Kerry Questions Clark's Republican Ties

[arcos]

Kerry Questions Clark's Republican Ties

WASHINGTON - Wesley Clark (news - web sites) told skeptical party activists Friday "it's great to be home" as the Democrat's 10th presidential candidate, but rival John Kerry (news - web sites) questioned the newcomer's Republican ties.

"I stood against Richard Nixon, not with him," Kerry said as a parade of presidential contenders began two days of speeches to the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites).

Clark entered the race Sept. 17, two years after praising the Reagan, Nixon and both Bush administrations at a GOP fund-raiser — and without registering as a Democrat in Arkansas. His DNC address drew polite and repeated applause as Democratic activists said they were still taking his measure.

<snip>

Without mentioning his new rival by name, Kerry contrasted his Democratic credentials with Clark's. "This is not a commitment I made in the last year or that I stumbled across in the last campaign. This has been a cause to me of a lifetime," said the Massachusetts senator who also questioned Dean's commitment to Medicare and middle-class tax cuts.

<snip>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=7&u=/ap/20031003/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_2004

[Malva Zebrina]

1. I am getting pretty annoyed at these attacks on each other

when I log into my home page I see a headline that says

"Bush: Iraq War Justified Despite No WMD
President Bush speaks about the economy at Midwest Airlines Center in Milwaukee Friday, Oct. 3, 2003. President Bush, defending his decision to go to war in Iraq, said Friday that a search for weapons of mass destruction made clear that Saddam Hussein was "a danger to the world" even though investigators have failed so far to find any illegal arsenal. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) "

Godammnit--this is a lie--this man, Bush, the unelected president, has murdered thousands of innocent Iraqi people with his lies about Iraq and WMD and all that is said by a veteran politician who happens to be in the run for president is an attack on another Democrat candidate? Jesus Christ--what is the matter with them all? Bush is saying that his attack on Iraq and the subsequent killing and murder of thousands of people was "justified" even though he lied about it and Kerry chooses to attack a competitor?

Jesus Christ--this breaks my heart

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Guess what -- Bush is not running in the Democratic primaries

[Cocoa]

32. he spent much more time going after Bush

they all did. It was a very strong unifying theme.

They all mentioned the CIA leak, which got the biggest applause. Daschle said he will be "relentless" on it. Music to my ears. :-)

[cyclezealot]

41. After Iran Contra-Nicaragua, we have a right to be suspicious.

Questioning one's past political allegiences is a legitimate question. I saw Clark's CNN ad praising Bush. ONly two years ago ( May 2001.). His praise of Bush II was sickening...Did you like Bush II in May 2001.?
Instant converts to the Democratic party, to which they aspire it's nomination should expect questions over their loyalty.
The CNN Bush ad that Clark did had positive things to say about Rice,Bush II,Powell,Cheney- we should not be suspicious about his real loyalities.?
He voted for Reagan in 84. Bush in 88. After Iran Contra and the illegal mining of the Nicaraguan harbor. Where was Clark's loyalty then, yet alone his conscience.!
We should not get personally nast with Clark, but questioning him about when he 'saw the light' and how genuine his conversion is, is a very legitimate question.
Should these questions not seem legitimate to you, maybe you should ask yourself, am I using both sides of my brain and being objective.
Be nasty to Clark no. Welcome to the party yes.
Make sure of his ideals- very much needed, before I consider any potential vote in any Democratic primary. You should too.

[budmo]

2. Oh Kerry

get off it!
Your sounding more and more like a bitter pill.
The whiners club...Kerry ,Gephart, and Lieberman!

Instead of bitching about Dean why don't you pay attention to how he's beating your ass right now!

Going negative won't serve the party in the end. It will only give the repubs. more fuel for their dirty tricks we're going to be dealing with.:nopity:

[acerbic]

3. More news: Kerriacs attack Dean for questioning Clark's Republican Ties

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=52635

What's the word again... oh yes, "hypocrisy". :eyes:

[LuminousX]

4. LOL

Everyone should be aware that this is the most obvious line of attack against Clark and all the candidates are going to try it once or twice. The Kerry supporters who trashed Dean over this were just setting themselves up.

[Rose Siding]

6. This was the wrong venue for any attacks

I know he's desperate but this was a unified meet for the DNC, not a rally or a debate.

Dean made a distunguishing point of asking "Will this be the party of the status quo or the party that will inspire the next generation" but didn't attack anyone individually.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. If DNC isn't an appropriate venue for raising the issue of party loyalty

what is?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Much like the broken campaign finance pledge,

the issue with Dean is not so much http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/60.htm">what he did, but, yes, the hypocrisy of claiming the moral high ground, and then using the same tactic he had previously condemned.

[w4rma]

9. On Kerry's broken campaign finance pledge

…
So let's go back to 1996, to Kerry's reelection campaign against then-Governor Bill Weld, specifically to the night Weld met Kerry at the senator's wife's Beacon Hill mansion. They finalized an unprecedented agreement to limit advertising spending to $5 million apiece, and to limit the use of personal funds in the campaign to $500,000 apiece.

Good government types hailed the agreement as a major breakthrough. Kerry and Weld basked in the plaudits of editorialists the nation over. Kerry described the pact as "a model for campaign reform across the country."

But a funny thing happened on the way to Election Day. Kerry didn't just violate the deal, he pulverized it. Running out of money in the waning days of October, Kerry mortgaged and remortgaged the Louisburg Square house, ultimately pouring $1.7 million in personal funds into his campaign. For those of you keeping track at home, that's $1.2 million more than the agreement allowed.

As he made a mockery of the pact, he did something else distinctly distasteful. He accused Weld of violating the agreement, a charge that seemed specious at best, an outright lie at worst.

At issue was a discount Weld received from the standard fee his media consultant would reap from all ad spending. It allowed Weld to buy about $400,000 more in ads for his $5 million. Every good campaign negotiates a discount, and the written agreement did not preclude them. Kerry claimed it was a violation of a rule that, well, was never written down.

Still, yesterday, he repeated the charge. "The Kerry campaign took appropriate action to level the playing field," said spokeswoman Kelley Benander, adding, "The situation with Howard Dean is much more serious."

Sure he did, and sure it is.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/16/hard_to_pull_for_kerry/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=11429

[Cha]

11. Thanks for this!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Without addressing the credibility of

Brian McGrory, I'll just repeat my point that it was not so much Dean backing off his promise, because as many Dean supporters pointed out, you can't just be a sucker and let the other guy win because you are too 'pure' to duke it out with him. No, it was Dean's threat to attack any other Democratic candidate who didn't also adhere to his short-lived promise that made him look so hypocritical in this instance.

[Cha]

10. What? If Dean does it ..it's a Sin? But if Kerry does it ...it's

Politics?

[LuminousX]

12. I just want Kerry supporters

to either criticize Kerry for this or, for those who criticized Dean, to acknowledge that Dean's assertion wasn't off base, especially now that other candidates are picking up on the point.

Face it, all the candidates have to fend off Clark, he is coming on strong and hard. The best way of doing this without digging into war stuff, is to cut him off at the knees and point out where he isn't exactly a firm supporter of the Democratic party.

[Cha]

15. Dean was just the frontrunner as usual!

Dean has the Courage to Lead! :kick:

[sandnsea]

13. "Even Wes Clark, who was a Republican until 25 days ago..."

That's what Dean said and that's the difference. Although I'm sure it will be lost on Deanies.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Let me spell it out for them anyway

Kerry said he stood against Richard Nixon - which is the truth.

Dean said Clark was a Republican until 25 days ago -- which is a lie. Or, at the very least, an unfair smear.


And let me also point out that the headline here is deceptive. It says Kerry 'questions Clark's Republican ties' but a careful reading of the article shows that he did not in fact do that. All it says is ' Without mentioning his new rival by name, Kerry contrasted his Democratic credentials with Clark's. "This is not a commitment I made in the last year or that I stumbled across in the last campaign. This has been a cause to me of a lifetime," ' -- Kerry touts his own credentials -- the contrast whether implied or inferred is inappropriately labelled as 'questioning Republican ties.

[acerbic]

17. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Kerry said he stood against Richard Nixon - which is the truth.

So when Kerry said "I stood against Richard Nixon, not with him" he wasn't talking about Clark with that "not with him". He actually wasn't talking about anybody or anything but it was instead just meaningless blather. Those pesky reporters just got it wrong again and interpreted it as questioning Clark's republican ties. Dang, they never understand what Kerry is really saying and they are so overpowering that even Kerry's own site ends up repeating the reporters' misinterpretations. :-)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Meaningless blather?

Day after day, according to the tapes and memos, Nixon aides worried that Kerry was a unique, charismatic leader who could undermine support for the war. Other veteran protesters were easier targets, with their long hair, their use of a Viet Cong flag, and in some cases, their calls for overthrowing the US government. Kerry, by contrast, was a neat, well-spoken, highly decorated veteran who seemed to be a clone of former President John F. Kennedy, right down to the military service on a patrol boat.

The White House feared him like no other protester.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Are you really unable to understand the difference

between pointing out your good points while letting your audience make the contrast with your opponent, and making an outright false statement about your opponent?

[JI7]

23. of course he was talking about clark

he was playing up his own record by doing that. and clark admitted he voted for nixon then .

[LuminousX]

24. You are correct

You are hoping the subtle mincing of the words mean something. They don't. About the only thing I get out of it is Kerry isn't as direct and upfront as Dean.

That is what I like about Dean.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. You call making false statements 'direct and upfront'?

Or are you saying that Clark really was a Republican up till '25 days' before Dean made his statement?

[LuminousX]

26. Yep.

That's what I'm saying. He voted and supported Nixon. Wanted a job from Rove and filed his candidacy as Party Unknown...

Kerry also is accusing him of being a Republican (I stood against Nixon, not with him ... who is he talking about if not Clark?)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Kerry stated facts. And let those facts speak for themselves.

Dean seems like he can't go more than a few days without saying something that is not true.

[gully]

28. hmmm Irish, Asthmatic? Ring a bell???

:shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. If you have something to say you'll have to say it.

[JohnKleeb]

36. That ancestry stuff is just silly

For a while I didnt know I was Slovenian I thought I was Serbian, yes its silly, I also thought I was part Czech when I am Slovak.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. That Is Hilarious!!!

I just posted these GOP talking points a couple of minutes ago, and already the Dean people are biting. Top notch!

[JohnKleeb]

39. They ARE GOP points I remember

Plus the Irish thing is trival, see what I said and I know I am dumb for it, but who knows Kerry could be Irish. Its trival still.

[LuminousX]

29. Not True? I still don't see it

You and I definately have two different views of truth, thus, I think this is my time to cease responding to you completely.

I don't see what Dean said as being a lie. You do. C'est la vie.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. No matter how partisan you may be

I find it impossible to believe, that you really think this statement

"Even Wes Clark, who was a Republican until 25 days ago..."

was true. Perhaps you believe that Dean was using poetic license or you've got some other rationalization for Dean making that false statement -- I don't know -- but your not going to get me to believe you actually think it was true. Whether we call it a lie or something else, it reveals the character of the man speaking it.

You say we have different views of the truth, but I don't believe that. I believe we both know what true means, and what false means.

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Do You Mean Dean Is "Newt-Lite?"

I don't know about anyone else, but I was condemning Dean for being a whiny, hypocritical simp more than the fact that he was actually lying about Clark's record.

[incapsulated]

18. This just means...

They both scared of Clark.

:scared:

[Fabio]

19. It means they are trying to defeat him.

Which is appropriate.

I think it is valid to point this out about Clark. Saying his is pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-environment, etc is all good and great -- but it does not provide any evidence of
a) what is in his heart (which I actually am not doubting)
b) what fights he will choose.

we know dean has fought for healthcare and fiscal responsibility. We know Kerry has fought for corporate reform, the environment, education, etc. On the domestic front, it is impossible to tell the conviction with which Clark will pursue these sorts of issues as his agenda. Doesn't mean he wont, does mean he hasn't.

[catforclark2004]

22. Just means that the competition is stiff...and no one wants to lose.

Any issue will do....so much jealousy of Clark.....

So they've chosen to question his party ties......too bad.....cause he's gonna be the Democratic President in 2004.

[eileen_d]

33. I don't blame any candidate for questioning Clark

since he does not have any established history as a member of the Democratic Party.

However, the reference to a SINGLE fundraising dinner for the GOP, where Clark was a speaker, is getting SO F**KING OLD. I'm not going to argue that Clark is a Democrat, but I think the "Clark is a Republican" argument ultimately can't be supported either, based on this single fundraiser. He's voted for both parties in presidential elections. He has been quoted as praising Republicans, but I'm not convinced that this reflects an endorsement of everything they have done.

In conclusion, the next time I see a reference to this GOP fundraising dinner, I will unplug my network cable and eat it. Thanks for your support.

[JI7]

34. wasn't really questioning clark as much as

kerry wasn't really questioning clark as much as trying to draw attention to his own record and comparing it to others, especially clark. he knows clark is a good candidate and competition. but the speech was very good.

[eileen_d]

35. Yeah, you said it better than I did

I was looking for a one-word summary of Kerry's actions and "questioning" was the best I could come up with.

As usual, Kerry has class! :yourock:

[Tinoire]

40. It's a lot more than a single fund-raiser

This is as late as March 2003:

Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

(Deputy Secretary of Defense) Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. (Deputy National Security Advisor) Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with (Pentagon advisor) Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Do you disagree with them on their worldview?

I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.

But certainly you're contemplating running for president -- I understand you haven't made a decision -- so even though you root for their success, you can't agree with their methods.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/print.html