So, Clark "isn't against school vouchers" now?

[PurityOfEssence]

According to the post about Chris Heinz' salon with Wesley Clark, he has reversed his position on vouchers. Throughout the primary season, many of his supporters vehemently denied that he'd ever waffled on the subject, and claimed that he was steadfastly against the concept. Since his stance for education was one of the only bits of his record he could use to show his progressive credentials, this is all the more annoying.

Now, he is "not against" the concept of vouchers.

Conservatism is selfishness and the protection of one's dynasty above any obligation to society. Lest we forget, vouchers are also code for allowing people to fuck the tax base and pull monies out for religious education. Regardless, the concept is based on covering one's own ass instead of being a member of society.

Why the change? Is this political calculation to suck theocrats into the fold? Is it expediency? Is it latent conservatism bubbling to the surface? It sure as hell isn't anything that shows solidarity with the concept of public education.

This issue is a litmus test for decency: do you give a fuck about your society, or is your personal life the only thing that matters? Worse still, the office of "President" is best described starting with "politician"; anyone who would blithely try to sit on the fence about such a HUGE hot-button issue is either self-indulgently sloppy or inept.

Is it a change, or did he duck this and maneuver around it all along? If it's a change, then WHY? If he's thinking about it, then what's his plan? If he doesn't have a plan, but is merely cozening up to the concept, what the hell sloppy version of molly-coddling is that?

[Pithlet]

1. If this is true

He will not get my support as a primary candidate.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

17. Thanks

It sounds like it isn't true. I'm glad. Although he isn't my only candidate of choice, I would support him if he wins the nomination.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. From CarolNYC's thread: "...we’re not against school vouchers..."

If you have a scrap of integrity, you need to retract that slur. Not only am I not lying, I'm not even selectively representing. If this reporting is to be disregarded, is all the rest of the summary of the party to also be dismissed.

By what privilege do you claim the right to impugn my honesty?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

52. LYING?! I quoted in context

What more context can there be? We want to do what's best for the country? HE SAID THAT "WE" (not me, maybe haters of pluralism) are not against vouchers.

This is not framing, this is fine cabinet-making. There's no room for quibbling about this: he's saying that we will not stand in the way of voucher programs. Whether he's going to actively take the banner of primitiveness in his hand or merely stand there with his hands in his pockets as others do it, he's on the wrong moral side of the issue.

Moderators, before you delete this as you've done before, note that this person accuses of lying when simple and straight quoting is done. Does partisanship loose one of any morality? Does the heat of the mob rule here?

Once again, the conservative techniques of accusing an opponent of stupidity (duh) and deception (lying) are coupled with a veiled threat of knowing what a sub-human one's opponent is.

Just stay away from Toto, okay?

[cestpaspossible]

56. Besides, the rules specifically prohibit calling a post a lie.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[FrenchieCat]

14. May I ask you this?

has the Op ed author given you information that would allow you to conclude that Wes Clark is or is not for vouchers? All I see is a commentary accusing Clark of changing his stance....but I do not see anything put out by the thread offer that really shows that.

Maybe we should wait to see where this goes. Purity does not care for General Clark.....so, I think it's up to Purity to demonstrate something to show that this post is accurate.

[Pithlet]

16. Hence, the "IF" n/t

[KittyWampus]

18. You Are Very Wise. It's Refreshing. Thanks!

:)

[Sparkly]

2. If you're going to cite something from another thread,

How about quoting it?

He came back to the voucher thing a couple of times because folks asked him about it in the Q&A. He said what we really need to do is help the public schools out. We’re not against school choice but the ones who don’t have the resources that allow them to make a choice are the ones that need the educational help the most and they will be the ones who will get left behind if we don’t focus on fixing what’s wrong with the public schools and giving them the resources they need. He spoke of how, when in the military, they pushed and pushed Congressman Jerry Lewis until they finally got a new school built in Ft. Irwin, CA. Also, he mentioned that he’d been asked to be superintendent of school system in CA when he’d gotten out of the military (which I don’t think I knew) and that, though he’d turned it down, he did spend a lot of time learning about the California public school system and then he ticked off about 6 or 7 things that were wrong and needed to be changed.

[Adelante]

7. The preceding paragraph -- he's talking about *language*

He talked again about Dems defending other Dems and how people won’t believe that Dems will be able to defend the country until they start defending each other. He said our principles are sound but that we need to articulate them in such a way that people can see that we are the ones who really want to do what’s good for the country….we’re not against gun ownership, we’re for what’s good for the country, we’re not against school vouchers, we’re for what’s good for the country. I guess part of it is articulating that we’re FOR something not just AGAINST something and what we want is what’s good for the country.

[ultraist]

10. "We’re not against school choice " Is he or isn't he opposed to vouchers?

No one has provided a link to a direct quote from Clark on where he stands on this.

("School choice" IS vouchers).

[Nederland]

32. Not necessarily

Here where I live in Boulder County Colorado parents can send there kid to any public school they want, including a wide range of charter schools. Money follows the parent's choice. Even though all the schools you can choose are public schools, people around here call it "School Choice".

[ultraist]

35. OH! That's not the case in my area.

The "quote" wherever it came from is unclear to me.

[Coexist]

38. you can do that in a lot of Florida counties too

[CarolNYC]

3. Whoa!

That's either a total misreading of my post...or a purposeful twisting of words worthy of Karl Rove and Matt Drudge. In fact, and I think I related this in my post, he spent a lot of the night explaining just why school vouchers were so wrong.

Thanks a million for not posting this in my nice thread...but please do read my whole post again. If you still can't figure out why what you've gotten out of what I posted is wrong, I'll try to explain more later....

[LetsGoMurphys]

4. i would not even think about

voting for a candidate who isn't vehemently against school vouchers.

[Adelante]

5. Me, neither nt

And I would vote for Wes Clark in an instant.

[Dinger]

6. I See No Proof, Sorry

I asked Wesley Clark a question on vouchers at a town hall meeting (Nov. '03 in Green Bay, Wi), and he told me he is not for vouchers, and went into some detail on the harm they do to the public schools. I am a public school teacher, and when the General tells me that, looking me straight in the eye (swoon), that's good enough for me. I do have pics of this, but they are not of the best quality, and for now, I want to remain relatively annonymous for now. I will, however, send it to an admin as proof.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I'm sorry, but could you specifically get the quote in where

Clark said that he is FOR vouchers. I don't see where you've done that yet. I know you dislike Clark....so I just want to make sure you're not doing a "Drudge" here. We wouldn't want to end up having look like a "storyteller"....now would we?

I'll await your reply.

Thank you.

[ultraist]

11. "We are not against school choice." School choice is vouchers.

Although I have no idea where that quote came from or if it's a direct Clark quote because no link was provided.

[KittyWampus]

13. It's An Indirect, Incomplete Quote. He Went On To Make His Point.

the only reason to take that snippet as meaning he's for school vouchers is if you're intent, as opening poster is, on smearing Clark and lying about him.

School choice... are you saying public education should be mandated for ALL children whether parents want to send them to private or not? :)

Edit- I know you're not... :)
:hi:

[ultraist]

28. "School choice" is vouchers. But again, no one has provided a link

to a direct Clark quote. So at this point, it's all heresay. I still don't understand where Clark stands on vouchers ("school choice").

"We are NOT opposed to school choice" IS an endorsement of vouchers but others claim that he does not support vouchers.

You're right about me not being opposed to people sending their children to private school, if they so choose. My daughter has attended private school in the past but I certainly wouldn't have applied for $300 or $400 in public assistance to subsidize the 8k a year tuition.

If someone can afford 6k-20k a year tuition for their child, they should not be taking welfare (vouchers) and draining money out of the public school system. The amount of those vouchers only helps those who can afford the remaining tuition amounts. It does NOT help poor children attend private schools. That is a Bush myth.

[Clark2008]

42. Direct quote and link

I believe that the best way to educate our children is by strengthening the public school system, not taking resources away from them.

Q: Do you support allowing parents in areas that are poor or with bad schools to use tax money to help send their children to private schools?

A: I oppose all measures that would weaken our public school system, including school vouchers.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Education.htm

Satisfied, now?

[cestpaspossible]

51. Gee

wasn't the point of the original poster that he thought Clark's recent remarks were inconsistent with his previous position?

[ZootSuitGringo]

53. No.

I don't think that the actual point of the thread was to show inconsistency, since there was no inconsistency.

The point for the thread was to stir up some baseless shit.

[cestpaspossible]

55. I guess my mindreading abilities need work.

[PurityOfEssence]

61. Yep.

One has to live or die by one's statements and actions; this is precisely why it's so hard for Senators to win national elections: they have to stand up and be counted on all sorts of things that can be skewed later.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Here you go, in context, from my other post

"He talked again about Dems defending other Dems and how people won’t believe that Dems will be able to defend the country until they start defending each other. He said our principles are sound but that we need to articulate them in such a way that people can see that we are the ones who really want to do what’s good for the country. We’re not against gun ownership, we’re for what’s good for the country, we’re not against school vouchers, we’re for what’s good for the country."

[cestpaspossible]

65. So if anyone has any doubts, they should read your post

it's clear that he's talking about a way of talking about the issues.

And THAT'S HOW TO REFUTE A CHARGE

not just by calling another poster names and impugning their motives but by addressing the facts of the issue.

[Coexist]

40. "School choice" is vouchers?

Not where I am from - and "school choice" (besides choosing to send your child to another school in the county system, as long as there is room and you will transport them) also includes various schools, like the IB high school or one of the "trade" high schools.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. See above, and refer to CarolNYC's thread

He doesn't say "we're for them", he says "we're not against" them. If she is remembering things in a hazy way or writing in a misleading way, that's one thing, but from reading her post, it seems very clear.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

20. it's not lame....

it's just plain ugly...and a petty pathetic attempt to stir up some shit. I feel sorry for those who really obviously have nothing better to do.

[Donna Zen]

15. Congratulations on the misleading thread title!

Wow... of course you know that Clark expresses no support for vouchers in the talk at Chris Hienz.. you know that! But now you have successfully implanted the idea in the mind of those skimming the forum without reading the denial of CarolNYC--the writer of the piece you cite.

Currently in GDP there is a thread wondering what Rove will do to smear Clark--I say "why bother Rove, when so many are so willing to smear Clark in supposed progressive forums."

Would you change the title considering Carol's post if you were intellectually honest? Of course. But that is not the purpose of this thread: the payday is the title--the more misleading the better.

Disgusted.

[Donna Zen]

21. Is this just a post-and-run?

Since the damage is in the title, maybe there is nothing more to say. Whadya think?

[Adelante]

25. There's a new trick, too

One of the posters in this thread came up with it, in fact. You leave Wes's name OUT of the title and the lying smear goes on the inside. You know, Clark supporters don't open any thread that doesn't have his name in it? Wasn't he surprised, not only to learn that we do, but that his state primary, which he was bellowing that Wes lost, took place after Wes was no longer in the race. Such innovation.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. I consider thread-tending a duty

One who starts a thread should stand by it and the hubbub it causes; you'll note that this thread developed VERY quickly. My not having responded before the post count got into the thirties was a result of the speed with which people chimed in.

This is specifically taken from the Chris Heinz salon that CarolNYC described, and that should have been fairly obvious from the wording off the original post. See my quote from her thread above and go back and read her thread.

I'll take my lumps and stand by my posts, and when wrong, admit them publicly. After four years of very regular posting here, that should be fairly apparent. He's either changed his mind, playing both sides of the street, or so cavalier and sloppy in his wording about something incredibly serious that his worth as a politician is seriously in question. The latter point is almost indefensible: he said "we" are not against them, and the word "vouchers" was used specifically. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Also, when accusing people of bomb-throwing and running away, take a look at the elapsed time. A few hours are reasonable before chiming back in, don't you think? Some of us work.

[ieoeja]

44. It means:

We shouldn't be framing the discussion by saying we're against {fill-in-the-blank}. We should be saying what we're FOR.

That's how I understood it the first time I read it in it's entirety. I tried re-reading it half a dozen times to see it your way, and it's just not happening.

[Donna Zen]

48. Thanks

You read it exactly right. Basic framing 101...our values are good values--say what we are for.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. No, that's mealy-mouthed evasiveness

How absolutely ridiculous. If you're not against vouchers, you won't stand in their way. Just because you won't actively foster and promote them doesn't mean you'll fight them. It certainly means that you won't stop them at every turn.

Decent people are AGAINST vouchers. How hard is that to understand?

That statement is either endorsement of vouchers or a wink and a nod reminder that you won't get in the way.

[LandOLincoln]

66. Decent people are also opposed to those who persist in

sliming good liberal Democrats based on a willful misunderstanding of statements that have been explained again and again.

BTW, my mother's family are all educators and supported Dennis Kucinich until they took a good long look at Clark's positions on education (as well as his own educational background). My aunt--a retired econ professor--was of course especially happy to discover he had a Master's in econ from Oxford, and had taught the subject as an assistant professor at West Point in the early seventies.

[Field Of Dreams]

22. Clark bashers with selective reading comprehension...

it's the new learning disability.

[Connie_Corleone]

23. This is really getting old.

Some people love to post half-quotes of Clark's, sometimes no quote at all to prove whatever point they're trying to make.

The Bush administration does this all the time. I didn't expect it here on DU.

[Jai4WKC08]

26. Sadly it happens all the time at DU

Much more important to attack Dems you don't like than to support each other. Even if the attack involves lies and half-truths. Maybe especially if it does.

[sendero]

24. That sure didn't sound like the Wes Clark...

... I knew, and it turns out it wasn't what he said. Can't say I'm surprised.

[LittleClarkie]

27. He was trying to explain being for rather than against something

The whole thing in context:

"He talked again about Dems defending other Dems and how people won’t believe that Dems will be able to defend the country until they start defending each other. He said our principles are sound but that we need to articulate them in such a way that people can see that we are the ones who really want to do what’s good for the country….we’re not against gun ownership, we’re for what’s good for the country, we’re not against school vouchers, we’re for what’s good for the country. I guess part of it is articulating that we’re FOR something not just AGAINST something and what we want is what’s good for the country."

We could add we're FOR choice, not AGAINST life. Looks like he's trying to frame the issues as being FOR rather than AGAINST, taking us away from being labelled obstructionist.

Reminds me of a scene in the Woody Guthrie movie "Homeward Bound" (I think it was called) where someone asked Woody if he was for socialism. He said he was for whatever worked.

[lukasahero]

29. "anyone who would....try to sit on the fence about such a HUGE hot-button

issue is either self-indulgently sloppy or inept" Is this a joke?

I would suggest that a truly huge hot-button issue might have been the Iraq War but plenty of Dem politicians have tried to "sit on the fence" about it. But I'm guessing the point of this post isn't really about politicians, dems or education.

[returnable]

30. Lamest. Distortion. Ever.

:thumbsdown:

[ClarkUSA]

33. FERCRIPESSAKE! What a lame attempt at attacking General Clark!!

Anyone with a seventh-grade reading level can see he is making a point about
FRAMING a la George Lakoff.

Try again, ImpurityofMotivation.

[tishaLA]

34. This is just sad

Can we leave these wars and all this bitterness behind....like back in the primaries (even though they didn't really belong there, either)? It's not enough that some supporters of one candidate are attacking Sen. Kerry? Now we have to attack another upstanding Democrat with smear and specious charges, too?

Sad. So sad.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. Weaker and Weaker

So now you're even starting entire (inaccurate, to boot) threads that contribute to continuing the primary wars?

Your past protestations from the other day are sounding very inconsistent indeed.

DTH

[leyton]

39. Yes, school vouchers should be our litmus test.

About the most inane comment I've ever heard. The endless attacks on Clark on this board makes me think more and more of him and his supporters.

PS - the rationale for school vouchers is that those who want a private education can receive the cash that would be spent on the child they are taking out of the public school system, with which cash they can fund the private education of their choice. Plenty of people who "give a fuck" about society think this is a viable option, especially in places where the public schools are lousy.

[ieoeja]

45. How is that going to help society?

How does eliminating free education benefit society?

[BootinUp]

46. Just a comment...public schools aren't "free"

I don't support the republican voucher issue or any alternative voucher proposals btw.

[ZootSuitGringo]

47. Shouldn't we be commenting on the thread that carries the

accurate factual headline, and not this lie filled one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1760503&mesg_id=1760503

[cestpaspossible]

57. Is something stopping you from commenting on that other thread?

[PurityOfEssence]

58. That's not the thread that sparked this

Read CarolNYC's thread about Chris Heinz' apartment party for Clark.

I'm really sick of a bunch of people who play fast and loose with the truth accusing others of lying. Please retract it.

How do you use campaign statements from last year to refute something he said less than a week ago? I looked at the other thread you cited; the whole point of my thread is that NOW he seems to either be waffling, dodging, or has changed his mind. The quote I'm using is VERY recent; you're refuting it with ancient history.

That's ridiculous.

[ZootSuitGringo]

59. So stoopid, and yet so little time.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. You're Reading the Quote Out of Context. Badly.

As others who do not even support Clark have pointed out. It's an argument about "framing." Perhaps you've heard of it; it's all the rage on many good Democratic Internet fora.

In fact, you're reading the quote out of context so badly that it calls your motive into question.

You're also overtly slamming a good Democrat with an entire thread, mere days after you yourself lamented -- with great crocodile tears -- such behavior (stereotyping all Clark supporters, in the process) toward your favorite Democrat. And that was "only" for negative posts within an already existing thread!

Perhaps you should take your own advice before throwing a bunch of stones.

DTH

[PurityOfEssence]

62. This framing argument is ridiculous

If you frame something by saying you won't stand in the way of something that's inherently bad, you haven't used happytalk, you've shown that you won't stand for anything. The very statement he made is that he won't stand in the way of vouchers. That doesn't NECESSARILY mean he's for them, but it ABSOLUTELY means he won't stand against them.

Avoiding talking about things in terms that are perjorative is one thing, but giving society away to avoid ruffling the feathers of raptors who intend to destroy you is just plain silly.

Why doesn't he just say that he's not against getting rid of abortion rights? Why not just say that he's not against curtailing the right of assembly? It's the same thing. He's saying "we won't stand against you", and that, if not supporting the issue, is tantamount to surrender.

[Sparkly]

64. It's really not that complicated

He didn't say he "won't stand in the way," he said he's FOR funding public education. That means he would "stand in the way" of removing funding for public education a la GOP voucher systems.

[incapsulated]

54. Please let this garbage sink...

To the depths were it belongs.

[Totally Committed]

63. I believe what he said (Because it is what he always says...)

is he is for strengthening the public school system in every way first. All monies and appropriations need to go there until they are fixed. Once every child is guaranteed an equal education, choice would be something he would consider in cases where the schools systems could not offer that equity to every student.

Why is everyone so eager to pick apart the plans of candidates they do not support? I don't agree with plans put out by other candidates sometimes. I don't agree with what each and every one says every time he or she steps in front of a microphone, but 9 times out of 10, I let it pass out of respect for the idea and the courage to voice it.

General Clark has always been for an equal education for all children in the U.S. He feels that the playing field must be leveled in order that every child's rights under the law to a good, and equal education is met or exceeded. If you don't agree with that position, I'm sorry. But, to cherry-pick a sentence out of a report about an evening where you were not present, and misrepresent it this way is shameful.

Things can be made to sound any which way when taken out of context. Wanna know what Gen. Clark feels about education, got to:

www.securingamerica.com

or, better yet, buy a ticket to one of these salon nights and ask him yourself. But, don't just take a remark out of context and start a flame-war just because you don't like him, or support him, or understand him. It is downright disrespectful. He is a fellow Democrat, fercripessake.

He is not now, nor has he ever been "FOR" school vouchers, and it is intellectually dishonest to say so.

TC

[Moderator]

67. Locking, due to an extreme lack of civility n/t