Clark: "I would've been a Republican if Karl Rove had called"

[CMT]

This is somewhat troubling comment from the Newsweek coverstory on General Clark.

Apparently after Al Queda attacked the US, General Clark expected to get a call from the Bush Administration asking him to join their team, "afterall he has had experience in coalition building." but the call never came and Newsweek reports that Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and now President of the University of Denver, Marc Holtzman, that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had called."

Apparently the General said he was "tweaking" or kidding them, but both of them say he was serious and "went into detail about his grieviences."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cl=c1

Ok, maybe it was a joke and why should I trust what a couple of Repukes tell Newsweek? That could be quite true. But given that Clark himself has conceded he was a Republican up to 1992 and voted for Nixon and Reagan and probably the first Bush in 1988--it may have some credibility. Also, coming off of his flip-flop "Probably" voted for the War Resolution to "Never" vote for the war resolution--it continues to raise my doubts about the kind of president we will get if Gen. Clark is nominated.

[Democrats unite]

1. I believe we are going to find out

Come Janurary 2005.

[CMT]

3. if not sooner

I'm not anti-Clark where I won't vote for him, but I do wonder what it is about him which gets some people in a frenzy. A modestly successful General (no Eisenhower who helped save the world) who became one of a series of retired Generals to discuss war strategy on CNN and an investment banker--who was a Republican up to 1992. Is it that people are so desperate to beat Bush that they think the only way to counter Bush is to nominate someone who seems to have impeccable national security credentials due to being a General?

[regnaD kciN]

97. I have the same question...

I still don't see what it is about Clark that makes him preferable to any of the current candidates, most of which seem to have a lot more relevant experience and better-thought-out views. As far as I can tell, it comes down to "he's a General and would therefore get more votes" (as if we've already learned that a Democrat with military experience will automatically defeat a Republican without any...we have found that out, haven't we?).

[juajen]

100. I've never said he would get more votes because he's a General

What I did say, on some post I can't even remember, is that this country needs his expertise to extract us from a horrible mess. Not just his expertise, his brains and courage. For God's sake, have you read his resume? Just a General, my ass.

BTW, I'm still supporting the wonderful Dennis Kucinich. However, I will certainly vote for Clark if he wins the nomination and he will have my confidence as well as my fortune! It's at at least ten bucks right now, and by election time, I'm sure it will have doubled.

Seriously folks, we knew the junta would be scared to death of Clark. Why would they be so frightened if he was one of their own? We also knew that the dem candidates would feel threatened and would fight back. Some of you are just too damned obvious.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. He Would Probably Govern

from the center left like Carter and Clinton did...

Hopefully he would avoid Clinton's personal problems and Carter's foreign and domestic problems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. You're A Good Researcher

Could you or some enterprising DUer find me the link where one of the Democratic front runners said the 1994 Republican putsch (takeover of Congress for the first time in four decades) "was a good thing" because the "Democratic party had moved too far to the left".

[CMT]

7. You're thinking of Dean

and no I'm not a good researcher that was at the top of the article on General Clark that has been posted on this site by many Clark supporters because of its poll which indicates that Clark would have an easier time beating Bush. I guess we aren't supposed to have doubts about a General who gets into the race and raise them when he says things like that, it hasn't stopped other campaigns from raising doubts about what Dean may or may not have said has it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Have No Doubts Because I Have No Illusions

I doubt Mr.'s Dean, Kerry,Clark, Gephardt, Edwards,Graham, or even Joe Lieberman would govern much differently....

They are all, imho, garden variety liberal or center left Democrats....

Given their similar ideology and the institutional restraints I doubt any Democratic president would govern much differently....

But a center-left Democrat would be infinitely better than Bushco and the rest of the world would be infinitely safer...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. No, it was Kerry.

From his MTP appearance:

MR. RUSSERT: But there’s a lot of discussion in the ’90s about you trying to cast off some of the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party, being described as a New Democrat. What caught a lot of people’s attention was the 1994 election, when the Republicans won both houses of Congress, Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House, and this is what you told the Boston Herald: “Sen. John F. Kerry broke from Democratic Party ranks, saying he was ‘delighted’ by the GOP election purge and laying the blame on the doorstep of President Clinton and arrogant House leaders. ...‘I want this change. I’m delighted with seeing an institutional shakeup because I think we need one,’ Kerry said in a Herald interview. ‘The Democrats have articulated in the last two years a very poor agenda. It’s hard for me to believe that some of these guys could have been as either arrogant or obtuse as to not know where the American people were coming from.’ Kerry deliberately set himself apart from Kennedy...He said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems
at the polls. When told his calls for ‘change’ did not match Kennedy’s re-election rhetoric, Kerry smiled and said: ‘I’m amazed people didn’t pick up on it.’”
MR. RUSSERT: You were clearly separating yourself from Clinton and from Kennedy on the issue of health care...
SEN. KERRY: I was upset, Tim.


http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/960385.asp

[Cha]

80. So you are "a good researcher"....Thanks, Rummy!

Freakin' Amazing!

[dfong63]

84. that is sickening

take this, Kerry. :puke:

[UnapologeticLiberal]

87. I was going to say, I thought it was Kerry who said that

Dean said something along those lines but not as blatant.

Personally, I think it was in some ways a good thing, because any time you have one-party rule for 40 years, there is bound to be lots of corruption. Plus, old Southern barrens still controlled the committees and there was little opportunity for women and minority members of Congress, who had been elected much more recently, to move into the ranks of the leadership. So sometimes you need the other party to come in and clean house. I just wish the GOP takeover had only lasted 2 years instead of 10.

Help make this a September to Remember

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope - The Great Grassroots Campaign

[sandnsea]

94. He never said that

“ said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” The Boston Herald, 11/30/94)

“Kerry … had tough words for Democratic House leaders and Clinton, saying their ‘agenda slid into mono-syllabic health care’ reform that was not supported by most voters.” (Andrea Estes, “‘Rebel’ Kerry Toed Line For The Party,” The Boston Herald, 12/1/94)

[xchrom]

5. first dean and now clark, so far this a.m.

why don't we all stay home election day?
reporting defeatist stories from newsweek{and msnbc} is going to kill us.
these reports aren't news -- they're gossip or worse statist sponsored facts.
the people who want to throw bushco out of office should focus on making their own news -- we already know the enemy doesn't like us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Exactly....

These "bashing threads" regardless of how subtle or blatant do nothing to help us achieve our ultimate goal which is to remove Bush.

[CMT]

8. why is this bashing to raise legitimite questions?

it is the Clark people who have been touting this Newsweek story because of its poll (Clark v. Bush). Are we to bury our heads in the sand and fall in line just because the General got into the race? He will get my vote if nominated, but I do have legitimate questions which have come to the forefront in the last couple of days.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Please See Post Ten

That is the clearest outline of how I approach this race....

[disgruntella]

15. I support Clark, and I think your question is legitimate

I don't think the Newsweek poll is anything to draw a conclusion from either. I think a few Clark people are thin-skinned lately from the massive GD flame wars.

[jumptheshadow]

9. I don't see this as bashing

Somebody is asking a legitimate question, one that Clark as a candidate will face time and again during the upcoming campaign.

[jonnyblitz]

12. why don't you people want us to discuss these things?!?!

Some of us who haven't drank the Kool Aid MIGHT be interested in this stuff. I wanna get the scoop on ALL the candidates..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. "you guys"

I have never started a bashing thread since I've been here....


Are there overly agressive Clark supporters?

Of Course

Same for all the other candidates.....


edited-for spelling.... maybe you folks can help me hire an assistant -:)

[CMT]

19. first this is not a bashing thread

and it is not meant to be one. I've written in the past that while i'm not for Gen. Clark I consider him a able man and will vote for him should he be nominated. This still stands. However, since he has announced he has 1) taken two positions on the issue I consider to be Paramount--the war in Iraq. 2) He has honestly admitted (and I respect him for that) that he voted for Nixon and Reagan and was a Repuke until 1992. and 3) while reading the Newsweek cover story which has much to praise about the man as well--I couldn't help but see this comment about being a republican if Rove had called him in to join the Bush team--it is in the first paragraph.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Perhaps The "Bashing Word"

was ill chosen....

Here's my take....


I really don't see nearly as big a difference between the mainstream Democratic candidates as I do between them and Bush....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. We'd all be better off if the word 'bash' were permanently removed

from the DU vocabulary.

[Clark Can WIN]

76. I doubt that Mr. Clark felt much differently than you or I did

immediately following September the 11th. Most everyone in this country felt an intense desire to help. Doctors left their practices and streamed towards New York, firemen and police from around the country did the same. Steelworkers and hazerdous materials experts got in their cars and came from accross the country to offer their strong backs and their expertise.

It is my position that Wesley Clark felt as most of us do, an intense desire to help according to ones skills and abilities. The republicans in the administration would not and did not call him because he would not tell them what they wanted to hear. I submit that has very much to do with why he is seeking the Presidency right now. He has seen so much blunder, corruption, misstep and ignorant arrogance in policy that he has decided to run for the Presidency to try to right the wrongs that have been done. I would hope that is at least one of the reasons why all of our current candidates are running.

[gottaB]

86. that sounds reasonable, but

If all this is true, why wouldn't Clark challenge Bush for the Republican nomination?

[bearfartinthewoods]

49. the idea that our party is being used as a vechicle to the presidency

is, imho, a valid topic. this has been bugging be for months, since he hemmed and hawed about identifying himself as a dem. i think he was waiting to see what offers came from the repub camp. maybe chenney retires for health reasons and he's the new VP. when that didn't happen he continues as a dem. he'd have no special attraction as a republican since they don't seem to be as attracted to his general status as we do so declaring as a dem was his bet bet at a white house shot.

[Eloriel]

96. On the contrary

And it took me a while to realize it fully, but what we DON'T want is any skeletons left in the closet once we have a ticket put together. And that WOULD be Rove's way of handling things.

As painful as it is for all of us who have our cherished first choices already made, it's absolutely essential we get it ALL out in the primaries. I don't want a weakened candidate running as our nominee, but I don't want a WEAK one as our nominee either. Primaries are the vetting process for candidates and voters.

Eloriel

[charlie]

13. All I'll say is

this had better not be true. I doubt we'll ever know, I don't trust Republican sources.

[OKNancy]

16. Haven't googled the president of the University of Denver

yet, but I did look up Colo. governor Bill Owens, and from the looks of it I wouldn't trust anything that SOB says.

Damn- screwed up the whole intent...WOULDN'T trust him

[jumptheshadow]

17. "Would" or "wouldn't?"

Thanks for starting to do some research on this.

[OKNancy]

26. Wouldn't

Thanks.....i did an edit

[Pepperbelly]

34. Marc Holtzman

is/was a banker and an operative for RR when the old coot was in office.

[QC]

40. Here's something interesting about Holtzman and Owen.

They're working with David Horowitz to ensure "intellectual diversity" by pressuring universities to hire more wingnuts.

Owen tried to force Holtzman in as president of Colorado State as part of his New Order for academics of Colorado, even though Holtzman did not have the academic qualifications for the job.

So yeah, Holtzman sounds like something of an extremist ideologue.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/RMN/DRMN_2238507.asp?0LA=akq9n

[otohara]

95. DU President was Hand Picked by Owens

and planted w/o the knowledge of DU's faculty - staff - nada. They were not happy, but could do nothing about it. The guy was in with contract already signed.

[wyldwolf]

18. I interpret it this way...

Clark, being a strategist and war time General, was saying that if the current administration called him to serve his country again, he would have went...

He then, in jest said, "hey! I would have been a republican! Imagine that!"

Kinda like me - I was once very smitten with a girl in college who was a repulican! Hey! I could have been a republican!

In highschool, same thing - only she was a Pentecostal! Hey! I could have been a pentecostal.

But, in both cases, only by association.

[CMT]

20. now that is good reasoning

had Rove (or rather Bush) called him in and he joined the team he would not be running for president. It could be he meant it that way.

[ComerPerro]

21. That was kind of how I took it

I like your take on it.

[charlie]

24. That's not what the account says

It wasn't a joke.

So, it's either:

1. True -- which at this moment I'm hardly inclined to believe, because there's almost no Republicans left whose word I'll trust.

2. Furtherance of the Republican meme of Clark as a loose cannon hothead.

[Pepperbelly]

27. yep ... if Owen said the sun rose in the east ...

I would damned sure look for myself.

[CMT]

32. well it isn't a question of whether Clark said it

as the story explains Clark has said he did say it but in a joking manner while the two Republicans say they didn't interpet it as a joke. Granted Owen is an extreme right winger.

[Pepperbelly]

33. and ...

Marc Holtzman was a gop operative for RR. So what is your position? Do you believe Clark or do you believe Owens and Holtzman?

[OKNancy]

39. Hey Pepperbelly

If you have any pull at all it would be so helpful if Gen. Clark could come out with a statement or speech about "Why I am a Democrat"
I wrote an e-mail to the address on the website, but you know how that goes.....bet he gets thousands.

[Pepperbelly]

57. I've got his ...

home # but you know how that goes, too. He isn't there right now.

[CMT]

92. I honestly don't know

eom.

[charlie]

37. Looks like this is how Rove's thinking of handling Clark

The others he'd make out to be biscuit-soft poofs. It'd be hard to stick a General with that, so Clark's gonna be scary and Strangelovian.

[RichV]

41. Or, perhaps

3. You're offering a false dichotomy.

Too bad tone doesn't come through in text. I doubt we'd have to seriously debate this. The Rove comment seems to have been in jest. The man's already said he was basically apolitical until recently, so I don't doubt he would work within the military in any administration, Dem or GOP or Green or whatever.

[charlie]

48. Did you read the article?

It's made clear, by their account, that it wasn't a joke. He's said to have been "furious" at Rove's rebuff of his services and his comment was followed by his going into "detail about his grievances."

However, these charges are made by a pair of Republican shitbags, so I don't put much stock in their credence.

[RichV]

50. Um

I don't think it's makes much sense to say it's made clear and then add that it was made clear by Owens and Holtzman. That's like citing Delay and Rove themselves as sources. I don't trust either of them as far as I can throw them.

[charlie]

53. Sorry

I completely overlooked Clark's explanation of it as a "humorous tweak." It's in the small hours here in Japan, past my bedtime.

[RichV]

55. Japan?

Wow. I bet you're glad you have the 'Net to keep informed on these silly matters. ;)

[charlie]

63. It's a double blessing

It's a lifeline and of course, a fantastic resource...

...and since it's my only connection to current US political matters, I never see the likes of Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, et al.

(BTW, DU is loading like CheezWiz through a straw right now. Is it just me or is this happening to you?)

[RichV]

66. Loading pretty well for me

but I'm on broadband in Atlanta. :)

[charlie]

70. Thanks. I'm on DSL too

That's why this is maddening, it doesn't happen often. It's reeeally slow right now.

[jumptheshadow]

30. I remember the aftermath of 9/11

A lot of good, experienced people wanted to serve their country in some way. I can only imagine the frustration that somebody with experience and honorable intentions might have had if they couldn't put their talents to use during the emergency.

[Kahuna]

75. I agree. Clark is a patriot and puts his country above politics...

imagine somebody who does that! :eyes:

Remember when Gore said after 9/11, 'Bush was his president.?' It made us all heave but we understood what he meant.

[JI7]

22. i don't get it

i assume he wanted to help them and would have if they called. and maybe that's what he means by "would have been republican if karl rove called". but not literally gone and registered to become a repbulican, just joined a republican administration in helping on the war on terror. because to take it literally sounds kind of stupid to me. to go and register to become a republican just because karl rove had asked for help. i mean, why would anyone need to do that just to help. so i can't take this too seriously as meaning he might have actually become a republican (registered).

[Frances]

25. If Clark is the nominee

of the Democrats, I will vote for him.

It will be EXTREMELY hard to do so if he did vote for Nixon, Reagan, and the first Bush.

However, on the bright side, Reagan was a Democrat before he became a Republican, and Reagan is responsible for turning the country to the right.

Perhaps Clark will be able to get the Reagan Democrats back in the Democratic party and put the country back in the center again.

I would much rather complain about the country being too centrist than too rightist.

Also, if Clark turns out to be a good candidate who wins the South and the midwest, it will be infinitely easier to win House and Senate seats in those regions.

Remember that Hollins (D-SC) and Edwards (D-NC) are not running for re-election and we need those seats. Also remember how Bush went to Georgia to campaign against Max Cleland (D) who lost to a chickenhawk Republican. If Clark is elected president, that kind of thing will not happen again.

[CMT]

28. I will vote for him if he is the nominee

and your point about Reagan having once been a Dem is a good one. I know there were lots of Reagan Dems in '84, but still the General is a very intelligent man and I would have wished he would have seen through Reagan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I Have Never Voted R

in my life and I have been voting since 76... I'll give Clark a pass if he can beat Bush...

[joeybee12]

35. I live in Denver and Owens is a lying sack of crap!

First, the source is suspect

Second, I don't think this is a bashing thread, and I think it's a good thing that this has been posted here.

There's going to be a lot of crap flying around about everyone these days--and its important to know what is out there. People should know what others are saying about their candidate in order to refute it, or, possibly minimize the damage.

Clark admits to having said it, but in jest. Someone should have sat him down before he announced and really gone over EVERYTHING that could come out in the press so that they can respond quickly, or even put it out there themselves first. He could have gotten this into a quote he made right off so that the joke came from his lips--not that the words were revealed by scum like Owens, and then he has to respond!

[CMT]

36. I agree

what I have read on this thread from others (not only Clark supporters) has eased my mind a bit about the Newsweek quote. It could be that the General was jesting or "rubbing their noses" in it.

[Kahuna]

43. Thank you Joeybee12. And you're not a Clarkie...

so your input is doubly valueable to me. Repukes are known for their lies. All of a sudden we trust them? I see. Only when it suits our own agenda. Gimme a break.

[joeybee12]

88. You're welcome...I posted this early this morning...

...and this post is still flaming!

[Kahuna]

38. The RW attack machine is in full throttle.... It is easier..

for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a repub to tell the truth. The repukes are terrified and rightly so of the clark campaign. Who didn't think they would do all they could to discredit Clark?

[CMT]

42. well you may be right

then the same thing could be said for Dean. They are trying to discredit him as well.

[jumptheshadow]

44. You are right about that

That's why I'm glad that you ask valid questions that help us filter out the B.S.

[Kahuna]

45. What the RW media whores are doing to Dean is

nothing compared to Clark. Why? Because Clark could actually beat bush. That's why.

[jumptheshadow]

46. And they are going to try to defeat him here...

with the Democrats, during the primaries. With the kind of stuff that concerns Democrats.

[CMT]

52. I disagree

they are taking a moderate mainstream democrat like Dean and making him out to be some radical out of step with the country anti-war candidate ala McGovern

[jenk]

47. Eisenhower was a Democrat, even Reagan was a Roosevelt Democrat

didn't stop the repugs from embracing reagan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Norm Coleman Was A Democrat Too

NT

[RichV]

54. So were

Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Strom Thurmond
Phil Gramm

In fact, I guess most of the older southern GOPers were Dems in their lifetimes. Before we kicked the bums out.

[CMT]

61. thank goodness Clark is not in the same league as Norm Coleman

eom.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Norm Went From The Light Side To The Dark Side

Wes Went From the Dark Side To The Light Side....

Big difference...

[charlie]

73. Norm just carried his Darkness to the other side

Democrats are better off without that weasel.

Leon Panetta is one of the few who made the flip in the other direction, and he's been great, a solid Democrat.

[KoKo]

90. Eisenhower was a Republican and Reagan was a Republican! NOT a Roosevelt

Democrat :crazy: SHEESH!

[carpetbagger]

91. Reagan voted for FDR and Truman.

Then he got high on fumes from whatever was in seeping through the floor of the HUAC committee meetings.

[rman]

98. oh sure, and some say Bush is a socialist.

-

[Bread and Circus]

56. Taking the original post to task....

Whole quote:

"Ok, maybe it was a joke and why should I trust what a couple of Repukes tell Newsweek? That could be quite true. But given that Clark himself has conceded he was a Republican up to 1992 and voted for Nixon and Reagan and probably the first Bush in 1988--it may have some credibility. Also, coming off of his flip-flop "Probably" voted for the War Resolution to "Never" vote for the war resolution--it continues to raise my doubts about the kind of president we will get if Gen. Clark is nominated."

The portion of the quote that is misleading:

"Also, coming off of his flip-flop "Probably" voted for the War Resolution to "Never" vote for the war resolution."

He clarified (not flip-flopped) that he has always been
against the war, which is a consistent position he has represented
back to fall 2002. He also stated that he would have given
the president power of leverage with the UN to arrive at a
peaceful negotiated solution. He did not come back and say,
" (I would have) "Never" have voted for the war resolution".
There is a real difference between what you say he said and
what he said. There is also a larger difference between what his
overall message is and what you are implying.

Furthermore, he has stated numerous times that force should be
a last resort while outlining a comprehensive foreign policy
plan in terms of exit strategy from Iraq and changing our
foreign policy toward more multi-lateral inclusion of foreign
interests.

Frankly, I haven't heard any of the other candidates give as
clear of a foreign policy plan as Clark in terms of scope,
philosophy, consistency, and potential effectiveness.

Ultimately I think you are being duped (willingly or not)
by the press and their inaccurate representations of Clark's stance.
But go ahead, parse every word of Clark's - misrepresent them,
twist them, leave out "unconvenient" truths - and when your
candidate wins the nomination (if he does), don't cry when
Bush, Rove & Co. do the same to him. What goes around comes
around. Good luck.

[CMT]

58. maybe so

but I think we are having a good discussion of it on here. I've given on some points if you look at my comments throughout the thread but while I certainly will support the General if nominated I have always been troubled with career military men as president and am still a bit bothered about Clark's GOP past.

Now take a breather because in November of 2004 98.6% of us on DU will probably be on the same field.

[Bread and Circus]

62. But on the lighter side....

I appreciate CMT's candid and open-minded
comments throughout the rest of the thread.

Perhaps shame on me for being so serious. I
just feel Clark has been unfairly skewered on
DU.:hug:

[StClone]

59. Some what crafted

This is sort of a Compassionate Conservative thing. Making observations like this seems to undermind Bush rather than Clark and confounds independents or soft Republicans. He was a Republican and because Rove didn't call he is a Dem? He probably knew Rove would never call and believes that opting not to include a potent military mind like Clark shows Rove/Bush has a critical lack of common sense.

[StClone]

60. Some what crafted

This is sort of a Compassionate Conservative thing. Making observations like this seems to undermind Bush rather than Clark and confounds independents or soft Republicans. He was a Republican and because Rove didn't call he is a Dem? He probably knew Rove would never call and believes that opting not to include a potent military mind like Clark shows Rove/Bush has a critical lack of common sense.

[newsguyatl]

64. this is getting very disturbing indeed

if one thing is certain, it's that i DO NOT want this man president. he's fallen to lieberman levels for me.


fucking flame me, i don't give a shit.



but clark is NOT the person folks here think he is.

[roughsatori]

65. you are being told not to trust lying republican sources

by the same people who are angry that I don't like that Clark voted Republican and spoke at a Republican Fundraiser in 20001. The irony is absolutely incredible.

[leesa]

67. A DINO placed by the Republicans to split the vote

I DO NOT understand the appeal of this guy.

[WillyBrandt]

69. He's more progressive than Dean and he can whoop Bush

You think Clark was placed in there by the RNC? Tinfoil territory.

[gulliver]

71. Rovists trying to copy Gray Davis

The "say anything to win crowd" on the Republican side apparently prefers not to run against Clark. They will do anything to get the Dems to choose someone else.

I don't buy this latest innuendo any more than I bought the allegations that Clark "flip flopped" on the war. It's all bullshit when you look at it closely. Let's hope Democrats have a little more in the brains department than Rove thinks.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

72. Zero Concerns About This

Some here might believe two Thugs whose agenda is crystal clear, but I sure as hell don't.

DTH

[MGKrebs]

74. Once again, it is how he responds that will be important.

He's gonna take some shots, just like everybody else. Hopefully, he will respond to this more clearly than he did that last one.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

77. We Agree 100% on That

Come on General!

DTH

[tjdee]

78. Out of control, this is absolutely out of control.

Dean does NOT put up with what Clark does.

Clark is under the most intense microscope I've ever seen. It's private conversations, it's rumors and innuendo, it's really something to behold.

Clark is very threatening to a lot of people. In fact, I'm glad that this story came out, because Clark is going to learn who his friends are. In the past, he's been friendly with some Republicans, and he'll find out what kind of people they are.

[shanti]

79. i don't like the sound of this at all

but i'll wait for the full disclosure. everything in the dark soon comes to the light.

[salin]

82. I really don't know what to make of the onslaught of stories

Rove type manipulations - very likely. I definitely take this stuff with a big old heaping tablespoon of salt.

Not just this story - but pushing the party doubts - he voted for repub presidents; only changed in 1992 - and then trying to create doubts of whether that was a real change or not. Sadly Clark's silence on party affiliation just fuels this particular feeding frenzy.

BUT, I really can see how one being trained to be essentially apolitical (as many serious military men are) - I find it to be understandable.

But, then again, it does raise red flags.

But, then again, are they planted red flags - are we being manipulated to take somewhat understandable items (in a particular context) - and fed them in a way that hits known panic buttons?

I really do feel we are being manipulated.

But I also de feel that there are things to watch for. It is prudent.

Here is my approach - keep taking these items (and they will keep trying to wedge the party affiliation issue - they (rove etal) have already seen that wedge work in the DLC non-DLC wars) with big old grains of salt - and KNOW that they are pushed as part of an agenda of manipulation (stemming from the right).

BUT pay attention to the candidate - listen closely to his policies, to the consistency in his policies, and listen to him in the debates (there are many more of those scheduled). Put his words over the time of the campaign through a screen - do they remain consistent? If they waiver a bit... then I start paying a little bit more attention to these items.

Most candidates are inconsistent on some issues - we know that. But most also have a long affiliation as democrats, and a track record which we can review to get a sense of where they stand and where they are likely to move in the future. In absence of that - Clark's words, and policies, and consistencies in those things - take on a higher level of importance to me.

But while I take tiny little mental notes now regarding these stories - I take big billboard mental notes on HOW the right is trying to manipulate what they perceive as a weakness - and I refuse to fall into their trap.

[Hamlette]

83. If Rove called I'd serve

doesn't mean I'd change my positions or do anything against my values.

[Trek234]

89. So you'd change to repub?

Are you a dem now? Yet you don't consider changing to repub because Rove called against your values?

[dsc]

85. Alan Simpson pulled a similar stunt on Gore

He had claimed Gore would have not supported the first Gulf War had the then Democratic leader given him more TV time. That was a lie then and I suspect this is a lie now.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. People use humor to offset their genuine anger all the time.

He stated this in jest and yet was still upset that he hadn't been called to help pull together a coalition. No big whoop.

This aside is being thrown out by Republicans who see that his voting past (before Clinton/Gore) is getting some play in public forums. I imagine that every partisan Republican is scouring his or her brain for some such other statement that they ever might have heard Clark say. People change their minds all the time. Clark has stated that Clinton moved him to switch parties. As far as I'm concerned, his two votes for Clinton and one for Gore are all the naturalization papers he needs.

(BTW: I don't mean that the person who started this thread is a Republican, or that anyone against Clark is a Republican. It's a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer. Nobody wants to be played for a sucker, especially when there's so much at stake in the next election. Clark is the real deal, though, as will be anybody who wins the Democratic election)

Can no one see that the joke (or potentially serious statement) doesn't make any sense unless he identified as a Democrat at the time?

[rman]

99. why they didn't ask Clark..

to fight this war in Iraq: it would have made him unelectable as Dem.

[CWebster]

101. even in jest

the truth is behind the humor.