Why is Clark being rammed down our throats before his MIC stance is

[RichM]

made clear? Why are there no bullies among the fans of CMB, Gephardt, Edwards, DK, etc, while the Clark supporters - day after day - force 70% of all DU threads to be redundant, often vacuous Clark commercials? (One bozo a few minutes ago posted a Clark commericial, saying, "I know this is a dupe, but it has to be shouted to the world..." -- Well, if he knew it was a dupe, why did he force it on us again?)

No other candidate's supporters do this; why do the Clark supporters behave differently?

Shouldn't this quasi-Republican Pentagon-insider who voted for Nixon & Reagan, and says he "likes" Perle, Wolfie, Cheney, Rummy, & all the gang at PNAC, and commanded a war in which civilians were bombed -- why shouldn't he have to make perfectly clear what his positions are regarding the military-industrial complex, before he gets to dominate the whole DU discussion board?

He should have to answer questions like these, before even being taken seriously as a candidate:
- What does he think is the appropriate level of military spending? Cuts, or no cuts?
- What is his position on the "Missile Defense Shield?"
- What does he think of "full spectrum dominance" & the "US Security Strategy" enunciated last September?
- What does he think of the PNAC plan?
- What does he think today of the justification for the US position in the Vietnam war?
- What were his reasons for voting for Reagan & Nixon?
- What made him become a "Democrat?" When did this transformation take place?
- Does he solidly agree with Ted Kennedy's remarks of last week about the "fraud" of the Iraq War?
- What does he think of the famous Smedley Butler quote from the mid 1930's, about the relationship between the US military and corporate interests?

Before his answers to direct questions like these are fully explored, it is impossible to say with any confidence that Clark is NOT just a smarter "kinder & gentler" version of Bush. That is, he may well be protecting the same class interests that Bush protects -- simply doing so with a strategy that arouses less potentially-destabilizing hostility at home and abroad.

[ShaneGR]

1. All of these questions will be answered

Some of them already have been.

[Pepperbelly]

2. we've GOT that you won't vote for him ...

otherwise, yawwwwwwwwwwwwwn.

:boring:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[StephNW4Clark]

21. On Defense Budget Cuts

On the record, he said he would reduce military spending, specifically in the Air Force. I'm trying to find the link but he said it ON THE RECORD.

[RichM]

By how much?

I'd like to see that link, thanks.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. You might as well ask for a miracle.

Smoke and mirrors.

and

[renie408]

98. NO, you don't get it.

Nobody is saying that they won't vote for him, what they are saying is how do you know you will? Nobody knows jack shit about this guy other than he is the supremecommanderwhograduatedfirstinhisclassatwestpointandbecamearhodescholar. (I borrowed that last thing from somebody else, I liked it and I stole it.)

Are his policies still 'under construction'?? And if they are, how do you know where he stands well enough to be so frigging devoted to him??

[KG]

3. legit questions, Rich

but don't you get it? electability is the only issue. nothing else matters to the rabid partisans. :shrug:

[Q]

4. DU has been dumbed-down to the point...

...where they don't give a shit who they vote for...as long as it's not Bush*.

- There are a few exceptions to this rule...but as you'll see in a few minutes...they are quickly shouted-down or leave 'intellectual' responses like 'yawn'.

- It's much too early to decide on any candidate...especially BEFORE their stance on ALL the issues are known.

[Pepperbelly]

9. whatever Q ...

I, for one, have never been impressed by your lemming leftie rants. Some are. Good for them. Self-righteousness always makes me sleepy.

[jonnyblitz]

17. lemming leftie?

yikes. well at least that is a switch from "fringe left extremist". Guess I better bone up on the "New" Democrat bash phrases being used to marginalize those of us who wont shut up get in line with the establishment program.

[Pepperbelly]

20. not a new Democrat ...

just a Democrat disgusted over the behavior of certain alleged members of the party who have led the way by posting drudge and Newsmax links here in an effort to smear a Democrat.

And yes, I think Lemming Leftie is a pretty accurate description.

[Q]

105. Are you implying that I've 'led the way' in posting Drudge...

...and Newmax links? If so...you're outright lying. Either that...or you have me mixed up with other 'lemmings'. I never visit the Drudge or Newsmax sites. Looks like your prejudice is overwhelming your senses.

- Me? I like Lemon Lefty much better.

[Pepperbelly]

118. if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't ...

pass it by because it has nothing to do with you.

Simple enough? Either you did or you didn't. If you didn't, it doesn't apply to you.

Nothing implied, everything I meant stated.

[CWebster]

120. "lemming lefty"

Is more apt to be the sort of slur used at one of the sources you list.

[StopTheMorans]

134. I agree

stop using the term "lemming leftie". Its just as goddamn demeaning as "sheeple". People on the left tend to be just the opposite of your poor characterization, they are more free-thinking and do not adhere strictly to doctrine, rather, they experience cognitive dissonance with toeing the party line when they see the party doing something that is bad for the country. You accuse people of trying to smear a prominent democrat, yet you smear democrats yourself. "Leftie" is a term to be worn proudly, as are "liberal" or "progressive", so please stop using it as a smear.

[GiovanniC]

137. I Guess That's The Culture That's Fostered

When "Anybody But Bush!" is our battlecry.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. "I fully support someone I know virtually nothing about!"

Mettle. Not medals.

[Cha]

12. I finally linked on to your sig line!

"Absolutely! GO DEAN!


"That feisty little bastard is saying what needs to be said!" Tom Paine

[renie408]

99. Dude, its the only way to fly

When you don't know anything about their policies, you don't have all those annoying doubts about whether they will work or not. You can just work off your blind faith that anybody that made it as a four star general is one savvy guy.

[ixion]

6. my personal feeling is that you have a point, Rich

that's why I think an open (sometimes heated) debate about the candidates is a good thing.

I haven't made up my mind about Clark yet. There are things about him that bother me. I feel weird about supporting a career military person, quite honestly, even one who says he's a democrat. I'm not a big fan of the military in any capacity, and it makes it difficult for me to overlook this, especially since he's using that military career as the halmark of his campaign. The thing that's appealing there is relative only because the Mad Chimp has made it an issue (amazingly enough), and I don't believe that going down the road of living in fear is the way to go. We should try to change the direction, not continue in the same direction, but in a kinder, gentler fashion.

There are just my thoughts, based on what I've read Clark as stating thus far, I'm not writing him off, but I'm not giving him a free pass, either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Doesn't It Bother You

that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Neil Boortz, Michael Savage aka Michael Weiner are all slamming Clark for having the temerity to say he's a Democrat...

Hell, they couldn't hate him more if he said he was joining Al Aqaeda....

Doesn't that bother you a little more than the fact that he has excited some DUers.....

[Pepperbelly]

11. don't interject common sense for these guys ...

it is not a commodity of value for them. They just want to dwell on the smear-of-the-day. I'm out of here now. The smell of self-righteousness is oppressive.

[Cha]

25. I think it is okay to question what Clark's stands are and his history..

is. We don't want to be chauvinistic regarding anyone!

[Pastiche423]

26. I don't give a flying

fig what the lot of them say.

I have my own mind and my own opinion. Besides, I never watch/hear them.

[dfong63]

32. if they are really slamming him for nothing more than "saying" he's a dem,

then does that mean they have no substantive issues to hold against him? if so, that would mean Clark's a "dem in name only".

or if they're slamming him for his positions as well, then that's no different from what they did to Dean and other dems.

[w13rd0]

34. Wait a sec...

...now we are supposed to care what the RW whacks think, and what they are "scared by"? Ok, I haven't completely made up my mind about Clark, but if the tone of the board recently is any indication, he's been successful at pulling alot of Reagan Democrats "back into" "the tent"...I'm glad someone is doing it. Maybe he's the kind of guy that can get those sorts to actually shut up about the "lemming left" long enough to get something done despite them. Thing is, I just don't know yet, and I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?

[niceypoo]

149. The right cant hide what they fear.

If they launch into viscious attacks it means that they are extremely worried about someone. They dont want Clark bringing up Bushes military record. NATO supreme commander VS AWOL. They have successfully kept it under the rug so far.

Dean/Clark in 2000

or...........

Clark/Dean in 2004

[RichM]

42. No, it doesn't bother me. I understand why they feel threatened by him.

They are all major players in the hate industry. I don't have a good feeling about Clark politically -- but even I don't think for a moment that he's the type that would encourage haters like Coulter et al. I would guess that Clark strongly disapproves of that kind of bottom-feeding scum.

However, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. I want to know if Clark is someone who poses no threat or fundamental challenge to the MIC. If he poses no challenge to them, I'm against him. If he's willing to take them on, that would be a very different kettle of fish.

[renie408]

100. Uhhh

You know, it took me a minute to figure out that you actually think that is a PRO-Clark thing.

[CWebster]

121. Could it be

that they recognize one of their own? What is scary is that some here do not. They don't seem to appreciate that there is a fundamental difference between the parties and the idea is not to become them to beat them, but to challenge what they represent that has FAILED - including the inappropriate emphasis on military solutions to world conflict.

[Terwilliger]

128. These are the same types of folks you want Clark to appeal to

why don't you think they would attack him?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

153. IMHO the right-wing pundits are

slamming Clark merely because they know that their devoted viewers grow weak-kneed at the sight of a man in uniform. Look at how much adulation Bushboy got for appearing in a flight suit.

The alleged "electability" of Clark is based solely on his military career. Admittedly, there are people who blindly worship the military, but what percentage of the population is this? If you've read the audience surveys, you'll know that Fox's "huge" audience is really quite small as a percentage of the total population.

How many people would be turned off by the idea of career military man with recent Republican sympathies and friendly relations with the PNAC crowd?

How many people don't care either way and would happily vote for anyone who wasn't Bush, as long as he could make the case that he would be an improvement?

[Wonk]

8. Every time a vacuous Clark commercial gets posted kick this thread :-)

O8)

[Kahuna]

69. I Spark for Clark!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Wonk]

110. Yeah, you said that already in post #16. (KICK, nt)

[StephNW4Clark]

10. What?

I'm sorry - but since when have we RAMMED Clark down your throats? Are you holding us responsible for media hype? Or the fact that this forum is called "Democratic Underground" and therefore we CAN post whatever we want about OUR candidate. Since when have we NOT answered your questions?

And as for us having 70% of the threads - most of them are posted by people who ask questions ABOUT Clark. They apparently want more information to make a judgment. I didn't realize providing them with answers was cramming.

If you want to stop seeing Clark on the boards, post something meaningful/interesting about YOUR candidate.

[zeemike]

23. I got a better idea

Why don’t you post answers to the questions that are being asked about Clark instead of one-liners that suggest that the questions are silly, redundant, or of no consequence?
I have some very serious and straightforward questions asked and have yet to here the response. But I have been told that it has all ready been answered but never where.

[StephNW4Clark]

28. Post answers?

See above where I already posted an answer to the first question.

But if you want some answers, why don't you just ask instead of saying that we're "RAMMING" Clark down your throats?

[zeemike]

40. By my count

Rich asked 9 question all of them worthy of an answer.
Could it be that you don’t know the answers yourselves because Clark has never told you what he thinks?

[StephNW4Clark]

46. Could it be that I work on the West Coast

and am still at work, and don't have the time to go through each and every question to satisfy your curiosity right now??

[zeemike]

82. Fair enough

I have the same problem. I can’t read every post so I am sometimes chided for not reading everything before I post. I just can’t do it.

[pmbryant]

13. 70%?!

70% of all DU threads to be redundant, often vacuous Clark commercials?

Where are all these threads? I just skim over GD but the vast majority of GD threads don't appear (on the surface) to deal with Clark one way or the other, and many of those that do are quite critical of him.

:shrug:

--Peter

[Zuni]

14. What does he think of Smedley Butler?

Who cares.
Smedley, I believe, was talking about the Wilson administration's protection of corporate interests in central america, not the military itself. Besides, Smedley only voiced his opinion after he was passed over and prematurely retired.

Wes Clark commanded a war in which civilians were killed! What war haven't civilians been killed in? By modern, 20th Century standards, the Kosovo action has extremely low numbers of civilians killed (by NATO, not the Serbs), and shows extreme caution on the part of NATO.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Zuni]

35. ahh--more flames

I think it is an utterly vacuous question. Probably one it took you months to think up. It is stupid and utterly irrelevant.
And who is going to ask him this question, about Smedley Butler, anyway? And who is going to really understand?

And your insults to me, because I have an open mind about issues, and gasp--read a Goldberg column and agreed with it! (probably the only one BTW) That must mean that I am rightwing as hell! I am just a regular John Bircher! I must be Bob Barr's ideological twin!

Listen, just because I am not a sanctimonius wing nut does not mean I am a rightwinger. In fact, I am pretty left on most economic issues, and pretty liberal socially. And because my historical analysis is deeper than Bush=Hitler, it does not mean that I am in any way a fan of GWB or of the hard right.

[WoodrowFan]

131. Harding and Cooledge Actually

General Butler was bashing Harding and Cooledge's policies actually, including the sending of troops in Nicaruaga. Wilson actually tried to protect the Mexican Revolution from corporate interests.

[seventhson]

15. What is his relationship with MPRI and

L-3 Communications ...


"Serving the needs of the US government, foreign governments, and the private sector, with the highest standards and cost effective solutions."

"Our focus areas are defense, law enforcement, and leadership development."

www.mpri.com

This shit SCARES me.

They serve the needs of the US government AND foreign governments and focus on "Leadership development"??? How can they serve US AND foreign governmemts while on OUR military contracts???

They worked for the SAUDIS among many others. They trained the Columbia paramilitaries and others in Kosovo.

Clark worked with them in Columbia AND Kosovo and we need to know HOW DEEPLY he is connected to them and what his ties ate TODAY (if any).


This is life and death stuff folks.

You better know about it before you throw your fate to Clark.

That ain't perfume I'm smelling.

[Zuni]

24. They look like a problem solving think tank

for governments.
I doubt they trained paramilitaries in Columbia. They probably worked with government troops.

My stepfather has a client who works for something like this. He has been to Kosovo, South Africa after Apartheid, and East Timor after the end of the Indonesian occupation to help train police to work in a democratic country. He teaches them modern police tactics for people who live in a free country.
I think the left wing press makes these guys out to be villians when they may be trying to do good work in bad places.

[seventhson]

45. Interesting - two DUers who have either worked for or know folks who work

for either MPRI or someone like them.

They both claim they are innocuous.

Has anyone done any research oin these folks.

I truly expect the death threats to start now. The last time I went this route it was against Halliburton before anybody had heard of them.

It was very nasty and I had to call the FBI as well as my Congressperson (a friend since I had worked on the Hill)

I urge folks to keep an eye on this an educate yourselves.

After all -- how many of yoiu had even heard of Halliburton before the 2000 election? How about Gilead (Pharmaceuticals)? These are where our administration comes from: military and biotech.

Is this what we want in our future?

I do NOT

[Zuni]

125. paranoia

time to take off the tinfoil hat.
My stepfather has an aquaitance who works for some sort of org like this that works with police forces in former dictatorships to help them become more beningn.
He is a nice guy and I doubt he does nefarious schemes.

[tabasco]

33. LMAO

I worked for MPRI for a couple years. I was an ROTC instructor. MPRI hires retired and reserve military people to teach ROTC, to free up active-duty people for other things.
They also provided planes and pilots for counter-drug ops in SA. I'm not aware that they were training any "paramilitaries." Please provide any info on these "paramilitaries." Thanks.

Life or death. LMAO.

[seventhson]

41. They also provided planes and pilots for counter-drug ops in SA

If that is not life or death then I do not know what is.

[Kahuna]

16. I Spark for Clark!

Oops! }(

:nopity:

[Zuni]

18. by the way

he said they were 'colleagues' and that he knew them. They have worked for several administrations, and have been involved in a number of think tanks. He was a high ranking military officer. I am sure many people know Richard Perle, or Paul Wolfowitz---that doesn't mean they agree with them politically. I have 'colleagues' and 'aquaintances' at work, but I do not nessecarily agree with them on many things or even like them all that much. I seriously doubt that Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz or Don Rumsfeld would hold cabinet posts in a Clark administration.He may even get along with them.

[boxster]

22. If you don't like the Clark postings, ignore them. Geez.

If you honestly believe that supporters of the other candidates aren't yelling as loudly and incoherently as Clark's supporters, you haven't been paying attention.

I really like Dean, for example, but I've seen Dean-supporter, anti-Clark postings that take a few words out of the context of a speech or position and use it as complete justification for why we should jump on the Dean bandwagon.

Frankly, if I were to base my opinion of Dean based solely on his supporters on this board, I'd be turned off.

One person (possibly not a Dean supporter, certainly not a Clark supporter) insisted that I join the other party because I didn't agree 100% with every exact stance of the Democratic platform.

You ask that Clark be held to the same standard as the other candidates. Has each and every one of those candidates answered those questions in full detail? Can you provide references and details for every single one of them for each of the other 9 candidates?

Probably not. My point is - you want fairness here, but you're not really expecting the same of Clark. You think he shouldn't even be a candidate until he can answer all of your questions, though I highly doubt that other political candidates would be held to the same standard. Even if those questions were answered in their entirety, my guess is that you're still not going to vote for him.

Perhaps you should wait one more day, watch the debate, look around for answers to your questions on the Internet via other sources, then decide if your ranting about Clark supporter ranting is still applicable.

[Cha]

37. Like Dean Supporters are the Only ones who bash other candidates

and give their candidate a bad name.

[boxster]

108. Not at all

Try reading my post again: "If you honestly believe that supporters of the other candidates aren't yelling as loudly and incoherently as Clark's supporters, you haven't been paying attention."

It includes "other candidates". My example specifically mentioned Dean because the person involved was a Dean supporter. And, frankly, they're pretty vocal in their vehement hatred of Clark. Though, so are supporters of other candidates.

As I also mentioned, I like Dean and would likely vote for him in the primary if a) Clark wasn't running, or b) Clark doesn't meet my expectations between now and primary time.

[neverforget]

27. Rammed down our throats? Who's ramming him down our throats?

No one has told me how to vote. If you don't like him, DON"T VOTE FOR HIM! Vote for Santa Claus as far as I'm concerned, just vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. There Is So Much Hate On This Site........

I thought liberalism was about loving our fellow man....

I thought wrong.....

[Zuni]

39. not among the sanctimonius, humorless ones

some are really bitter and mean...I think they either need to have sex or watch a Monty Python flick and lighten up

[Terwilliger]

130. awwwwwwww....poor baby

:eyes:

[HawkerHurricane]

31. Why is Clark bashing being rammed down our throats

We get 50 Clark bashing threads a day. 1/2 of them repeat reich wing spin points. The other half claim he's some kind of stealth Republican.
It seems people aren't happy trying to prove that thier personal favorite candidate is best, they've got to tear the others down.

[Zuni]

43. exactly

half of them are either --he is the big money DLC candidate, a secret Republican plant, a monster war criminal (the worst since Hitler, except for Bush), the Hillary trojan horse, a werewolf, the CNN plant etc, etc.

[Pastiche423]

44. Could it possibly be

that many of us do not want or like clark?

I am and will continue to do everything I can as a political activist in my small part of the country, to educate people about clark.

[HawkerHurricane]

75. What educating?

All I see is a 'What if' sequence that would make a good Von Danikan book. I'm expecting a TV special, 'In Search of...DLC/Republican plants in the Democratic Party' with Leonard Nimoy any minute now.

[Pastiche423]

92. The expedient democrat

that voted repug until the age of 44, that din't back the Iraq invasion/did back the Iraq invasion, backed by the DLC, wouldn't say he was a Democrat until two weeks before his announcement to run on the Democratic ticket for president, his participation in killing citizens and bombing hospitals and schools in Kosovo, his extremely poor judgement regarding the Pristina Airport incident, his like of PNACers and his like to work w/them again, his revenge for not being asked for his "aid" in the Iraq invasion. the fact that he has no experience governing civilians, his lack of statements on his stance on important issues, his lack of preparedness ("Mary, Help!"), his votes for f'ing Nixon and Reagan, his involvement w/Stephens Corp, his involvement w/Acxiom...

are a few educational points.

[HawkerHurricane]

106. Don't hold back

Tell us what you really think.

Let's see...

If he was really a evil liar, he would have said he always voted Democratic instead of telling the truth.

I didn't say I was a Democrat until I was 39. I'm 40 now. So?

Backed by the DLC, the same guys that backed Clinton and Gore? The ones who won the last 3 Presidential elections? Horrors.

Bombing schools and hospitals? Like George McGovern did in WW2? In war, this happens. Are you saying we shouldn't have stopped the Serbs? Or are you saying he ordered the bombings of schools and hospitals?

What poor judgement about Pristina airport? His supioriors at NATO and in the US say he did the right thing. The person who disagreed has been linked to a massacre.

I work with a lot of people, some of whom I like, even though I think that they are idiots politically. So?

Again with the 'revenge on the GOP for not asking me to help story'. How many times do I get to hear that?

Lack of experience: name a candidate now running with the experience of being President. I don't want him in office. Clark is a choice. So is Dean. And Kerry. None of whom have experience as President. All of whom have experience that would apply to the Presidency.

If you listen to the discussions here, you find lots of his statements. Do some research, don't just smear!

So, he calls for help from his Press Secratary. He's new at the campaign thing. And it still sounds like he was making a joke.

I voted for Reagan and Bush (the Greater). Want to throw me out? Hillary Clinton worked for Goldwater. Shall we throw her out too?

So, you made a few educational points. But did you do anything other than sounding shrill? You sound like your panicked about Clark. Which, amazingly enough, is also how the reich wing spin machine sounds. In fact, of the 19 statements you've made, 7 are straight out of the Rush Limbaugh spew factory.

Maybe we should question your loyalty to the Democratic party...

No, we shouldn't. That's going too far. But really, lighten up. Let the man get his bearings. I'm not asking you to vote for him. Heck, I haven't decided to vote for him. But don't waste your time frothing at the mouth with questions that must be answered (or else!), find out some answers yourself.

The point of your post (and the original post) is not to educate, but to convince people not to support Clark, by hook or by crook.

[starscape]

36. ramming what down whose throats??

You are having some sort of episode, and trying to convince people that anything is being rammed down anybody's throats.

At the time I am writing this, I just copied and am now pasting all the thread topics from the front page. None of them, with the exception of "we need Clark on the ticket," are pro-Clark...but at least 5 are anti-Clark.

There are several ant-Dean threads, too. What does that mean? All we are good at is slingin dirt and barbs at each other.


A few words about "candidate bashing."
Skinner Wed Sep-24-03 05:51 PM
113
Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire
wyldwolf Wed Sep-24-03 05:51 PM
2
Are all "race"-based clubs fundamentally racist?
_Jumper_ Wed Sep-24-03 05:51 PM
20
Why is Clark being rammed down our throats before his MIC stance is
RichM Wed Sep-24-03 05:50 PM
33
Someone please expalin this one to me.
nedlogg Wed Sep-24-03 05:50 PM
2
Oil Prices and Tin Foil!
ewagner Wed Sep-24-03 05:50 PM
0
All of a sudden, I am very very nervous about Howard Dean
WilliamPitt Wed Sep-24-03 05:50 PM
203
Why I Bailed on Howard Dean - by Rick in Davis
bushclipper Wed Sep-24-03 05:50 PM
65
Ding, Ding, Ding, DING!!! NBC News/WSJ: * at 49%!!!
bluestateguy Wed Sep-24-03 05:50 PM
10
Black=Terrorist=Thug: The New Racial Profile?
WEagle Wed Sep-24-03 05:50 PM
15
Sept. 11 widow sues the President
BEFOREATHOUGH... Wed Sep-24-03 05:49 PM
6
High-tech election gear about to go?
gristy Wed Sep-24-03 05:48 PM
0
Truth about Gitmo Espionage
rooddood743 Wed Sep-24-03 05:48 PM
95
BBV: An idealistic look at the big picture (techies & non-techies welcome)
scottxyz Wed Sep-24-03 05:48 PM
10
nude pics of Arnold
boxster Wed Sep-24-03 05:48 PM
14
Dean: "I'm not a liberal"
wyldwolf Wed Sep-24-03 05:48 PM
112
Okay, who else is sick of CA governor stuff?
eileen from O... Wed Sep-24-03 05:47 PM
12
The Right Wing Has Declared War On
DemocratSince... Wed Sep-24-03 05:47 PM
21
Does Wesley Clark really want gays in the military?
sfecap Wed Sep-24-03 05:47 PM
35
GOP leader calls gays "intolerant bigots"
dwickham Wed Sep-24-03 05:47 PM
20
Who is this TERRY woman on MSNBC right now???
sgr2 Wed Sep-24-03 05:46 PM
0
Do any other DUer's Get Weird E-Mail
liberalnproud Wed Sep-24-03 05:46 PM
7
Moonie Alert!!
donsu Wed Sep-24-03 05:46 PM
21
ABC News: Guard Call Up Is Likely
Cush Wed Sep-24-03 05:45 PM
3
Here's some ammo, for all of you who have to deal with freepers each day.
Oracle Wed Sep-24-03 05:45 PM
5
AARLC.org: Anyone ready to literally DIE laughing....
phillybri Wed Sep-24-03 05:45 PM
9
Warning: A constructive bashing thread.
FubarFly Wed Sep-24-03 05:44 PM
0
Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
radfringe Wed Sep-24-03 05:43 PM
3
Lou Dobbs (CNN) to have AM.Joe Wilson calling for Rummy's Impeachment &
KoKo01 Wed Sep-24-03 05:43 PM
19
"VOTEREVOLUTION" flash film re:BBV and Diebold - MY BEST!
symbolman Wed Sep-24-03 05:41 PM
30
Resolved: Dean *will* support the eventual nominee. Will his supporters?
WilliamPitt Wed Sep-24-03 05:40 PM
135
Thanks Clark supporters for teaching me that Reagan was good
roughsatori Wed Sep-24-03 05:40 PM
45
SAIC REPORT ON DIEBOLD POSTED!
plan9_pub Wed Sep-24-03 05:40 PM
16
Yet another "Dont play candidate bashing" thread
mkregel Wed Sep-24-03 05:37 PM
2
Let's face it. Clark needs to be on the ticket.
Solomon Wed Sep-24-03 05:37 PM
0
Gen. Shelton can suck an egg.
Tyler Durden Wed Sep-24-03 05:36 PM
22
BBV: Does this mean what I think it means?
Devils Advoca... Wed Sep-24-03 05:36 PM
52
What I think of the Dem Candidates. (POSITIVE)
sgr2 Wed Sep-24-03 05:33 PM
3
BBV... While Whackamole Is Fun.. What Happens Next? Lets Brainstorm.
althecat Wed Sep-24-03 05:33 PM
20
CARTOONS ARE UP!!! BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

[RichM]

47. So far, as expected: Virtually NO ATTEMPTS to answer the questions.

Only StephNW4Clark in #21 even tried, though he is still apparently looking for the link.

Other than that, we get just what we expect from Clark Bullies: a lot of hot air, indignation, hostility towards the political left, and assertions that the posed questions don't matter!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. You Are Way Too Intelligent To Engage In Name Calling

"Clark Bullies"

I know you are better than that.....


And I think your questions are good ones.... For all the candidates.....



P.S. I'm not a big fan of "leftie" bashing....

[RichM]

55. Well, you raise an excellent point!

What can I say? :shrug:

On a more serious note: Why don't we endeavor to learn the answers to questions like those I posed at the top, before further industrial-strength advocacy for Clark takes place?

The DU lefties have voiced serious concerns. It's not just a matter of knowing what Clark's philosophy regarding the MIC is -- there's also a problem that has nothing to do with Clark personally. Namely, his being from the military sends a signal to the public, and this signal tends to affirm many elements of the rightwing view of the world. This in itself can have harmful consequences, even if Clark himself is beyond reproach.

PS - I acknowledge that you personally have not indulged in the "leftie bashing" -- though there has been plenty of that on these boards in recent weeks.

[starscape]

61. deleted - wrong place

wrong place

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. C'mon Rich

You are an idealist....

All politicians are trimmers...... At least the successful ones....

I doubt there would be a dimes worth of difference on the big foreign/defense policy issues between Mr.'s Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, Graham, Lieberman,Edwards, and Dean....

Their supporters on this board like to pretend there's a big difference....

I grant you that DK, AS, and to a smaller extent CMB would choose a different foreign/defense policy path but they are not where the action is....

I especially like your question about superiority in every spectrum....

If any candidate were to opine that America should surrender their hyperpower status they would be immediately consigned to the political junkyard....

I am a liberal with a conservative temperament and my conservative termperament makes me skeptical of how much change can be achieved...

I vote Democratic because it is the more palatable of two flawed options....

edited for punctuation.... I wish I paid more attention in English 101... The damn professor should have told me I'd be writing for large audiences.... -:)

[RichM]

87. I agree with this almost 100%.

The only thing I'd quibble with is the last sentence. Once one recognizes that both options are seriously flawed, & that one often must vote Democratic just because it's the lesser evil, one should not lose sight of the fact that that's often the only reason for doing it. When you go in there and pull the lever (or touch screen) for the guy/gal with the 'D' beside his name, and you know it's only because he's the more palatable option, you should do it with a burning anger in your heart. You should do it knowing we all deserve better. You should never hide from your friends or family the knowledge that we all deserve better.

The 2-party system is itself an anti-democratic monstrosity. If our society REALLY valued democracy in principle, they wouldn't force us to submit to this. It's simply a mechanism by which the ruling class finds it easy to maintain its supremacy while creating the illusion of giving us a choice.

You're spot-on right that "DK, AS, and to a smaller extent CMB" are different, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. We Could Have A Long Discussion On This

Maybe one day we willl -:)

The whole political system with it winner take all representation militates against third parties and the whole system of checks and balances militates against radical change....

[starscape]

50. well...

I have seen nothing but nasty posts from you, especially the one a few days ago when you explained to us that Clark supporters were "military fanatics" who were now marching in lockstep, stifling debate and dissent from the others here. You've called people names, you've been insulting, you've been censored -

But now you want to present a list of questions and have Clark supporters one by one sit next to you and deal with your issues? What is the point? Why are people - why am I - even talking with you to begin with? ;)

[RichM]

62. OK, I'll bite: why are you even talking with me to begin with? It's true

that I've been very ill-mannered in the Clark threads. :cry:

I'm much nicer in the thoughtful threads -- which Clark threads, by some inexplicable coincidence, tend not to be.

For example, there's a thread today about the MIC. Go look at it -- I'm absolutely loveable there. :loveya: You'd never know it's the same person.

Also in the Kucinich threads, I'm positively sweet. Go figure. :-)

[starscape]

89. so I'm not crazy?

:)

[KG]

51. beat me to it, Rich.

could have predicted that none of the clark cheerleaders would have the answers to your legit questions, or even care to know them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Respectfully,

you folks should start a thread ....

What's your best pejorative description of a Clark supporter?

So far

brown shirt

bully

bullyboy

military fanatic

cheerleader

have been proffered.....

[Forkboy]

56. Respectfully

why doesn't someone just answer the questions or admit they dont know?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. See Post 67 I tried to answer it....

[KG]

64. please cite where i used any of those words

except 'cheerleader'. and why would you consider that a prejorative?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. I Didn't Accuse You Of Using Those Words....

but all those epithets have been uttered by DUers towards Clark supporters....

Cheerleader is not as bad as those I cited but it does imply that one gives slavish devotion...

[seventhson]

52. Hey RichM !!! Have you checked out the MPRI stuff. It is truly scarey

I am hoping like with the PNAC and the DLC that folks will get clued into this MPRI stuff so that they can educate themselves,

This is WAY off the radar but it is the lynchpin of Clark's resume for the past eight years or so since he was head of the Southern Command and went to Kosovo where MPRI played a very prominent role in lockstep with Clark.

These were on Clinton's watch. But those who watch human rights issues KNOW that Columbia and Kosovo were hellholes for civilians.

we actually know very little of what was really going on

[Pepperbelly]

63. {{sigh}}

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that this was a sincere effort to reach out and understand rather than a smear. I am also taking you at face value, that this isn't an excuse for more bashing.

First, so far as your questions, to my knowlege, no one has actually asked Clark. Nor am I certain that these are the most relevant questions. However, granting the benefit of the doubt, I will attempt to respond to your questions NOTING that I speak for no one other than myself nor can anyone else for that matter.

Your questions:

- What does he think is the appropriate level of military spending? Cuts, or no cuts?

He has stated that he favors cuts in the military, noting that there is a culture of "want", meaning that the different areas are always in the mode of want and wish lists and that a lot is unnecessary. i expect that he knows full well where to cut the budget.

- What is his position on the "Missile Defense Shield?"

One of the areas he has addressed is the European reaction to missile defense. He addressed it this way:

"To many Europeans the case for Missile Defense has simply not been made. Moreover, any discussion will meet counterarguments from Russia and the European left. A positive outcome to the "consultation" will require three essentials. First, a strong case must be made for the need for Missile Defense. It must include assumptions about the threat, discussions of technological capabilities, & consideration of the new shape of global strategic stability if missile defenses come into play Second, Europe's defense and industrial needs must be taken into account in the eventual program. Europe must be protected, and European firms must receive technology and manufacturing contracts for the program as it proceeds. Conversely, however the European contribution to the program must be affordable. Third, the system must be "connectable" to other efforts elsewhere, to avoid creating the impression of drawing new lines in Europe."
Source: Testimony to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Feb 27, 2001

He also addresses it peripherally in this statement in a way that shows his disdain for the notion:

“The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets…It’s not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It’s really going to be found in changing the conditions. It’s going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy… Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It’s not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It’s going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection.”

http://www.temple.edu/cenfad/strategicvisions-3-1.html

I will group the next few as well as moving a later question and provide relevant quotations:

- What does he think of "full spectrum dominance" & the "US Security Strategy" enunciated last September?
- What does he think of the PNAC plan?
- Does he solidly agree with Ted Kennedy's remarks of last week about the "fraud" of the Iraq War?

The Bush Administration has moved to a unilateralist strategy. This administration has made serious missteps in handling Iraq. The president is more than just the president of the US -- he's the leader of the free world. What plays here at home doesn't always play so well abroad. We need to work with our allies -- that's the way to make sure all Americans are safer.
Source: The Connection with Dick Gordon, NPR radio Sep 8, 2003

Exit strategy in Iraq won't work if we invade its neighbors
Q: In Iraq, what would your exit strategy be?
A: First, we have to turn it over to the Iraqis. Get some police, and some Iraqi administration. Make it so it's not a hotbed for al Qaeda. But that doesn't work well with the overall Bush strategy in the region which includes going into Iran, Syria, and so on. You can't have an exit strategy with that.

Source: The Connection with Dick Gordon, NPR radio Sep 8, 2003

We went into Iraq under false pretenses
We went into Iraq under false pretenses. There was deceptive advertising; you'd be taking to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. We're taking casualties. We haven't made America safer by this. We've made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed, less able to respond. We've lost a tremendous amount of goodwill around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions.
Source: CNN Late Edition interview with Wolf Blitzer Aug 17, 2003


- What does he think today of the justification for the US position in the Vietnam war?

I do not know if he has addressed this. I hope he does not. That scab should not be reopened.

- What were his reasons for voting for Reagan & Nixon?

I don't know that he has addressed it.

- What made him become a "Democrat?" When did this transformation take place?

I can speak personally to this. I know he was raised in a New Deal/FDR environment because I was raised in the same environment. Like Wesley, I was in the military. Unlike Wesley, I got the hell out as soon as my enlistment was up. My suspicion on this is that he probably got caught up in the military culture as he was rising through the ranks, probably, like a lot of us, didn't get a hell of a lot of news anyway and ironically, it all seems so distant when you're in. I don't know. But I noted the streak of the old homestead when he got out and began giving his opinions. I suspect that it was a process and it's not really easy to point to a point in a process and say, "That's when it happened."

- What does he think of the famous Smedley Butler quote from the mid 1930's, about the relationship between the US military and corporate interests?

I haven't heard him address it. I like it. War IS a racket. But if you look at Michael Moore's latest letter about Wesley, you'll find even more answers re: PNAC and the MIC.

Best I can do on short notice, dude.

[Forkboy]

70. Thank you Pepperbelly

for taking the time to answer.

This thread could have ended 50 posts ago.

[Pepperbelly]

83. apparently answers are not what ...

these folk really wanted. That was why I was reluctant to take the time because I suspected that nothing would satisfy them and that tomorrow, I would just see the same tired old shit yet again.

What do you think?

SS tomorrow?

[Forkboy]

161. Yes but some of us really do want the answers

not just about Clark but of any of the candidates.Maybe each candidate can have alternating debunkers so you only have to post the answers once a week or so :)

I suspect you'll be seeing this shit for many days and weeks to come.The Dean people have gone through it,the Kerry people have gone through it and the Clark people are going through it.As long as Clark is near the top of the race you'll have to go through it.All part of getting your guy to win.If you think this is bad now wait until the candidate is chosen and the right wing and the media (but wait,I repeat myself) get cranked up.

[RichM]

85. Well, this is a pretty constructive reponse. Thank you for assembling it.

It does shed some light on some of the questions; I'll have to chew it over a bit, before I know just what to make of it.

One possible problem stems from the "degree of opposition," even if he winds up saying he's opposed to something I'm also opposed to. For example, some of the quotes are critical of the Iraq invasion. But it's one thing to say "We went into Iraq under false pretenses. There was deceptive advertising..." It's something else to refer to the PNAC blueprint, & sharpen the criticism, saying explicitly that the war was based on a LIE & carried out for oil & geostrategic dominance. IOW, painting the war as "poorly conceived policy" is one thing; portraying it as a criminal outrage is something else.

Also - re Missile Defense - it seems he was trying to find a way to make the project more multi-lateral and acceptable to European allies. It doesn't sound like he's against it.

But on balance, your post addressed some of my concerns constructively, and I thank you for this effort. (You should even be awarded extra points for managing to come up with this, in such a heated moment. Credit where credit is due!)

[Pepperbelly]

94. after a week of ...

nonstop Clark-bashing, I am becoming both calloused and leary of putting very much time in on pissing contests. I wish I had a buck for everytime I've done something similar only to have it completely ignored. I concluded that was because the people posting were not seriously interested in answers. Thus, why spend the time answering?

Most of the concern people have here have been addressed but it seems to never be enough because a day later, it is as though nothing in refutation had been spoken at all.

Sometimes, I just get tired and pissy.

[CMT]

48. Good Questions

I'd like to see all of our candiates answer them, including my own favorite, Howard Dean.

I too am troubled about nominating a man who up to a few years ago was a Republican who voted for the likes of Nixon and Reagan (and probably the first George Bush in 1988). This is a legitimite concern I think, though others have tried to downplay it. Wes Clark is a very intelligent man. Yet he was taken in by Reagan's rhetoric about welfare queens and trees causing pollution and ketchup being considered a vegtable in a school lunch. This is my biggest reservation about him. Even John Kerry has taken issue with Clark's Nixon-Reagan support. I was not overly impressed either when in an unguarded moment Clark confessed to reporters, "I Probably would have voted for the Iraqi resolution--only to backtrack the next day after his handlers got hold of him.

Do people have the right to grow and change their views? certainly, and I welcome Wes Clark to the party, but do I really want him to be our next president, Not really, not based on what I've seen or read yet. I think it is a shame that so many Democrats are so hoodwinked into believeing that only someone with national security credentials/military experience can go toe to toe with the likes of Bush. It reminds me of 2002 when so many national democrats thought the only way we could avoid defeat in the midterm elections was to support Bush on Iraq. Well, we saw what happened.

[starscape]

53. On Missile Defense

"Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It’s not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It’s going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection.”

from MeetClark

[GreenArrow]

60. "Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America...

It’s going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along."

How does he plan to create this community? And isn't that what the gang in DC now says that they are trying to do?

[starscape]

57. Military Spending

From Forbes:

"...Argus Research defense industry analyst Jim Kelleher said defense company executives most likely will have little enthusiasm for the West Point graduate's presidential run. Despite his brilliant 34-year army career, which included combat in Vietnam and a stint as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Clark will be perceived as disinclined to champion the high military spending increases that have marked the Bush administration. A CNN military analyst during the recent US-led strike against Iraq, Clark at times made critical comments about aspects of the campaign on air. "

You will hear it from his mouth because it will be one of the first questions they ask him in the debates, IMO.

[screembloodymurder]

58. I totally agree.

Clark is a Bush replacement. The puppet has a problem, long live the puppet.

[starscape]

59. National Security Strategy

http://www.meetclark.com/faq/index.asp?faqid=42

<snip>
"Tragically, 9/11 brought all that to bear. And now we can see that we are involved outside our borders. We just don’t have a compelling strategy on how to do it. It seems to me, if you’re going to build that strategy, you have to start with the ideas that Americans understand and can believe in. Ideas that are historically routed in our culture and the way we think about things. And I would suggest there are three ideas:
The first of these ideas is that we are an inclusive nation. We’re not exclusive. We don’t draw lines. We’re a nation of immigrants. We’ve always been that way. We’re a nation, we’re the custodian of a 228-year old idea of human dignity and freedom. We started the ball rolling, the ball of revolution that’s passed across the Atlantic, sweeping over the world. That’s ours. We’re inclusive. We proselytize, we sell our ideas, we market our ideas, we bring people here and we show them our ideas. And hopefully we live our values as well. We’re an inclusive society.
Secondly, we’ve always believed in, at least in the last half century, in international organizations. President Roosevelt, President Truman, were the founding fathers of the United Nations. They recognized, after World War II when we had fifty percent of the world’s gross domestic product, and we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons that even then, America wasn’t strong enough to “go it” alone and needed its allies.
And finally, we’ve found many times in our experience that it’s best to use force only as a last resort. Yes, we’ve got to have the strongest military in the world, and we’ve got it now and we should do everything we can to protect it, preserve it, and continue to strengthen it. Every bit that we need, we should provide. And yes, the President should have the right, as he always has had, if this country is threatened and we have to strike preemptively to prevent an attack on us, then certainly. We should do that. But beyond that, we should be very reluctant to use force. It has incredible, difficult and unintended consequences, which we are once again beginning to see as we deal with the situation in Iraq.
And, I think if you take these three principles and put them together, and look at the world we live in, you can begin to craft a new vision that Americans can understand.”

-Wesley Clark

[seventhson]

65. What about the ties to the STEPHENS GROUP??? and hence to BCCI/Harken?

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Clark%20Wesley


Google the Stephens Group and BCCI or Harken for more.

I, for one, am not surprised.


There is MORE here:

(and I am just checking these for accuracy but share them with you all for expedience sake)

http://www.syzygyjob.net/warissues/messages/47928.shtml

[Pepperbelly]

71. the dreaded "ties" to Stephens Group ...

:scared:

LOL

Give me a break. Sephens is a money place. They do business with everyone. What is your point?

Want to know what Wesley's main gig was for them when he was there? Getting Wavecrest Tech off the ground and going. Do you know what they do? Alternative energies.

:eyes:

[seventhson]

86. the Bush ties to the Stephens group...too

read the following links in my previous posts (#79, I think).

Stephens was a Bush moneyman.

This is the way of the world. Politics.

So what if Stephens got the arabs to finance shrub?

Stephens does business with everyone.

I suppose Clark does too.

Shudder

[Pepperbelly]

96. 7th son ... listen carefully ...

I suspect that you would be hard pressed to find any significant business that does not have ties to Stephens. It is what they do for a living. They do money.

Democrats.

Republicans.

Corporations.

Small business.

Wherever they can make money. It is what they do. They are in the money business and businesses need money. Did you bother to read what Clark's biggest assignment was? I certainly pointed it out to you.

Bold assertions assuming conspiracies require more proof than the so-called "links" when the companies involved are all doing business.

[seventhson]

101. ",,,the companies involved are all doing business" Yes. With Bush, Clark

and anyone.

THAT is the problem.

According to the info on Bush/BCCI/Harken and the Saudis - Stephens was a KEY PLAYER!!!

The fact that the Rhodes Scholar Clark went straight to work for them after his NATO stint is indicative of his willingness to work for ANYONE and that their ties to Bush and the Saudis and BCCI were "not a problem" to Clark. In fact, it was a primo job and position for him as he promoted himself as a media pundit. Perfect "leadership development" a la MPRI IMHO

To claim that this is business as usual and that somehow excuses Clark is bullshit.

Clark is an insider all the way around.

He doesd NOT deserve any support from Democrats

[birdman]

104. Clark worked at McDonalds as a teenager - Bush ordered many burgers

at Mickey D's during the years when Clark was putting
those conspiratorial all-beef patties on those treacherous
sesame seed buns.

Famed investigator Michael Ruppert has determined that Clark
was also a "fry" man in those years.

Did Bush avoid those fries ? I think not.

I smell Karl Rove behind this!!!!

[Wonk]

114. Was that McDonald's or McDonald-Douglas? Got a link? nt

[seventhson]

116. Karl Rove behind Clark???? Really??? You think that???

Nahhh....

Karl would NEVER hedge his bets....

Would he....?????

[Zuni]

127. excellent detective work

I hope the tinfoil hat brigade gets a good look at this!

[seventhson]

74. Clark BCCI Harken Stephens????

I was kinda surprised at this stuff:

Here is an excerpt which I share FYI as I discover more:

Feel free to dispute or flame or vet this which is from the link in the accompanying thread:

"It was Stephens who suggested in the late 1970s
that BCCI purchase what became First American
Bankshares in Washington, D.C. BCCI later
acquired First American's predecessor, Financial
General Bankshares. At the time of the Harken
investment, UBS was a joint-venture partner with
BCCI in a bank in Geneva, Switzerland. Bakhsh
has been an investment partner in Saudi Arabia
with Gaith Pharoan, identified by the U.S. Federal
Reserve Board as a "front man" for BCCI's secret
acquisitions of U.S. banks.
---------------

This article shows how Stephens Inc, the
company Wesley Clark worked for is involved in
the Bush Family's Harken Oil as well as being
involved in BCCI(Bank of Credit and Commerce
International) which caused the whole Savings&
Loan collapse in the late 1980's that wiped out the
finances of millions of Americans. BCCI was the
"Enron" of the 80's.

So before becoming a trojan horse on the
Democratic ticket, Wesley Clark worked for
Stephens Inc., a company directly connected into
the finances of the Bush Family via Harken Oil.

Wesly Clark is nothing more than a puppet of the
New World Orders banking system and oil
monopoly as well as trojan horse who was put on
the Democratic ticket by the Bush Family."

End of excerpt from: http://www.syzygyjob.net/warissues/messages/47928.shtml

Keep in mind that it is John Loftus who links UBS to the Bush-Nazi moneys.

I post this NOT because I know it to be true but because we need to discuss whether it IS true, OKAY???

[starscape]

66. Smedley Butler

- What does he think of the famous Smedley Butler quote from the mid 1930's, about the relationship between the US military and corporate interests?

okay, umm.. you seem to be confusing Clark SUPPORTERS with Wesley Clark HIMSELF.. Believe it or not, I don't think we can just pick up the phone and call him, but I bet you can submit this question, and many of your other questions, for one of the debates or a Q&A with the General online.

Does that sound fair? Or should I submit to you a list of questions that I have about Dean, involving different points or quotations in our nation's history and political ideology? Perhaps you share his brain and your answers could be considered direct quotations!

[birdman]

77. The Smedley Butler issue could certainly become dominant next year

Smedley may be dead but you never know when he might come back
and start waging war for corporate America again.

Every candidate should be required to take a stand on the
military industrial complex. If that isn't a winner issue
I don't know what is.

[Zuni]

129. LOL

The Wilson Administration's policies in latin America are a hot topic in 2004.

[RichM]

157. Ladies & Gents - I direct your attention to the above post, made by

someone who claims to be a "history student," yet who fails to see any present-day relevance of the remarks of General S. Butler on the subject of how the US government utilizes the military.

Butler said of his years in the military, "In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism." Mr. Zuni is unable to see how this remark might apply to the present day. This is one hell of "history student." :puke:

[starscape]

68. Kennedy - fraud quote

- Does he solidly agree with Ted Kennedy's remarks of last week about the "fraud" of the Iraq War?

No - at least I don't think he would state it that strongly. Has Dean "solidly agreed" with the quote - specifically, has Dean stated it was a fraud? (he may have - it's an honest question). If so, please source it and I will send a high five Dean's way.

[RichM]

93. 2 small points here. First, the language of disagreement is important, so

that it's not the same thing to state what Kennedy said in far more mild language. Calling it "fraud" is not the same as calling it "ill-conceived policy."

Second, you seem to be asking me questions about Dean, in several places. I don't follow Dean so closely, & am not a particular fan of his.

[starscape]

95. that's exactly what I'm saying.

Kennedy can say it.. he's not running for president. In fact, he might not even run for senate again.

I don't think Clark would call it a "fraud.." too strong a language for a US public with troops over there, but I don't think any of the other candidates would - or have - either, except maybe Kucinich. Has he? And is there a link?

Sorry to link you with Dean - I thought I had the odds with me on that one. If you're for Kucinich, well, I like him too. I like all of them for different reasons (except Joe Leiberman).

Ok I said I was going, now I'll go.

[starscape]

73. Reagan and Nixon

- What were his reasons for voting for Reagan & Nixon?

Again, I don't share his brain. I would also like to know why he voted such a way, but before knowing, this is in no way a dealbreaker for me. If I had any fear that he was a fraud, that he actually espouses Reagan's views and is snowjobbing everyone, then I would grill him on it. But his statements ON RECORD for the last 2 years or more have indicated a progressive, even liberal thinker who in many ways is a polar opposit of Reagan.

[starscape]

76. That's all for now.

I'm sure this fun could go on and on, but THANK GOD I've got somewhere to be right now.

jeez... and I even like Dean. I have a t-shirt. Before the end of this week, I'll probably end up burning it.. LOL

[Flying_Pig]

79. Agreed! All good questions, to which I might add....

1. How does Clark feel about Likud run Israel, and Ariel Sharon, and does he support continuing to prop up the fascist Likud government with billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money?

2. What is his opinion on outside nations influencing our foreign policy, vis-a-vis their U.S. allies (ie: JINSA/AIPAC/JDL).

3. His stand on campaign finance reform, and does he support public financing of campaigns?

4. Would he support reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine" by executive order, to quickly bring media balance, truth, and fairness?

[seventhson]

80. Clark went from NATO to the "Stephens Group" WHO ARE THEY???

I suppose Y'all will call this indymedia site a right wing hate site source but I am posting it anyway.

God the Bushes are SOOOO stupid. Clark really is too bad and transparent to be true



http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/07/136245.php

INTRODUCING CLARK'S EMPLOYER AFTER NATO (who in the hell do they think we ARE???)

EXCERPT from link:

"Junior's track record as an oilman is pretty dismal. He began his career in Midland, Texas, in the mid-1970s when he founded Arbusto Energy, Inc. When oil prices dropped in the early 1980s, Arbusto fell upon hard times. Junior was only rescued from business failure when his company was purchased by Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. As part of the September 1984 deal, Bush became Spectrum 7's president and was given a 13.6 percent share in the company's stock. Oil prices stayed low and within two years, Spectrum 7 was in trouble.

In the six months before Spectrum 7 was acquired by Harken in 1986, it had lost $400,000. In the buyout deal, George "Jr." and his partners were given more than $2 million worth of Harken stock for the 180-well operation. Made a director and hired as a "consultant" to Harken, Junior received another $600,000 of Harken stock, and has been paid between $42,000 and $120,000 a year since 1986.

Junior's value to Harken soon became apparent when the company needed an infusion of cash in the spring of 1987. Junior and other Harken officials met with Jackson Stephens, head of Stephens, Inc., a large investment bank in Little Rock, Arkansas (Stephens made a $100,000 contribution to the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 and gave another $100,000 to the Bush dinner committee in 1990.)

In 1987, Stephens made arrangements with Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) to provide $25 million to Harken in return for a stock interest in Harken. As part of the Stephens-brokered deal, Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh, a Saudi real estate tycoon and financier, joined Harken's board as a major investor. *5 Stephens, UBS, and Bakhsh each have ties to the scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)."


Welcome to the monkey house

[birdman]

88. Gasp! Clark joined Stephens only 13 years after the Harken Loan !!!!!!!!

Round up the usual suspects !


Clark once had lunch with - Omigod - Paul Begala !:


He's associated with known Skull and Boners:


He probably helped the Bushes whack Bob Marley.

[seventhson]

102. Yeah, Rove's advisor McKinnon was once Begala's partner

Clark is only associated with Bones member Dubya via Stephens Group,

and I would not be at all surprised if Wesley was in on the whacking of Marley.

But I have no links to prove that Bob's Brain cancer was induced.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. "and I would not be at all suprised if Wesley was on in on the whacking

of Marley."


That's incredibly mean........

[birdman]

111. Nah, just nuts

That General and the BFEE poisoned the rasta mans strawberries.

[seventhson]

115. It may be "mean" but it is an INFORMED Opinion

Marley may have been murdered via cancer-causing agents (a very effective covert assassination technique as no "cause" can be proved)

MPRI-DIA types would be perfect for such wet work and we all know it.

Off the books off the shelf operations with big payoffs (Bob was a royal antiBoilhead loudmouth)

[Zuni]

146. What?

Now you think wesley Clark killed Bob Marley? That is just insane.

What would anyone have to gain by killing an apolitical reggae singer?

[Zuni]

148. Clark was not involved with them in the 1980s

and all this stuff happened then.
Get to the point and stop posting garbage.

[KoKo]

81. Gag me with the Clark Spoon! I might have liked him, but turned off by

the relentless partisanship here on DU of the Clarkies who explain away his every misstep .....and there have been MANY.....and just go at it day after day after day after day....to the detriment of any other news for those of us who find DU , the "fast paced newsgathering Forum.....we feel comfortable in........to save us time.....when we need to KNOW!

Now, the GD is filled with multiple posts about Clark this.......Clark that.....whatever......(Yeah, I know....many of us thought that the Dean supporters did much the same thing....but frankly the the Clark folks must have record high posts....they learned from the Dean supporters how to SPAM!........ I can bear with it through tomorrow night's debate.....when Clark get's tested......but after that.....please.........can you "lighten up" Clark supporters? And condense your posts.....it's only fair if Dean's folks do to...but we need a break here!!!!!!

Thanks Rich M......

On Edit: I'm a Dean/Kuchinich/Kerry (last resort) supporter....if Clark is the White Knight you all think....then I'll be on board....but as an ANTI WAR......Clark will always be a stretch for me....

[starscape]

84. then why... oh nevermind

Why are we being asked questions that we're not supposed to answer??

People who like Clark, are trying to defend him - just as Dean people do for their Candidate.. but it's hopeless if "Clarkies " get ripped for "explaining away missteps.." Can you possibly empathize with the idea that maybe we disagree about certain things being "missteps?"

Its.. ugh.. ah what is the use. It's finally happened. This place is getting to me. Too much screen time ;)

[PurityOfEssence]

90. What a dastardly attempt at sense and logic!

I like the "Old Gimlet Eye" reference, too.

As I annoyingly repeat, the principal driving emotion behind Clark is fear: fear that we can't win without our own tough guy, fear being used to jam him to preeminence and fear of any contradictions or pesky reality.

[phegger]

97. I'm afraid...

I'm afraid that we've stirred up a hornet's nest in Iraq and given every Al Qaida sympathizer in the world a reason to want to do us harm.

I'm afraid that our economy is going down in flames, and that we're on the way to becoming a Third-World country.

I'm afraid that my personal liberties are being taken away by right-wing control-freak wackos like John Ashcroft.

I'm afraid that the next time I get sick I'll have to use up my entire life savings to pay for it.

I'm afraid that the wild places in our country are being ruined, and the air & water poisoned, for the benefit of Bush's Big Oil buddies.

I could go on...

If you're not afraid, you're not paying attention.


-ph :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

107. You call that fear? This is ridiculous!

I'm afraid we'll be stampeded into a ridiculous decision for an unknown, whose only experience we really see is with big corporations and the professional military.

I'm afraid that we'll make a knee-jerk reaction and rally to someone who is at best unproven and at worst far too far to the right for our own well-being. We could have a one-term interregnum if he wins where he tries to grapple with the mess made by the Republicans, not attempting to make any of the progressive changes necessary, and then have it snatched back by the formidable Republican machine amid complaints of doom. Then we'll be facing the same endless fascist future.

I'M AFRAID OF FEAR ITSELF, more than anything else now. Why are people in a panic? Why is this man really being taken seriously, if not for Democratic self-hatred (just as the Republicans traditionally accuse) when there are skilled politicians already running? Why are so many of his supporters a bunch of barking, smug loudmouths? Why does he like vouchers? Why are we so bereft of trust in our other candidates that we're willing to risk the extremely unknown and pony up our future for an on-the-job training session that may not bear fruit? What the hell's the matter here?

What's your point? You're scared of the present and its implications for the future, therefore you're ready to take one of the worst alternatives offered, just because it wore a damned uniform? There's no logic here unless you can point out how he can be more effective than the others, has ethical plans and is demonstrably more electable than the others who do fit these criteria. Junior's weak. He's going to remain weak, and we need to focus on making sure the election's fair (and is allowed to happen, I don't trust these fucks an angstrom toward the door) and we concentrate on picking the right guy/gal and keeping up the pressure.

[phegger]

112. people are not in a panic

but they have legitimate concerns about the future and legitimate reasons for choosing a candidate based on a whole set of criteria. What makes you think people are going to be stampeded into anything? I believe that voters are pretty smart when it comes to advancing their self-interest. And they will take a candidate seriously, or not, based on their judgement about what he/she can do for them. If Clark is a Clinton-stalking, BCCI-dealing, secretly-crazed militarist, I believe they will judge accordingly. You seem to be the one that's in a panic. Get a grip.

As far as calling anyone's supporters here "barking loudmouths", that's not worth responding to. I do, however, agree with this:

we need to focus on making sure the election's fair...and we concentrate on picking the right guy/gal and keeping up the pressure.

See you in the trenches--


-ph :smoke:

[PurityOfEssence]

113. You haven't been reading the same DU I have

There's an air of frantic calls for this person to drop or that person to be proclaimed the nominee immediately because only they can beat Junior. It gets so grating, and it's completely unwarranted by the situation.

I'm not the only one with this take on a trend among Clark supporters, so sit back and see if any of this sounds accurate.

The last thing we need here is a Grip; an A.D. would be much more useful.

[CWebster]

123. This one

should be put in a gold frame and hung in the DU gallery.

[RichM]

124. Yes, you're right, CWeb. PurityOfEssence really nailed that one.

:thumbsup:

[CWebster]

122. BINGO

BINGOBINGOBINGOBINGO!!!!!!!!!!!

[notadmblnd]

103. I agree with your post...

My first thought when I heard Clark might run, was that he should run republican against the little chimp, but the GOP would never allow that. But what I do think they would allow is for him to run Democrat. Look at his very sudden popularity. I want to wait and see if he really dumps the dirt on the BFEE (he's been a player in it for a long time):tinfoilhat: or if he just repeats the same mantra some of the Dem candidates have been saying (that which is already safe to say). I also want to know specific details on his stance on many issues. Civil liberties (repeal of the patriot act), de-privatization of industries, electric, gas, water, election. I want to see the exportation of jobs off shore stopped. I want to see controls placed on the corporate greed monstors and I want to see the real terrorists who ripped off our 401k's and pensions in jail. When Mr. Clark addresses these and many other issues, I'll make a decision wether or not to support him. But until he proves he's not another tool of the BFEE, I'm supporting Dean.

[seventhson]

117. Unless we Know More about Clark and Stephens Group, MPRI, Dyncorp, etc

All of whom he did business with in Columbia, Latin America (that part truly frightens me as Columbia is a shitty bloody mess) and/or Kosovo during or after his military service - we can never REALLY know WHY Clark is running.

I think the big military corporations and generals in MPRI have backed him as the Bush "alternative" for a few years now. He is kinda like a beauty queen candidate who hires a consultant to fix him up for the judges and he has made all the right whore moves from Stephens to CNN, playing to the crowds at DU, and NOW the primary runoffs.

Will he win the crown?

Or will we the people see him for what he truly is?

WE'd better keep doing our homework on this guy, team.

His military industrial ties and the fact that he JUST claims to be a Democrat this month for the first time is just plain too damn spooky for ME to take him at his word.

I think he is a creep. As in CREEP.

[CWebster]

119. And why, when he campaigns in front of these young & naive

boys, does he encourage them to join up in the military? Why not encourage them to become doctors or teachers or something that enhances the quality of life rather than threaten to destroy it? Why Sparta when it could be Athens?

Does every generation have to learn the lesson of war through the brutal path of human suffering and tragedy? Growing up during Viet Nam, young people had to live with the possibility that their number might be the next one pulled from the war lottery, but the culture was so inclined to raise consciousness--through film and even in public education, where required reading, at least in my experience, included anti-war novels starting with The Red Badge of Courage.

Today that has all been spun as if joining up was some sort of noble calling--It was not, it was an ugly, unjust and unpopular war that caused undue pain and needless loss of life. Not only were the VietNamese slaughtered, but our own young were brought to bear the burden as political pawns and they returned as disturbed and bitter men, many of them addicted and homeless.

My father, gung-ho after WW2, joined up to go to Korea and learned the truth about war. My father carried shrapnel in his back from an explosion killing his best friend. There was no way he would allow his sons to go to Nam, but my cousin was not so lucky. His father, a WW2 vet of high rank, some kind of fighter pilot hero, encouraged his son in his patriotic duty, and my cousin shipped out to fly heliocopters in the jungle. Upon his return, he would have nothing to do with his unusally tightknit family, moved out to the Southwest and little was ever heard from him again.

My mother is a college professor and she tells me the kids are clueless. Aside from being poorly educated in the fundamentals, their exposure to literature, history and culture is ignorant and abbreviated. She claims there is a new culture of fear that attempts to stunt greater awareness as unpatriotic and encourages young men to pursue military avenues as channels to amount to something in life--to be a man, to be a hero, and they want the recruiters and ROTC on campus. And while benefits to veterans are slashed and they develop unusual health ailments in the Gulf wars - it is hushed up, and we are stuck in another quagmire where the young men are cannon fodder in another unjust and fraudulent war. but still, we find this disconnect, this glaring inconsistancy, where the culture embraces the image of militarism as patriotism. And people get angry if you point it out and demand that you fall in line behind the Democrat--even if he is a master of war on our side... because you know these days, if you aren't with us, you are against us.

And the cycle repeats.

[IrateCitizen]

126. Politics is a reflection of society...

So, if you want to get a politics that does not support the idea of a vast military-industrial complex, you need to build a society that rejects the idea first. Our society has been conditioned to support a vast military-industrial complex, so of course politics is going to reflect that.

Whether Clark supports it or not doesn't really matter. In the end, we're talking about different shades of gray, not black/white. The place where the MIC will be defeated is by inducing a paradigm shift on society as a whole. And that will only happen over the course of several generations, not through one election.

Remember, Rich: Horse ---> Cart. Not the reverse. ;-)

[Terwilliger]

132. ok, when do we start?

next election?

how bout the one after?

how many more Americans die for fat-cat American capitalist interests?

How many more brown people do we murder?

[IrateCitizen]

135. I don't think you're reading me accurately here, Terwilliger

May I suggest you take a bit of time and read through the following thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=394120

It is discussing many of the issues behind all of this.

The main problem we face is that we live in a society in which, as GHW Bush said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable." What that means is that we are all conditioned from an early age to live a consumerist lifestyle, to act on selfish impulses, to turn the other way when shown unpleasantries that result from said selfish lifestyle... and, in the words of The Coup, to "use peoples before they use me."

Given this conditioning, is it surprising that the overwhelming majority of people are completely willing to support a massive military-industrial complex to ensure global domination and maintain our "way of life"?

It does not matter whether there are Democrats or Republicans in control of the political levers. The differences between them, with regards to the MIC, are just slight shades of gray. While the Republicans have proven to be more overt and over-the-top with their militarism, it in not something that Democrats have traditionally shied away from either.

And if you're expecting that Democratic candidate to make a serious change, keep dreaming. Even if Kucinich COULD be elected, he would be hamstrung on this issue. NO ONE PERSON can change it.

So, what is the solution, then? Do I want us to go on "murdering brown people" or "sending young people to their deaths to support fat-cat capitalist enterprises"? Of course not. But I DO realize that the solution to this dilemma is NOT a political one. It is a SOCIETAL one. We will NEVER be able to dismantle the MIC until we produce a paradigm shift in the general attitudes of our society at large. Trying to solve it through electoral politics is pure folly.

Now, most people go running from such a revolutionary suggestion, because what I am talking about is not the work of a few short years, but rather the work of GENERATIONS. And for those of us who take up this call in the beginning, we can count on losing friends, seeing family members turn against us, being ridiculed, and so forth -- because we will be challenging the basic perceptions under which people live. But the only way to win this battle is over the long haul, when the values of compassion, cooperation and empathy have won out over destructive selfishness and unbridled greed. In doing so, people will even see that their self-interest is better served by adopting a caring attitude rather than a cynical, selfish one.

But all of this requires that we stop looking at things in the short term. We need to concentrate on the fights we can WIN in the short term to advance this goal, while all the time working toward the LONG TERM goal -- to forge a more caring, compassionate and fulfilling society in which selfishness and militarism are no longer core values.

[sangh0]

133. Well said, IC

IMO, RichM's complaint seems reflective of many people's belief that the right message spoken by the right person (ie. a "leader") will result in some sort of public epiphany which in turn will lead to profound changes within the polity. It's a perversion of cause and effect, or as you say "Horse ---> Cart. Not the reverse."

[IrateCitizen]

136. I've been coming to many of these realizations myself...

... over the past couple of years. But perhaps nothing helped to crystallize those realizations as much as a book I read recently -- The Politics of Meaning by Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder of Tikkun.

It's not that it contains all of the answers, but it does a great job of putting things in the proper perspective, and helping us to realize that the change has to come from, well, us. And it is change that will take several generations to truly bring to bear.

Perhaps that's why so many people seem to recoil from it so reflexively -- the idea of working toward something you may not live to see isn't a very encouraging one. But perhaps that also helps explain why all of the great social movements in our nation's history had a strong foundation within the religious community -- because a certain strong sense of spirituality and interconnectedness is vital toward the success of such movements, especially in the early stages.

ON EDIT: Damned underlines! :spank:

[sangh0]

140. I read your thread

It was excellent. I'll have to get that book.

Perhaps that's why so many people seem to recoil from it so reflexively -- the idea of working toward something you may not live to see isn't a very encouraging one.

IMO, one aspect/effect of consumerism is the tendency of so many to view politics and news as entertainment, which helps explain the success of FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Arnold Scwarzenegger, etc. Working for a better world, like thinking, is not entertainment. It's hard work.

that also helps explain why all of the great social movements in our nation's history had a strong foundation within the religious community

Religion helps people gain a different understanding about topics like suffering and sacrifice. It also draws people away from the consumeristic and materialistic idea that the purpose of their life is to pursue/consume pleasures and luxuries, and replaces it with the idea that our purpose is to help others by relieving (or even assuming) their burdens/sufferings.

What is that you say? I should suffer in order to help someone else? I'd rather see what's on cable!

[IrateCitizen]

150. I don't know if you're hitting the right theme on religion...

Religion helps people gain a different understanding about topics like suffering and sacrifice. It also draws people away from the consumeristic and materialistic idea that the purpose of their life is to pursue/consume pleasures and luxuries, and replaces it with the idea that our purpose is to help others by relieving (or even assuming) their burdens/sufferings.

Personally, I think that religion gives people a sense of community, a sense of interconnectedness that we all long for. And when it inspires people to acts of selflessness or sacrifice, it is not because religion teaches people to enjoy those things. Rather, it is because we come to recognize that our own self-interest is intertwined with the interest of others -- even with the fabric of life itself.

I think that is why the abolitionist and civil rights movements had such a strong foundation within the church. It was because people took the teachings of Christ literally that they realized that since another person was a manifestation of God, so long as that person was enslaved or dehumanized, that they were in effect dehumanizing themselves. Only by lifting others up, could they in turn be lifted up. And also, in committing themselves to these causes, they came to experience a greater sense of enlightenment, brotherhood and happiness than could ever be found through selfishness or exploitation.

Maybe that's what you were trying to say anyway... but that's the way that I see it.

[sangh0]

155. I see, and I agree

it is not because religion teaches people to enjoy those things

I can see why you drew that out of what I said. I guess I wasn't clear. It's not that religion teaches people to enjoy suffering and sacrifice. That's impossible. By their nature and definition, suffering and sacrifice are unpleasant. What I should have said is that religion helps people understand suffering and sacrifice in a different way that materialism does, as something that could have some benefit, even if it's not enjoyable. And I'd like to point out that this doesn't mean that we should seek out suffering and sacrifice. IMO, religion doesn't teach us that. Rather, it gives us a more balanced view of these, and helps us understand when and under what conditions, suffering and sacrifice can have beneficial results.

Re: mutual self-interest and connectedness

Though I do think a great deal can be justified by this, I do have a problem with things that are justified solely on the basis mutual self-interest. It seems somewhat materialistic to me. IOW, it sounds a bit like "It's a Good Thing because it's good for me, and good for you" though that's an over-simplification of it.

Your next paragraph (about people being a manifestation of God) suggests to me that you do have an understanding of what I'm referring to here. It's not just about mutual aself-interest. It also speaks of and to the universals of human nature.

Maybe that's what you were trying to say anyway... but that's the way that I see it.

You're seeing very clearly, AFAIC

[IrateCitizen]

156. Re: self-interest

The only reason I put that in there is because of other debates I've had on this subject -- the need to forge a society in which selfishness is not the overriding value. The immediate response is, "You're asking people to give up self-interest. That just isn't possible."

But while they are confusing selfishness and self-interest, it IS true that self-interest is an innate part of what we are, something that we cannot exercise out of us no matter how we try. Nor should we. But I guess what I try to do now is to point out how selfishness actually works AGAINST our self-interest, while it is in fact AFFIRMED by values such as compassion, cooperation and empathy.

So, IOW, I think we're still on the same page. :D

[sangh0]

162. Yes, it's the same page

thanks

[CWebster]

143. Too bad Lerner couldn't live it

it is always a disappointment when our leader's fatal flaws are revealed. I am still angry for the anti-semitism charges he leveled at the Left---from the pages of the WSJ, no less, which only served to undermine the cause of peace.

[sangh0]

147. Attacking the messenger

seems to be a specialty around here. Ironic how, in a discussion involving "meaning", CWebster focuses on personalities. Soon, CW will start complaining about "semantics" :-)

[CWebster]

159. Was it necessary?

[IrateCitizen]

152. None of us can fully live it

If you're looking for perfection, you're looking in the wrong place by looking to human beings.

But at least Lerner REALIZES this to be true. And I would bet that if you weighed all the positives he has done toward living this kind of life against all of the negatives, the positives would come out much heavier.

Probably much moreso than the vast majority of the folks at ANSWER, at whom Lerner's charges of anti-Semitism were leveled.

[CWebster]

158. Sorry, IC

The issue was just too close to my heart to just let that one pass. People have said that they would pledge their support for Kerry if he would only confront the circumstances around the IR vote in an upfront way. For me, Lerner has to address the deep divisions he is responsible for fostering and his out and out lie. Until then, nada. It matters.

[IrateCitizen]

160. Only to ideologues, in this instance CWeb.

From what I have come to learn about ANSWER, I'd rather be associated with Rabbi Lerner than with them. While they have done positive things in the anti-war movement, their strict adherence to ideology first and foremost is their downfall.

And I want to be perfectly clear here -- ideology is not the same as principle.

[CWebster]

163. Wouldn't that be like attacking the messenger?

ANSWER was the organization that pulled off the international anti-Iraq invasion protests. I am a little weary of everyone's disdain for them without providing any evidence. Yeah, some of their speakers are obnoxious, but when I have had to deal with them on a personel level, they are accomodating and easy to deal with--unlike Nader's organization.

ANSWER is much more appreciated in Europe, but then in Europe they don't have the same bias concerning Israel that the US does.

[CWebster]

139. There were great souls

who arrived to help and lift up people and lead them. There have been many through history who have spear-headed movements as if their entrance on the scene was divinely ordained. Leaders emerge- but do we always recognize them when they do?

The story of Christ.

[RichM]

142. Horsefeathers.

You don't read me right at all. I'm in favor of a certain set of ideas, not of any worshipped leader.

And you oversimplify. I don't at all believe that change happens strictly from the top down. Rather, I'm quite certain that it percolates in both directions.

[sangh0]

145. I read you right

I just disagree with your premise that candidates need to answer questions that an overwhelming majority of voters aren't asking.

And yes, change does percolate in both directions, but it's not quite as simple as that. They both effect and cause each other. However, the slight truth to that does not justify your stance concerning Clark's (and seemingly ONLY Clark) not answering questions that haven't been asked.

[RichM]

138. On Carts, Horses, & Antonio Gramsci

Chris, I don't think I'm really arguing in favor of putting carts before horses. It's more like putting them side by side. (Or at least, NOT putting the cart too far BEHIND the horse.) Or, to abandon that metaphor, simply recognizing that politics & cultural change impact one another, so one can't really say either "Let's change the politics first" OR "Let's change society first." Both processes are intertwined. Your concentric circles of compassion ("CCC") will naturally give rise to a progressive kind of politics, but the development of progressive politics can also contribute to the development of your concentric circles of compassion.

Gramsci was best known for his concept of "cultural hegemony." This was an enlargement on Marx's idea that "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." Our society today supports the the MIC because the ruling class has the means with which to indoctrinate all of us with the required set of ideas. Gramsci argued that "the working class, before it seizes state power, must establish its claims to be a ruling class in the political, cultural, & ethical fields." This is compatible with the idea of the CCC fostering a consciousness which would naturally generate opposition to the MIC. (You are a Gramsci-ist, because you are emphasizing the necessity of cultural change before the taking of state power.)

As long as our society has its current structure it will be dominated by its current ruling class. As long as this is so, the prevailing ideas will continue in force; these ideas will be those that work in the interests of the ruling class, & things like the MIC will continue to be supported. It's necessary to oppose this hegemony of ideas wherever possible. This of course can happen locally & informally; this is your CCC idea. But it can also happen at the level of organized politics, can't it? Isn't supporting Kucinich & being skeptical of a Clark-type figure an example of that?

[sangh0]

141. The answers to your questions are "No" and "No"

But it can also happen at the level of organized politics, can't it?

No, not without the support of people, and that support won't come unless you first get them to relieve themselves of those "ruling ideas"

Isn't supporting Kucinich & being skeptical of a Clark-type figure an example of that?

No, not if supporting Kucinich leads to no change in our political representation and no change in the people's adherence to those "ruling ideas"

[IrateCitizen]

144. Rich, this isn't about abandoning electoral politcs.

It's about realizing its place in the whole picture of things.

Want to really forge a progressive politics that has an impact? Start locally. THAT is where the energy is. THAT is where these "Concentric Circles of Compassion" (as you've abbreviated them, CCC's) will first form. THAT is the crest of the wave to be ridden toward meaningful change. And that wave is way, way out in the middle of the ocean right now.

By focusing on national politics, you're trying to find that wave RIGHT NOW. The assumption that a political candidate can directly challenge the most basic perceptions under which we are conditioned to exist, and still win, is a false one. It's only guaranteed to put us on a wave that will come immediately crashing down, and bury us in the surf.

You are right that politics can be used as a catalyst for meaningful change. But the width of this change is quite narrow, indeed. Perceptions that we have lived under our whole lives will NOT go away overnight. They literally take GENERATIONS to exercise from the social consciousness. Just look at the prevalence of racism as a destructive force, some 35-40 years after the civil rights movement as an example of this.

Supporting Kucinich and not Clark is not the attempt to immediately transform the system, as you seem to believe. It IS, however, a meaningful action -- because the very candidacy of Kucinich is a challenge to basic perceptions. While he will not win the nomination, and would be buried in the general election, it is inevitable that he will reach some Democrats who will scratch their heads and say, "You know, this guy really DOES make some sense!" And THAT is the value of having him up there, even if he won't win. IMHO, it's an even MORE valuable influence, in the long run, than getting Clark or Dean or whoever elected, because the effects of a political election are more short-term and transitory.

[sangh0]

151. "Concentric Circles of Compassion" is an interesting metaphor

that suggests to me that the change RichM seeks begins with the individual (the center point of a circle), and spreads out as the individual persuades people around them (the innermost CCC) who in turns persuade the people around them (the outer CCC's)

[IrateCitizen]

154. It's not Rich's metaphor -- it's mine from the other thread

That's where he was referencing it from. And yes, you're describing by beliefs pretty well -- much like RFK's metaphor about ripples in a pond.

[brad.owens]

164. I guess that you guys don't want to win next year.

Clark can pull this thing together for us. Clark is the only candidate that can win out there right now. Do you think that the Bush people are joking when they say they PRAY for a Dean match up? What you must ask yourself if you want four more years of Bush or not.