What are the policy differences between Clark and Kerry?

[ajacobson]

I know this falls into the category of having other people doing the research I should do myself, but I know some of my esteemed colleagues here at DU have digested this information more thoroughly than I have.

Looking at stated policy approaches, not who is more honorable, etc etc. That's a philosophical debate worth having but just not what I am looking at right now.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. beats me

But Clarks' policies are whatever his advisors tell him they are.

[EXE619K]

3. Got venom?

n/t

[StClone]

4. So he has no convictions?

And he is the only one with advisers? So a guy (and this is old news) that finished first in his class at West Point, self-made Rhodes Scholar and Four Star General is a quivering glob of jello non-thinker? Mirror please.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. no...he has no political experience so he's ripe

For cherrypicking issues that will get him the most support in the primary.

I'm not saying he has no convictions. Just that I have my suspicions that a 4-star general sounds waaaaaay too liberal to be real. I guess it's just a case of something looking too good to be true.

[Lefta Dissenter]

6. What a helpful contribution...

:eyes:

Somehow, I don't think that a guy who is used to commanding his own life and who has Masters in Economics, Philosophy and Politics, with all that Foreign Policy experience comes to the table with no ideas of his own.

It would be interesting to compare issue by issue, for those of us who are not threatened by such a discussion.

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. okay...I just went to this website

www.presidentmatch.com

I compared Kerry and Clark and this is what I found...

Kerry is slightly more liberal than clark on guns and trade. There were a lot of places where Clark gave no response, so I don't know what his opinion on certain issues are.

But to compare someone who's spent 20 years fighting for causes with someone who just dropped out of the blue and decided to run for president is laughable.

Do you really think Clark has always held all of these beliefs, or do you think he huddled with his political advisors prior to annoucing his run and came up with what his platform would be based on what would be popular positions in the primaries.

[robbedvoter]

14. About all that fighting for causes, we have a debunking

Kerry Exaggerates Role in Some Key Legislative Battles

He says he "led the fight" on several fronts, but few bills bear his name.
January 30, 2004Modified:January 30, 2004
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=134

You see, John,
Byrd lead the anti-war fight in the Senate. DK in the House.
You led nothing!

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. did I say Kerry led anything?

But he has a record of supporting causes that are near and dear to all our hearts.

Clark doesn't.

[robbedvoter]

20. Nope. You didn't. he does. he even borrows Clarks

campaign: "I am a leader who can stand toe to toe with Bush"
let's see


Attack
Quote: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States" (Boston Globe, April 3, 2003)
rebuff
Charge: Then-GOP Chairman Marc Racicot said Kerry "crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war." Racicot said Kerry's remark was "designed to further Sen. Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake." John Podhoretz of the New York Post accused Kerry of drawing an "implicit parallel ... between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush.
multiple foldings
Kerry issued four responses to his critics: 1) "It is possible that the word 'regime change' is too harsh. Perhaps it is." 2) It was just a "quip." 3) "That's what a presidential race is about. It's about changing the administration." 4) "I'm not going to let the likes of Tom DeLay question my patriotism, which I fought for and bled for in order to have the right to speak out."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089125/

[maxr4clark]

51. Yes he does.

He has a record of supporting education; he appeared before Congress to provide testimony on increasing funding for education in 2001, I believe.

He has a record of opposing the invasion of Iraq, both before Congress in September 2002, in print in the Washington Monthly, also September 2002, and on television when covering the assault on Afghanistan earlier in 2002, while a CNN analyst.

He has an excellent record for supporting the International Criminal Court.

He also has a lifelong record of public service, and a marriage of 35 years demonstrating his support for family values--real ones.

As a private individual, he supported homeland security in his lobbying activities. He also supported energy independence by participating in a company that is developing leading-edge electric motors for hybrid and hydrogen-powered automobiles.

To say he has no record of supporting causes near and dear to our heart is to show your ignorance of the man, not his ignorance of the issues.

[Hokie]

17. I took the survey there

Kucinich - 100
Kerry - 99
Sharpton - 95
Bush - 10

I can' belive Bush scored that high on mine. This survey is screwed up. ;)

[ajacobson]

18. Thanks for the link

Point taken on Kerry being in public life and establishing a track record.

But on your last line, why do you think it cooks down to an either-or situation? Clark is definitely not a cipher, I hope you can at least grant that.

[THUNDER HANDS]

21. no of course not

But Clark had the same advantage I would if I entered the race. Nobody knows who I am or what I stand for, so I could say anything I want to.

Has Clark taken a controversial position on any issue? Something that distinguishes himself from the rest of the field, or at least Kerry?

[ajacobson]

23. Clark brings his experience and his platform reflects that experience

especially on questions of national security. You may not like that experience but that is a different matter than bringing nothing to the table.

Clark has the life experience of being a four-star general and supreme allied commander in Europe. I have the experience of being a secretary and grassroots activist for 20 years. I would say Clark's life experience has prepared him better for being president than my life experience would prepare me for being president.

Clark doesn't have the experience of being a legislator in Congress. If that is an essential part of being President, well you got me there. I think there are many paths to the White House.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. true, there are many paths to the White House

But nobody but Eisenhower has come from the military to the presidency in the modern era. And I don't think even the most die-hard Clark supporter would say that he's another Eisenhower.

[mikehiggins]

53. Of course not. Ike was the hero of the second war. Clark fought a

war most people didn't understand. Most people didn't even know it was going on. The only people who paid close attention were the GOP types in Congress that kept trying to cut the funding, and the leftist in the US who saw it as another example of American imperialism.

It all comes down to electability in the end and that is a very difficult thing to pin down.

The question remains if the democratic party can make the right choice between an outsider and a professional politician who has been part of the Senate for almost 20 years.

some people think we should go with the Senator. Some don't.

I think we should go with Clark and "outside" Bush's "outsider" issue.

The next couple of weeks will determine which path the party will take.

[hilzoy]

37. PresidentMatch is dreadful.

I had never heard of it before now, and I looked it up. Almost all of the points on which they list Clark as having no views are points he has taken a clear stand. Constitutional ban on gay marriage: Clark came out against it on his 8th day in the race (Henniker NH town meeting; for all I know, he could have come out against it even earlier.) Increased funding for higher education: for it. See http://clark04.com/issues/highereducation/ . Embargo on Cuba: against; see MTV debate. Malpractice suits: he opposed malpractice caps and the GOP tort reform bill ( http://clark04.com/issues/civiljustice/ ). He does, however, support the establishment of evidence-based medical standards, which would protect doctors from needless malpractice suits when their care conformed to those standards. Support for tax credits for hiring welfare workers: I don't know. Support child care assistance for getting off welfare: Yes ( http://clark04.com/issues/poverty/ ). Raise retirement age on social security: can't get much clearer than this: "That's why I will never raise the retirement age on or privatize Social Security." ( http://clark04.com/issues/seniors/ ) Cap SS payments to wealthy: don't know.

I found all this out in under 20 minutes. I can't see why a site like this couldn't pay someone to do the same.

[funky_bug]

45. Laughable?

"But to compare someone who's spent 20 years fighting for causes with someone who just dropped out of the blue and decided to run for president is laughable."

Just because Kerry's 20 years were spent in Washington doesn't mean that Clark's last 20 years fighting in the military are any less impressive. I for one will take someone who rolls up their sleeves and fights with blood, sweat and tears, over someone who fights with a pen and a nod.

Kerry's last 20 years include last year, where his pen and nod sent our soldiers to war. They're the ones fighting for causes, not Kerry. Unfortunately, they're fighting for Bush and Halliburton, not liberation and freedom.

I agree... comparing Clark's fight to Kerry's IS laughable, but only when you're comparing Kerry to Clark, and not the other way around.

[Mobius]

46. Out of the Blue?

I dont think so. Just a ghost he was? 34 Year high profile 4 star general, out of the blue?

[mikehiggins]

52. I think Clark went to some people and said, this is what I can live with

what do we do know?

Then they hammered out position papers and positions and away we went.

There is no mystery to this, you know. No arcane, mysterious knowledge you have to have in order to be President of the United States. Clark is a well educated and experienced adult who has spent his life as a leader and a commander. He knows how things get done, and how to do them.

And since he isn't a professional politician he can bring his mind to bear on things unhindered by decades of bobbing and weaving in Congress. Clark is no stranger to compromise or negotiation; he helped broker a peace treaty between two centuries old foes. He can certainly deal with Congress, even if it is dominated by the GOP.

All in all, Clark is a superior candidate in the primaries, and a superlative one in the General (no pun) Election.

[in_cog_ni_to]

56. Do you mean to tell me that

fighting for causes in the military is less important than sitting behind a desk in congress voting on bills that have killed over 500 soldiers and thousands of Iraqi's. Do you mean to tell me that a man who has spent 34 years defending YOUR country is less important than a paper pusher who voted to take away our civil rights?

Clark registered as a Democrat in 2002. Arkansas did not require that you declare yourself part of a political party. He WAS in the military for 34 years...they don't declare political parties either. Clark voted for Clinton in 1992. He voted for Clinton in 1996. He voted for Gore in 2000. What is your problem? How long does someone have to "be" a Democrat to suffice for YOU? You and your warmongering candidate are laughable. :grr:

[BootinUp]

19. That strikes me as quite ironic

Coming from a supporter of a career politician with a dubious record of morphing his positions according to the political weather forecast.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. has he ever wavered on abortion, or guns, or gay rights?

Or any major social issues?

His foreign policy record is mixed, but nobody can be perfect.

[hilzoy]

39. Sure he has.

Affirmative action, support for intelligence spending,

And then there's this: "Still, Kerry's views could be fickle, even on foreign policy. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Kerry suggested that the United States needed to give Saddam Hussein enough diplomatic "wiggle room" to leave Kuwait without losing face. He then voted against the congressional resolution authorizing military force, but became an enthusiastic supporter of the war as the allied coalition drove to victory in early 1991. His position was so nuanced that his office couldn't keep up with the changes, at one point mistakenly mailing out letters to his constituents that appeared to take both sides in the debate.

On Jan. 22, 1991, Kerry's office sent a letter to a constituent, thanking him for expressing opposition to the deployment of additional US troops in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. "I share your concerns," Kerry wrote, noting that on Jan. 11 he had voted in favor of a resolution opposing giving the president immediate authority to go to war and seeking to give economic sanctions more time to work.

On Jan. 31, the same constituent received a letter stating that, "From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

Kerry blamed the mix-up on a computer error and subsequently wrote in defense of his position on the Gulf war: "The debate in the Senate was not about whether we should or should not have used force, but when force should be used." " ( http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103.shtml )

And this: "Kennedy was infuriated when, in 1994, Kerry announced that he was "delighted" by the Republican takeover of Congress, because the voters had penalized the Democrats for their "screw-ups" -- including Clinton's and Kennedy's proposals for universal health care. "I want this change," Kerry told the Boston Herald. "The Democrats have articulated . . . a very poor agenda. It's hard for me to believe that some of these guys could have been as either arrogant or obtuse as to not know where the American people were coming from."" ( http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103.shtml )

And let's not forget this: ""From Enron to WorldCom to the mutual fund scandals that have shaken the trust and savings of Americans, a widespread creed of greed on Wall Street has been met by a look-the-other way attitude in the Bush White House," Kerry said in another recent speech. "It's time our government sent a different message." Back in February, 2002, when former Enron CEO Ken Lay appeared before members of the U.S. Senate, Kerry was even more harsh: "Americans everywhere are shocked that you have no answer to explain how Enron executives escaped this sinking ship with their fortunes intact while thousands of everyday working Americans were left holding the bag, robbed of their retirement savings."

But Kerry shouldn't be shocked at all. Back in 1995, he backed a controversial measure that severely limited the ability of investors to sue companies engaged in fraudulent accounting practices--a legal change widely believed to have contributed to the accounting scandals of the last few years. The law, which consumer groups opposed vociferously precisely because they feared it would lead to white-collar crime, was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. Yet Kerry voted for it anyway, not once but twice--the second time overriding a veto by President Clinton...

<snip>

"On balance," he said, "this legislation should lead to the creation of a more favorable climate for investors and businesses." After Clinton vetoed the bill, Kerry voted to override the president--a motion that passed the Senate by one vote. It was the first time a Clinton veto failed, leaving the White House to say merely that Clinton "hopes that the unintended consequences of the legislation actually do not occur."

As we all now know, the consequences did occur. The Enron case is just the most famous example of a company cooking its books while accountants looked the other way, costing investors hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention throwing thousands of employees out of work). And while it would be grossly unfair to blame it all on the Securities Reform Litigation Act, many experts think the law played a critical role in the scandals--partly by insulating auditors and other would-be watchdogs from the threat of lawsuits. It "substantially reduced the liability of accountants and other corporate gatekeepers," says Columbia University law professor John Coffee, an expert on securities regulation who advised the Clinton White House on this issue in 1995. "It's reasonable to infer that ... the extent that auditors no longer felt the pressure of litigation, it became easier to acquiesce at the margins to a fraud that they might not otherwise allow to happen."

James Cox, a securities expert at Duke Law School, is even more blunt when asked whether the 1995 law contributed to the Enron scandals: "You betcha," he says."
( http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=cohn012304 )

[cryofan]

26. I am a Clark backer, and I basically agree with you. This is OK with me

I like the idea of a president who is willing to follow the lead of his advisors on policy, instead of whatever he prefers. You get a more liberal president that way.

A military man follows orders, and Clark is following orders, too. Hopefully, Clark will follow the orders of his Democratic base. Bush's policies DO NOT adhere to the wishes of his base, in most cases.

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. i agree

I never said Clark's positions were wrong. Just that they were probably positions that were handed to him by his advisors.

[hilzoy]

40. He doesn't follow his advisors' lead.

How do I know? I actually worked on one of his policies, and he didn't.

[ajacobson]

49. Gotta ask

which one?

[hilzoy]

55. Um,

I don't know the etiquette on this, so I must demur. But on my little issue, no one told him what to think (though we did supply a few details that you'd have to spend your life buried in the literature to know.)

[jpgpenn]

43. REALLY?

You say that about a man that holds a Masters degree in Philosphy, Economics and Politics was a Rhodes Scholar? Step back!

[maxr4clark]

50. I have yet to see any reason to believe that.

In every appearance I have ever seen Clark do where he answers questions from the audience, he shows he has an excellent understanding of the issues--whether they are foreign or domestic.

In the televised debates Clark has been asked very few questions about domestic policy, but that isn't his fault. In the SC debate, Clark handled the question Tom Brokaw asked him about health care with a clear understanding of the issues, and without stepping any closer to the unrealistic claim that any one of these candidates can get universal health care passed with a Republican-dominated Congress.

Last night I watched Kerry and Clark and Edwards in a "family dialogue" format from SC. Each one was asked questions by representatives of a SC family. Clark was the first candidate, and he answered their questions about what to do to address immediate needs for Medicare and prescription drugs from a woman whose son had died shortly after Bush's policy changes had kept her son from access to medical coverage. He didn't mince words, he talked specifically about the changes that he has proposed that would address their concerns. Although the family members suggested in a follow-up question that the VA (Veterans Admin, not Virginia) healthcare system would be better for them than Medicare, which seemed like a bone thrown to Clark, Clark disagreed; he pointed out that the VA healthcare system had been dramatically underfunded during Bush's administration, and that Veterans often waited six or more hours to see a doctor as walk-ins.

Edwards was asked about jobs lost in SC. His answers were all in the same format: (a) here is what you just told me, and (b) here is the segment of my stump speech that is related to that. None of his answers addressed the specific concerns of the people asking the questions; they were all canned, I had heard him say the same words in coverage of NH.

Kerry's answers were the worst of the three major candidates (Joe-mama Leiberman declined the invitation to appear, probably didn't look like it would add to his Joe-mentum). He simply restated the issue the family had mentioned in a broader context, and said that he would get things done about it--in general. He didn't talk about specific policy ideas at all.

Now which of these candidates don't have a clue what the issues are? Which of these candidates are taking the advisor's ideas, rather than forming their own? If you form your own ideas, you know the details. The candidate that new the details was Clark.

Sharpton and Kucinich, by the way, did worse than Kerry. They didn't even address the questions they were asked; they simply delivered statements from their own agenda, whether they were applicable to the question they were asked or not.

[slinkerwink]

2. Clark's against IWR, NCLB, and other policies Kerry voted for

[liberalnurse]

5. Kerry can't cast a shadow up against Clark.

Kerry....voted to go to the IRW....without even reading the paperwork.If he did, we may not of gone in and bombed innocent civilians.

Thats the easy one to reminisce with for me.....

[robbedvoter]

15. DUPED BY A DOPE

Hate to quote snitchens, but he sums it up.
At least Kerry is not French. (as he told people at the St patricks Day)

[Lefta Dissenter]

8. Slink,

you forgot Patriot Act!

[Ivote]

10. Not a Policy

but maybe should be. In mho, I think that Clark can bring in people that would never vote for a New England Liberal, or protested VN.
And that is what we need now.
I was against the VNW. But at the same time I dont feel that Career Military would vote for someone who was. We need to get as many people as we can. So my best choice is Gen. Clark

[George_Bonanza]

32. Clark never had the chance to vote for anything

To level it out, let's just take each candidate's words for it, since that's you are doing with Clark. Eliminating the duty of voting which burdened John Kerry, can you honestly tell me that his rhetoric against the war in Iraq is any less than Clark's rhetoric against the war? Kerry stood up in the Senate and warned Bush not to rush to war.

As for the Patriot Act, it was an emotional mistake shared by the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, and Wellstone. I seriously seriously doubt that if Clark was a senator, he would've followed Feingold rather than 99% of the Senate.

[robbedvoter]

36. I missed the part where Kerry stood up Byrd, Kennedy I saw

http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2004/1/13/104013/080
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
snip
The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri
on top of it
Whatever he promised he broke:
According to a new book - Warrior King - the case for impeaching GW Bush by John C Bonifaz and  John Conyers:
"In giving the President this authority," the Kerry said, "I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."
"If he fails to do so," Senator Kerry continued, "I will be the first to speak out."
Bonifaz goes on:
Senator Kerry broke that promise ... In the crucial days after the president withdrew his efforts to gain United Nations support for his war and before the president launched his invasion, Senator Kerry remained silent.

[Mobius]

48. rather than 99% of the Senate

"I seriously seriously doubt that if Clark was a senator, he would've followed Feingold rather than 99% of the Senate."
He was against IWR, he wanted to find Bin Laden, which CLARK clearly has said was the greater threat.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[ajacobson]

12. thanks

eom

[arewethereyet]

57. except for when he is all for it and praising Bush & Company

noone really knows how he feels about much with no track record to compare rhetoric and actions against.

[ajacobson]

13. Looking for some Kerry supporters to step up to the plate here...

eom

[WiseMen]

24. Clark has a lot of policy papers on his site. I know many were

written at the direct request of Bill or friends of Bill as a favor
to Clark, who was very loyal to Bill vs Pentagon.

Clarks economic tendencies are very similar to Kerry's -- entreprenurial and free trade.

Kerry has a strong labor record so he could be expected to take some protective measures, but within a market-driven approach.

On social issues Clark has exposed mainstream Dem policies. Kerry with a 93% rating is really the gold standard for the left among current Dem leadership. Difference is that Kerry has done detailed analysis of many social policy issues and have at time suggested innovative and radical changes while never putting such in the form of legislation -- which would never pass anyway.

On military matters again Clark and Kerry have worked closely on the Balkan issue and have been on the same page. Kerry has an extensive record of opposing covert military adventures and a large number of votes against new investments in military hardware, star-wars etc.

On terrorism, Kerry seems much more cautions about the use of the military than Clark. In afghanistan, I can see Clark invading, but Kerry just using targeted special ops. His 1997 book, the New War, argued for many of the measure taken after 9/11 in terms of intelligence coordination, funds tracking and international cooperation (except that is now in shambles post Iraq) with no mention of Bush's favorite method or "regime change."

My 2 cents.

[ajacobson]

25. Thank you for your comments

eom

[Indiana Democrat]

29. Kerry is a professional and it shows.

Clark is a rank amature and it shows.


I don't know about anyone else, but I believe in results, not whacked-out conspiracies.

[Ivote]

31. Where was he when

we needed 1 Senetor to contest the 2000 Election?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Indiana Democrat]

42. He got over it.

[funky_bug]

54. Zing, bam, ball outta da park.

There's another voting record (or lackthereof) to Kerry's credit.

Game over. Ivote hit the grand slam.

[robbedvoter]

35. Professional only 28% of the times

The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes.
recent votes he missed: FCC - media consolidation, medicare, Omnibus - overtime bill.
Clark OTOH, took time from nis campaigning to testify against Milosevic. Priorities.

[abburdlen]

44. Sound like a great slogan

to use on the campaign trail

Kerry the professional politician

[robbedvoter]

30. Clark's policies:

http://clark04.com/issues

[John_H]

33. Yhey're pretty close. The main difference is Clark can win in a landslide

because he takes away the chimp's only issue and opens the race to the issues Dems win with. I think the GOP will try to kill JK w/ his votes in favor of Admin policies and the medals thing.

[Lefta Dissenter]

38. In response to a few of the comments about Clark

he DOES have a record of his policies and priorities, from in the military. He DID work to improve schools and health care for the thousands and thousands of military families under his wing. He DID speak out against DADT. He DID testify before the Senate against invading Iraq. He DID put affirmative action into practice back in the days when some OTHER people (ahem) were speaking out against it. People who think that he has no record haven't bothered to look!

And, as to his being 'controlled' by his advisors, that's a bunch of bologna! Some of the staffers at our local campaign office were present for some of the discussion (email and phone) between Jamie Rubin and Clark before one of Clark's speeches on Foreign Affairs. These staffers commented on what a wonderful exchange it was, give and take, definitely a two-way street, not one telling the other what to say or do. He has some great advisors, as any president should, but he doesn't just take what they say with blind trust - he's too much of a thinking guy. He wants to hear EVERY viewpoint and weigh out different ideas before making a decision.

[blm]

41. Actually, early on I noted that Clark was aligning himself with Kerry's

policies, which made me feel better about him from a liberal standpoint. Clark only veered right on the flagburning issue, afaik.

[ajacobson]

47. Good discussion, thanks everybody

:hi: