Clark should have been upfront himself...about his Republican past.

[gully]

Would it be as much of an issue today were he more candid?

I feel Clark should have made is Republican record a central part of his campaign.

Because he didn't, he opened the door for others to do so. :shrug:

*edited to REMOVE the more provacative title* :wow:

YOU guys, my thread was a parody of a Dean should be ashamed of himself thread OK? Sorry about the confusion.

But, I do think he should hold a press conference soon to quell the crap.

[liberalnurse]

1. Let us not forget so quickly.....

Clark was silent about his party affiliation for at least 2 months. I can figure it out now, he was waiting for his voters registration to at least make it 15-20 days as a democrat before entering the race. He just was not sure if he could fake it as a democrat!

Now that explains why he never ever admitted his party affiliation; he was a republican wanting to slip in as a democrat.

[SWPAdem]

3. I suppose

that you have copies of his voter's registration to prove this statement....otherwise, it is nothing more than your Dean allegiance speaking. And, you know what, after more than 30 years in nursing, I know more doctors that vote Repig because of tax issues and tort reform. Therefore, let's ask Dr. Dean who he voted for in every previous election.

[asjr]

2. Clark

I am a Dean person, but I really feel some here are doing the Repub work on a person's history. I was once a Republican. I no longer am. No one I know holds that against me. Why should we hold it against Clark if he is no longer (or ever was) a Repub? It isn't the past of Gen. Clark that matters. It is the future of this country. Whether he is the nominee or not he is entitled to respect for what he feels about this country now. I am not going to bash any of the nominees because that defeats my purpose--getting a Democrat in the WH. All of them are capable and have the best interest of this country at heart. What more can we ask of them? We have enough demonizers in this administration. We do not need more.

[cmd]

4. Thank you, asjr

Great message.

[Hamlette]

11. Horray asjr!!!!

Thank you! My dad was a republican (military). He too switched parties right before he retired.

The Dems here say "we support our troops" but in reality they hate the military. It would take an idiot not to recognize the danger the military poses which is why we need people like Clark in the military AND in our party.

[gully]

13. OK yall, my husband voted for Reagan...

It was a parody ... based on another thread... Sorry about the confusion. :spank:

[Padraig18]

7. I'm a Deanite, too, but...

... this constant lame-assed 'ideological purity' crap is TOO MUCH!

[gully]

10. It shouldn't be held against him, he should have been forth coming

is all I'm saying.

The Dems have been accusing one another of all sorts of stuff. This is politics I guess.

BTW, I don't think Clark is a bad guy. I'm willing to give him a shot.

[noiretextatique]

19. you aren't running for president

:shrug: this argument is so inane...it's not worth refuting...again. his past IS an issue...just like bush's past should have been an issue. the republicans will certainly make his past an issue.

[wyldwolf]

25. Why hold it against Clark if he is no longer (or ever was) a Republican?

...well, for Deanies, it makes their man seem more credible - although he's been called a Rockefeller Republican himself.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

5. Totally.

Clark SHOULD be ashamed of himself!
Just read this to see the lying sack of Commie vermin that is Wesley Clark: http://www.patrioticamerica.net/fea20.html . This link needs to be posted every time an anti-Clark thread pops up.

[AP]

6. What has Clark done to hide his past?

???

[SWPAdem]

16. He had the audacity

to keep his party affiliation to himself until he was ready to declare his candidacy...a right that every other citizen enjoys, I might add.

[gully]

17. And other Candidates have the right, to bring it to light.

He invited others to do so...

He needs to hire a better campaign manager for not advising him properly IMO.

[AP]

20. Did anyone really thing that a military guy who served in Dem and Rep ad-

ministrations and who takes an oath to do whatever the President tells him to do regardless of party affiliation WASN"T going to be very un-partisan, and WASN'T going to ride the cusp between the two parties?

Didn't they go through the same thing with Eisenhower and Powell? This is the nature of a military man running for President.

I think there are a hundred good reason not to prefer Clark. However, I never ever for one second thought that he was going to do anything other than what he did about announcing his party affiliation. It's not great, but it's not a surprise. I don't think most voters are going to care. In fact, I think that, for most voters, it sort of affirms what they expect from a guy in uniform which actually helps to reinforce tne meta-message Clarki is trying to create.

Dean is barking up the wrong tree. He's just confirming the identiy Clark is trying to create. If he wants to talk about something interesting, he should talk about whether it's wise to make Iraq and national secrurity the total focus of this debate, or whether it's important to have more of an FDR-like attitude about taxes and the budget (as we dip our national toe in the pool of a Great Depression II). Oops. Maybe Dean doesn't want to talk about those things.

[gully]

18. I didn't say he 'hid' anything, he didn't MAKE IT A FOCAL POINT.

as he should have.

He can quell all of the scuttlebutt if he holds a press conference.

[AP]

21. I think he was making it a focal point. I think the hoopla around him

announcing he was a Democrat a few weeks ago was intentionally copying the sort of thing that happened with Eisenhower and with Powell. I think that's part of how a military man runs.

I wrote more about this in my previous post.

I'll had, it's funny that Dean, who does a lot of shit to try to make it seem like he's representing the disenfranchised far left wing of the party criticize the calculated tactics of a guy who is intentionally trying to appeal to the middle of the party. He should recognize that Clark is doing the exact same thing from the other direction. And the truth is Clark might actually be more liberal than Dean on issues like, oh, say, progressive taxation, or the notion that it's OK for governments to run surpluses every once in a while without having to give all the money back as a tax break, and, perhaps, investing surpluses into things that make the economy larger and more fair.

[bicentennial_baby]

8. Others disagree with your assessment:

"To grow the party, we need to accept people who have just come into the fold as new Democrats. That should be the end of the matter," said Gordon Fischer, the Iowa Democratic chairman. "The only way we are going to be able to succeed is by attracting Republicans and independents to the Democratic banner."

Joe Erwin, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said he, too, hoped that candidates would not engage in "potentially divisive" attacks on Clark. Most voters in the state's Feb. 3 primary, Erwin predicted, would pay little attention to Clark's Republican past.

"I welcome new Democrats. You don't have to be born into this party," Erwin said. "Now he's committed to the principles of the Democratic Party. There is plenty of room."


http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Sep/09282003/nation_w/96682.asp

[MIMStigator]

9. Dean didn't make his anti medicare record part of his campaign

but Clark came clean about voting for Repugs in the past

[gully]

12. Re read my OP.

BTW, Deans medicare record is 'on the record' he voted with Clinton...

[AP]

14. And his only response to this allegation

is that it's nasty to equate a Dem with Gingrich.

He doesn't explain why a Dem would agree with Gingrich.

[gully]

15. He agreed with Clinton....

Start a thread if you'd like. Though I know how dembashing turns you off :eyes:

[AP]

22. Clinton didn't want to get rid of Medicare. However, I'll leave it to DU

researchers to figure out how Dean, Gingrich and Clinton could have all agreed with each other on one of the clauses in the Contract on America (which, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the reasons thought the Cato Institute should have liked him).

[gully]

26. Ha ha. Dean said he didn't agree with how medicare was administered

but he agreed with the program itself...

[AP]

27. again, I'm going to ask for the link to the quote...

...because I think there was much more to his criticism.

[gully]

28. Do your own research on the debate...

You made the accusation prove it...remember, that's how you said it works :eyes:

[AP]

32. I just saw it in another thread. Looks like he wanted to cut it.

[gully]

36. Not according to Dean at the debates...

:shrug:

[AP]

42. In the debates, he didn't really address what he said about Medicaire

He said it was wrong to attack him and said he supported what Clinton supported. He never really addressed the quote.

[gully]

43. Yes he did...he said he supported medicare, but disagreed with how it was

administered.

[kang]

23. Reasonable Dean/Clark people

let's try keeping this civil out there on the forums? I'd hate to see what happened btw Kerry/Dean people out here happen btw Clark/Dean people. Despite being disappointed by Dean's alleged attack on Clark (I haven't seen Face the Nation so I'm going to reserve judgement), I respect many people who support Dean and understand why they do.

But Clark is a moderate who definitely appeals to independents and even Republicans who aren't happy w/Bush's handling of things. That should be encouraged, not discouraged. I thought the whole point/goal of everybody is to unseat Bush and get back Dem control of the White House. That controls the Sup. Ct./Fed. Ct. nominees, helps win back Congress and puts in adminstration heads that will respect the Constitution and protect liberal interests like the environment and labor issues. I'm going to try my best to help Clark people see that we shouldn't hurt our own cause by getting personal, I hope the Dean people who agree will try doing the same. We all want Bush gone, let's try reminding everybody of that.

[fla nocount]

24. What? And expose his molehood?

Nothing but nothing except a complete break from the "Hill" will save this country. He's Arnold in clothes.........and he can read and write, and he owes people...........lots of people. He's what Heston pretends to be.

[Padraig18]

29. Ah, yes!

The black helicopters are coming your way, even as you post... :tinfoilhat:

[fla nocount]

31. Wop, Wop, Wop, what's that sound?

I thought I was safe here at DU. I bought Bowling for Columbine yesterday and gasp, I let my boys watch it. And they (ages 10 and 15) invited friends over to watch it as well. Who fingered me? A parent do you suppose?

Clark I fear is exactly as he appears........a career military man and all that it suggests.

[msmcghee]

39. " . . a career military man and all that it suggests."

Yes, that troubles me too. My experience with retired military at work causes me to believe that many of them (especially those who attained higher rank) are masters at saying the right thing for their own benefit - i.e. being politically skillful.

They rose to power in a system where almost anyone above you in rank can either make promotions hassle free if they like you - or completely derail your career - if they get it in for you.

OTOH those skills can be valuable if used judiciously toward an honorable goal. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that so far - but I'm looking for indications of his true ideology. I hope he provides them soon. If he doesn't - I'd be inclined to assume the worst given the gravity of the situation.

[joe_momma]

30. Yeah, and Dean should've been...

more forthcoming about his desire to raise the retirement age, cut veterans benefits, medicare, and make the lives of the underprivileged a little more tough. Hmm, sounds familiar, no?

[gully]

34. dup

*

[gully]

37. ha ha, your talking about what he said 8 years ago right?

:eyes: Tired stuff my friend. :boring:

[msmcghee]

33. This whole question could be defused . .

. . and used as a very powerful moment in the campaign.

Clark could do a full page ad in the WP or NYT . . stating how in the past, as a military general, he held allegiance to the president of the US and served several presidents honorably.

Now, because of the changes in the Republican party he no longer has that option - and that the dem party is the only party that truly cares about freedonm and fairness and justice for all Americans.

He could welcome all Republicans who love America and the true American values that our nation was founded on - to switch over with him - and he should point out how those values are best represented in the dem party of today.

He should showe how those values are in grave danger from another four years of *BFEE rule.

This would be a turning point for millions of Americans (esp. those in the middle who don't know what they hell they are doing but want to be patriotic).

His failure to address this openly and in the strongest terms will leave me wondering what the hell he is doing in this race.

Added on edit: In fact, if he fails to use this golden opportunity to define his ideology and show how it meshes with Democratic values, then I'd say he is either a ringer or he is too stupid to be running.

[gully]

35. Absolutely! I totally agree.

It's Clarks responsibilty to do so. And, I hope he does. If he reads DU, perhaps he will ;)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. agreed, great idea

That would do a lot not just for Clark's campaign, but the Democratic party in general.

[Padraig18]

41. I live in the self-proclaimed "Most Republican county in Illinois", and...

...I know MANY Republicans who are DESPERATELY seeking a viable alternative candidate to Bush; I have succeeded in persuading some of them to Governor Dean's cause, but some are not able to take that 'leap of faith' after generations of being Republicans.

Most will concede that Bush's handling of the economy has been awful, and most think his handling of Iraq has been 'inept', at best, yet... What these folks are looking for (rightly or wrongly--- don't debate ME on this, OK?) is someone they feel has strong, credible military and national-security credentials, something they feel the other Democrats lack. If General Clark can bring these folks into our common fold, I welcome his entry.

I know for a fact that these people can be persuaded to vote for a Democrat, because we got them to do so in UNPRECEDENTED NUMBERS this past November, when Democrats swept Illinois, in stark contrast to national trends. We did it then by offering them a CREDIBLE alternative--- a choice--- and we should not become so personally invested in OUR particular candidate's future that we ignore the future of our PARTY!

:)

[Gman]

40. This is more GD garbage

going back downhill again.

[gully]

44. No, it's a valid point. It would hardly be news worthy that Clark

has a Republican past if he talks openly about it.

I think you'll see more of his 'candor' in the days to come if his advisors are worth a dime.