About this "Clark voted Reagan!" crap. Come on, folks.

[WilliamPitt]

Jesus, folks. Open a history book. You think voters who went Reagan aren't important, are evil and stupid, etc.? Do a google on the words 'Reagan Democrats.' The first articles are:

"Howard Dean turning off Reagan Democrats"

"Howard Dean may inspire new generation of Reagan Democrats"

"Secrets of the "Reagan Democrats”

There's a bunch more just like it. Why?

Because Ronald Reagan won in 1980, and especially in 1984, by bringing in million of Democratic voters. A great, great many of them were blue-collar voters who went Reagan because of social issues. You start blackballing people who voted for Reagan, and you've written off millions of Democratic voters above the age of 40. And that's just pretty God damned stupid.

I'm not defending Wesley Clark per se. I am, however, saying that the "Voted Reagan!" cry is dumb, and empty, and ignorant of American political history.

Damn, folks.

[pmbryant]

1. 59%

That's the percentage of the vote Reagan won in 1984. (!!)

If I had been old enoug to vote, I can't say for sure that I wouldn't have added to that total.

:shrug:

--Peter

[RichM]

13. Oh? And why is that, exactly?

Was it his military spending, his build-up of debt, his union-busting, his cutting of social programs, his tax cuts for the rich, or his support for rightwing death squads in Central America that most appealed to you?

[pmbryant]

61. Give me a break

I didn't know about any of that stuff. That was my point.

It was only later that I started paying attention and woke up, politically.

EDIT: Just to be absolutely clear on this: The person that I am now would never ever ever have even remotely considered voting for Reagan. The person I was in 1984, though, was ambivalent, mainly due to political ignorance. I was 16 years old at the time.

--Peter

[Terwilliger]

74. I can respect that

that you've since changed

Has Wesley Clark changed much? I think he was older than 16 when he voted for Nixon, and Reagan TWICE. Raised funds for Repukes, had to declare that he was actually a Democrat...I mean please.

Ralph Nader has been excoriated here for FAR less, and he never claimed to be a Democrat.

[pmbryant]

85. It sure sounds like he has changed since then

Perhaps he was too involved in his own career and family at the time to pay much attention to national politics. I don't know. :shrug:

But the mere fact that he is running, as an outspoken Democrat, against Bush II, indicates to me that this is not even close to the same political person who voted for Reagan 20 years ago.

We are all different. I started paying attention to national politics when I was in my 20s, and became transformed. For other people, that could happen at a completely different age. Perhaps not even until relatively late in life. Nothing at all implausible in that to me.

--Peter

[Kathy in Cambridge]

101. I can name many people who have had political epiphanies

later in life. My husband in his 30s changed from liberal Repub-yes, he voted for Reagan-to hardcore Democrat. My old boss was a hardcore Repub who, worried about his grandchildren's future and horrified at the abuse of the environment by Repubs, swiched his party affiliation.

[edward]

124. If you say it is true, then that is true.

Personally, I find it shocking. When I first voted I was a full time student in college, and quite immersed in my studies.
The idea that I could be so uninformed about someone who has an unambiguous far right wing history is...hard to believe.
Reagan was ratting out fellow actors and destroying their careers as screen actors president.
Not an insult to you at all. But to read Clark(in Washington Post) say he "may have voted for Reagan" means something. Not a youthful indiscretion.

[RetroLounge]

119. You are speaking with the benefit of Hindsight

eom

[Terwilliger]

31. ABR? I guess Mondale didn't qualify, eh?

talk about party unity :nuke:

[disgruntella]

2. I agree, however

I also think for half of DU, "writing off millions of Democratic voters" is considered a victory.

[a_random_joel]

4. Love the screen name!

eom

[a_random_joel]

3. Just out of curiosity, Mr. Pitt

Has Clark's entry affected your opinion of Kerry?

[WilliamPitt]

7. Not so much

My opinion of Kerry is my opinion of Kerry. Another person isn't going to change that. I do, however, think it has affected the tenor of the race.

[Friar]

16. affected the "tenor"?

I think not. It's only affected the VRWC attack machine. They were scared of Dean but they are absolutely terrified of Clark. Just wait and watch them go into high gear.

[GalleryGod]

36. Point Well Taken,Friar.

I'm still a "Kerry Man",and I have been since "Operation Dewey Canyon III",which I've posted on previously ad nauseum.

The "He's An Idiot-But Look at his Team" mantra led to this fecked-up world.

I like my Dem's with "some fruit salad" on the left breast,now.:pals:

[a_random_joel]

18. Bad wording...

I think you knew what I was trying to get at. Thanks for the feedback though.

I totally agree with your sentiment in this thread, BTW.

[LTR]

5. Well put!

I posted something about this the other night.

If the Democratic party shut out anyone who isn't or wasn't a true, 100% Dem, we'd have four more years of the Fourth Reich.

The Democratic party has too storied a history and too much success to beturned into a fringe group.

If Clark voted for Reagan, so be it.

(edited for spelling error. Damn, I hate cheap keyboards!)

[Brian Sweat]

6. He is not ideologically pure. He must be purged.

No one whe ever voted for a Republican in the past can be a Democratic politician. No one who ever served in the military can be a Democratic politician. No one who ever served on the board of a corporation can be a Democratic politician.

Kucinich, Dean or Green (because only a Green can decide who is a true Democrat)!

[LTR]

8. Yeah!

Tell Jeffords to go back to the Republicans!

[Cheswick2.0]

21. ummmm Jeffords isn't a democrat

and I wouldn't want him for the nominee either. He is a good man, but he certainly isn't a democrat. I am a democrat, I want to vote for someone who shares my values.

[Terwilliger]

11. Oh? WELL WHY DIDNT YOU SAY SO!

Sweat, when you get a clue, please realize that if the Democratic party ISN'T as "far-left" as you and your folks say, then this partisan hatred of George Bush makes no sense.

TRULY schizophrenic :freak:

[Brian Sweat]

24. It is possible to be well to the right of Greens and

other radical leftists, such as yourself, and still be well to the left of the GOP and George Bush.

I am
pro-environment
pro-choice
pro-establishment clause
pro-public education
pro-progressive taxation
pro-corporate regulation


These are things that most "right wing" Democrats support, but that the GOP and George are against.


I am not

anti-corporation
anti-free market
pro-maximum wage
anti-any war that comes down the pike
anti-military

and a million other things were centrist and radical leftist disagree.

[Terwilliger]

39. radical leftists?

The fucking Greens aren't even socialist!

I am
pro-environment
pro-choice
pro-establishment clause
pro-public education
pro-progressive taxation
pro-corporate regulation

Well HEY! Its the Green party core values! Wonder how your Dem buddies would react your your "pro-corporate regulation" extremism? Progressive taxation? That's SOOOO anti-business! :eyes:


I am not

anti-corporation
anti-free market
pro-maximum wage
anti-any war that comes down the pike
anti-military

Who's anti-corporation? Who's anti-free-market?

"Anti-any war that comes down the pike" Oh ok, so if it was just Republicans bringing us these wars, Democrats would be against them THEN! Is that what you're saying?

I'm anti-military, personally, because even the government is. 400 billion this year for the Pentagon, and thousands of veterans are homeless on the street.

See, you centrists are not part of the Democratic party. I don't know why you don't just join your centrist Republican friends and make a centrist party.

[Brian Sweat]

50. All I can say

is that it really warms my heart to see how the Democratic party has marginalized radical-leftists such as yourself.

[Terwilliger]

77. I wouldn't be a "radical-leftist"

If the predominant "liberal" party in this country wasn't so hell bent on moving to the right.

So you DO like the DLC, eh? Why not just vote for Lieberman??

[Brian Sweat]

92. Yes, you would

You're views are not just far to the left of the Democratic party, the are even further to the left of the country as a whole.


As a said before, I can be well to the right of you and still be well to the left of Lieberman. Lieberman is just as unrepresentative of the DNC as you are.

[HFishbine]

84. Reconsider

"if the Democratic party ISN'T as "far-left" as you and your folks say, then this partisan hatred of George Bush makes no sense."

You concede the middle to Bush in your assumtion. I would suggest that the "partisan hatred" of Bush (and it's not all partisan, BTW) is not because the dems are far left, but because Bush is extreme right.

[Brian Sweat]

95. To some people

The world isn't grey, it's black and white.

[DS1]

26. HAHAA AHHA, you know who sits on the board of Apple don't you?

[Brian Sweat]

32. You know I was being deeply sarcastic, don't you?

[HawkerHurricane]

70. Well, I guess I'll be leaving

If a career military man isn't welcome, I'm gone. I've got two strikes (voted for Bush Sr. in 1988, serving military). Too bad there isn't a party who'll take a liberal/progressive hawk.

[DonP]

100. Don't foget anyone that owns guns too

According to a lot of folks here, and down in the JPS forum, any of us that own guns or feel the 2nd amendment is an individual right can't be real Democrats either.

At the rate some "purists" are going we'll be a fringe party in no time ... but both of us will be truly pure in thought and deed.

Don P.

[Friar]

9. no shit

The "Gore-ing" of Clark has begun. Did we expect anything else? I don't think so.

[Brian Sweat]

14. I expected it, but from the right.

Et tu, Greenay!

[Terwilliger]

44. well you can't get it from the right here at DU

free expression is limited

By the way, why are you characterizing all the Clark attacks as coming from Greens?

[Brian Sweat]

53. No, I was making a joke.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. people who voted Reagan are perfectly welcome to vote for a Democrat

I welcome them to the fold. I appreciate their growth. I just don't want to vote for them!

[roughsatori]

57. Thank you for saying it simply

that is what meant to say in my own prolix response. :)

[Brian Sweat]

108. I can understand that.

They are not ideologically pure. They must be purge.

Kucinich, Dean or Green (because only a Green can decide who is a true Democrat)!

[jonnyblitz]

12. And then there are the "Bush Democrats" 20% of DEMS voted for Bush

Out of curiosity I did a yahoo search on democrats who voted for Bush and I got a link to the green party website that stated about 7.7 million Democrats, or roughly 20% of them voted for Bush. I have no point, just random info to throw out there......

[newsguyatl]

15. don't forget nixon will

[Rose Siding]

22. Has he said he voted for Gore?

Or Clinton? I'm guessing so, but has he said?

[Neecy]

27. yes

He said in an interview the other day that he voted for Gore in 2000...I'm assuming he voted for Clinton as well, although he wasn't asked.

[Rose Siding]

40. Thanks, Neecy

That's good to know. Clark may be terrific and have a worthy contrib to make to the race but it's weird to realize that without a political background, there are just tons of things that need to be learned about a candidate.

Basic positions can be discovered easily but, for instance, he said he didn't know just what the Brady bill does (paraphrase). Now he could know *plenty* about it and just want to refresh or re-read or get a little more technical info or something before commenting and that's his style- But we aren't familiar yet with his style so it's hard to know.

[Friar]

64. no political background?

Do you really think someone becomes a four star general without knowing something about politics? The military heirarchy is nothing BUT politics!
In fact, his removal as NATO commander was a textbook example of politics. No one questioned his abilities or his success in that action. He was removed for questioning the politics of his superiors.

[dfong63]

72. he has no track record in ELECTORAL politics - big difference

any random person probably has "political" experience with office politics. that doesn't qualify anyone to run for president.

[Friar]

93. true,

but if you are suggesting he should first run for a school board I think you are missing the bigger picture. This is a man emminently qualified for international politics, even if he's an unknown on domestic issues. No one's an expert in everything and we all rely on others who are experts (I've always hired people who were hellasmarter than me). In fact, that was Bush's theme: "I'm an idiot, but I'll appoint experts". Not that he followed through. I suspect Clark will. Clinton had zero international experience yet he proved to be the most popular President internationally since Truman. He remains so to this day.

[dfong63]

96. you "suspect" he will appoint good experts,

... but this is the highest office in the land we're talking about here. we have a right to ask for more than "suspicions", "guesses", and the rumor mill. the man has no track record in electoral politics, and no experience in civilian administration or governance.

we can do better than that.

[Friar]

109. point taken

but historically many of our greatest presidents also had no track record in governance yet proved up to the task. I "suspect" Clark will be up to the task.

[ProfessorGAC]

131. Like Whom?

Who were the great presidents with no track record of governance? Other than George Washington, that is.

Lincoln: Nope, had experience in Illinois and as a Congressman.
Roosevelt: Nope, was a governor.
Truman: Multi terms in Congress
Kennedy: Congressman and Senator
Johnson: Spent forever in the House and Senate

Who were the greats that didn't have any prior experience?
The Professor

[Rose Siding]

110. I'm talking about a record

of public service regarding positions to issues to which I can relate, like a voting record in Congress or policy successes like a gov might have.

The closed door politics of the military isn't something that I'm familiar with but, on a subjective level, it isn't counted as a positive for me.

[CMT]

17. that he voted for Reagan and "probably" Nixon

doesn't matter that much to me, people change. Hell, Ronald Reagan himself was a New Deal Democrat during the 30's and 40's. Still I'm happy he is now a Democrat and as the old saying goes I welcome him with open arms and will escort him to a front pew, but by gosh, I draw the line at him trying to lead the choir. :)

[RichM]

19. If it's OK to have voted for Nixon & Reagan, why do Democrats get hot

& bothered when the observation is made that there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans?

[diplomats]

42. The GOP has moved much further to the right

than when even Reagan was president. Chimpy's policies are much more RW than Reagan's when you get down to it. Not his rhetoic, his policies.

[Friar]

71. we know that

but what little difference there is, is critical. Do you think Gore would have lead us into this disasterous Iraq occupation? Do you think Al Gore would have given massive tax breaks to the already well-to-do and bankrupted every state in the union in the process? Do you think Al Gore would deregulated pollution?

<--- tired of the "There is no difference" crap

[Brian Sweat]

106. The differences between the Democrats and the Republicans

are important to us. Just like the differences between the Democrats and the Greens are important to us. Now, go trash a Starbucks or something.

[CWebster]

20. shut up Pitt

You make me ill with your pandering to Reagan Democrats.

You make me ill.

Truly.

[Friar]

33. "pandering"? I think not

Mr.Pitt cannot be accused of pandering, unless you define pandering as being insightful and objective. Such is our curse for being True Americans™. Mr. Pitt exemplifies these virtues.

[WilliamPitt]

35. I hope you're kidding

[birdman]

94. Pandering ?

What does Mr. Pitt want from Reagan Democrats?

Personally I've always felt that Reagan Democrats
were largely members of the WWII generation who perceived
the Democrats (and particularly President Carter) as being
unwilling or unable to defend the country. Carter looked
ineffectual in dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis and
many people were looking for the guy with the easy answers
to the complicated questions. It's understandable under
the circumstances as aggravating as it may be from our point of
view.

The Reagan Democrat is largely a phenomenon of the past because
the parties are far more ideologically homogenious than they were in 1980.

Clark appears to have been all over the lot politically
and if he's a late convert to the Democratic philosophy
or is just adopting that philosophy for his own advancement
he's still a damn sight better than Bush. Just because I
could never have voted for Reagan doesn't mean I can't vote
for Clark.

[madaboutharry]

23. Will is correct about this.

I come from a long line of die-hard democrats. Christ, my mother is waiting for the second coming of Harry Truman. In 1984, every single member of my family voted for Ronald Reagan. Sorry about it now, but they did. Carter's presidency was a disaster. Interest rates were 17%, you couldn't buy or sell a house, I remember hearing all this. Will is right, this "voted for Reagan" thing is a waste of time.

[fedupwithbush]

25. Then there were the McCain Democrats

I despised Bush from the first speech I saw. But I have to say at first I liked McCain. When Bush did his dirty number on him, it only made me like him more. I don't know who I would have voted for if 2000 had been Gore vs. McCain.

That said, I'm a 5th generation Democrat. I agree with a lot more of their idea's about which direction this country should go than Republicans. But....I vote for the person I agree with the most. 99% of the time it's a Democrat. But I'm not giving up my brain to make it 100%.

I adore Jeffords. I made sure to e-mail him and thank him for thinking instead of following blindly. We need more like him.

[Frances]

28. My husband voted for Reagan for governor of California

and I hate that he did. But that was before he knew me. After being married to me for 13 years he finally switched his registration from Independent to Democrat. Now he hates Bush as much as I do.

If those of us who oppose Bush don't keep our eye on getting rid of Bush, we are done for.

[GalleryGod]

38. Want to see a Progressive? Look at Dutch's California Admin.

1967-71:Granted the Late Great Jesse Unruh was the Speaker of the House and "running the show"-but Dutch and Ed Meese could "sniff the wind" back then.
Frances,ease-up on the Hubby, people were tired of Pat Brown,he was running for a 3rd term.:grouphug:

[MODemocrat]

29. You're absolutely right Will

Many of my good friends and colleagues switched over and voted for Ronald Reagan, and I have to confess, it was tempting for me, because he did have the charisma rarely seen, and people got caught up in his star status. For crying out loud, people should be entitled to change their minds anyway; even a "large tree bends in the wind". A cliche to say the least, but let's give all our candidates our support. I'm leaning toward Dean right now, but I certainly don't have a "problem" with Clark.

[GalleryGod]

48. A Hart-Reagan Race would've been Better in Retrospect

In 1984; We're discussing-BDR(before donna rice):loveya:
I thought a Gary Hart-Bob Graham ticket in 1984 would've at least been spicey and competitive. :grr:

Alas, Fritz's nomination was "Same old,Same old" and Gerry F. looked like a desperate ploy.:hangover:

[CWebster]

30. it is the office of the president we are talking about

Not the misled voter.

[Frances]

34. Nit-picking about our candidates is a luxury we cannot afford

Personally I try to see the positives of each of the Democratic candidates.

I know that if Democrats start fighting among themselves that Bush will stay in the White House.

[CWebster]

51. Yes, we should hold them to no standards whatsoever.

[diamondsoul]

69. Who suggested "no standards"?

What you and others on this thread are implying is that if he has been a bi-partison voter in the past he's unworthy of candidacy. That's crap. If that were the case then we should disown any Democrat who didn't vote a straight party ticket ever.

Guess what? The whole damned thing would be over, Bush would win hands down and we'd all be f*cked, in more ways than we can count.

All of you need to get off this control kick! Registered Dems who occasionally vote Repub are not the enemy, they're issue voters. In case ya'll didn't know it, that's the way it SHOULD be!

[Donna Zen]

79. speaking in absolutes

leaves no room for discussion...no discussion...no understanding...no consensus...no win

Thank you from der party of der pure

[Q]

37. Speaking of dumb...this thread is dumb and naive...

...because it ignores political history. But...I don't expect much from the guy who started the 'we don't owe Gore a thing' thread way back when.

- Those who voted for Reagan tend to vote 'conservatively' and follow the philosophy of the 'New' Democrats...which is the road to hell paved with compromise and date rape 'bipartisanship'.

- How much more is the Democratic party willing to give up to 'win' or 'compete' with the corporate-loving RWingers?

- And once again Mr. Pitt insults those with an opinion different than his. He's just lucky he doesn't charge for his threads.

[WilliamPitt]

41. Right on cue, Q

Dems who voted Reagan in 1984 saw the party being hijacked by small special interest groups. Most of the Dems who voted Reagan, oddly enough, were Union guys. You want to write off the Union guys in search of your purity.

You're too pure for me, Q. And no, we don't owe Al Gore a damned thing. If he wants it, it's there for the taking. Can't pay back a guy who won't ask for the money.

[Q]

Well...it's a slow morning...

...and frankly...I'm growing weary of you attacking our fellow DUers and calling them 'dumb' and worse. Your writing style is perhaps better suited to the third person.

- Speaking of 'right on que (Q)...this 'purist' argument is getting a bit stale. It has nothing to do with purity. It's about honor, dignity, principles and integrity.

[Friar]

80. he called us dumb?

When? Where? Geez, at least be factual.

[dfong63]

112. actually, the word he used was "stupid"

he called us dumb? When? Where? Geez, at least be factual.

is this factual enough for you? Pitt started out by calling our argument "crap", telling us to "open a history book", he smeared us by distorting argument, then called it "god damned stupid".

quote:
``About this "Clark voted Reagan!" crap. Come on, folks.
Jesus, folks. Open a history book.
(snip) written off millions of Democratic voters above the age of 40. And that's just pretty God damned stupid.''

you can argue that he didn't directly accuse "us" of being stupid, but his argument was basically a put-down. i expect better than that from a professional writer.

[Eloriel]

56. "party being hijacked by small special interest groups"

recoiling in horror

And how old were YOU at that time, Will?

Just so you know -- but maybe you DO know and don't give a damn -- those very words are code words the DLC uses to justify their jettisoning minorities and minority organizations, unions, women's groups, etc., etc., etc.

At best it makes YOU sound like a GOP mole, which I'm quite sure you're not.

As Rush Limbaugh would say: words mean something.

Eloriel

[WilliamPitt]

59. Those are not my words

but the words from the people who jumped over to Reagan.

There's a reason Clinton slapped the base around in 1991. There's also a reason he won.

[Eloriel]

62. Well, then it's just as racist as it appears -- such a shame

that you would choose to repeat the euphemism instead of exposing it.

Eloriel

[dave29]

76. Yes, there is a reason Cllinton won in '92 even though

he slapped the base around.

Ross Perot

[edward]

125. Hey Will. Some people here respect you and may follow your lead.

Starting a thread with insults is not productive.
And maybe, just maybe, people who don't see things your way are not
"godamned stupid."

[sistersofmercy]

43. 80 & 84 were a different time, in retrospect I can see why there is ..

complaint but there wasn't as much available info then. I wasn't old enough to vote in either election so I just can't say whether I would have voted for Reagan or not. I didn't particularly care for him. My loathing was reserved for Papa Bush.

[gully]

45. Sorry Minnesota Mondalian here. This matters to me...

But, I'd still vote for him should it come down to it.

[Wednesdays]

46. Hillary used to be a Republican, too.

Whom Clark voted for in 1984 is small potatoes, in my book.

[dfong63]

89. not that i want Hillary, but she's proved herself since then

by campaigning for dems, voting for dems, running for senate as a dem, voting with the dems in the senate.

Clark hasn't. hell, he wouldn't even publicly admit he was a dem until a couple weeks ago.

imagine we're back in the cold war days, and some Russian general defected, and wanted to help our side. would you immediately put that man in charge of the strategic air command? i don't think so.

[seventhson]

47. Reagan was an extreme right wing racist idealogue in 1980. Voting for him

was tantamount to voting for the KKK. Grown-ups with ANY education know this.

Every adult who pays attention knows this.

Unfortunately a LOT of blue collar dems were lied and pandered to by the extreme right on the issues of race, religion, and military strength. They can be excused or forgiven for ignorance and manipulation by the media. But those who were educated have NO excuses and should be shunned.



If Clark voted for a right wing idealogue (and he was an educated adult at the time) he's not worthy of being our president.

[goodhue]

49. voted Repuke in 72, 80 & 84

How did he vote in 76 & 88 if at all. I'm assuming he voted Clinton in 92 but maybe that assumption is not so safe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html?ex=1064635200&en=3cf55b5c39e03a89&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984

[seventhson]

52. Sounds like a spineless conservative opportunist to me

nt

[dfong63]

66. bingo

but i'd make that an "evasive, arrogant, narcissistic" opportunist.

[GalleryGod]

54. All the PURITY PURGING aside,that Sounds like a Better Pedigree

for screwing with KKK Rove & Gang of Thugs...alas:wtf:

CAN'T USE: "Another LIBR'UL(socialist)Democrat from a failed Southern State"

Just a thought-I'm looking to the GENERAL,here,not the
:puke: Pandering,Purity,Purging,Primaries

:hangover:

[roughsatori]

55. I will not vote for anyone who "probably" voted for Reagan/Nixon

Getting the votes from the Republican swing voters is important particularly when a party does not get out most of its registered members to vote)but Clark's "probably" Reagan, Nixon votes were the nail in the proverbial coffin.

I know people who voted for Reagan--but they are not running for President. I get the feeling more and more that his decision to run as a Democrat was simply one of expediency for his personal goal.

Some of you may call me a stupid Greeny leftist; but as a life-long Democrat with a 165+ IQ it is not an argument that sways me.


I would consider the option of winning the primary and losing the election with Clark. But then again, his supporters may be right, he will win so many Republican votes that the Democrats who stayed home won't matter.

[goodhue]

67. what do you mean by "probably"

He stated he voted for Reagan and Nixon. Are you suggesting he is lying?

[roughsatori]

78. No, first he used the word "probably"

I was posting this days ago, and was told by his supporters that "probably" does not mean he did. Now it is clear he did,I was putting the "probably" in quotes as a reminder to the haters.

I don't trust Clark--but I was not implying he was lying over voting for 2 of the worst Republican presidents in history. He did.

[opstachuck]

58. I think a lot people, when eyeing out a candidate...

look for someone they can relate to, someone that seems to represent their experience of the world. whether that's naive or not, i'm not really sure, but i know that a former military general who used to be a republican is not the type of person that your average democrat would feel a very strong connection with. you might say this lacks vision or insight to consider these things but i think it's more of an emotional connection that's at play here.

[seventhson]

60. If he really cared he would run against Bush in the rethug primaries

then WILL could vote for him in good consience along with all those other wonderful republican voting democrats he defends in this thread.

[dfong63]

63. faulty reasoning, Will

You start blackballing people who voted for Reagan, and you've written off millions of Democratic voters above the age of 40. And that's just pretty God damned stupid.

we're not "blackballing" millions of voters; the point is that just maybe, when it comes to PICKING THE PARTY'S NOMINEE, we could pick from among the MORE millions who VOTED DEMOCRATIC.

and you know damn well that the issue isn't JUST that Clark voted republican. there's a bunch of related, questionable things that Clark did. he voted for Reagan; he RAISED MONEY FOR the repubs only 2 years ago; until 2 weeks ago he refused to even publicly admit he was a democrat.

and then there's the fact that instead of giving a straight answer to the voting question, he said that he couldn't remember, but he "imagined" he voted for Reagan. got that? first in his class at west point, a rhodes scholar, commander of NATO's european forces, and "can't remember" whether he voted for a man who he'd been praising to the skies at that republican fundraising dinner.

cmon Will. if this were a Bush administration official giving answers like that, would you buy it?

that's not just a bad vote, that's an evasion.

so it's not just the one thing of Clark having voted for Reagan. it's all these little things that point to the conclusion that Clark is a democrat of convenience rather than conviction. Clark wants to be president, but (sigh) the repubs don't have an opening this year.

and don't tell me i'm "writing off" millions of voters who may also be dems of convenience. i'm not. i'm just saying that maybe they shouldn't be the party's nominee after having come "in from the cold" only yesterday.

if Clark wants to be the dem nominee, then let him prove himself a good dem first. let him join the party, stump for the other dem candidates, VOTE for dems, raise money for the dems like he did for the repubs. then let him run for some lower-stakes public office to show he can be elected, and to give him more experience. if he succeeds, then maybe he'll be fit to vie for the dem nomination in 2008 or 2012.

[diamondsoul]

65. I cannot believe the responses to this, Will!

Jeez, people WTF? Are we Democrats, and more importantly are we democrats?

Does every citizen of this country have the right to vote for their view of the best candidate in the race or not? If so, then Will is dead-on right! This whole attempt to smear Clark because he voted Republican in a few instances is a DUMB move!

Look, I'm a die-hard Dem for the most part, have deliberately gone out of my way before to avoid voting Repub when there weren't any Dems in the running, but I HAVE been swayed by Republicans once in a while.

Keerist, if you want to cut off your noses to spite your faces, go ahead but don't try to drag the whole party with you!

[opstachuck]

83. one thing i worry about...

he has three master's degrees, finished first in his class, rhodes scholar, all that shit. someone that bright should've jumped the repug ship a while ago, not when he was in his late 40's. i guess i lost some respect for him because i want a democrat who's been a democrat for most of their adult life, like all of the other democrats that i respect and all the other candidates in this race. maybe it's a trust issue. don't get me wrong, i'll vote for him in a second if that's what it takes to get a democrat into the white house, but i'd rather have someone who's been fighting for the left, in some regard, for most of their life. what kind of conviction does this man have with regards to politics? we don't know because he hasn't shown us much.

[diamondsoul]

98. But he's not obligated to reveal his life voting

history to anyone! That's the point I'm trying to make. Look we're Democrats, at least in part because we believe strongly in democracy, right? Well this is one of the risks we have to take with the democratic process. What if Clark is totally bi-partison as a voter? Does that make him some sort of traitor of evil person? I don't believe it does.

Seriously, a bi-partison voter can't generally identify him/herself with one party or the other enough to run for election? Come ON people, you can't possibly believe in democracy and hold that contention up as valid!

I don't personally find Clark the candidate worthy of my full backing *(in the Primary race that is), but his past voting record for the Presidency doesn't have squat to do with that because rightfully, under the rules of democracy it CAN'T have anything to do with it! Everyone on this board seems to have forgotten that we have NO right to ask anyone who they voted for in an election! In congress, that's a different situation but in an election? No, sorry, you don't have a right to that information, no matter what your reasons may be for wanting it.

Sorry to continue my rant in response to you, but this really, honestly pisses me off in a BIG way. I understand what you're saying about trust being a big factor in your candidate selection. That's as it should be, but past Presidential voting records are PRIVATE, and they are so for a reason! We have a secret ballot, for a reason! Stop trying to change the rules of democracy because this guy happened to be honest and answer questions he's under NO obligation to answer at all!

I kid you not, if someone asked me who I voted for in whatever Presidential election, I'd have to look at them like they were nuts and say "That's not any of your business!".

*on edit to specify I won't back Clark in the Primary race, the General Election will be decided by whomever the Dem nominee works out to be.

[opstachuck]

105. well, i'm not sure where this is going...

i like the guy. he answered the question and my brain processed his response to the question. if he didn't want to answer the question that's fine with me, but i would prefer someone who didn't give the answers that he gave. people make their judgements based off different criteria and there is no one set of criteria that everyone must use, but one of the criteria that i use is proven political conviction. the other candidates have proven that more than he has. he can make up for it through his campaign up to a point but he still has something to prove and i don't think that's something to be overlooked.

[dfong63]

114. we have every right to ask

But he's not obligated to reveal his life voting history to anyone! (snip) Everyone on this board seems to have forgotten that we have NO right to ask anyone who they voted for in an election!

no, we have every right to ask. if Clark is asking *us* for our vote, then we have a right to ask *him* questions that probe his beliefs and loyalties. you're right that Clark is not "obligated" to reveal his votes. but then again, he's not "obligated" to run for office either.

[diamondsoul]

117. You just skipped right over the point.

Regardless of what Clark may be doing, he IS first and foremost an American citizen with the rights and entitlements that go with it. He has a right to keep his votes to himself no matter what he may be doing careerwise. Yeah, you can ask, and if he tells you to go screw yourself, I'd say he's fully justified.

When it comes to believing in democracy, voting rights and privacy are sacred ground. When you try to step on that, I will defend his right to vote any damned way he chooses regardless of party affiliations or lack thereof. Further I will say if you opt to hold his PRIVATE votes against him, you should ask yourself if you really believe in the democratic process.

[dave29]

68. OK Sure

We need Reagan Democrats.

We also need moderate Republicans. We also need independents. We also - and most importantly - need the base. What we need to measure then is our top candidates' ability to get the base out vs their ability to get all of these other constituencies out. Not to mention new voters, of course.

From my point of view, the winner here (at this point) is clearly Dean. Clark may be able to win over Reagan Democrats with his so far seeminlgy vague approach to policy, but he'll do it at the expense of the base. As always, things could change, but this is what it looks like to me right now.

[CWebster]

73. So, Pitt ,have you renounced Kerry?

Not enough medals pinned to his chest, huh?

[WilliamPitt]

87. Vile

[CWebster]

111. bingo

predictable

vile

[Skittles]

123. OH

SHUT UP

[edward]

127. Funny how a thread started with insults inspires more insults.

[ScreamingMeemie]

75. My only concern is how the answer was put. "I can't remember". I have

serious questions in regard to how true this statement is. I posted it before, but my 90 year old grandmother remembers who she voted for in every election. Reagan wasn't that long ago. Voting is serious business, and I would hope the candidates could remember their records. Just my opinion.

[roughsatori]

86. That is a good point

My father who is 76 and has a bad memory just said that he remembers ever vote he ever cast for president.

[VOX]

97. Agreed! It's the "probably voted for" and "probably would have voted for"

statements that are troubling. It comes across as being deliberately vague at a time when a bold specificity is called for, IMO.

[dave29]

81. If a "Reagan Democrat" is stupid enough to vote

for Bush, they deserve what they get.

We all know Bush is no Reagan. And I don't even like Reagan.

[Starpass]

82. and you make my point for me

I've been trying to scream here that before we go out looking to bring in some grass smoking hippie dippies who have been disillusioned, we need to look at what the hell we lost big time. We lost a whole shiting pile of white, blue collar males years ago who were fanatically Democratic from Unions. They voted repuke and got sucked into everything repuke mouths like Limbaugh then told them. These are the guys we need to get back. That is why I'm laughing at all of these "positions and messages" shit---doesn't work. But IMAGE is everything and that's why I looked at Clark and said "bingo"---that's someone they (and a bunch of indepdents) will respond to. We keep hanging on to the sinking anchor and can't figure out why we are going dooooown big time. Get back your real base by getting our heads out of our asses!!!!

[dfong63]

107. IMAGE is everything, you say

But IMAGE is everything and that's why I looked at Clark and said "bingo"---that's someone they (and a bunch of indepdents) will respond to.

if "image" is everything, then you might consider how it looks when a man with a history of voting for repubs and fundraising for repubs, first refuses to declare which party he is affiliated with, and then announces he's a "democrat" only weeks before entering the race to be the party's leader.

to me a man who does that has the image of being an opportunist.

or how does it look when a man teases the public for months before announcing, enters the race months later than the other candidates, misses the first 3 candidate debates, and then immediately after announcing says he has a "hard conflict" with the next debate?

to me that man looks like a flake.

or how does it look when a man claims to be an environmentalist who has a "100-year vision" for America, yet only a few years ago conducted a war that left behind a radioactive battlefield that will remain contaminated for hundreds of thousands of years, causing untold cancers and birth defects?

to me that man sounds like a hypocrite.

[Starpass]

115. dfong--and you make my point for me

None of them pay attention to anything you say or all the positions and criticisms here about any of these candidates. That big pot of American voters look at about the level of animal appeal. A group will sit and sift through every word of candidates and when they vote they make up a bucket full of spit compared to the general electorate. Give them an image------how come rock stars don't just sing but have to get all gussied up in costumes and rocket fire going off in the background. Salesmanship. That's why Chimpy put on a flight suit. They don't look at a Howard and say "wow, I want to hear what that man has to say"...but 4 stars attracts a lot of attention. And god knows, "attention" is what this band of dead candidates need.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Skittles]

90. A lot of people were fooled into voting for Reagan

I find it unsettling but certainly no vote-buster on my part.

[CMT]

118. just like some were fooled into voting for Bush in 2000

"A united not a divider" yeah.

[CentristDemocrat]

91. Will, you don't get it.

People here DON'T want to win elections! They can't stand that Clark could possibly appeal to the middle and/or some moderate Republican voters. The Kucinich, Dean or GREENites see voting for Clark as compromising their bizarre set of "morals".

[CMT]

99. you might be surprised how well a candidate

who actually stands for something does in an election against Bush. Also, Dean is a centrist despite his anti-war rhetoric and most of his supporters realize it.

[diamondsoul]

102. That's a gross generalization, and I take it personally.

"The Kucinich, Dean or GREENites see voting for Clark as compromising their bizarre set of "morals"."

Bull*. I have very strong and very high opinions of General Wesley Clark, thankyouverymuch. I have specifically spoken up in his defense many times across this board, and every criticism I post of the man is based in fact or personal observation and evaluation.

I'm a Kucinich supporter, period. I made a commitment to Kucinich and I fully intend to live up to that commitment fully. I don't do anything half-assed. My support of Kucinich is the same. It's my duty according to that commitment to show him ways he needs to make a stronger case for himself, make suggestions about voters to appeal to in a more streamlined way, donate as much as I can, stump, canvass, write, speak and generally promote my candidate in every concievable way. That's my duty. Given that Congressman Kucinich has NEVER let down the people who supported him, I feel an equal obligation to him.

Having said all that, I don't know if Wes Clark will sway my determination. I rather doubt it because Kucinich just speaks for me in every imaginable way, however that does not in any way detract from my respect and admiration for General Clark, both as a candidate and as an impressive leader. At this point his positions are non-existant which I find a bit disappointing, given what I know of him. That's not the only thing that concerns me about Clark, but all of my concerns are based on things relevant to his positions and THIS upcoming election, just as they are with Kucinich. The sole difference is that I've already committed to assist Kucinich, and I do not break my code of honor and ethics. Kucinich speaks for me, therefore I will gladly speak for him when I am able. Yet another trait Kucinich and I share. Once engaged we don't stop until we have no choice. We finish what we start.

[disgruntella]

104. I agree that some posters on DU don't want to win elections

as much as they want candidates to live up to their ideals. I think I even said that in a post waaaay up at the top.

However, as a person who favors Clark, Kerry and Dean, it is getting really old to hear "Kucinich, Dean, or Green" from you over and over again. The way you use it in your posts is just like name-calling, and it makes your points less convincing (when you have them).

Yes, this is unsolicited advice, FWIW...

[RetroLounge]

122. Stop Generalizing, Stop Assuming. You know nothing

about me and my views, and, as a Dean Supporter, I will vote for whomever wins the Primary.

I will venture to guess that most Dean Supporters will too.

and we are Dean Supporters. SUPPORTERS.

Not Deanites, Deanies, Deanettes, or whatever other cute term you decide to deride us with.

Same for Greens, Kucinich Supporters, etc.

It's about time people here start to show some respect for fellow Democrats.

[janx]

130. That is simply not true, and it's really insulting.

I'm a Dean supporter, and I like Clark. You're tripping.

[Generic Other]

103. I am usually on the side of the radical left and naturally suspicious

of anyone who voted Reagan, but to hold that against a person who has clearly rehabilitated is unfair. A lot of us are stubborn. We only learn in the school of hard knocks. I believe I voted Anderson in 1980. It's why I did not vote Nader in 2000.

Clark appears to be an honest person. I watched his commentaries on CNN during the war coverage in Afghanistan and Iraq. He seemed level-headed compared to the hysterical Bush administration and the media. And he was believeable then as he is now. He didn't just jump on the flag waving bandwagon. That's his strong point so far. His frankness is a stark contrast to Bush. He doesn't have to lie or puff himself up to command respect. That's what makes Clark a formidable foe. And the fact that he's been on both sides of the fence but has decided our side is the better place to be is pretty significant and what really counts.

He may not make the ultimate cut, but it's foolish to dismiss him entirely.

[Nashyra]

113. I hope he makes the ultimate cut

My feeling is he is the best shot at getting rid of the *, and that is because of the RW's particularly harsh attacks before he is even polling in the 1 or 2 spot.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Generic Other]

120. Are we then to shun anyone who ever voted GOP?

Like sex offenders? Post their crimes, warn the neighbors?

On a scale of one to ten, do the two share the same level of shame? I never thought about it before.

I guess I always think in every organization even the GOP, there are degrees of shame. One stupid vote doesn't put you on the same level as Tom De Lay or Rush, does it?

[Forkboy]

121. Didn't I just say that to me it's not a big deal?

[edward]

129. Thanks for the post.

Each of us, not just moderators, should be requiring the proper etiquette for writing posts. Insults never produce anything but animostity.

[Upfront]

126. Just A Clue

to what this man is all about. It could be dumb but I don't care for people who vote rethug. Read some where he voted for Nixon as well. We should give him high marks for telling the truth about it. School is still out on the General.

[dpl202]

128. WHOOSH

Hear that sound?

It's civility going down the drain.

If I wanted personal attacks and name calling I'd tune into talk radio.

Thank you Will for being an oasis of civility and wisdom on this forum.

I don't agree with everything you say. But I enjoy hearing your opinions. You mix in just enough passion with your inteligent posts. Personal attacks should be ignored.

(former Reagan Democrat)