Is Clark the Democratic Ronald Reagan?

[knowledgeispower]

You know, not really committed to the ideology, but electable as all hell. Basically a stooge for the party. It seems to me that Clark has never been a dedicated democrat, and is only running under the auspices of the party because it is expedient for him to do so. But in order for the party's support (or at least the DLC's support), Clark has to agree to be a puppet.

Is this possible?

And if so, is this a bad thing?

[CMT]

1. it remains to be seen

how he will perform with the voters--or how any of the candidates will. I think he is basically a centrist.

[_Wayne_]

2. It's a comparison I shudder to make

There are some similarities; but I think Clark is committed to his principles, more so than Reagan was. Clark getting the support of the DLC, in my opinion, is smart politics, and not selling out-it just depends on your perpective.

[knowledgeispower]

7. I completely agree, sort of

Clark getting the support of the DLC, in my opinion, is smart politics, and not selling out-it just depends on your perpective.

I agree that it is all a matter of perspective. Reagan, after all, did win 2 terms, and he did a lot for pushing the Republican agenda during that time. Clark could do the same, but for the good guys. I can see that logic, but I would just be more confident in a guy I knew believed in the democratic principles.

[Yupster]

34. I think the better Reagan analogy

would be to Dean rather than to Clark.

Reagan threatened the party by saying he wanted to make it more ideological.

The party said he couldn't win so they were afraid of him.

I see the same complaints against Dean.

I don't see the comparison to Clark at all.

[Upfront]

43. Clark Has Brains

Ronnie lacked in that area.

[Brian Sweat]

3. To which part of the Democratic ideology is he not committed?

[knowledgeispower]

5. right now?

I don't know. He talks the party line all the way (even when it comes to the war he is DLC-"I think it needed to be done but Bush didn't do it right").

But he isn't even a registered Democrat yet. There are questions as to who he voted for in 2000, or if he even did at all. Hell, he wouldn't even say what political affiliation he was until a few weeks ago.

My point is, he has only recently become a Democrat because he wants to be Prez.

[catforclark2004]

11. Wes Clark voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore...so get over it.

knowledgeispower, you don't know who Wes Clark voted for in 2000 cause you ain't been reading......must have been watching Hardball....cause Tweety said the exact same thing on the 23rd of Sept....after he had asked Clark in on his 9/17 show that question:

Wes Clark answered....."I voted for Gore"........

Save this post so that you can read it when you are wondering later on again!

[knowledgeispower]

18. Two things:

1) What about the tape of Clark speaking at a Republican fundraising party? I will accept that Clark voted for Gore in 2000 because you seem pretty sure of it. But that doesn't really change the overall point, which is that Clark has hardly ever been a hardline Democrat. He WOULDN'T EVEN SAY WHAT HIS POLITICAL AFFILIATION WAS until a few weeks ago.

Once again, I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. He is veyr electable after all, and could do a lot to further the Democratic agenda. I am just saying, lets not pretend he is some kind of party loyalist.

2) Have you ever considered that bashing people might not be the best way to endear them to you or your candidate? I swear, both Deanies and the Clark supporters can be so damn hostile when someone says something they don't like about their candidate.

[cprise]

38. That could be a lie

Sorry, but who really knows that for sure?

[bicentennial_baby]

12. No there isn't

"There are questions as to who he voted for in 2000, or if he even did at all"

Jeebus christ people, Clark has stated several times in the past 3 weeks who he voted for in 2000. GORE!

He said it on Hardball on 9/17/03. I can't access the transcript right now, but I know Josh Marshall had a link to it on his site last week.

[Kool Kitty]

19. He also said that where he lives, you don't have to pick a party in

order to vote. So he didn't. Now he had to choose a party and he chose to become a Democrat. It's in the interview at the "Talking Points Memo" website.

[bicentennial_baby]

24. Yep

If you look at the party affiliation box on the Arkansas voter reg form, it says "optional"

[KittyWampus]

15. Clark Did Not Say "I think it needed to be done"

Regarding the Iraq War. Clark has said, in detail, that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the threats.

He also critiqued the notion of attacking Iraq as an 19th century tactic whereby the Neo Cons are trying to land on the shores of the Middle East and take over control by playing hopscotch... from Iraq to Syria etc.

It seems as if you haven't read anything he has written or listened to anything he has actually said.

By the way, he also is talked about trimming Pentagon spending... no where does the DLC come into any of that?

NOWHERES!

Furthermore, he is registered as an Independent and hasn't had a chance to change his registration or file the papers for Presidential Candidacy. He is also working on an Economic Plan. He took a while to get his Issues section together on his official website.

The fact IS he actually WAS considering to run for President all that time he SAID he was still considering his candidacy.

Or do you think the fact that he is building his campaign ground up is all a ploy?

[phegger]

52. well, technically...

...yes.

My point is, he has only recently become a Democrat because he wants to be Prez.

He needed to declare a party affiliation in order to run. But I believe him when he says that his party affiliation reflects his values, and I don't believe he constructed a whole new set of values just in order to run.

Lots of people have been turned off by * and his cronies. Clark sounds like a pretty idealistic guy to me. I suppose he could be faking it, but I honestly don't see any reason to assume this.


-ph :smoke:


edit to make sense

[DemExpat]

4. Well, Reagan turned out to be a popular Neo-Con......

maybe Clark will be a popular, 2 term Super-Liberal!
:evilgrin:
:kick:
DemEx

[cprise]

23. It's called neo-liberal

* NAFTA (but no labor rights)

* Privatization (schools, water, power, etc.)

* Diplomacy

* Lovely talk about universal healthcare

* More lovely talk. Make people feel GOOD.

[DemExpat]

39. Maybe we'll see.....super or neo......liberal

Clark.

His potential for international diplomacy is what attracts me the most in him as a candidate, but I'd love to see him make steps in healthcare, labor, and public services too.


DemEx

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. Yep, just like Dean and Kerry and Clinton

Nafta, privatization, diplomacy, "Universal Health Care" - just like Hillary Clinton.

[cprise]

46. Dean is against NAFTA, thank goodness

He knows now it is lopsided and anti-worker, anti-environment.

He also created at least one major public service in VT relating to healthcare. So privatization is not high on his list.

"Universal healthcare" - the quotes are so appropriate

[phegger]

47. Please explain...

NAFTA (but no labor rights)

Please explain why you believe Clark supports NAFTA w/o labor rights. I believe he has said--somebody correct me if I'm wrong--that trade agreements like NAFTA need to include labor and environmental standards.

Privatization (schools, water, power, etc.)

From TPM interview:

"The American people want government to fix the things they can't fix themselves. The American people are basically individualists. They like each other; they're very charitable and generous; they're bound together in a hundred different ways -- they're not a big-government country. They're not socialists. But they recognize there are things they can't fix, like healthcare, or education--public education."

Diplomacy

What's wrong with diplomacy?

Lovely talk about universal healthcare

I don't mind lovely talk if it's followed up by action. Clark has said he'll be coming out with a healthcare plan in the coming weeks. I'll reserve judgement until then.

More lovely talk. Make people feel GOOD.

What does this mean? Is this referring to the "he has no political record" meme? (god, I never thought I'd use that word!)

He has no conventional political record, I'll grant you that. But he does have a record of getting things done. Do you think his proposals are just empty rhetoric? I suppose they might be, but I personally have no reason to think so.

I'm interested in Clark, but I'm waiting for more information before making up my mind. It sounds like you've already made yours up, and that's fine, but I would hope you'd do it on the basis of good information, not a convenient label.


-ph :smoke:

[cprise]

6. Puppet status = DLC

No thanks.

They want media deregulation and NAFTA without the Bush tax cuts. But if you make corporations that powerful, they'll be able to buy/brainwash us into gving them taxcuts anyway.

Low standards on policy are only acceptable when the opponent is popular, which Bush is not. IMO, this is no time to let a Republican waltz in with "I'm a Liberal!", split the base and/or give us another helping of unrestrained corporate power.

[knowledgeispower]

10. Well stated

This pretty much sums up my position. But I still have to admit that deep down the prospect of a mondale-type election landslide (in our favor this time)--and a popular 2 term President--excites me.

[catforclark2004]

16. Wes Clark said that the FCC needs to roll regulations back to pre 1987

Wes Clark said that the FCC needs to roll regulations back to pre 1987...when the law was changed to exclude equal time.....

Why is everyone so wrong about Clark?....

Is it jealousy?????? Does giving a candidate a contribution makes them their slave forever.

What is most sad are the statements posted have no basis in fact.

Those who have experienced WAR work for PEACE!

[catforclark2004]

21. Clark said FCC back to 1987 in NH after Town Hall Meeting

Watch the C-Span town hall meeting.....after the meeting, when wes was talking to the attendees, one asked him about the FCC.....he said.....should be rolled back to 1987!

[KittyWampus]

25. Not Everyone Is Wrong About Clark- Just A Vocal Minority

:+

[cprise]

32. Why was everyone so wrong about Bush?

Wesley was comfortable enough with Bush/Republican sachenfraude even AFTER Bush had a year in office. He helped win a Republican majority in Congress.

He LIKES those people!

Therefore I cannot trust him.


"Wesley Said! Wesley Said!" WHATEVER! Where was he for liberals when the money was on the line? With the RNC!

Sweet words from a compassionate Republican.

[phegger]

49. We need those people who were wrong about Bush, and there's a lot of them.

He helped win a Republican majority in Congress

Did he?

Where was he for liberals when the money was on the line? With the RNC!

If you're referring to the Little Rock fundraiser, I believe he also spoke at Democratic fundraisers.

Sweet words from a compassionate Republican

I'm glad you admit he's compassionate, at least.


-ph :smoke:

[phegger]

48. Because...

...it's easier to set up a strawman and knock him down.

I expect to have legitimate disagreements about candidates, but having disagreements based on misinformation is just plain self-defeating.


-ph :smoke:

edit for lousy grammar

[bluefire2000]

22. Not a puppet

If he were, his campaign wouldn't have allowed him to forget to register as a democrat.

[cprise]

36. "You just say what you need to get in office little Wesley..."

"...and we'll give you a NICE cabinet once you get in office."

Bush did the same, only since he was running as a Republican he had to say "I'm a Conservative!", while Wesley's lie is meant for Democrats: "I'm a Liberal!"

He needs to DO something to pass muster. I don't know what. It's not anyone's fault but his that he lacks experience. When did he move and shake for liberal causes?? What does he spent his time on when the money is on the line?

[catforclark2004]

8. Key word "electable as hell".....GET BUSH OUT IN 2004!

There you go.....That's what I need.....a candidate that can beat Bush.

He was not a puppet while in the military and won't be a puppet now. Wes Clark took 4 bullets in Vietnam.....He told he command to F-ck o-f when confronted with controversy! He is a man's man, a Soldier's soldier...an Officer and a Gentleman!

I have no doubts that when it comes to puppetry, it will be him pulling the strings diplomatically at the U.N. to get us out of the mess that we are in....it will be Clark that will tell those PNAC minions to get the hell out of Washington! It will be Wes Clark that will cut the defense budget (cause he knows about the waste that goes on...he knows how to get lean and mean) and restore our treasury to shore up social security, medicare and implement some health care legislation!

However, In reviewing Deans records from some previous threads, I would say that there are a lot of that does not seem to meet the eye. Maybe Dean has made a puppet out of his followers? They all seem so mean to Clark....like they hate the fact that they gave up money to his campaign....and now there is a new guy in town. If I didn't know any better, I would call it jealousy....but I won't.

[clar]

14. Please see my post

I am a Dean supporter. So much for your theory.

As for electability, I don't know as of yet, how electable Clark is. That remains to be seen. He's only been in a couple of weeks. Let's see how he does on the campaign trail.

[catforclark2004]

31. Please see MY POST

I didn't guess who you were supporting? A political contribution is like a bet...you don't always win.

Those who have experienced WAR work for PEACE.

Support our Troups, ELECT ONE!

[DemCam]

30. I like the way you said this.

"He was not a puppet while in the military and won't be a puppet now."

Yeah, baby!

[cprise]

44. Why should we let anyone split the base without intense scrutiny?

FYI- The establishment doesn't care about war anymore... They've made their money and know they've used-up their war politician. The UN already has a plan any Dem or moderate Repub could follow for improving global relations.

The WTO is finally dead, no thanks Bush, Clark or even Clinton. At least Dean could strike the same note as the poor nations in Cancun: No more double-standards. The 3rd world will develop the same general way we did.

Now we have to remove or reform the IMF, World Bank and NAFTA.

These are the instruments of economic violence.

[phegger]

50. "the establishment"...

...will care about war as long as they think they can get away with using war to advance corporate interests.

About NAFTA, WTO etc.--these are absolutely instruments of economic violence, designed to suck $$ out of poor countries for the benefit of transglobal corportions who owe no allegiance to anything but their bottom line.

The 3rd world will develop the same general way we did.

What do you mean by "general"? Did I understand Dean to say that our trading partners should have the same labor standards as the US? Trouble is, wouldn't that exclude (in the short term) anyone outside Western Europe? There was some mention during the last debate about using ILO standards.

Can you point me in the direction of Dean policy statements about trade? Couldn't find anything specific on his site.


-ph :smoke:

[clar]

9. I wish people

would start taking things at face value. If, instead of attributing the worst, most nefarious motives to our candidates, we operated on the assumption that these are 10 basically decent human beings, we'd strengthen rather than weaken the party.

I see no reason to assume that Clark is a puppet or unwitting tool of any group. The DLC may very well be backing him as the anti-Dean. I may not like it, but that's their perogative.

I believe Clark is running because he believes that he's the best candidate. Same for most of the others. Some are running to further platforms they believe in.

Yes, I wih that Clark had a long history in the Democratic party, but I also wish that other candidates had made different choices in the past.

We need to stop compulsively nit picking, support our chosen candidates and move away from the politics of mutual destruction.

[knowledgeispower]

13. I think I am asking a very legitimate question

I am not bashing and I am not nitpicking. I am just operating under the assumption that Clark is Reagan-like (as outlined in post #1), and asking if that is a bad thing. I don't know the answer to that question. I am quite torn over it, really. But I don't see any harm in recognizing reality and having reasonable debate about it.

[clar]

17. I didn't say

you were bashing, but I would suggest that if you don't want to be seen in that light, you use less potentially inflamatory words than stooge and puppet.

[knowledgeispower]

20. Good point

I just got carried away with the Reagan analogy. I really don't mean it in a bad way, I guess it just seems like that Reagan is such a piece of $hit. But I am saying Clark could be that (successful) for OUR side.

[phegger]

53. Have you read the TPM interview?

Some interesting mention of Reagan. I suppose I could give the guy credit for something, if I could stand it. I remember that I considered moving out of the country when he got elected...it would have been hard to imagine at that time that we might end up with something even worse.

I'm glad I stuck around to fight.


-ph :smoke:

[phegger]

51. "taking things at face value"....

...can be dangerous. We all need to make our best judgements based on the information available (which is what I assume you meant). But I agree with you about "the politics of mutual destruction". The base won't be split unless we allow it to be.


-ph :smoke:

[boxster]

26. I think he's a lot smarter and a lot more independent

(not in the political sense) than Reagan was, so I don't think the puppet or stooge theory really applies here.

[childslibrarian]

27. I don't think a former Rhodes Scholar and a 4 star general would agree..

to be a puppet. Remember, Regan was an ACTOR.

[knowledgeispower]

28. Good point

A B-movie actor at that.

[boxster]

29. Yep, I used to say that he was a much better actor as President

than he was in any of the movies he did.

[hedda_foil]

37. But what no one seems to know or remember is that EISENHOWER WAS A PUPPET!

And he was a hell of a lot more important a general and national hero than Clark could ever have hoped to have been. He spoke against the MIC at the very end of his second term from the insight that they had run his entire fucking presidency.

The man was called a "caretaker" president. He was never seen to do very much while in office other than play golf and go to Camp David. And he was in charge of the entire European Theatre in WWII.

Generals are very accustomed to taking their marching orders from others. That's how they got where they are.

[Yupster]

33. Big Difference

is that Reagan was around forever when he got elected president.

He had run in the primaries against Nixon in 68. He ran in the primaries against Ford in 76. He had made speeches and written articles outlining his hard-right stands since the late 40's at least. People knew what Reagan stood for and either hated him or loved him.

Wesley Clark? He kind of came out of nowhere. When he said he was running, everybody had to ask where he stood on each different issue. He's kind of a blank slate. There was even wondering which party he'd run for when the rumors of his running first started.

No comparison to Reagan.

A stooge for the party? Reagan's people took over the party. People like Phyllis Schlafly were considered crazy aunts until Reagan welcomed her in. The party leaders thought him unelectable and pushed for Ford in 76. The Carter people were rooting for Reagan in 1976 and 1980 in the primaries because they thought ne was so ideological that he'd be the easiest one to beat.

Where does the idea that Reagan wasn't committed to the ideology come from? Having remembered him from 68 to today, I never saw him waver from the hard right philosophy he spoke. In fact the first time he impressed me was on a Buckley PBS debate. Naturally, he was captain of the hard right side. Buckley was captain of the side saying we should turn Panama Canal over to the Panamanians. Reagan was the other captan saying no. He was as impressive a debator as Buckley was. This would have been in 1977-78.

Many younger people only remember the halting, older Reagan. He wasn't always that way. He was the young, charming, true beiiever of the conservative cause, the first neo-con. He's the father of Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanon, George Will, Phil Gramm, Rush Limbaugh, Phyllis Schlaffly, David Horowicz and our current president.

[sweetheart]

35. clark has an opportunity

Mr. Clark is my number 2 because he is status-quo on the drugs war. Kucinich is number 1 because he is not... among a zillion other reasons. but is he a reagan?

It is a question for Mr. clark himself if he has it in him to take us all on board as his friends and make us a unified country and world again after the fractious and divisive devilry of the criminal-right. I don't deny that he is a brilliant candidate would seriously could be a unity administration doing the third way dance.

Just that the war does not end at the white house... it is a long ugly war against neocon terrorism... and it will take years to root out those racist warmongering scum from the legislatures and congress that the republican party become extinct.

That Mr. Clark supports a drugs war position that declares "me" the enemy because i smoke cannabis... leads me to wonder what his liberalism is about, and maybe indeed he learned something at oxford and has yet to unveil it. I hope so. I would love to support a winning president that returns the world to liberality.

[phegger]

54. You smoke cannibis????

Just kidding...

What has Clark said/done about the drug war? I've been trying to find out what his positions are, but I haven't heard him mention this one.


-ph :smoke:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. If Wes Clark Is Committed To Liberalism As Ronald Reagan Was To

conservatism Wes Clark will be a great liberal warrior...

Say what you want about Reagan he was a true believer.....

[amazona]

42. i totally disagree with this reading of Clark

I don't believe he is anyone's puppet. His reputation has been as someone too ornery and too opposed to the usual office politics of ***-kissing. If he was just playing puppet, he could have played along to get along and had a much easier time of it over the years. I have to conclude that his support of Clinton, Gore, and the Democrats stem from deep-rooted belief developed slowly over the years. He could have had a much easier time of it if he hadn't bothered to think for himself. Reagan was an empty suit. He was showing symptoms of some sort of mental deficiency even as governor of California. You cannot fairly compare the two in my humble opinion.

After 9-11, Clark was asked again to join the GOP. He refused. I don't think it reflects badly on an individual that Satan tempted him and he refused, else, we would have to wonder about Jesus up on that mountaintop. Was he really a Christian? Why was he talking to Lucifer then? Why should anyone look at all their options before making a snap judgment that could affect the rest of his life?


reagan is proof that strong drink does not open the blood vessels enough to protect against alzheimer's

[Skwmom]

45. Clark is no stooge.

Unlike Reagan he actually has a brain.