Why doesn't Clark just lie?

[CoffeePlease1947]

It seems that Clark is getting a great deal of beef for having admited that he voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. before 1989. It seems to me he could have just said he voted for McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis and nobody would know the better. I don't think anyone is very forgiving in DU about his honesty. Maybe this why we get a bunch of liars for political office.

I don't see anyone getting on the 40 Senators that approved Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Wolfy for their offices. It seems to me they all flip floped. How can anyone that voted FOR them be actually AGAINST them? Not to mention 90% of people supported W in September 2001. Now only 48% of people supported him. That is like 125 million Americans that flip flopped!!! Surely we don't want them in the Democratic Party either. NO WAY!!!

Furthermore, how do we know that Dean, Lieberman, Kerry, Kucinich, Graham, Edwards, and the others didn't ever vote Republican? Clearly they must have voted Republican at some point in their lives. Especially ones that are moderate and/or grew up Republican. Appeartly lying and/or covering up your support for ANY Republican at any time is better and what we really want in our Democratic candidates.

Therefore, why doesn't Clark just lie and cover it up to be considered better in the eyes of many Democrats? He cannot be stupid having been first in his class at West Point and having three advanced degrees from Oxford.

Mike

[im4edwards]

1. why no lie ? simple

at the time he didn't think it mattered and just spoke. too late for lying. also shows he doesn't think long term.

[Cappurr]

4. I'm sure Edwards....

Who seems to have a lot of integrity himself would be real proud of your right-wing-type illogical spin. I'd say a Rhodes scholar might just know that admitting to voting republican would raise some questions.

[Syrinx]

10. So he sucks because he didn't lie

I've heard everything now.

[Cappurr]

2. Hmmmmm

I know this is naieve beyond belief but could it be....could it just be...that he is honest????

[LittleApple81]

3. I really want to believe this. I like him. (I like others too). n/t

[imhotep]

5. I like his honesty

It guarantees he won't be President.

[Syrinx]

12. I'm beginning to think he will

some people like honesty.

of course it's probablly already fixed.

[Donna Zen]

6. Months ago

I posted what I thought his strengths and weaknesses were. His honest is a strength and because of the slim America desires in politics (read above) a weakness.

Clark does know diplo-speak at least as well if not better than most poles, but lying he does not know. It's the honor code...serious honor code. That's the book on him from people who have known him beyond the latest z-pub.

[tsipple]

7. I'm Not Bothered By His Votes

Not at all, actually. We Democrats do (and should) welcome former Republicans with open arms.

I'll have to be honest, though, and say that I'm bothered by the inconsistency in his explanation. He said Bill Clinton "converted" him to the Democratic Party in 1992, and that he voted for Clinton (twice) and then Al Gore. That's three elections in a row when he voted for Democrats.

But then he's raising money for Republicans in Arkansas only 28 months ago? :wtf: (And I'm giving him plenty of slack for what he said. Everyone is allowed to stay stupid stuff from time to time.)

Would anyone be offended if I suggested he run for Arkansas governor, with a D next to his name, before running for the top job?

[bowens43]

13. I do welcome him to the party, but not to the top position.

He claims to have voted for Clinton and Gore but after doing that he praised the bushies and his evil minions. What are we to believe? His words or his deeds. We don't KNOW who he voted for but we do KNOW that he praised bush , rummy powell and rice, we do KNOW that he was a speaker at a republican fund raiser, we know that he said that he would be a republican if rove had returned his calls, we KNOW that he flip flopped on the war vote issue, we KNOW that you don't become a four star general by being a progressive. I like what he says but I don't feel comfortable supporting someone with ABSOLUTELY NO VERIFIABLE TRACK RECORD for the presidency.

That being said, I will vote for him if he's the nominee.

[KittyWampus]

14. Speaking At Fundraisers Is An Occupation

That well accomplished and well spoken people such as General Clark get PAID to do. Like President Clinton, for instance.

So he was NOT FUNDRAISING FOR THE GOP!!!

And I'm not sure but someone posted that Clark was presented with an award at the event in question- that at a time when the GOP was trying to court him.

[tsipple]

18. Huh? Sorry, Clark Did Raise GOP Funds 28 Months Ago

Has Bill Clinton ever spoken at a GOP fundraiser?

Fundraising dinners are pretty simple. You pay a fee to get a seat at a table. The more you pay, the closer you get to sit to the front and/or the more seats you get. There's a guest speaker (or two or three), and you're paying for the privilege of hearing that speaker. Different speakers have different abilities to "pull" donors into the hall. Wesley Clark in Arkansas had to have been a pretty good draw and a nice night for the Pulaski County (Arkansas) GOP coffers.

The Pulaski County GOP then uses those funds to promote their message, depress voter turnout, support Republican candidates, run ads, sponsor a press response team, conduct polling, and otherwise support GOP functions.

Not sure why I had to explain all that, since it should be pretty obvious, but there you are.

[KittyWampus]

26. Sorry BUT YOU ARE WRONG

Clark got PAID to speak... it is a JOB. Using your logic, we should segregate ourselves into a society where Democrats only work for Democrats.

Using your logic, Paul Krugman fundraised for Enron because he was paid to speak at their functions.

[tsipple]

29. Uh, Yes

And please see my other post on that subject.

Clark was paid... to raise money for the GOP in Arkansas. There are some things Democrats don't accept money to do.

[Bread and Circus]

31. That statement borders on outright ignorance....

"There are some things democrats won't do for money"

Enron has been a huge contributor to Democrats
and their campaigns. It seems like they didn't mind
taking that money.

It kind of blows your argument out of the water.
This "Real Democrat" piety is so irksome and false.

[dsc]

33. There is a massive difference

between taking money from Enron, and lets remember that they split 75 to 25 (R to D), and taking money to speak to Republicans. BTW if you take out a few Texas Democrats the split of Enron money is close to 90-10.

[tsipple]

36. Right. Big Difference.

Democrats should take money from Satan if Satan is willing to help Democrats promote their messages, ideas, values, and candidates.

That's a far cry from someone getting paid to help Satan promote his messages, ideas, values, and functionaries.

I'll try again here -- from the most polite and open minded DUer around, quite honestly. Here it comes, the question...

Q: It's been said that Clark said to a reporter that he would appear in a similar role to raise money for the Democrats in Arkansas. Did he?

Now, another poster was very helpful, because I just added another month to the Clark Democratic Party Clock, assuming Clark campaigned for Max Cleland the month before the 2002 election. That's 11 1/2 months now of solid Democratic Party membership and support. I want to bust that clock all the way back to 1992 if somebody can neutralize that GOP fundraising appearance he did 28 months ago.

[tsipple]

28. Further Point (About Pollsters, For Example)

There are Democratic polling firms and there are Republican polling firms. There are Democratic direct mail specialists and there are Republican mail order specialists. There are Democratic press relations teams and there are Republican press relations teams. And so on.

Most of the commercial firms in the political industry -- there are some exceptions -- bat for one team, not both. It's part of the ethical environment they operate in. It's also something most of the candidates insist on.

So that's why people are asking questions here about Clark's GOP fundraising activities just 28 months ago. People want confidence he won't be a Richard Shelby or Ben Nighthorse Campbell once in office.

I honestly don't know what the right answer is here, except that Dean I think got it right: let the voters figure it out. I'm a voter, and I'm trying to figure it out. I'm still looking for a second choice, at least.

I promised to be positive, so here's some more of that in conclusion. Win or lose, Clark has already undermined the Bush raison d'être, and his very participation in the Democratic nominating process proves that even the military -- or parts of it, anyway -- is revolted by the current crew in the White House. He's adding to the diversity, and that's great. Diversity is our strength.

[Pepperbelly]

17. but he gave to Demo candidates...

so ...

[tsipple]

22. Evidence Suggests Otherwise

That's the sort of stuff you can look up, and I just did. According to OpenSecrets.org, which has a database of contributions to all FEC-reporting candidates (all Senate, U.S. House, President, etc.), Wesley Clark gave $1,000 on November 4, 2002, to Erskine Bowles, a close Clinton associate running for Senate in North Carolina. That was less than 11 months ago.

No one by the name of Wesley Clark has donated money to any FEC-reporting candidate from 1991 onward. (In 1990, somebody named Wesley Clark from St. Louis donated $250 to some candidate. I doubt that's the same Wesley Clark.)

And that's it. One thousand bucks to Bowles 10 1/2 months ago.

For the record, Howard Dean of Vermont gave $200 to his state party in 1994. That's excluding his contributions as governor to the Democratic Party and its candidates, of course.

By the way, I don't particularly care whether Clark donated money to Democratic candidates (and how much, when, or to whom specifically). But you raised a point which isn't borne out by the available evidence, so I'm simply answering that. If Clark himself said "candidates" (plural), he may have misspoken. I would be even more puzzled if he donated cash to Republican candidates, but there's no evidence of that in the OpenSecrets.org database.

[Pepperbelly]

23. so ...

since he gave money to Bowles and no money to the gops, that means he's a gop?

on edit: pardon the fuck out of me for using the plural. He gave to a democratic candidate. :eyes: 2nd edit, my spelling still sucks.

[tsipple]

25. No, But...

We still have the question of when he became a Democrat, and whether his stated date (1992) was truthful. (I'm being a little hard there. Let's call it an inconsistency.)

First of all, it is reasonable to expect that the Democratic nominee actually be a Democrat. So let's get that out of the way. (Otherwise the Democratic Party ought to nominate Colin Powell against his will, since he's still a popular Republican. :-))

Second, I believe Clark was a Democrat as of 10 1/2 months ago when he donated to Erskine Bowles. It's his only recorded large dollar contribution in well over a decade, so we'll take it as ample evidence. (There are some who suggest that his not answering the "D question" in interviews up until recently suggests he became a Democrat only a few weeks ago. I disagree with that, given my finding tonight of the Bowles donation.)

Third, only 28 months ago he raised money for the GOP in Arkansas as their keynote speaker. "Things that make you go 'Hmmmm...'"

Honest question here -- don't know the answer: Did he also attend a contemporaneously similar event to raise funds for the Democrats in Arkansas?

[tsipple]

24. Another Possibility...

I want to cut Clark some more slack here. OpenSecrets only tracks contributions of $250 or more. Clark may have sent smaller donations. I believe I sufficiently qualified my post, but I want to add this point in just to be sure.

[Donna Zen]

27. He campaigned

for Democrates! I know, it doesn't matter because it doesn't fit your story line.

About a month ago, I mused that although I like Clark as a candidate, the more closely I studied him, the more I didn't want him to run. Why? Because I came to see him as a "good" person and I knew what the rightwing would do to him. What I hadn't anticipated, how could I even imagine anything so horrible, was that the Democrates would be carrying the water.

I am so sorry.

[tsipple]

30. Wait a Minute...

I barely know Clark, and most of us (all of us?) are in the same situation. He's only been in the race a couple weeks.

We're asking questions.

So tell me more... With which Democrats did he campaign? Where? When?

I just found out tonight -- because I went to the database -- that Clark donated $1000 to Erskine Bowles 10 1/2 months ago, which set back the clock about 8 1/2 months from when I knew he became a Democrat.

Call me crazy, but I want to vote for a Democrat for the Democratic presidential nomination. And I have an open mind here, honestly, at least to my second choice. (I'm not some troll. I just got through posting two major Kerry kudos on another thread, in fact.) Please tell me more about his Democratic campaigning or, better yet, point me to something.

[bicentennial_baby]

37. Here

"Though he claimed to be politically "right down the middle," he campaigned for only Democrats this year, including U.S. House candidate Katrina Swett in New Hampshire, where he also attended a private dinner with party activists. He campaigned in Georgia for Sen. Max Cleland, a Democratic Vietnam Veteran who lost, and in California for Rep. Tom Lantos.

A search of the Federal Elections Commission Web site also shows Clark made a $1,000 contribution to U.S. Senate candidate Erskine Bowles, a North Carolina Democrat and former chief of staff to President Clinton."

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20029892.html

[tsipple]

39. Yup, Got That...

...We're working on calendar year 2001 now.

No question Clark was aligned with the Democratic Party by October, 2002 -- 11 1/2 months ago.

[Donna Zen]

19. He was a keynote speaker

at a Lincoln Day Dinner where he was asked to speak because they were giving him an award. His subject was something about America's role in the world.

Gert...told a reporter that he planned to do one for the Dems too. He also campaigned for Max Cleland but no one dares mention that because it would ruin the trashing.

[roughsatori]

8. How do you know he isn't lying when he says he voted for Gore?

Rhetorical question--you don't.

[eileen_d]

9. How do you know he isn't lying when he says he voted for Reagan?

Rhetorical question -- you don't.

[candy331]

11. He

could use that to his advantage He could say I did not have to tell you how I voted but I want to restore honesty and integrity back to the whitehouse. Have to learn to think like and faster than the "enemy" to defeat them.

[southern democrat]

15. Being in the military,he more than likely voted on

absentee ballots.You have to sign them and they are not a type of annonmous voting.He damn sure would have some expilaning to do if one of those old ballots turned up signed by him.showing he voted for Nixon or Reagan.I don't think it was unwise to state his voting record.I would not have made the same votes he has,but then agian I was not in his position.And with my low opinion of republicans,I would never be in his position.

I would wager that he probabally isn't a very political person.Being in the military,among mostly republicans,he probabally voted republican when he thought they would win.Fearing any political backlash.He knew Clinton,and it was pretty good odds Clinton was going to win in 92 and 96,this would explain the Clinton votes.As far as Gore goes,he said he voted for Gore.I'd say he wasn't too vocal about it.He was out of the military in 2000.So he used a traditional secret ballot.Have to take his word on 2000 vote.

With the good words for Bush and team.There's 2 angles.1,Probably didn't want to ruffle any feathers with the new crowd.It seems like retired military stay close with fedreal govt. admistrators for lobbying purposes.Also for any future positions in a federal govt.2,The possibilty of running for a political office.He said he was not a republican or a democrat until he declared he was a democrat.He also said he was approached by republicans and democrats about running for other offices.If he thought there was any chance of this,he more than likely didn't want democrat or republican enemies.

The fact remians,Wes Clark has paternal democratic roots.He now has enemies in the republican party.He has asked for acceptance in the democratic party.He has campaigned for democrats and donated money to democratic candidates.He alsao has voted in democratic primaries.He has openly embraced traditional democratic principals.And is on the record supporting them.Is Wes Clark a out of the womb democrat,no,but never the less he is a democrat.He has and is demonstrating his comittment to our values.I welcome Wes Clark in our party.And I support him for president,unless he does somthing to undermind my democratic values,after he has declared he was a democrat.If he does this at that time I will reconsider my support for him.

[KC21304]

20. Though my dream ticket would be Kerry/Clark,

I think Clark would make a fine President.

Remember once we were fantasizing about McCain becoming a Dem and many here would have welcomed that. There seems to be a double standard here.

[MoonRiver]

16. Clark is honest, like the 'president we'd been promised as kids'

Irregardless of anti-Clark extremists, I believe this trait will be Clark's saving grace. Clark is going to be the Dem nominee and, after that he will beat the beejezus out of BFEE. :kick: :kick: :kick:

[dsc]

21. There is an immense difference between voting for Reagan, Nixon, and Bush

than in voting for their appointees. The alternatives to Reagan, Nixon, and Bush were Carter, Mondale, McGovern, and Dukakis. The alternatives to the appointees are different appointees by the same President. Most cabinent choices are approved and those that aren't are usually corrupt or have very bad personal lives.

On edit. Of all the stuff that has come out about Clark I have problems with only two things. One is that he hasn't really given a very good explanation for why he has changed from what was a pretty reliable Republican voter for President to running as a Democrat. Are all the things he is now (pro affirmative action, pro enviroment, etc) new to him now or did it take him until 92 to see how bad the Republicans were on those issues? I think an explanation would be nice. The second thing, and this is a bigger problem, is the fundraiser in 01 for Republicans in Arkansas. It wasn't just a bunch of Republicans who benefitted but some really bad ones. Huckabee, Hutchinson to name two. I have yet to hear a good explanation for this.

[knight_of_the_star]

32. Keep in mind what his career was for 34 years

Military personnel are supposed to be non-partisan. His wife mentioned he was going to speak at a Dem fundraiser as well, so that simply shows that he is non-partisan in that he worked for both. It acutally helps him in the general election with that because it makes him look less political, which will REALLY help him in his attacks on Bush.

[dsc]

34. He wasn't an officer in 01

and by then he supposedly was a reliable Democratic voter largely due to liking Clinton so much. Of all the Republicans on God's green earth to help raise money why would he pick Arkansas ones if he like Clinton so much?

[tsipple]

38. Flash Back 28 Months Ago...

Tim Hutchinson was the Republican Senator from Arkansas, and Democrat Mark Pryor was trying to defeat him. (Mark Pryor won, fortunately.) Republican Governor Mike Huckabee, however, managed to win re-election, and he's still there.

It was a pretty close race, though. Huckabee beat Fisher 53% to 47%. Some more money for Fisher would have been nice.

[Donna Zen]

35. I would bet

he voted for Pryor.

Pryor introduced him the other day. In the article Gert said he was planning on doing a speech for the Dems as well. You know just for one nano second walk in someone else's shoes. Someone you know...maybe you've known them all your life, or you live near them, asks you to give a speech. A speech! Now you consider that the uniform you wore, the one that gave you the gravitas that brings these folks to ask you, belongs to no party. You have personally never participated in partisan politics, although for the past 11 years you have voting "D." What do you do? Say, oh sure Steve, we were on the swimteam together, but now I'm telling you to take your award and speech and shove it up your republican ass. Is that what you would do?

I know lots and lots of republicans. They belong to professional organizations I belong to. My union rep is a republican and so is her husband. This is a two party system, and it is bound to happen that at some point you come in contact with a republican.

[dsc]

40. This isn't coming in contact with some Republican

nor am I running for the nomination. Had he given a speech that wasn't at a fundraiser I wouldn't care. I don't care what he said. I do care where he said it. He said it at a fundraiser for some really, really bad politicians. I am glad he voted for Pryor, assuming he did. But he raised money for Pryor's opponent.