Another "Clark voted for Reagan, so he's evil" post - sort of.

[boxster]

For the record, I'm undecided at this point. Full disclosure: I'm leaning Clark, but still strongly considering others.

If we accept the logic of numerous posters on DU, no one should vote for Clark solely because he voted for Reagan. Some have also stated that as rock-solid proof he's a Republican.

Ever heard of "Reagan Democrats"? But, I digress....

Ok, let's take this one step further. As most of you know, Reagan switched parties and was previously a Democrat.

So based on a similar leap of logic, we should actually support Clark because he voted for someone who used to be a Democrat, right?

Yes, that's dumb, but so is ignoring someone's views on the issues, ignoring the present, and blindly accusing someone of being a radical Republican because of a vote he placed 19-23 years ago.

But, come on - the guy is:
*pro-choice
*pro-affirmative action
*pro-separation of church and state
*pro-gays in the military
*pro-education
*pro-environment

I could keep going, but I think that'll do to make the point.

Does that sound right-wing to you? Of course not. Let's try to be objective here.

So, the guy voted for Reagan. So what?

So, he said a few nice words about BushCo in a speech. So what? He was trying to get the audience's attention so that they'd bother listening to the rest of the speech. That seems pretty obvious.

Not to mention that BushCo has changed just about everyone's minds in the 2.5 years since that speech.

And, yes, it's happening with other candidates all the time, so don't bash me for leaving them out. The Clark-is-a-Republican-plant idea is just ludicrous in light of everything else about him, but my point fits all of the baseless bashing.

Jumping on something a candidate (you already hated) did or said in the past and ignoring all of the other evidence about their candidacy does very little except the opposite of what you intend. In many cases, the bashing proves the opposite viewpoint quite nicely.

(Edit: minor grammatical correction)

[Pepperbelly]

1. up until he retired ...

Wesley was primarily apolitical. Then he began to see the damage wrought by Whistle-ass and his crew: the damage to our economy, our security and most importantly, our constitution.

The Constitution is what Wesley swore to protect. He is doing so as we speak.

[PDittie]

2. You describe me quite closely

I was a Republican once myself.

Caught in time, it's a curable disease.;)

[oregonjen]

14. My Aunt and Uncle were Republicans

In their 30 years of being teachers, they finally understood what it means to be a Repug. Now, they vote strictly Democratic. They learned by watching our schools go down the toilet.

[boxster]

20. I grew up in South Dakota and I live in Nebraska, so

nearly everyone I have ever known has been a Republican!!

I, however, have been a Democrat nearly since birth. Being a Democrat here means that you either stay quiet or like conflict. Hehe.

I'm not in the dead center of the red states by choice. I've been trying to move to a coast most of my life, but family resists! :crazy:

[mhr]

3. Fooled One Too Many Times

to take any candidate at his word.

On the Reagan vote, you have to ask yourself, how could any intelligent democrat ever vote for him.

The Reagan democrats, as I understand it, were typically poor southern white men with High School educations.

[Another Bill C.]

10. The elite are among us

"The Reagan democrats, as I understand it, were typically poor southern white men with High School educations."

College graduates are still a minority group in the U.S.

[boxster]

17. Reagan Democrats were everywhere, not just the South

Even "intelligent" Democrats bought into the Reagan persona. His approval ratings were quite often inexplicable (and he easily won 2 elections even though more people were registered Democrats than registered Republicans).

But then again, so our W's, right? Just try to explain why obviously some Democrats are approving of Bush's policies. His 50%+ approval ratings obviously have to include a significant number of Democrats.

My point was that we need to understand the candidates instead of expecting everyone to make snap judgments based on one event or one issue or one phrase taken out of context.

[Rowdyboy]

21. You were grossly miseducated

Reagan Democrats were NOT primarily poorly educated Southern men. In 1980, they were middle class voters everywhere, many union members, who were tired of 21% inflation. Then, in 1984, these same guys revolted at having a liberal Mondale as the nominee (Hell, I didn't like him-preferred Gary Hart)

[boxster]

29. And, don't forget - Geraldine Ferraro was the VP candidate,

and as much as we'd like to deny this as a society, the country was in no way ready for a liberal woman VP.

Hell, the country isn't ready for a liberal woman VP NOW and the right-wing knows it, which is why they're pushing Hillary to run!

}(

Just kidding. Don't make me put on the flame suit.

[bluesoul]

4. Hmm

Based on what you said about Clark Boxster, the guy is pretty liberal. Probably his only dark spot is the whole NATO episode in the Serbia bombings (specially civilian infrastructure and civilians killed) and the Kosovo Russian episode..:shrug:

[Padraig18]

16. As has been explained here REPEATEDLY

The whole 'Russian episode' at the Pristina airport was General Clark carrying out a LAWFUL order from those who were above him in the chain of command. It's what soldiers do, I believe... :eyes:

[clar]

5. Don't get me wrong

I like Clark. I like the positions he's taken, although I think he needs to expand on his ideas quickly. But I don't love that he voted for Reagan and Nixon. It's not like he's anybody. He's running for President as a Democrat. And I don't understand how someone with an economics background and a heart- Clark clearly has both- could vote for Reagan's vile trickle down economics. I don't hold it against him, I just don't understand it. And Reagan was pretty nutty. People forget that, but this was a guy who believed in Armageddon. I appreciate PB's mention that he was fairly apolitical. That does help me to better understand Clark.

[boxster]

15. Yes.

I agree with everything you said. I certainly don't agree with anyone voting for Nixon or Reagan. I think Reagan is the most overrated president in history and really had no clue what he was doing most of the time.

And I agree that Clark needs to publicly expand on the issues so that the average voter can see what he stands for and what he believes.

My point was that we've been trying to convince people to vote/not vote for a candidate based on one event or one issue or one phrase taken out of context. I think it's important to research all of the candidates and understand as much as possible about them before making a decision.

[carpetbagger]

6. Broken record: Reagan voted for FDR and Truman.

This election is too important for "hold it against someone" types of decisions. The question should be will this guy enact a progressive agenda if he becomes president. Every indication is that he will do so with a vengence.

[gully]

9. The election is too important not to fully examine our candidates.

We were hoodwinked in 2000. We have to choose a President that will undo the previous damage of the Bush administration.

I have not ruled out Clark. And, if he gets the nomination I'd vote for him. But, his vote for Reagan is a negative for me. So, is his previous a-political past.

Time will tell folks.

[noiretextatique]

24. well said, gully

voting for reagan, and an apolitical past are big negatives are far as i'm concerned. however, i will probably support the democratic nominee, and i truly hope it isn't clark.

[bowens43]

13. I agree , that's what the question should be.

Unfortunately, IMO there is no evidence to suggest that he WILL enact a progressive agenda. In fact, what little we know about him seems to indicate the opposite.

What 'indications', other then his words convince you that he will enact a progressive agenda?

[boxster]

22. That's actually a good point. Here's my take.

Obviously, most of us expected that after losing the popular vote and having the slimmest of margins in the Senate, Bush would have to run his presidency right down the middle. Obviously, we were wrong. So, we've been burned (not the first time), so it's human nature to assume that will happen again. Clark isn't Bush, but that's likely not going to be enough to satisfy the issue here.

To answer your question about indications:

First, I think that there is a lot more information out there on Clark than his detractors claim. http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm, for example, has links to speeches and statements on some of the issues. They're mostly recent, but there's a reason for that, in my mind (see below).

Second, the guy isn't a career politician. I think it's funny that people chastise candidates because they are career politicians, then chastise Clark because he is not. The fact that he is not a career politician means that he doesn't have a 20-year Congress voting record that we can peruse. Anything you find in the media on Clark is going to pretty much be 3 years old or less, with the exception of his votes for Reagan and Nixon, of course.

The guy seems to be honest, sometimes almost to a fault. Ironically enough, I think his early "missteps" were an indication of that. A seasoned politician would have denounced the IWR without hesitation. He waffled and as has been reported to death, essentially played both sides.

Another issue is, of course, his support of W. in 2001. Frankly, the rest of America supported him, inexplicable in my mind, as well. Everyone was in favor of Bush post-9/11 (87% in the polls), and now a close majority are not. I think that anyone should be allowed to change their minds on the issues based on events that happen to change perceptions of those issues. (Dean-bashers, are you listening? Hehe.)

[dfong63]

45. watch what he does, not what he says

The question should be will this guy enact a progressive agenda if he becomes president. Every indication is that he will do so with a vengence.

you say "every indication" is that he'll enact a progressive agenda. but he doesn't have a record of doing so. he doesn't have a record of adherence to his stated beliefs. he has a record of vagueness and flip-flops. today he says things that sound progressive. tomorrow maybe he'll be back to praising Reagan. why should we vote for someone who "says" he believes in progressive causes, when we have a choice to vote instead for other candidates who have a TRACK RECORD of successfully advancing the progressive agenda?

[bowens43]

7. It's WAY more then just voting for Reagan.

I welcome Clark into the party, but not to it's leadership.IMO what he 'says' in no way negates what he has done. Talk is cheap. He says the right words but his actions in the recent past belie those words.
His flip flop on the war vote is also a MAJOR concern as is the military background. The lack of political experience is also a HUGE concern. He's not in the army anymore, his word won't be law. Can he function in a civilian government where his orders don't have to be followed? I don't know. To many unknowns with this guy.

BTW this isn't bashing, this presenting an opinion. I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me that he actually believes the things that he is saying. Unlike the other candidates, he has no record.

[boxster]

23. Please refer to my answer to your similar response above.

Thanks.

[CMT]

8. I accept that Clark can change his views and parites

people do it, but I'm astounded by how many on such a progressive board are rallying to this guy who up to just a couple of years ago was praising Reagan and the first Bush as well as the current Bush's team. I know for a fact if some people who now defend Clark found a quote by some other candidate doing this it would have been used to "prove" that he is a DINO. My feeling is that we are so desperate to win that some of us are willing to take a chance with a candidate who now, by and large, says a lot of the right stuff. What in two years brought about such a change in his outlook? The War, sure we have Republicans supporting Dean who have come to him due to the war and of course we welcome them, because there are some enlightened Republicans out there who still believe in some principles like fiscal responsiblility and peaceful cohabitation in the world--and principles Bush clearly doesn't stand for.

I'll give Gen. Clark the benefit of the doubt, but I am still disturbed that a man--a very talented and intelligent man, such as Gen. Clark could be taken in by Ronald Reagan. A man who attacked welfare moms calling them "welfare queens." A man who said "trees cause pollution." A man who supported making ketchup a vegtable on a poor kids school lunch. A man who started an unprecedented arms buildup. A man who cut spending on domestic programs to finance tax cuts to the rich (sound familiar?), A man who was outspokenly pro-life.

I assume too he voted for Poppy Bush in 1988--the original "compassionate conservative".

Yes people can change and Gen. Clark is saying the right things on several issues. In fact, he sounds like Dean with clusters. They both favor a balanced budgets, health care for all, pro-choice, oppose the Patriot act, oppose the war in Iraq, ect--except on lots of these things Dean (at least) has a demonstrated record of accomplishment on many aspects of the things he is running on. For instance, I don't think any candidate has been as outspokingly pro-choice as Dean due to his medical background. Dean has also provided health care for people in his state as well as prescription drugs for seniors and balanced budgets.

I don't mind the General running and I think it is great he is now a Democrat but I also think that we have many candidates out there (besides Dean who obviously I'm partial to) who have fought the Republicans on issue after issue and have always been Democrats and supported Democrats for president. I think John Kerry was right when he spoke about the way he fought Nixon and Reagan while Clark was supporting them. It is a legitimite issue and he has a right to raise it.

The General seems like a decent man who has served his country with honor, but I would prefer a life-long Democrat who has always stood up for core Democratic values to be our next president. However, if the General is nominated I will support him.

[gully]

12. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[roughsatori]

25. That was one of the most reasoned responses to this issue

That I have read. I get heated over Clark's fatal flaws and find it hard to be as reasonable as you in your post.

[boxster]

27. I think the bottom line at this point is either people accept him at his

word or they don't. Frankly, that is going to be the case with any relative newcomer to politics. He has maybe three years or so of public exposure and has made positions known on some, but not all, of the issues. He's an unknown, and people fear the unknown.

Honestly, I'm not surprised at how quickly he has risen. You have to remember the current political culture in America. Clark is, in a lot of ways, the anti-Bush, particularly in one very important way. This country is currently obsessed with security and obsessed with 9/11, and Clark trumps Bush on every level and makes him look like an imposter in the Commander-in-Chief role.

Again, as I've stated in other responses, MOST of America was taken in by Reagan, whether we would like to accept that or not. The guy easily won 2 elections when the country had more registered Democrats than Republicans.

My problem is with people assuming that everything Clark says must be a lie. He must be lying because it's too good to be true, or I don't trust the military, or he's too new to politics, or he has beady eyes (I'm not exaggerating - I've seen more than one poster say they don't trust him because of his eyes). It's entirely possible that his supporters are completely wrong about him, but I don't think we should just assume he's a complete fake.

To play devil's advocate, Dennis Kucinich has completely switched sides on abortion very recently. Do we take him at his word or do we (cynically) just assume that he only changed positions to please the liberal left? Frankly, he would realistically have more reason to lie about that than Clark does.

For the record, I really do believe Kucinich has had a change of heart, and I like him very much. His debate performance this week was impressive, and I think he brings a lot to the Democratic table.

My point is - either you give Clark the benefit of the doubt or you don't. Nothing I, or anyone else who is seriously considering him as "the" candidate, say is likely going to change that opinion.

[CMT]

34. I don't assume it is a lie

I welcome Clark but am uneasy about him leading a party which only two years ago he was fund-raising against (It was a GOP fund raiser he was speaking at). I take him at his word but do think we have many talented life-long Democrats running who deserve our support more so than a newly confirmed one.

As far as most people voting for Reagan in 1984--yes he won in a landslide but a very solid minority--41% voted against him. Including nearly 80% of Democrats.

[boxster]

56. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth

I've probably given people the impression that I'm solidly in the Clark camp. I'm not. I think that it would be premature to make a decision 10 days into someone's political campaign.

I agree that we have Democrats who probably "deserve" this opportunity more than Clark. But, I'm also a realist. I believe that we must get rid of Bush, or we can kiss off any hope of getting back to anything near traditional liberal ideals in America. I think the reason people are so excited about Clark is that he seems like the anti-Bush - he counters Bush on the whole Commander-in-Chief, stuffed flight suit facade he displays. And, if you take his position views at face value, he's pretty liberal.

In many ways, Clark seems to good to be true, and he seems like a contradiction to a lot of people. Here's this careerist military general, running as a liberal. Huh? I think the hope is that he's seen the BS side of life and politics (he's not a career politician but that certainly doesn't mean he hasn't seen a lifetime of politics in his career) and really does honestly believe we need a change.

Sure, he could be lying. I guess that I'd expect him to be a lot more polished if this was all some elaborate game, and I'd expect him to be running much closer to the middle of the political spectrum than the left. Obviously, running on the left gets you the liberal base, and the General in front of his name gets you a lot of the middle, so who knows? I think he's legit, but I could be wrong.

[CMT]

58. No

I think we are having some good discussions on this thread. It is by no means counter-productive.

[BJ]

11. Rather than running as a Democrat, General Clark...

Rather than running as a Democrat, General Clark should run as a "National Unity" candidate or a "National Consensus" candidate. After all his social issue positions are little different than those of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[boxster]

53. Arnold isn't much of a Republican

We're not sure what he is, but he's been accused by MANY in the Repubican party of being a RINO.

Let me suggest that you compare Clark's positions to Dean's or Kerry's or Graham's. Then, I might consider that argument valid.

[Girlfriday]

18. It looks like Rove and the RW thugs...

...are winning. :(

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Actually,

marching in lockstep and not asking questions that need to be asked would be the "Rove Way." Better we get questions answered now before the election, rather than after. :)

[bloom]

19. OK - lets say that we didn't know what his positions are

and that we took him at face value for what we know about him.

Military careerist - defended the killing of 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians in Belgrade, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine..."

He was a Republican until recently, raising money for the Republicans.

He is friends with Rumsfeld, Pearle, etc.

He helped author a security document in July, 2003 that "more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion."

__________________

Ok - so I'm no military strategist, like Clark is, but I've recently started reading War and Peace. So what is the strategy by which Napolean had his generals gain ground and win the battle. LIE. Go right to your opponant and LIE. Make up a story. Say that you have surrendered when you haven't. Say what you need to say to get the other side to do what you want them to do so you can accomplish what you want to accomplish.

So why should I believe this guy is as liberal as he says he is. He has probably read War and Peace, too. And a lot of other things that I haven't read.

I say - if he wants to be a Democrat now - fine - let him. But he can serve in another capacity until he has proven himself. I think that is only reasonable and prudent, given the circumstances of our country at this time.

[gully]

26. Excellent !

"I say - if he wants to be a Democrat now - fine - let him. But he can serve in another capacity until he has proven himself. I think that is only reasonable and prudent, given the circumstances of our country at this time."

Times are too dangerous to 'roll the bones' now. I want a trial offer and a 90 day money back guarantee on the next President after what we've endured.

[eleny]

28. Bloom

"He helped author a security document in July, 2003 that "more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion."

I heard Deniis Kucinich refer to this during the debate.

Is this a public document or are we only privvy to an assessment of it from Kucinich? Is it only available to members of Congress? I'd like to know all about it. Where can we find it, learn about it's origins and how Clark got involved in the first place? And also, what is Clark's assessment of the conclusions put forth in the document?

I'd appreciate your help to find the complete text of the document if it's available on the net or elsewhere. Do you have a copy?

Thanks for any help you can provide. I'd sure appreciate it.

[Pepperbelly]

31. I, too, would like to have something more substantive ...

than Kucinich's word on this. Where is this document? Is Clark listed on the document as an author?

I think it irresponsible to spread this as gospel until someone comes up with the document.

[bloom]

36. Actually - I would be amazed to see you change you views

no matter WHAT evidence surfaced.

___________

Why should I not believe that Clark is not a general with a mission contrary to my own (peace)?

Why should I believe him?

Why should he not have to prove himself walking the walk and not just talking the talk?

[Pepperbelly]

64. so where is this document?

Your own little personal snarkiness aside, where is this document?

[bloom]

66. Pepperbelly - it's not like I don't trust anybody...

I just happen to trust Kucinich - at least until I'm given a reason not to. So if he says there is such a document. I am believing him.

Maybe you don't?

[boxster]

35. Again, you just proved my point.

You made a decision based on assuming he's lying and by ignoring the rest of his positions on the issues. You took a few carefully selected statements out of a 30-year military career and used that to convince Clark supporters you're right.

That's my whole point. I think you have to look at everything, not just a couple of statements taken out of context. Frankly, you could most certainly be correct in your examination of those statements, but ANY candidate could be broken down in the exact same manner.

For example, Dennis Kucinich was pro-life two years ago. I guess that means that people could, and perhaps should, assume he's lying about the switch to pander to the liberal left. No one who is pro-choice should vote for him.

That's silly, of course, but I think it illustrates my point. Either you take Clark at face value or you don't. Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but you certainly have the right to do the opposite and assume he's a pathological liar.

[bloom]

41. I don't assume that he is a pathological liar

I think there is a possibility that he a strategic liar.

I can live easier with Kucinich changing his views on a few issues than I can with a military, Republican, careerist changing nearly all of his.

I'm not saying he couldn't have a role to play.

I don't think it is reasonable to be supporting him as a Democratic president.

[boxster]

46. Sure you are.

It would take a pathological liar to concoct Clark's campaign if underlying the facade, he truly believes that he is a Republican and is truly guilty of hiding his true beliefs.

His stated views put him more liberal than all but 3 or 4 of the candidates in this race, and lying to that extent would require a pretty extensively concerted effort. If he's lying about his core beliefs and the reasons for his campaign, he's incredibly good at it.

Like I said, either you take him at his word or you don't. Your choice. That's why this (used to be?) a democracy.

[dfong63]

48. false choice

It would take a pathological liar to concoct Clark's campaign if underlying the facade, he truly believes that he is a Republican and is truly guilty of hiding his true beliefs.

let's take one example, his position on the IWR. over a period of about a week, his position ranged from "yes" to "no" to "maybe". we're not saying that he "lied" about his beliefs. it's just that they're too malleable. yesterday he was a conservative. today he's a liberal. tomorrow, who knows? his newly found beliefs haven't stood the test of time or the trials of office.

[bloom]

52. "A deliberate liar knows he is lying. A pathological liar may not."

http://www.osric.com/university/pathlying.html

I think it more likely that Clark is like Napoleon - strategic - and is accustomed to doing and saying things for strategic purposes.

edit:sp

[boxster]

55. Ok, I'll buy the deliberate vs. pathological argument.

But, I still believe that it would take an extraordinarily concerted effort to project a liberal facade if Clark is the exact opposite of what he is claiming to be.

What I don't buy is the argument that he's a right-wing nut running as a liberal. He has nothing to gain by beating Bush and becoming president and then becoming some right-wing puppet. It makes no sense.

Once again, either you accept him at face value or you don't. You don't, and I'm not going to try to change your mind, but don't expect me to jump on the he's-a-conservative bandwagon.

I just think that assuming he's lying about everything he believes in and assuming he's lying that he's changed because he sees where the country is going is a little too conspiracy-theorist for me.

[bloom]

62. puppets

I don't think he is anyones puppet. With his background, 1st @ Westpoint, NATO commander - he doesn't need to be anyones puppet.

And - of course he can say he would do things differently in Iraq - from Bush*. He probably has a lot of ideas, being a general. And with his ego, as it has been reported, I would expect him to want to go in and do things his own way.

But, given his background, I don't expect to agree with him anymore than I agree with the people currently in charge. Maybe he would be able to clean up the mess. But maybe not. Maybe his ego would lead him to believe the all-powerful USA with him in charge should trump everybody. (And I am also worried about where his associations with PNAC people could lead.)

And he probably knows - that if he said what he intended to do - he would turn a lot of people off. So I would surprised if he did.

It seems far easier to pick a few selling points on which people from a particular party would rally around.

[Enraged American]

30. Reagan Democrat? Don't make me laugh

Reagan was the most vicious imperialistic conservative America had ever seen. I would have accepted Clark had he voted for Ford or hell even Nixon, but Reagan transformed the Republican Party from the Rockefeller party of big business to the fanatical fascist conservative demagogic party of today.

[noiretextatique]

37. so true, my Enraged friend

"reagan democrats" notwithstanding, there was considerable opposition to his revolution. reagan's reign was disastrous...sort of reminds me of what's happening now.

[boxster]

40. Fine, but Enraged is also ignoring history.

I hated Reagan, but the reality is he killed Carter and Mondale in the elections. He beat Carter by 8 million and Mondale by 16 million votes.

Those voters were NOT all Republicans. Democrats abandoned the party in droves to vote for Reagan.

[noiretextatique]

44. true...he was actually elected

unlike the current occupant of the white house. still a disaster though...and lots of people knew it then.

[boxster]

47. Please understand.

I hated Reagan. I still hate Reagan. That does not change that tons and tons and tons of people still think he walked on water. Millions of those voters were Democrats. That is an undisputed fact.

I live in the Midwest and he is STILL like a god to these people. It is revolting, but it is also reality.

Summarily ignoring that millions of Democrats voted for that moron in an attempt to make a point just isn't reality.

[noiretextatique]

50. i don't ignore that reality....it just isn't MY reality and it never was

i must live a parallel universe.

[boxster]

57. Believe me, it's impossible to ignore

when it's all around you. I live in a very conservative state, much to my ongoing dismay.

You probably don't live in a parallel universe, but I'm guessing you don't live smack dab in the middle of the red states, either.

;)

[noiretextatique]

59. no i don't...and i'm african-american

i live in oakland, ca...birthplace of the black panther party...and in the blessed liberal bastion of northern california! and black folks are generally not as crazy about reagan, or republicans in general, as some folks are. i feel your pain, though :D

[boxster]

65. Hehe, thanks!

I've lived in the Midwest my entire life, but I've always joked that I'm really a California guy who just hasn't lived there yet. (People here look at me like I've lost my mind when I say that.)

Not that I haven't tried. We almost moved to LA when I was a kid so that I could go to college there, and I've been trying to move to San Diego for most of a decade, but the family resists! Hehe.

It's just sooo conservative here. If I remember correctly, Bush's percentage of the vote in 2000 was higher here than in any other state. Even our Democratic Senator is pretty conservative.

[boxster]

39. Reagan beat Carter by more than 8,000,000 votes

and Mondale by more than 16,000,000 votes.

Try convincing ANYONE that those were all Republicans that voted for Reagan.

Reality is that Democrats abandoned the Democratic candidates in droves. Perhaps you should review history before you make a statement like that.


Edit: Edited president name typed subconsciously out of hatred of the current administration

[dfong63]

51. of course they weren't all repubs

however, they weren't all candidates for president either.

if some guy wants to be the pope, but when they look into his background it turns out he was an adulterer, do you think it'd fly to use the excuse, "Hey, I wasn't the only one."

[boxster]

60. Ah, so voting for Reagan is now equivalent to adultery.

Nice comparison. That one made me laugh, but in a good way.

No, the point is that I am not going to make a decision on a political candidate based on one issue or one event alone, and I was suggesting that other people consider everything, not their knee-jerk reaction to one event in the life of a candidate.

My point was that we should consider as much information as possible and to not just discount candidates because of some carefully selected points made by their opposition or because they once voted for a president we despise.

Further, I am certain that you could select specific events in the life's history of every candidate and use that as sole justification not to vote for them.

I guess, in hindsight, the real point of my posting was to tell people, "Look, don't dismiss candidates because someone was shouting at the top of their lungs, 'Hey, this dope voted for Reagan. What the hell was he thinking?' or 'Hey, he supported Newt Gingrich' or 'Hey, he was pro-life until 2002.'"

[CMT]

54. 41% voted for both Carter and Mondale

Over 75% of Democrats supported the Democratic nominees in 1980 and 1984.

[boxster]

61. Correct, but 1980 was a three-party race

so Reagan received a higher percentage in '84 than in '80.

Look, the point of my original posting was this - we can't ignore the fact that millions of Democrats crossed the line in '80 and '84, and let's make damn sure that it doesn't happen again.

If people summarily discount ANY Democratic candidate based on their past or because of a few selected events, I think it's counterproductive. If people become so disillusioned with a candidate that ends up winning the nomination, then what? Do they stay home? Do they vote for Bush?

And before you discount me for being unrealistic, consider the arguments here. We can't vote for Clark because he voted for Reagan. The underlying issue doesn't change if he wins the nomination. If he's a liar and a Republican at heart (as many, many people claim), do we vote for him or not?

I will, but I also accept Clark at face value.

[Ruby Newsbee]

32. The thread you are referring to was locked

for being flamebait. So do the flames end there and start here?

I don't like flip flops. Kucinich was the only one who stood up and spoke out against Bush when all others were too afraid to and he's also pro everything you claim Clark is.

[bobthedrummer]

33. Revolution in Political and Military Affairs/RPMA and Clark's career

The neo-conservative dominated military think-tanks shaped Clark as much as anything IMHO. Check it out.

Shock and Awe
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html

RPMA
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm

Militarism is bad=fascism on the way. Clark is a repuke operative from moles in DLC/Third Way contigent IMO.

[Enraged American]

38. Very informative. if only..

if only some of the Clark 04 sheep at DU woke up!

[Julien Sorel]

42. And become a Kucinich gets crushed , while-hysterically-

shouting in 03 sheep? I prefer sleeping, thank you.

[boxster]

49. I'm not sure I get your point.

I assume you meant "because a Kucinich gets crushed", not "become a Kucinich". Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I love Kucinich and wish he was doing much better in the polls. His debate performance was excellent, and I think he brings a lot to the party and can help foster discussion on topics that would otherwise be ignored.

I certainly didn't mean to criticize him in my examples. If you felt that way, I apologize.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[boxster]

67. Ah, when we can't make a point intelligently,

just attack the poster. How Republican of you.

First, if you expect me to take you seriously, bother to actually read my post. In fact, you could have just read the very first part. I haven't decided to vote for him yet, and I'm certainly not supporting him mindlessly.

Nor do I expect you to, which should have been obvious in my posting and in my various responses to others.

Second, perhaps you should also bother to read the transcript of the statement at the Arkansas Republican meeting. I have, more than once, and I didn't see anything about how great W's economic policies were.

Here, this will help. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

Once you've had a chance to review it, please tell me where you found the part about W's great economic policies. I'd be curious to read it myself.

[depakid]

68. Let's see- he pro

*choice
*pro-affirmative action
*pro-separation of church and state
*pro-gays in the military
*pro-education
*pro-environment

AND he voted for Reagan?

Don't you think that sounds fishy? It raises a few question, at the very least. Such as was Clark ignorant of Reagan's policies? (Many so called "Reagan Democrats" are still in denial). Did he simply not CARE enough about those issues? Has he had an epiphany?

Frankly IT IS A BIG DEAL that he's been supporting- or should I say giving aid and comfort- to the enemy. You can rationalize all you want with the non-partisan military thing (though that argument doesn't quite fly with the most recent revelations, does it?).

It seems to me that there are a lot of fools here at DU eager to rush in and embrace Clark without knowing much, if anything substantive about him. The general no record of political accomplishments, so there's no real evidence of where he really stands and what he might actually do. He doesn't even have any position papers out- and yet there are otherwise sensible people on this board who go so far as to tout him as the second coming.

I think that a word of caution is wise- and I hardly it candidate bashing to point out that this newcomer is still very much an unknown quantity, as many people in the draft Clark movement are finding out the hard way.

If you don't believe me, just check their websites. At least, those that are still online.

[noiretextatique]

69. "still very much an unknown quantity"

more than a few words of caution are wise. as to his giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as you put it...this is EXACTLY how i view the republican party: as the ENEMY. as are their appeasers and enablers.
clearly...not everyone shares this view.