Every Clark supporter should read the "top ten lies about Edwards" post

[PurityOfEssence]

Many of you are not caught up in the current smearing being done by the campaign or many of his supporters, but you need to know the truth. So, please do us all a favor, stop reading this post and go read that one. When finished, come on back and continue.

I guarantee you I'd do the same for you.

I would like to see some people admit that their camp has gotten out of line, but so far, only one person has.

When confronted with a reply, the Clark campaign DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THE TAX VOTE ISSUES. Instead, they throw out a statistical analysis that's deliberately deceptive, and designed to outrage the ignorant.

Clark, knowing full well how Edwards and Kerry voted on the tax cuts, lied. He knows better; as smart as he is, he can't claim ignorance on one of the most important issues facing the candidates. To claim that one vote for disaster relief after 9-11--that was also tied up with unemployment insurance extension--somehow gets him off the hook is deeply cynical semantic quibbling. The intent was clear: make people think Edwards and Kerry voted for the big Bush tax cuts, when they were vigorous opponents.

All we have to go on with this guy is his word; if his word means nothing, then what are we to believe? To anti-abortion audiences, he likes to show how he's personally against abortion. To the rest of us, he supports a woman's right to choose. Then again, he supports certain other restrictions on abortion. All things to all people is nothing.

Why did we kill Miguel Estrada's nomination to Circuit Court? Because he had no record and wouldn't answer questions about his beliefs. How can one judge a man like that? Wesley Clark is hardly as nasty a sort as Estrada, but if he has no record and then makes conflicting statements about what he believes, what's the truth? Even if he's scrupulously truthful, it's still a problem, and he is now DELIBERATELY LYING and ducking the responsibility to answer one of the most damaging fabrications. It's a character issue.

How do Clark supporters square this? Is it okay to lie about your opponents' records on a very important issue and then completely avoid a direct rebuttal? This is not only dishonest, it's sloppy.

[democratreformed]

1. Already read it. Thanks n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

3. Didn't Clark deliberately distort these two issues?

How does that sit with you? The tax cut line is, by definition, a lie; to avoid addressing it is chicken and amateurish.

Will someone please repudiate this whoppertunism of his?

Kerry had a great line a while ago about Dean, which is increasingly more applicable to Clark: "You can't be President if you make a half dozen gaffes a week".

Come on, folks.

[democratreformed]

7. No, I will not get in an argument. Thanks anyway.

I have seen independent websites portraying the votes both ways. I do not have the incentive to study the issue enough to figure it out for myself b/c, frankly, I do not care. (whether he voted for them or not, I do not care)

Now, the bankruptcy reform IS something that I care about and I have been studying it some just today.

[truthseeker1]

2. Post a link and I'll go read it (NT)

[krkaufman]

4. Get back to me

I personally don't have time to research the issues right now and so won't comment either way on the bi-directional allegations. I *will* make an effort to look into it, though, once the Edwards' website updates this graphic:

... or "Edwards Ties for First in Oklahoma" is inserted into that Top 10 list.

[maddezmom]

5. exactly n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Good point. They should do that.

Then again, Clark shouldn't claim that he won it, since it hasn't been certified yet.

The margin of victory was .42 percent, so it was very close. Less than a half of a percent and uncertified is mighty damned tight.

Yes, they should change it. They are not using this as a claim in the race, though, so you can take comfort in that; they say that they were very close.

It disturbs me when people whom I believe in distort things, even if it's a very light grey area.

By delegate count, however, they tied. Since the election is for delegates, by that definition, it means it's a tie. (Even with that flimsy argument, though, it's still head and shoulders above the excuse for the tax cut misrepresentation.)

You are right; we are wrong on this one. We are marginally wrong, but wrong nonetheless.

[abburdlen]

12. As long as you're admitting mistakes

I should point out that by the delegate count Edwards did lose in OK. Clark got 15 and Edwards got 14.

[mmonk]

6. I know Edwards

Save the lecture.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Oh, I see. "Don't bother me with your facts".

"I've done all the thinkin' I'm gonna do."

Great.

Do you know him personally?

[mmonk]

11. All I know is

he wasn't quite the fighter for NC that David Price or Liddy Dole have been. I also have problems with more of his positions on some things than I have with Clark's positions. I do not agree that any untruths should be said about him. It's just if he's so concerned about the job losses in NC, he could have showed up earlier.

[Auntie Bush]

10. I consider myself pro-choice but

I personally don't believe in abortion and I think every woman has the right to make that decision for herself. That is just what Clark says and I agree with him. That is not trying to have it both ways.
I am pro-choice! So what's the beef?