as a lobbyist after 9-11.


WHY WOULD ANY DUER SUPPORT THE ELECTION OF A PENTAGON LOBBYIST WHOSE LAST JOB WAS AS AN INVESTMENT BANKER WORKING FOR THE BANK WHICH ARRANGED SAUDI AND BIN LADEN FINANCING FOR SHRUB AND HARKEN


who ARE you people. I do NOT recognize you.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. To me this says that Clark has only recently begun to understand politics
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 03:57 PM by w4rma
He's new and inexperienced at what's been going on in American politics for decades, now.

I think like many people, he supports Democratic policy, but might not have associated that Democratic policy with the Democratic Party.

I like Clark. I don't however trust some of the folks running his campaign whom may be dismantling Clark's grassroots net. I'm wondering, out loud, if he's being used by the DLC to keep big money power in politics.

I do think he'd make a great Vice President who could be groomed for the Presidency in 2012.

Note, inexperience is a bad attack to use to try to whittle away support for someone. In fact, it is my observation that inexperience in politics tends to make that person more popular in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Like Perot
He was "charming" till he imploded....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. For me ...
inexperience is a good thing.

He hasn't yet learned to speak politician-speak and seems to give far more straight-forward answers. I despise listening to pols weasel around when "answering" a question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Oh, Rubbish
The guy wouldn't answer a "hypothetical" when asked about whether he would support $87 Billion now pending before Congress? Hypothetical? Every other candidate answered that question.

The guy can't admit he's a Democrat only two months ago? (Which, at the time, I was willing to let slide, chalking it up to being "politically coy" to keep the news reporters guessing.)

That his so-called draft was orchestrated and choreographed rather than some genuine grassroots movement?

I'm angry. I haven't ever gotten that way at DU before -- check the logs -- but I'm not happy about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. not half as angry as I am dude or dudette ...
I have never so many cheap-shot, bullshit artists in my life as the Clark bashers.

And I have posted their stupid fucking, out of context slurs and refuted them yet they stay away unless they can pull a scattershot tactic.

You just think you're angry. I am ready to do everything I can to beat that woodchuck-looking, mouthbreathing opportunist that you support. Everything that I can.

So, do you have a complaint with the initial posting or are you just shit talking like the others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Pepperbelly, you should remember you haven't read the actual quote
Only a second-hand version.

Malikshah says this:
...
Clark--Dean's response that he likes the man, but he was a Repub til a few weeks ago-- Shiefer asks how can you say that--Dean responds w/ his Oct statement on War, his quoted support of Rummy etc., etc. Dean reiterates his liking of Clark--but focuses on issue of Clark being an insider-supported Candidate. All the DNC-DLC-er bigwigs putting in their support for Clark. Dean's message is Clark is an insider-backed candidate, etc.
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I watched the program ... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I've seen Dean called much worse things by Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 04:18 PM by w4rma
who may or may not be trying to act as attack dogs for Clark/DLC. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I don't think you understand ...
I truly liked Dean before this. Now, I do not. He is, IMO, a cheap-shot opportunist with a populist schtick that is as fake as Tammy Fay's eyelashes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Inexperience also means a few other things
Less ability to manuver Congress and twist arms to get things dones.
Less ability to stand up to monied interests because one is has less understanding of what *really* goes on those smoke filled back rooms.

But, like I said, inexperience is a poor attack, because folks usually associate inexperience with being a non-politician so I see where you are coming from Pepperbelly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. experience at being a pol ...
has sure gotten us to a lovely state today, hasn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. "Democrat Gore, who has tried to portray Bush as inexperienced"
...
Democrat Gore, who has tried to portray Bush as inexperienced, reached dramatically into his pocket after a Chicago conference of medical journalists and produced for reporters what he said was Bush's 1995 budget 2 1/2 pages folded in fours.
...
http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/050500/gen_edu.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. On what planet is Bush experienced?
He was governor of Texas, a very weak governor state, for a grand total of six years before being elected President. He ran in four, count them four, elections in his entire life. (78 US Congress, 94 and 98 Texas Gov., and 2000 President). Sorry but of the myriad of faults Bush has over experience sure isn't one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
synthia Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
106. haven't we learned from bush?
an inexperienced president needs experienced people to "guide" him.
who will CLARK'S GUIDES BE? WHO WOULD WE BE ELECTING, REALLY?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imhotep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. interesting
Arnold Schwarzenegger's supporters say the exact same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. your hit and run tactics ...
are well known.

Do you have anything of substance to add or is this it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. They are Not DisMantling The GrassRoots Net
In fact, check out the grassroots links on Clark's official website:

http://www.americansforclark.com/grassroots /

By State/Location

Arizona for Clark
Arkansans for Clark
CA - East Bay for Clark
Central Nebraska for Clark
Charlottesville for Clark
Chicago Students for Clark
Colorado for Clark
Connecticut for Clark
Florida for Clark
Georgia for Wesley Clark
Illinois for Clark
Iowa for Clark
Kansas for Clark
Kentucky for Clark
Los Angeles for Clark
Louisiana for Clark
Maryland for Clark
Mass for Clark
Michigan for Clark
Minnesota for Clark
Mississippi for Clark
Missouri for Clark
Montana for Clark
Nebraska for Clark
Nevadans for Clark
New Hampshire for Clark
New Mexico for Clark
New York for Clark
NJ for Clark
North Carolina for Clark
Oklahomans for Clark
Orange County for Clark
Pennsylvania for Clark
Pittsburgh for Clark
Santa Barbara for Clark
South Bay For Clark
Staten Island for Clark
Syracuse for Clark
Tennessee for Clark
Virginia for Clark
Virginia for Clark (2)
Washington State
Washington State for Clark
Western New York for Clark
Wisconsin for Clark

By Group

Blacks for Clark
Clark Sphere
A Grassroots Daily Newsletter - The Clark Tribune
Clark Web Sites - Steal This Code!
Disabled Americans for Clark
Environmentalists for Clark
George Washington University
GLBT for Clark
Hispanics for Clark
Hispanos Con Clark
Independents for Clark
Latinos for Clark
Leadership For America
MSNBC Clark Blog
Republicans for Clark
Republicans, Independents, Dems for Clark
Students for Clark
Support Wesley Clark
The Clark Coalition
The Wesley Clark Weblog
US 4 Clark
Veterans for Clark
WesleyClark.us
Wolf P.A.C.
Women for Clark

The NH Draft Clark people are in Little Rock and in Texas working on the campaign. I suspect that is true of other groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virtualobserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
19. I agree, this means nothing on its own
it would only have potential meaning in the context of other supporting information. But vague references to "insiders" are not evidence of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. Um...rather than Defend Clark
Could you or any Clark supporter 'cut and paste' Clark quotes where he lavishly praises Clinton and democrats/their initiatives over the past decade...
I mean this Clark stuff is as stale as the Clark 'faithful' trying to explain the obvious...
Let's get some 'fair and balanced' debate other than--yeah he's a DINO, but he will beat Bush!!!

Score one for
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. what I am going to do in this thread is ...
deal with this particular question. You are, of course, free to do as you like. However, with all of the lies and out-of-context quotations, I am intent to meet these criticisms head on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
81. Praise of Clinton and Max Cleland.
Clinton:
http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=46

He stumped for Max Cleland, and I bet we'll never see video footage of that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
27. great - another thread - with a slight twist
that fits with a bunch of other threads on this topic.

I appreciate your point - but could you make it on one of the existing threads?

Or is no discussion besides Clark or Dean allowed in GD anymore? Because the net effect of starting a thread that fits with several existing threads and that will result in a mirror Dean thread is pushing ALL substantive ISSUE topics off of the front page. Within minutes.

Sorry but this is frustrating.

*this is todays pat response to the proliferation of identical threads that has shut down all other conversations among people, on issues, that are about beating BUSH, fighting back against BUsh policies, but devoid of clark or dean.* If ya'll can spam the forum - then I can spam your threads.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. sorry friend salin but ...
no, I cannot.

The bashers have relentlessly used the House Manager tactic of scatter-shot and data-dump against Clark so that when one of their hoaxes is pointed out, they fall back to another and another and another.

And my computer locks up on those threads.

So, I will keep the link on this and other threads dealing with specific trashing and then, when someone trots it out again, I can go, so sorry ... follow this link where this was dealt with.

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. excuse me - but today you became a part of the behavior problem
we are having. Did you notice that the energy bill will be voted on in a couple of weeks. That there have been numerous threads to get information and start strategizing for action. That the bill will alter our lives. That it happens NOW not several months from now.

And these STUPID threads - and yes, they have reached the level of stupidity - are crowding out any other conversation - such as the ongoing energy conversations.

I have never been ready to leave this place - but if it is this ineffective for gathering information and understanding and to mobilize against the sitting regimes current actions in the short term as well as in the long term - then I think I may be in the wrong place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. sorry ...
not everyone is as detached as you.

And, of course, if you do not want to read my comments, you can always refrain from doing so. In addition, I believe that the expressed threat to leave if X doesn't happen is manipulative. I do not know that those sorts of threats serve to change behaviors at all. Of course, I have always liked you but that doesn't affect my freedom of speech nor will I allow threats of X or Y to affect it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. the problem isnt the words
it is the starting of multiple threads instead of one.

and other people doing the same damn thing.

so that suddenly there are 20 threads, started in five minutes, and all other discussions get stifled and shut down.

THAT is the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. hey I posted in your threads ...
but I have another project I'm working on and that is to drive a stake through the dishonest attacks being launched against my candidate. This is primary season and this will do nothing but get worse.

I want a repository of threads to point to rather than hashing this crap out over and over and over.

That was and is my intent and if I think of any more of the smearjobs, I am sorry but I will start a thread refuting them as well, giving all the opportunity in the world for the ones pushing them to defend them and then copying the links and keeping them as pointers on down the road when it surfaces yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. that is called spamming
please find another method. I fear that you are losing more than you gain. Folks like myself - are disgusted. Remember the dean backlash where some folks got so turned off by the fans that they turned violently on the candidate... that seems to be in play here as well.

Spamming forums is not a good tactic. You don't win ANYONE over, but you do make alot of people NOT involved in the fight VERY upset.

Seriously. THis is how it is for the future. I will have to find another place. I am about issues. About learning. About getting discussions together so we see the pieces. I have seen the threads of our work picked up in interesting places (at least one article, and at least one initiative by either the DNC or the DCCC). Problem is - some days I can only post early or late. In this atmosphere the discussion would die in the day. You all would push it into the archives with this petty back and forth and each individual thought has to have its own thread, its own refutation thread, its own anti thread, and a parody thread of each of the previous threads. Get it? My work becomes obsolete. Substance lost.

If this is the future of DU - there is no place for policy analysts. There is no place for activism that is not tied to a specific candidate. You all will push people like me out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. I didn't spam your thread nor ...
did I spam with this thread. If you think so, you are entitled to your opinion. But I disagree.

Vehemently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. intentional or not - you spammed the forum - and set the trend
for a grating... day long... spam fest of GD. Again it is the VOLUME. At least take responsibility for the consequences of the action - stand by it - but realize the effect it has had on innocent bystanders.

A huge story on Florida state employees pension fund being used to buy up Edison Schools. HUGE story. Pushed out. JEB is INVOLVED. Lots of digging that could be done. PUshed out.

Just an example.

You are not alone - you just set the tone for what happened today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. please ....
because there is something you are more interested in does not mean that is what everyone is interested in. People can post where they want. Lord knows I have had about a ka-zillion things sink to the bottom that I thought were important.

I stand by my actions. Damned right or I wouldn't have committed them to electron and photon. But whether you like it or not, posts defending my candidate against scurrilous attacks seem to fit pretty handily into a political board and posts defending my candidate are not spam.

But ...

whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. the defense is legit
doing it in a gazillion different threads is the problem.

Those were active discussion threads. But when 10 new threads appear in 2 minutes in response to the series of other threads up on the candidates - with the precedent that you don't need to respond on existing threads, and you can't make complex threads (more than one point in the thread - oh my!) - that is the problem. So JM's thread that has a bunch of responses - falls off immediately due to so many spam spawn threads.

I get the need to clarify. SOme of the bashes have been way off base. I get it.

But why does it need to make GD inhospitable to others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. no one wants to make anything ...
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 06:29 PM by Pepperbelly
uninhabitable.

My problem is this: they put these arguemtns in scattershot threads with probably 15 or 20 slurs and when you try to deal with one of them, they go to the next. It is a dishonest tactic but one that is being used to advantage. When that happens and I defend against a couple of these things and the post count gets around a hundred, my computer will not handle it and it locks up.

edited to clean up a bushism on my part. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #61
70. Sounds legitimate - but may I offer an alternative?
when the thread hits a certain length- alert the thread and ask a mod to lock it - and start a second thread with "continue here" and link to the first thread. That gets done all the time in LBD (and sometimes GD) on huge threads covering live events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. ok ...
we'll see how this works today though since it's just 3 threads.

Notice how none of the bashers have shown up to defend this cruddy article after making such a thing about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #74
98. Not about "it"- You're mis-representing again
The fuss is not over some "cruddy little article" but over a compendium of articles that can be found in the original thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

All the rebuttals to your snipped marginalization are found in the original thread.

The defense is as weak on fact as the candidate is on the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. one problem
is I don't think he can access the thread anymore on his computer due to the size of the thread (for many people over 100+ posts = computer crash).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. your "compendium" was ...
as noted before, composed of half-truth, innuendo, and out-of-context quotations. You still want to use a scattershot approach even though it is an inherently dishonest tactic designed to allow you to relinquish points while falling back to another.

Your attempts to bring it back to that tired old tactic is duly noted as well as the use of innuendo and the rest of the bags of tricks you want to use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. YOu have posted this very same thing verbatim 3 times...
Isn't that against the rules or something?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. It is called spamming. There has been thread spamming going on ALL
day. Think of this as civil disobedience to call attention to the problem of thread spamming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Code_Name_D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
117. Press the alert button.
Perhaps when the mods get flooded with complaints, they will act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MariMayans Donating Member (250 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
34. fuck that..
I can hold my nose over many, many things but waxing nostalgic for Ronald's terrorists in Central and South America is absolutely criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. suit yourself ...
but that isn't what happened. However, I do not expect the facts to get in the way of a good slur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MariMayans Donating Member (250 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Which one?
Reagan didn't create a terrorist army to rape and kill in the south or that Clark didn't laud that effort?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. how about ...
you point me to where Clark waxed nostalgically about a terrorist army raping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MariMayans Donating Member (250 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. You tell me..
it was your post that led me to believe he was in love with Reagan's Cold War policies :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
44. Bullshit -- I've been following all the speculation about Clark since 2001
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 05:59 PM by dolstein
and most of the speculation centered around whether he'd run for office (most likely governor) as a Democrat or an independent. It's true that both parties courted him, but it never made much sense for him to run as a Republican. Remember, in 2002, Mike Huckabee and Tim Hutchinson were up for reelection. They're both Republicans.

Of course, Clark didn't seek either office. But he made it pretty clear that he wasn't a Republican when he campaigned exclusively on behalf of Democratic candidates in the 2002 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
45. Pepperbelly, your efforts are valiant....
however, there is no limit of inane hit-and-run
hack jobs these people are willing to dish out.

Reasoned thinking is not their game. They have
one goal, and that is to "define" Clark in a way
that likens him to the opposition. They don't
want to argue issues or what is good for the future.
They want to win at all costs.

I am right there with you, Pepperbelly. It's tough.

I think Clark has been excellent so far, and I am
excited since his New Hampshire town meeting.

Frankly, I think Dean is terrible and I have for some
time. I have tried to hold my tongue lately so as not
to tarnish people's opinion of Clark (people around here
are really good at inferring guilt by association). However,
Dean has went too far. He seems to be willing to say
anything to win this election. He is divisive, bad for
our party and bad for our country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. I know they will
but at the same time, I have kept a record of links to these threads debunking the inane and dishonest slurs and when someone trots one out, I can direct them to the appropriate thread where it was addressed.

Take care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
49. Your claims should be fun to debunk...
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 06:07 PM by Darranar
Of course, America's involvement does help prevent war. What is the problem here?

Except when it causes war, ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.

Good for them. Looks like Wesley didn't want anything to do with them. Maybe because, as he noted, they were more concerned with placing what was good for the party over what was good for America.

And maybe because he realized that he could accomplish more running as a pretend progressive.

Oh my GOD! He praised gops when speaking to the gops! He didn't call Ronnie a self-fouling old dodderer! Nor did he call them names! How DARE he?!?!?

Why was he AT the fundraiser in the first place? And supporting Ronald Reagan forces him down in my view.

So? Could it be for the reasons he enumerated? We won't know from this hogwash, will we?

He became a Democrat for political gain.

Now that that's done with, I'd like you to know that I'm not an extreme Clark-hater. he'd get my support before Lieberman, and if he or Lieberman gets nominated I will still support them.

Where's Clark's progressive track record? How do yo justify his close relationship with PNAC? How do you justify his wishy-washiness on the Iraq war?

Four stars don't make you a progressive, especially when they're combined with close ties with the military-industrial complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. your debunking ...
wasn't. Throwaway sentences uttered after italicized segs. Is this really what you call debunking. I hope you're not a lawyer.

And, like most of the Clark bashers, you assume facts not in evidence when you try your questions. But I never expect much from these sorts of posts and am never disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Since your statements...
didn't debunk anything in the article, I followed in the spirit of your post.

What is this about me assuming facts not in evidence? Do you deny that Clark said the things outlined in Tinoire's thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. another one of these huh...
That post was a masterpiece of misdirection, distortion, out-of-context quotations and failures to reveal info that didn't support the premise.

And yes, I did refute each point of it. Your throwaway questions were just that. You make an inane suggestion as a counter and call that debunking?

I still hope that you are not a lawyer and if you are, God help your clients.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Please see post #56...
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
115. Um, personal experience here-
Clark IS Progressive. Just how many conservatives, Republicans or even centrists have you run across who clearly questioned the don't ask don't tell policy while IN UNIFORM? Clark did.

How many conservatives or Republicans are willing to cut DoD spending? Clark is. How many conservatives or Republicans want to do any of the things Clark has spoken about for at LEAST the past two years now? And this is not even considering the Progressive ideas he put forth while still in the Army.

"Why was he AT the fundraiser in the first place? And supporting Ronald Reagan forces him down in my view."

Well how about because he was NOT a partison voter?! Just as PB said in the base-note, Clark doesn't give a rat's rear end about party loyalty. What he cares about are the American people and soldiers in uniform whose lives are on the line right NOW for freakin' OIL. So Reagan managed to grab Clark's vote by matching up his campaign platform with what Clark thought the country needed- guess what? That's how it's SUPPOSED to work!

I'm sorry, but that just hits me as the most petty thing in the world to pick at a candidate over. So he just recenty opted to register and declare an affiliation with one of the two main parties, big sh*ttin' deal.

Ok, now that I've had my mini-rant, could someone who is fussing about the Republican votes PLEASE tell me what the hell you want Clark to say about it? Should he have re-registered every time he backed a candidate from a different party? Should he have put party loyalty over his principles and beliefs about what the country needed? And thenmaybe you could tell me why you'd dismiss a candidate because he chose to participate in the elctions process in the absolute MOST democratic fashion imaginable- by voting the issues most pressing for the time instead of party affiliation. DEMOCRATIC, remember that word? The basis for our Party? Yeesh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
51. Good Work, Mr. Pepperbelly!
Keep it up, my friend.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Thank you ...
and I mean that sincerely. Your remark lifts my spirits which were sagging a bit.

Fight on, though. Fight on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Pepperbelly...
I've been staying out of GD lately, so any rebuttals of the Clark-bashing I probably have missed.

I AM interested in this from the other perpective - it just seems to me that the replies to the Clark-bashing from Clark supporters seems to be mostly eye-rolling with little or no evidence behind it.

I would like to see a rebuttal that is logical, refrains from personal attacks, and addresses all or most of the concerns about Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. I think that it has to be done ...
this way because there are simply too many half-baked attacks that are trotted out on cue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. I'll ask again...
can you or any other Clark supporter compile a rebuttal addressing all or most of those concerns? Or will you simply reply with more eye-rolling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. I think that you are ...
disingeniously trying to garner advantage for a scattershot approach and no, I will not allow that to occur. If you cannot address it one at a time, then you can high-five in cheap-shot threads with my blessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Me?
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 06:42 PM by Darranar
Actually, I have an active interest in knowing what the other side thinks - and if all I see is cognitive dissonance, or at least what appears to be cognitive dissonance, then I'm not going to change my position about Clark.

You want me to give you my concerns one by one? Okay.

Why did Clark vote for Reagan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Well, Pepperbelly?
If you can't do it, why don't you ask some other Clark supporters to do so?

I'm wa-a-i-ting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. I'm STILL waiting...
I did what you asked - can anyone show me how voting for Reagan shouldn't disqualify him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. None Of This Stuff Much Matters, Sir
The man is supported by President and Senator Clinton, among others.

A large number of persons who voted for Reagan had some Democratic allegiance, remember: the coinage "Reagan Democrat" is not a hollow one. Bringing such people back to the Party on all levels is an important task, necessary to cripple reactionary electoral strength in the future.

Most of the rest dates to a brief period where he was being courted by Republicans: Democrats courted Eisenhower, but failed to win his hand, and many Republican politicos of the day denounced him as not really a Republican in consequence. All are happy to claim him now, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. Thank you...
a reply, finally.

So you're saying that he repaid kindness with kindness, and therefore expressed liking for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?

Clearly, Reagan Democrats need to be brought back to the party. However, that does not mean that I should support a Reagan Democrat for Presidency, especially one who has ties to a number of rather despicable people, including high-level members of the Bush Administration.

Another problem with him is that like Ariel Sharon, he looks at things more from a military basis than a political one; support for ground troops in Kosovo, for instance. It likely would have shattered the coalition, but from a military perspective it was the right thing to do, so he supported it.

His ties to PNAC are also not something to be down-played; however skewed their version of the world is, and however impossible their goals are, they still have the capability to cause massive harm, as the debacle in Iraq shows rather clearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. A Few Small Points, Sir
Concerning Kossovo: the threat of ground troops was essential, and had it not proved possible to rapidly build the K.L.A. into a reasonably numerous partisan force, the aerial campaign would never have been able to check the activities of the Serb killers in Kossovo. The conduct of that war is very much in Gen. Clark's favor, in my view. There is no meaningful comparison between the gentleman and Sharon; for what my view on such a subject is worth to you, Sir, Gen. Clark seems to me most advanced in his appreciation of the proper fit of military with other means of power.

Nor does the P.N.A.C. mantra have much traction with me, as you will be aware from other discussions. Beyond its impossibility, it amounts to nothing more than garden-variety imperial expansion, which has occured to all seated in the capital of empire for millenia: governments expand to the practical limits of their ability to do so, and it was ever thus.

The allegation of "ties" does not seem to amount to anything beyond acquaintance, only to be expected of a career military man active at the heights of his profession. The thing smacks of mole-hill into mountain to me.

His expressed positions on domestic matters are compatible with mine. He has seemed to me a most impressive figure from back in the administration of President Clinton, and it is not at all difficult to me to view his candidacy as good for the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #78
88. My point was...
that he's a general, not a politician. That's a great thing for a general, but not so great for a politician.

P.N.A.C's plans have no real chance of success, that is true - however, it remains a fact that their influence can cause very unfortunate consequences. Though their goal can never be achieved, steps to that goal can be, often with devestating consequences; as I mentioned above, the Iraq war is a great example of this.

When it comes to doemstic policy, I have little to no problem with him; that is true when it comes to basically all of the Democratic candidates. It is foreign policy and Defense that I judge these candidates by.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. At Its Highest Levels, Sir
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 07:55 PM by The Magistrate
To be a general is to be a politician. Leaving aside the "office politics" aspects of rising to the top of any bureaucracy, the highest levels of command must always interact with political concerns, if exercised competently. Gen. Eisenhower is a case in point; the management and cordination of Allied forces required a great degree of political judgement, and it was in this, rather than in military strategy, that most scholars of the Second World War agree Gen. Eisenhower excelled. Certainly to have exercised the command of NATO, a coalition in which every member holds a veto, required a great deal of political savvy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Oh my ...
but you take yourself as important.

I was looking at another site for a while and eating dinner. Your question was why he voted for RR?

I don't know.

If he voted for him in 1980, maybe he blamed the national malaise on Carter. If he did it in '84, maybe he bought the Shining-City-on-a-Hill rhetoric. What is your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. My point is this:
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 07:23 PM by Darranar
He voted for Reagan, who was a despicable president. Has he expressed regret for this decision? He voted for Nixon as well.

The only Democrat he has voted for was Clinton, who was not so very progressive.

Thanks for responding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. I don't know if he has expressed ...
"regret" over the vote or if that is something he would even consider doing. He was exercising the franchise as he saw fit and although I voted differently, I can't expect someone to apologize for their vote.

If that were the case, there would be some Greenies that I could make that suggestion to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Okay...
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 07:34 PM by Darranar
I still have quite a few issues with someone who supported Ronald Reagan unapologetically, especially if he's a Dem candidate.

His actions don't seem to support his words; that's my problem with Clark.

Okay, concern #2: What about his comment expressing liking to Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. check out the thread on Salon ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. Thanks for the link...
it still seems to me that he was a little cowardly in his statements, but as you pointed out, he was a general then, not a politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
65. This is it? This is the brilliant defense?
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 07:06 PM by Tinoire
No wonder you can only address one nail in the coffin at a time. So let me get this straight- for one thread criticizing your candidate
you are going to spam the entire board with individual posts attacking individual facts again hoping to prevent people from seeing the complete picture?

In other words then, there is no defense because you can't erase the words that came out of Clarks very mouth nor the timing of his actions nor the timing of his own words so you'd rather distract and dilute.

These tactics are nailing his political coffin on their own.

On edit: I love the part where you wrote:

Clark was going to run as a Republican...

A DU poster put this out for all to see, relying on this story:

I had several other sources, stories and quotes, spanning over a length of time and as recent as July 2 2003, but because you can't address those, you started another thread where you are intent on mis-representing to dilute the information.

The defense to the information in the main thread is looking weaker and weaker. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. when in doubt ... reassert ..
You posted bunk. I suspect that you knew it was bunk but I am withholding judgement on that front. And I note, you didn't discount a word I wrote.

Predictable.

You shot your ammo and it fell short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #71
89. When you debunk Clark's own words and actions
then I might have something to discount. Until then, your rationalizations are weak and do him a greater dis-service than anything.

Jeez, you're the guy's cousin. Help him out with some acceptable rebuttals if you're that concerned but attempts to spin this stuff away are insulting to people's intelligence and will really hurt him.

These words, like every word and video the press has been reporting, will remain. They can't disappear and you can't erase them.

Rationalizations vs acceptable rebuttals. People have no patience for transparent rationalizations. Your choice- help him or help bury him because too many people are picking up on this and from too many different places.

In comments posted to ABCNews.com's "The Note" section, the unnamed Democratic operative continued:

"I am not a Dean supporter but I am angry that our party's leaders have anointed an alternative to him who seems even more ignorant and unprepared and that this supposed 'anti-war' candidate turns out to have been in favor of both the war resolution and Richard Nixon!!

"And let's not even talk about the Clintons. Today I am embarrassed to be a Democrat."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/20/223854.sht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. Anyone, Ma'am
Who says "Let's not even talk about the Clintons." may be safely excused from any claim to be a Democrat. This anonymous fool, whoever he is, is interchangeable with any Republican reactionary himself, and cannot be regarded as truthful, or indicative anything beyond his own bile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Why?
Clinton (the President) was hardly progressive (note Iraqi sanctions, welfare cuts) and legitimate criticism of him has been brought up by worthy people here.

He was far superior to the current occupant of the White House, but that doesn't make him as great as some say he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. Mr. Clinton, Sir
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 08:17 PM by The Magistrate
Was my President.

The rage he threw reactionaries into, if nothing else, endeared him to me, and no one, Sir, no one who did not give whole-hearted support to him in standing off the Coup of '98 is worth the bullet it would take to put them in their place.

He was good for the country, and for all in it. Ideological purity, Sir, you will be aware, is not much of a concern with me; practical results are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. Okay...
The criticism Clinton gets from the Left doesn't seem to be over the Lewinsky Affair, though, and the following impeachment sequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. That Does Not Matter To Me, Sir
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 08:47 PM by The Magistrate
The effect of it, at the time, was simply to reinforce the reactionaries' efforts, and its effects today are similar. No good purpose is served by insistence on purity of ideology if that insistence is sure to reduce the effective opposition to the reactionaries. The refusal of the left to coalesce and cooperate with itself is the leading cause of reactionary success throughout history.

First defeat the enemy: then argue about what is the most proggressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
95. A great link...
:eyes:

The piece you posted was nonsense and whether you like the fact that its uselessness has been noted, it has been. And all you can do is come up with more of the same, the same dishonest scattershot approach that you always use.

Pffft ...

I think your slurs are becoming irrelevant except to the Amen-chorus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #65
84. What Really Needs To Be Addressed
is the fact that the Dean people began spinning the "Clark Is A Republican" stories after Clark turned Dean down to be his V.P. running mate and after Clark forged ahead of Dean in the national polls. And by "spin" I am referring to the practice of selectively mentioning some but not all the facts. If Clark is somehow a super Republican, what does that make Dean for wanting him as Vice President? Apart from offering Republicans praise at a GOP event to which he was invited to receive an award, there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that Clark ever espoused Republican policies or values, except for those concerning a strong military. If guilt by association is the current method of attack, again what does that make Dean for wanting to associate himself with Clark in a political campaign?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #84
93. You are either spinning or have not read the information
Posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

for your viewing pleasure.

The Dean people did not start spinning "Clark is a Republican"- Clark's own words and actions did. My initial examination of the Dean/Clark Pres/VP thing shows that the suggestions for that came from Clark HQs and that Dean HQs had to ask them to stop it.

Clark people did a brilliant job of pushing that all over the internet and the meme was once again half-way around the world before the truth got its boots on.

This is not guilt by association- this is Clark's own words and actions as recently as July 2 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. you're becoming a regular whirling dervish ...
was that link to your preposterous collection of innuendo, half-truth and context free quotations? The one filled with 'insider sources'?

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
66. Pepperbelly!!! Thanks for drawing attention to this!!! Read post #4
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 06:48 PM by seventhson
The LINK at post #4 is a Must read.

Or just go read it yourself here (please pass this around to all you know folks):

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Cla...

I am stating my response to that thread (in part) again in case anyone missed it:



NOW we know why Clark is the frontrunner. He is the best connected...


Our good friends here who comprise the CLARK cheerleading squad LOVE to say that these issues are like old news or have been refuted somehow.

They have NOT been refuted by any means BUT...


They are NEW INFO for many folks who are still trying to figure out whether they should support Clark or not.

SO I SAY IGNORE THOSE WHO TELL YOU NOT TO READ THIS STUFF.

READ IT.

READ IT ALL AGAIN.

CHECK THE FACTS.

INEVITABLY THERE MAY BE ERRORS OR EVEN BLACKOPS TYPE MISINFORMATION - PSYOPS IS TRICKY.


don't TAKE anybody's word FOR anything.

STUDY CLARK'S RECORD AND HIS ASSOCIATIONS.


THEN


LOOK AT OUR REAL DEMOCRATIC LEADERS


AND CHOOSE A DEMOCRAT.

NOT A REPUBLICAN WHO CONVERTED DUE TO HIS EGO.


As for Clark saying Bush or Rove did not return his phone calls - Clark's LOBBYIST filings (and why the fuck would we elect a fucking military LOBBYIST ANYWAY???) show that he had contacts with both the White House AND the CIA as a lobbyist after 9-11.


WHY WOULD ANY DUER SUPPORT THE ELECTION OF A PENTAGON LOBBYIST WHOSE LAST JOB WAS AS AN INVESTMENT BANKER WORKING FOR THE BANK WHICH ARRANGED SAUDI AND BIN LADEN FINANCING FOR SHRUB AND HARKEN


who ARE you people. I do NOT recognize you.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. I looked at it ...
but I have no patience with innuendo and half-truth and that is what I find there. Just more slurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. why don't you debate the FACTS, Pepper ?
slandering the articls en masse does your cause no real good.

you need to argue that the specific facts are untrue,

and you must use facts to do so.

impatience is NOT an argument
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #82
87. because ...
1) I saw no facts. Only innuendo;

2) This thread is about another topic altogether;

3) I do not respond to scattershot attacks;

4) if you narrow it down to a single attack at a time, I might then respond.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #87
102. OMG- What do you want now? A thread for each sentence?
and then you might respond? This is getting really lame.

Where are all your links? Links to articles or to the "so many" DU links where these things have been debunked? Clark supporters are leaving an impressive paper trail of not having any substantive facts on your side.

Let me know when Clark and his supporters are better prepared. Clark is going to be slaughtered in the coming debates if this is the tactic because the candidates aren't appreciating this developing commando raid any more than their supporters are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. and as of this instant ...
this flagship article from your compendium of slurs has been exposed for what it is: without substance and intended to slur with half-truth. I note with interest that you have failed to defend it.

And if Clark does poorly in debates, so much the better for you. I don't think he will but if it make you feel better to pin your hopes on that eventuality, then by all means do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #104
111. Hey - that was MY word (compendium). The mirror defense
I'm rubber, you're glue.


So predictable.

Tinoire does not HAVE to defend the facts in the articles. They speak for themselves - the journalists have their reputations and careers on the line -- so if they are wrong, then they will not be trusted in the future. There are, in my opinion, bound to be SOME errors in a large collection of articles like this -- but the fact is that despite many of the opinions expressed that are only opinions -- there is a MOUNTAIN of EVIDENCE - SOLID FACTS - That Clark was a Republican INSIDER until Bush started to tank.


Look - I have said it before and I'kk say it again.

Bush is a DISASTER not only for the citizens of the US, but for his BFEE handlers. He is an idiot. THEY do not really want four more years of Bush and HE does not have to work this hard trying to say anything intelligent for four more years.

So THEY NEED CLARK

Bush II wants a vacation. A Perment vacation. He wants to retire early and collect his billions in manipulation fees. AND stay out of jail.

The only way this crime team stays out of jail is to get a new president in who is an INSIDER who will pardon them or squelch any investigations against them. Their guys are Clark and Kerry IMHO. Maybe Lieberman. And if they can't win the Presidency then the NEED to hold the VP so that the non-BFEE president can be Wellstoned.

Mark my words.

I pray I am wrong, folks, and that if either of these guys do miraculously get in (Clark and Kerry) they don't further destroy our democracy.

But I believe they are cut from the same cloth as Bush. And these articles PROVE that with re4spect to Clark.

YOU, Pepperbelly, have the OBLIGATION to provide evidence that these stories are not true.

If you have no evidence to refute them (altho a few allegations have been shot down quite correctly) then you must concede there is truth to them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. what I did ...
if you'll slow down and breathe for a moment into a paper sack, is demonstrate that this article was based on absolutely nothing. There is nothing in there to make the case that Clark was going to run as a repub EXCEPT the writer's linkage of non-sourced newspaper articles that even then, were unlear about what they were claiming and out-of-context snippets from remarks Clark made.

If you do not understand this, then there is nothing more that can be done except to tell you, HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE!!!!!!

The ASSERTION is that Clark is this or he is that. I am saying, fine, now prove what you say. Innuendo is not proof. Out-of-context quotations, when the rest of the quotation shows exactly opposite of what was claimed, are not proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #111
114. If You Genuinely Believe Things Are That Tricked Up, Sir
Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 09:11 PM by The Magistrate
It must be difficult to get out of bed in the mornings, and absolutely impossible to contemplate any meaningful political activity. Why vote? Why organize? It is all sewn up, and whoever succeeds is simply who the conspiracy has designated to do so.

A sad way to live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. The Clark Entourage at DU do not HAVE answers for these things
It is too much work to try to plug all the leaks which have become a torrent.

The MEDIA (because journalists ALSO follow the breaking news here) will FOLLOW these leads.

The stories which are not valid will fall by the wayside.

But JESUS look how long it took for the CIA outing story to get real media concern.

The freakin' CIA had to bust Bush (it was NOT the media). But we here at DU were calling this TREASONOUS and ILLEGAL MONTHS and MONTHS ago.

Clark's shenanigans for Stephens and Stephens' shenanigans with the Saudis - Bin Ladens and Bush will ALL be coming out soon as sharp independent-minded journalists read these stories here and try top get them published across america.

Clark worked for the people who arranged the Bin Laden financing of Shrub's Harken deal.

He was a white house fellow in a republican white house when Bush I was head of the CIA, and Cheney and Rummie were in charge of his activities ( white house fellows usually answer ultimately to the chief of staff)

These facts cannot be refuted


and ultimately mainstream dems will say yuck foo to this dumbfucklican general.




:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DiverDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #66
85. I dont trust clark
and I dont trust all you folks that tell me that I am bashing him because I dont support him.
So flame me, I dont care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
79. I think this has cost Clark my vote
I'm very disappointed. No vote for Clark in my state's primary.

Probably not, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. Should He Prove The Nominee, Sir
Will you vote for him in the general election?

That is really what matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #79
92. Maybe You Should Vote For Me...
I have never pulled the R lever in twenty seven years of voting....

I have never advocated raising the Social Security Retirement Age

I have never advocated cutting Medicare

I would appoint more judges like John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Steven Bryer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I will work through multilateral institutions and use force only as a last resort...

I am pro choice and not just recently....


I am 100% pure.....

On second thought come 11/04 I'll vote for myself...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #79
103. Good for You Walt Starr
When people know the truth about Clark they will join you.

Many will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
108. PB, this is a very forward request I'm about to make-
Tell me to take a flying leap if you must, but

Maybe you could ask him how he was registered before he officially registered Democrat? Or suggest he come out and publicly state it. You and I both know he couldn't exactly run around being belligerent towards either party while he was in uniform, and I have NO doubt he's a helluva LOT more liberal than most Officers, or even enlisted members I've met over the years.

I just get the feeling Democrats would be much more comfortable if he announced he'd previously been registered anything BUT Republican. I know petty and silly, but my honest feeling is that the animosity that has grown by leaps and bounds thanks to Bush has caught General Clark in the snare, and I hate to see that.

Some of this stuff being spouted against Clark blows my mind in spite of my support for Kucinich! Cripes, people, the man has NEVER claimed to be as left as my candidate is! Then the stuff about supposedly supporting the war- well I don't see that anywhere. I see him talking about the apparent philosophy of Bushco, but he never said he agreed with them. Yes, we all know ex-military people have contacts still in the services, but come ON now! We're talking about divulging matters of National Security to a civilian! Trusted or not, you can't be screwing around that way. He watched it from the outside just like the rest of us, the only difference being that he had some experience on the other side of the fence. That's not exactly the same as knowing vital facts about the operations.

His speech to the DNC was fabulous, and it went a long way towards allaying any worries I was developing from any of it. I WILL say I want to know about the document Kucinich brought up, HOWEVER, I'm inclined to believe my suspicions about Clark's contribution to it-that being that he has the expertise and believed he could help bring more of our soldiers home alive by sharing it than by sitting silent. I also suspect there is something important in that document, Kucinich can't talk about it freely, it may or may not be any of Wesley Clark's contribution(Kucinich likely doesn't know that himself), and that this was Kucinich's way of trying to get the public to raise a fuss to see it. I could see Wesley Clark doing the same thing if he were bound by oaths but believed there was something that ought to be brought forth to the public. I could be wrong, but I'd like to think he would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. I can address your question but ...
I cannot ask him anything. His political people have him sequestered away from us regular people which is why, as I deal with these folk, I quit playing some time ago. Egos far bigger than their brains in most instances.

However, this was the crux of what you asked:

"Maybe you could ask him how he was registered before he officially registered Democrat? Or suggest he come out and publicly state it. You and I both know he couldn't exactly run around being belligerent towards either party while he was in uniform, and I have NO doubt he's a helluva LOT more liberal than most Officers, or even enlisted members I've met over the years."

In our home state of Arkansas, there is no party registration. Let me repeat that: there is NO party registration. Arkansas has open primaries and anyone can vote on them on the day of the primary. Further, there is no mechinism under Arkasas law to even reflect your party on your registration.

No one in Arkansas is a registered anything. One becomes a Democrat when one votes in the Democratic Primary. I expect that if Wesley voted at all in primaries, he vote in the Democratic because frankly, when Wesley was away, there were no gop primaries to speak of. The winner of the Democratic primary was, for the most part, the winner of the general election. Gops didn't even bother to run candidates for some statewide offices, much less lesser offices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clovis Sangrail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
113. I like cheese n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-03 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
116. Another Dean Flip Flop....
Not counting numerous policy flip-flops, I thought
of another Dean flip flop.

Just a few days ago, Dean stated it was up to the
people of the Democratic Party to decide whether
Clark's Democratic credentials were genuine. He
seemed to have flip-flopped on that today by
calling Clark a Republican 5 times in the space
of two paragraphs. It seems like he couldn't
let the people judge anymore when they put Clark on top
in yet another poll. Dean had to usurp that message
of support for Clark with one of his own.

I make no apology for going after Dean now, he sank
to a new low today. God, I hope Wes Clark keeps the
high ground and doesn't take the bait. If he stays
positive and on-message, this is the beginning of the
end for Dean. I predicted his implosion and I think
today is the first sign of it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC