Clark vowing to *"break back of big pharma"* on CSPAN

[Myra]

Just to get the facts straight.

He's giving a lot of detail; being broadcast now.
As soon as a transcript is available I'll post the relevant sections.

[Clark Can WIN]

1. Talking about Diebold now

Mr. Diebold now and paper vote reciepts.

[ibegurpard]

2. That sounds an awful lot like "regulation" to me.

Wasn't General Clark just criticizing Dr. Dean for calling for increases in government regulations?

[Myra]

4. Well, I guess it's a step up to just take cheap shots at Clark's position.

Rather than attribute the opposite meaning to him.

But lack of distortion and cheap shots and lack of lies would be better, and reflect better on Dean supporters.

[Clark Can WIN]

5. .

:nopity:

[cprise]

6. But Dean surged and Clark didn't so....

...now Clark is a happenin' REGULATION MAVEN!

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

8. Clark's Consistently Been For Bringing Media Back To PreReagan Standards

that is a FACT.

He has also talked about strengthening ENVRIONMENTAL STANDARDS beyond Clinton... FACT.

Now, regarding the ECONOMY- Clark is for:

ENFORCING EXISTING REGULATIONS
Fair Trade using International Labor Standards
Using Tax Code to discourage outsourcing

So you see, when you talk about REGULATION in broad terms you are basically just spouting off rhetoric like Dean.

Dean likes to come off as if he's for writing all kinds of new regulations on Corporations... and ends up looking like a Protectionist.

[cprise]

14. Dean was campaigning for these first:

ENFORCING EXISTING REGULATIONS
Fair Trade using International Labor Standards
Using Tax Code to discourage outsourcing

One of Dean's strengths is his willingness to advocate regulation in general terms, because so many people are alarmed that it has been dispensed with as a guiding principle. But he's been very specific about regulation as regards the FCC, SEC and utilities. In fact these positions that Clark likes so much prompted Lieberman to go ballistic on Dean months ago, and he still hasn't let up. Contrast Lieberman's wimpy demeanor in 2000 to his attitude now.

Which all makes Clark look like a poseur brought in to divide the anti-war vote while the hawks batter Dean and no one else.

[Jerseycoa]

15. See

It's just not all about Dean. Repeat after me.

[KittyWampus]

9. Well, Maybe You & Dean Don't Know That "Regulations" Is A Broad Subject

Dean likes to use the term because it attracts the kneejerk lefties...

I already posted this down thread but once more for good measure:

Clark has ALWAYS said he wanted to bring MEDIA back to PreREagan standards
Clark has ALWAYS said he wants to enforce, and in some cases, strengthen ENVIRONMENTAL standards

Clark has also said he wants to enforce existing Corporate Regulations.
Plus, use tax code to modify their behavior.
Plus, raise standards in Trade agreements.

In the end, Dean REALLY isn't for alot of REGULATION when it comes to Corporate America... he just likes to talk like he is.

But it's interesting to see howmany of his supporters have been fooled by his rhetoric... which makes him look like a protectionist.

[Clark Can WIN]

3. Now talking about equal time and centralized media

Said Faux was covering the event.......... groan from the audience....

To which Clark said "No, no no, that's alright........I've been on Fox ....... I LOVE to argue with those guys..

Pretty funny. :dem:

[wndycty]

7. Thanks for posting this Myra

:kick:

[Myra]

11. My pleasure wndycty. General Clark fights lies with truth.

I figured he's a good example.

[Myra]

12. Perfect example of how he fights lies with truth.

He's not afraid of Faux.

[wndycty]

10. Kick

:kick:

[Myra]

13. Here are General Clark's exact words/direct quote from rerun on CSPAN

Q-Why should I have to go to Canada to afford drugs?

A-"We're gonna go to Canada and get the drugs until we can break the back of big pharma."
- General Wesley Clark, Nashua, New Hampshire, 12/20/2003

Because:

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Winston Churchill

[Don Claybrook]

16. He also said

He also said that other countries need to pay their "fair share" of the R&D costs for drugs. This is something the pharmaceutical industry has been lobbying for pretty hard. His idea of price equalization seems to be to make sure that Canada and other countries no longer have cheaper drugs.

[Donna Zen]

17. Fair share means fair share

During the first part of his answer he explains how a combination of tax dollars and corporated dollars are used to bring a product to market. It is crazy that only American consummers then get charged for the cost of bringing a drug to the market, while other countries get cheap drugs through the bidding. The system is rigged against the American consummer. Therefore if the system refuses to budge, Clark says we go to Canada.

[Myra]

22. Thanks Donna, Clark was very clear about having short term

and long term solutions, for those genuinely interested
in his policies. And his policy is much longer than
two words.

[Don Claybrook]

23. Yes, and his long-term solution

...involves helping big pharmaceutical companies gouge not just the citizens of this country, but the citizens of the world. Try to shed your thin skin and discuss this. Show me where I'm wrong, please.

[Myra]

18. Sort of amazing you could find a sinister spin in "fair share" Don

Very amazing.

[Don Claybrook]

20. Reply to both Myra and Donna Zen

And I knew these replies were coming. I should've addressed this in my first post.

The pharmaceutical companies are LYING about their R&D costs. Studies have been done (from NPR, no, I don't have a link) showing that pharmaceutical companies pad the hell out of their R&D costs. They do this so that they can turn around and gouge the consumer who needs the drugs.

By the way, how is it that these other countries got contracts with the pharmaceutical companies at such reasonable prices in the first place? They refuse to be screwed because their governments are actually into saving money and protecting their citizens from being gouged.

Wes Clark got this one wrong. It doesn't mean I think he's evil or wouldn't vote for him if he got the nomination or or would draw devil horns on his photo or any of that sort of stuff. It means big pharmaceutical companies are laughing at him behind his back--all the way to the bank.

You know, you don't have to support every single policy your candidate has outlined. They all get some of them wrong, which is what subjectivity is all about. In order to defend Clark on this one, you have to warp your thinking such that you're supporting one of the more heinous goals of one of the more heinous criminal industries in this country.

Thanks.

[Don Claybrook]

25. Well then, I guess there's no defense for the indefensible

You've been very adept at commiserating with other Clark supporters instead of addressing this issue. You've wasted your time by calling me a liar instead of addressing this issue. You've even been successful in replying to an old post of mine that was written in praise of rational discussions about the candidates. Of course, your latest reply on that thread was in agreement with one of the only irrational posters on that thread.

What you haven't done is have a rational discussion about this particular issue with this particular candidate. Clark is wrong on this issue and you won't talk about it.

I'm still waiting.

[Don Claybrook]

26. Going, going, gone: Clark to Help Big Pharma Realize Their Dreams

Myra never would answer my question about Clark's support of US pharmaceutical companies gouging not just US citizens, but all citizens of the world. So yeah, I'll admit that that the title of this post is somewhat sensationalist in its wording, but I don't think it's untrue.

I was hoping a (different) Clark supporter would be able to address this point rationally.

Thanks.

[Myra]

19. This is the exact kind of post that makes it hard to genuinely discuss

An issue, in spite of your claims that you find genuine
discussions "refreshing" Don.

[Don Claybrook]

21. Read my other post

And tell me right here and right now, are you implying that I am lying about the refreshing nature of genuine discussions?

Answer, please.

[Don Claybrook]

24. Still waiting for an answer, Myra