Clark's Own Words: his past voting Republican

[NV1962]

I'm not amused with the ongoing repetition of Wes Clark's past votes for Republican Presidents.

The answer to that issue is simple: it was the Cold War, and Wes Clark, protecting the country as a career military, supported those who were strong on National Security.

I have no problem with that. More important is his "switch" to support Democrats, after the Cold War: he looked around, and recognized the importance of taking care of domestic needs, and allocate scarce federal sorces to meet those.

You can hear Wes explaining that, answering a direct question from the public, here. Click on the link named "Play Video" right above "Campaign Snapshots" for a video stream (works with Windows Media Player and Real Media Player, for modem and broadband)

Wes Clark is my kinda guy. He wants the country safe by all means, but not to the point of wasting money on a ridiculous militarization of government policy when there are more important things to address. The military serve to protect the country; it's not the other way round.

Oh yeah: as to "enemy combatants" - he's flat against that. He wants those prisoners out of Guantanamo, tried in an international court of Law instead.

[Clark4Prez]

1. I am reminded of a quote

"If people don't want to listen, there's just no telling them."

[lurk_no_more]

2. It's because he voted Republican

that I support him...../sarcasm

It means nothing, it's a childish game folks play to get a rise out of you.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[BootinUp]

3. Great post!

He's doing real good on the stump. watch the video!

[hellhathnofury]

4. Wow...

"The answer to that issue is simple: it was the Cold War, and Wes Clark, protecting the country as a career military, supported those who were strong on National Security."

How'd he vote in 1980, I mean calling Carter weak on national D is, well wow. He should at least pawn it off as a change of heart. You won't get very far in the D party by loving Reagan.

[Clark Campaigner]

8. Carter was a horrible President

That's just commonly accepted wisdom.
How can you blame anyone for voting against him in 1980?

[LuminousX]

10. LOL.. so bad Clark sought out his advice

[LuminousX]

13. Further laughter

http://krankykat.forclark.com/story/2003/12/10/194754/23
http://www.naplesforclark2004.com/Craig-and-Sarasota-For-Clark-Got-Thumbs-up-from-Jimmy-Carter

[dfong63]

41. carter was a better president than the ones who came before and after him

[Clark Campaigner]

42. Then why were there so many Reagan Democrats?

And why didn't Carter easily win re-election, as the Presidents before and after him?

(Ford doesn't count because he was never elected.)

And why was there an economic boom and an era of prosperity under Reagan following the "malaise" of Carter's stagflation?

So what makes Carter better..?
Oh, I know - because he had a 'D' by his name!
:eyes:

[LuminousX]

9. He and Dean both sought out Carter's advice before declaring

I have to give Clark credit for that.

[Clark Campaigner]

15. Well it's not like he could have gone to Reagan at this point

[NV1962]

14. LOL!

Get over it - Reagan really won two terms, and left with enough support to usher GHWB into the WH. You're unwise to dismiss that electoral very impressive feat, and with it dismiss the votes of people willing to consider positions rather than blind party loyalty.

If you care to look at the votes coming in from the military and you'll see a whole lot of people there agreeing with Clark. I don't think they really supported Reagan's social policy!

Attempts at using Reagan's name as an electoral string of garlic will actually backfire, because people respect changes when they're reasoned and honest. People don't like candidates who present themselves as "loyal party hacks" plus the President isn't run from the Party (think Clinton - pretty much the other way round)

No sale there.

Plus I'm sold already on Wes Clark's policy proposals. Re-elect Clark in 2008!

[hellhathnofury]

17. Do you think Reagan actually won the Cold War?

Reagan sucked pretty big on defense, I mean Star Wars, arms races and hot air. I have to ask, does Clark respect the supremacy of artful diplomacy?

Party loyalty does matter to me. I can excuse maybe 1972 and 1984 somewhat but the others...

Who'd he vote in 1988?

[NV1962]

19. Reagan spent the SU into bankrupcy

whether that's "winning" the Cold War or not - I don't care. One could say he forced a loss. One could just as much credit Gorbatchev for facing the truth. Winners, losers - that's stuff military worry about.

But Reagan managed to do that on credit, which wrecked the budget and impacted on that of next Presidents.

Which brings me back to the social policy part.

[hellhathnofury]

21. So Clark is clueless on social policy?

Furthermore, he doesn't understand where all the nifty missiles come from.

I just have issues with people who don't realize the legacy and true greatness of our fine party on defence.

[NV1962]

24. Yeah, so clueless that he switched Dem on their social policies

Re-read the first post...

Unless of course you're suggesting that the Democrats have a real sucky approach to social policy.

In that case... Good luck.

[hellhathnofury]

26. Okay re-read. I guess my question is...

Clark was an absolute pro-military spending voter who detested hippies before 1992? He didn't realize that the social policies in the army were completely opposed to what the Republicans were advocating for his country?

[NV1962]

33. Wes Clark's candidacy and his military social policy track record...

are fairly good mutually reinforcing things. His pro-AA and EO position is one thing, he also fought hard for education, housing, etc.

I believe that "social policy" background of Wes Clark in the US Army is relevant, as much as it is tied to the end of the Cold War and its "typical" massive, monolithical and "big guns" mindset.

When the Cold War ended (and with it, the bipolar, "neat" separation of the world in mainly two blocs) it also ended the justification for maintaining that massive, "big guns" military make-up.

Wes Clark obviously noticed that, too (I don't think he's all that enthused about the massive Palladin cannon project, for example)

The thing is that he's convinced that even within the DoD budget, more should be spent on personnel (training, social benefits... the works)

His proposals on social policy are a fairly straightforward adaption of what he has been applying during his military career.

Finally, changing subject completely: I agree totally with your earlier statement, that Democrats used to have the "upper hand" in public perception of position on National Security.

Unfortunately, Republicans have taken that "PR-advantage" since Kennedy/Johnson.

Which, incidentally, might be counted as another point in favor of Wes Clark: the publicly acknowledged strength of his uncompromised support for making and keeping the country really safer. (I think Clark's hammering Bush on not capturing Bin Laden, going after Saddam instead, while Newsweek was able to trace ObL should get more airplay - perhaps it will)

I don't say Carter was "weak" on National Security (hey, he had arch-hawk Brzezinski on his cabinet team!) but unfortunately, public perception can sometimes trump reality. Reagan, with his Star Wars and MX simply managed to imprint an image of "strength"

Anyway... Today, I think there's no Democratic contender who can claim an equally powerful combination of a public recognition of strength on National Security, and a clear social policy agenda that can be readily identified as crafted with "the traditional Democratic values", as Wes Clark.

[hellhathnofury]

35. Satisfactory answer.

I don't like his past recored at all. But theres a chance I'll have to live with it.

I think domestics just might be the deciding factor in this one. I think Dean can tie Bush on defense. Clark needs to work on making his social policies more pragmatic and compassionate. A key note issue would do him well, I suggest education.

Would you be willing to accept a Dean/Clark ticket? You've got to admit that if we want to truly lynch someone on defense it's got to be PNACheney. I'd take Clark/Dean, with hesitation.

[NV1962]

38. Yes I would support that ticket

With perhaps the only exception of Sharpton, I can support the current Democratic contenders.

(Yes, even Lieberman! With a pinched nose... But he beats re-election of Bush hands-down)

[BeyondGeography]

5. Did Dean EVER vote for a Republican?

We have some pretty reasonable ones here in the northeast. Heck, I voted for Giuliani after the debacle that was the first David Dinkins Administration in NYC (not that Giuliani is all that reasonable...just that something had to be done).

So, given Dean's moderate history, I'd be amazed if he never voted for a Rockefeller Republican-type in his life. And anyone who held it against him would be a fool.

[JohnKleeb]

36. I've heard rumors that he voted for Jeffords while Jeffords was still an R

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. You are wrong about R's being stronger than Dems on national security

I almost fell off the couch when I read that.

[hellhathnofury]

7. I did fall out of the chair.

I just don't get it.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Well

It's actually not that hard....we are talking about the people that spit on returning soldier during the Vietnam war...that's what Clark remembers....and from that point on he voted Republican until Clinton....whom he knew......

That's what he said, so that's what it was...

If you don't understand it, so be it. You're stumped I guess.

[hellhathnofury]

16. We'll I happen to come from the Harry Truman, JFK wing.

We know defense. Carter was a hell of a diplomat and if Clark prefers arms races and blustering over diplomacy well, i just don't know.

Who'd Clark vote for in 1976?

[BootinUp]

20. So what?

Harry and JFK are dead and gone, and so is the D party's rep for being strong on defense.

When was the last time you talked to regular folks about their perception on that, or looked at polls like the Washington Post Poll about two weeks ago that had Bush over Dean on National Security by something like 35 pts?

[hellhathnofury]

25. But Clark is the Rhodes Scholar, he should know better.

Bowing to the Publicans because they talk louder isn't exactly what I like in a possible nominee.

We've got to get it back and that doesn't come from disrespecting or disowning our past. We've got to be proud of our stances.

It's time to talk about a return to the 1960 election. Remember the missile gap? We can whoop them on this, it's not hard.

We can't decide that stars are the patch either. We've got to win with idea's and the Clark camp needs to know that.

[BootinUp]

34. One of my favorite Clark speeches on National Security/FP

snip...

President Kennedy displayed a complete understanding of the threat - and still he was cool, courageous and in command - inspiring confidence in all around him. That was a time of great danger for America, and it mattered immensely to our security that we had a President who had won over the hearts and minds of millions - and a nation that was admired around the world for its moral authority.

There could be no clearer contrast to America's place in the world today.

The losses we suffered on 9/11 - as tragic as they were - have been magnified by the losses we've suffered since.

The loss of allied support.
The loss of moral authority.
The loss of respect, admiration, and esteem - especially in the Islamic world.
Today we are at risk - a risk perhaps every bit as great as the risk we faced the day before 9/1l.

Our armed forces are fully committed as an array of new threats are emerging, with no reserves, either physical or intellectual.
The Secretary of Defense had to leak his own memo to explain that we have no strategy to deal with terrorism - something I've been saying for 2 years.
And, with this Administration, there is no prospect of help from a world that increasingly revels in our failures.

snip....

This is not 1962. But in many ways this enemy is far more pernicious. This enemy is not bounded by a state's borders...their ideology is one of destruction...they seem to not even feel a bond of common humanity.

They recognize no boundaries. Everyone to them is a target if it serves their symbolic needs. Look at the latest: targeting our nation's Deputy Secretary of Defense then the next day the Red Cross - the world's symbol of peace and good -- and today a police station in Fallujah. Nothing is safe from their reach.

Despite the bravery and competence of our Armed Forces, we are still struggling to turn yesterday's military success into today's strategic victory, with painful consequences day in and day out for American men and women serving in Iraq and for Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire.

The war is a disastrous turn of events. Not only because this President still has not come forward with a strategy for how we're going to succeed on the ground. But also because many governments now believe we tried to deceive them, and this Administration doesn't have the credibility to rebut them and be believed. One of the greatest national security assets we have is our ability to persuade, an ability that rests on trust. America needs a leader the world can trust. We don't have one now.

This lack of trust exacts a great cost - especially when dealing with the other very serious threats we face. We still must dismantle al Qaeda and the world-wide terrorist networks plotting to attack us. We face intractable conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia and ongoing nuclear dangers in Iran and North Korea. And this Administration's reckless actions have depleted us of the national security asset we now need most: The moral authority we have enjoyed for almost all of our history.

more
http://clark04.com/speeches/008/

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Je suis froissé

The suggestion that

"the people that spit on returning soldier during the Vietnam war"

equals Democrats is highly offensive to me.


I wasn't able to play the video. Is there a transcript available somewhere? Is that what Clark said?

[maxr4clark]

11. Apparently, so is Dean

I just got back from a local Democratic party info session, where a Dr. Ashby represented Dean. He is on Dean's foreign policy advisory board, and was a Reagan/Bush administration appointee--a Republican. He said that quite a number of Dean's foreign policy team are Republicans.

Go figure. I guess Dean isn't the liberal he is trying to tell us he is. At least Clark is honest about his past, not hiding it from public view.

[Lobo_13]

18. If Liberalism is your litmus test

then you shouldn't be backing Clark.

It reminds me of when Michael Moore was slobbering all over Clarks knob. He said that he would like Dean better except for his stance on gun control and the death penalty. Even though both have similar stances.

Some people just can't see past the stars.

But I forgot, Clark is a liberal. Because he says so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Dean fails both tests

a centrist who is weak on national security is not what we need in a candidate. There is one candidate in the race whose breadth, depth, and length of experience in both international and domestic affairs puts him head and shoulders above the pack. Coincidentally, (and it's made for some pretty funny photos), it's the same candidate who really does stand head and shoulders above the pack - John Kerry.

[Lobo_13]

28. too bad he bores everyone to tears

You can't be a good president if you don't get the nomination.

Maybe if he was as interested in integrity as he was in keeping his job or getting a new one (WH) he'd have a chance.

But there for the grace of god go I.

[hellhathnofury]

29. I don't think Dean was ever trying to pass those tests.

Dean is just being Dean. The truth is that Dean probably balances out to be a pragmatic left-centrist.

JFK-IWR Vote-Sellout

[Lobo_13]

30. I'm a supporter

It just looked like the guy above me preferred Clark because he was more liberal than Dean.

If by more liberal, you mean Republican.

[hellhathnofury]

31. I don't think Clark is a Republican.

I just don't think he's much of a Democrat. I won't hold that against him but it seems to be rubbing off on some of the other aspects of his candidacy.

I don't think Dean is easy to pigeonhole-that's my standard line.

[maxr4clark]

44. I don't think Dean is a Republican

I was just pointing out that the arguments Dean supporters use to label Clark as one also apply to Dean.

I also think that there is plenty of evidence that Clark is a Democrat, not the least of which are the positions he has put forward on the issues. He isn't the most liberal of the candidates, DK is either that or close. He isn't the most conservative of the candidates, either.

Clark's positions are to the left of the current front-runner, Howard Dean. Claims that Clark is anything but a Democrat are simply smears.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. Did you watch the video? Even Clark conceded he might have been

wrong and it is just what he did.

What I found interesting was Clark was quite candid in his meeting and was followed bu Gephardt who appeared to be talking down to his group as though they were children.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Rowdyboy]

32. Damn, and here I've been voting in the wrong primary for 32 years...

I wasted all those votes: McGovern, Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, and Gore....when I was really a Republican...What a bitch.

Well, if Wes is a Republican, guess I, and a few million other DINO's are about to switch parties.

[Printer70]

37. "career military" - Clark is Pentagon taught

The Pentagon has an ideology and they ingrain it into you. You hear it whenever Clark talks about defense. He is not going the shake that off overnight. Clark is a militarist- no different than many Republican neocons.

--
New Yorker excerpt

"Clark said that Saddam 'absolutely' had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." In the April 10th London Times, Clark predicted that the American victory would alter the dynamics of the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express." Clark praised the Anglo-American alliance, saying that Bush & Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

Clark called for victory parades down the Mall, and in another column, cheered the spectacular display of coalition force: "American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try!"

Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003

[BootinUp]

39. Nothing but

misinterpretation.

Read the snippets from the speech I posted above. Open your mind just a wince and let a little light in. It won't hurt you.

[Printer70]

43. I'm sorry you are slow

Dean supporters tend to be fairly well educated and employ reason. I have demonstrated to you how Clark exemplifies neoconservative thinking and tendencies given American exceptionalism, praising the Anglo-alliance during the Iraq war, buying half-baked CIA intelligence, etc. and your response is to cite an unrelated speech Clark gave. If you need some time to prepare your thoughts and address the argument, by all means. Take as much time as you need.

[BootinUp]

45. It was a completely relevent speech

You simply have no intention of discussing this in a meaningful way, thats what is obvious.