Like tomorrow in WA and Michigan(?)
Because Clark's never been elected, he has no voting record so
therefore anything levied against him has been a smear and easily disproved.
Most common smears :
His position on Iraq is inconsistent-
The Columbia School of Journalism did a piece on how absurd it is to
claim that Gen. Clark has flip-flopped on the war or been inconsistent.
They stated he had written over 68,000 words in opposition to it as well
as written a book outlining what a strategic blunder it would be to
invade Iraq. Additionally, he has spoken over 400 times in opposition
to the war and has even testified before Congress about it why not to
invade Iraq as it would distract us from the war on terror.
He was fired as NATO Allied Supreme Commander-
This came from Gen. Hugh Shelton but you don't here too much about this
anymore. Why? Shelton works for Edwards and said under oath at the
Milosevic trial that this was simply politics and that Gen. Clark was
not fired and there were no questions regarding his character or
integrity. The only places you ever hear it anymore is on right wing
radio or tv.
He's a republican-
This helps us in the south and helps us get more people on board. All
Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee. That is a given. To
win we MUST bring voters in that are independent or disillusioned
Republicans such as yourself.
Everything that Bush will bring up on Kerry or Edwards will be facts.
Everything he brings up vs Clark will be smears or opinion which are
easily disproved. It will also paint the GOP as un-American for
attacking a war hero like Clark.
The bottom line is that in order to defeat Bush we must unite the
country against him and to do that we need a candidate who can do that.
While Kerry may be a good man but his candidacy is too easy to bring
about division in the country. If you count all the states Gore won in
2000 as automatics for Kerry that leaves THE SOUTH and states like W.
Virginia, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania. We must win a few states
in the south and a couple of the others to win the election. If Kerry
is the nominee, Bush can simply paint him as a Northeastern Kennedy
liberal elitist who voted for everything he is running against (FACT).
He becomes a liberal hypocrite and he simply will not win any of those
states. Throw in other votes he has made such as voting against pay
increases for the military 11 times and against the 2001 defense budget
which then Bush can blame him (Wrongly) for being part of the problem
that resulted in 9-11.
As you are also starting to see his past is starting to come up. The
guy has a HUGE closet with LOTS of skeletons. Have you noticed all the
dirt from Kerry's past is starting to roll in now? Four major stories
in the past 24 hours. One bringing to light he receives more lobbying
money than any other Senator while campaigning on a platform that he is
against special interest, one involving him being under investigation
for fraud in a fundraising scheme, another about a slew of admitted
affairs a few years back and now this :
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_big_dig&e=1&ncid
It is an absolute IMPOSSIBILTY for Kerry to win the White House. You
cannot say ANY OF THESE THINGS about Gen. Clark.
Just a few weeks ago, Dean was the nominee and Kerry had no chance. I'm
glad you didn't vote for Dean back then because he is the one who now
has no chance. The race is for 2176 delegates of which only TWELVE
PERCENT have been allotted. Just like in 1992, let's not get ahead of
ourselves here. Vote for the best candidate to go against George Bush
and not the guy who looks like he is going to win it. If not, you would
have voted for Paul Tsongas over Clinton and Dean over Kerry.
Add in these facts and we are doomed if we nominate John Kerry -
It has been 116 years since a Senator has defeated an incumbent
President. Saying that either Sen. Kerry or Edwards can defeat a
wartime incumbent such as George Bush is essentially saying that they
are the best Senators this country has produced in 116. Even though I
admire Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards I'm not able to make that statement
and am not able to believe that they can be the first Senator to do in
116 years. Bush will be running on Executive experience and Senators
have legislative experience and people in the Midwest and southern
states will simply vote for Bush again out of fear of the unknown. Sen.
Edwards is a first term Senator with even less experience.
Additionally, the Democrats have not won the White House in 30 years
without a southerner at the top of the ticket. We cannot win the south
but we have to have a candidate that can win those moderate and
independent voters in the southern states in order to win a state or
two. John Kerry simply does not connect with those voters. Same for
Gov. Dean.
General Clark not only is from the south and will win there he has
executive experience and the National Security and Foreign policy
credentials that no other candidate has and will remove Iraq, Iran,
North Korea and the war on terror from the debate. Bush will not be
able to use fear against us like he will vs Edwards and Kerry.
Also consider that both Kerry and Edwards will not only be running
against Bush but themselves as well. Their voting records show that
they have supported Bush and the policies they are now running against.
In fact Edwards helped WRITE the Patriot Act and both of them voted for
the framework of the tax cuts!! You must see how easy they will be
defeated, right? They will be painted as hypocrites across the board
and Kerry will painted as a Massachusetts Kennedy-liberal who can't make
good decisions (Voted AGAINST the first Gulf War, supported this one,
etc.).
We must nominate someone that can defeat George Bush. We must not
nominate someone without looking past the nomination. Bush will have
$220 million bucks to make us aware of the facts regarding both Kerry
and Edwards and Dean. Anything that has come out about Gen. Clark is a
smear and easily disproved.
Please remember this!!
LESSONS FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOTS:
1. Iowa: Kerry and Edwards (Clark not running)
2. New Hampshire: Kerry and Dean (native sons), but Clark, despite the
most unbelievable debate in the history of presidential politics,
despite the negative campaigning by Dean (he is a republican), Kerry
(there are more lieutenants than generals, turning a rebuttal against a
crude remark by Bob Dole into a rallying cry to pry veterans away from
Clark), and even Joe Lieberman (supposed list of waffles), Clark hung on
to third place and beat out Edwards. The big losers: Edwards. Despite
his Iowa kick he failed to beat out Clark for third place. Never mind he
was only a percentage and a few hundred votes behind, Al Gore was beaten
for the presidency by fewer votes. There is no tie in the final ballot.
In their first face to face battle, Edwards lost to Clark.
3. North Carolina: Edwards and Kerry. As a favorite son Edwards was able
to capitalize on his Iowa kick in this single state and shared it with
the other Iowa winner Kerry.
4. Missouri: Kerry and Edwards. With a vacuum created by Gephardt's
removal, his machine moved in behind the Iowa winners. There was not
time for any other campaign to mount a challenge.
5. Oklahoma: Clark and Edwards. In his only other second place win,
Edwards lost to Clark. This despite the virtual media blackout on Clark,
the fact that Edwards had spent over a year courting the state, in and
out more than any other candidate, he lost again to Clark. So far, in
two out of three races he lost to Clark and in the one that he best
Clark he was a native son. The question must be asked: Why did Edwards
and Clark do so poorly with all that MO behind them?
6. Arizona: Kerry and Clark. Arizona before the vote was considered a
bell weather state. It was Kerry and Clark with Dean a distant second.
Score: Clark over Edwards in three out of four confrontations (NH, OK,
and AZ).
7. New Mexico. Kerry and Clark. Edwards nowhere in sight. Score: in four
out of five confrontations it is Clark over Edwards by a large margin.
8. North Dakota. Kerry and Clark. Edwards nowhere in sight. Score: In
five out of six confrontations Clark wins over Edwards by a large
margin.
9. Delaware: Kerry and Lieberman. Actually, Kerry and Sharpton were the
only two who got delegates. This was Lieberman's last stand and though
he came in second he did not have enough votes to get a single delegate.
There is no doubt that the big winner was Kerry winning 7 out of 9
states and he is rightfully the frontrunner.
But Edwards' performance was less that stellar and he was beaten by
Clark in nearly every encounter where they were head to head. And
Edwards came in first in 1 of 9 states, but second in only 2 of nine
state.
Clark came in 1st in 1 state and second to Kerry in 3. That give Clark 4
wins to Edwards' 3.
What does this tell us about Tennessee and Virginia? I can see the
handwriting on the wall. Tennessee is another Oklahoma and Virginia is
either that or another AZ-NM-ND.
The real challenger to Kerry is Clark and this will become clear in the
next round.
Just look at how 1992 turned out as people realized that Tsongas was
simply not the candidate to defeat George Bush :
Clinton won just 3 of his first 14 contests. In fact, he finished fourth
four times, often behind "Uncommitted." Why? HIS SUPPORTERS NEVER GAVE
UP OR GOT DISCOURAGED!!!! THEY WORKED TWICE AS HARD!!!
Here's the breakdown from 1992:
1.21.1992
IA caucus: Harkin 76.4%, Tsongas 4.1%, Clinton 2.8%, Kerrey 2.4%, Brown
1.6%
2.18.1992
NH primary: Tsongas 33.2%, Clinton 24.8%, Kerrey 11.1%, Harkin 10.2%,
Brown 8.0%
2.23.1992
ME caucus: Brown 30.3%, Tsongas 29.0%, Uncommitted 16.1%, Clinton 14.8%,
Harkin 5.2%, Kerrey 3.0%
2.25.1992
SD primary: Kerrey 40.15%, Harkin 25.25%, Clinton 19.12%, Tsongas 9.6%,
Brown 3.9%
3.3.1992
CO primary: Brown 29%, Clinton 27%, Tsongas 26%
GA primary: Clinton 57.2%, Tsongas 24.0%, Brown 8.1%, Kerry 4.8%,
Uncommitted 3.8%, Harkin 2.1% ID caucus: Harkin 29.7%, Tsongas 28.4%,
Uncommitted 17.2%, Clinton 11.4%, Kerrey 8%, Brown 4.5% MD primary:
Tsongas 40.6%, Clinton 33.5%, Brown 8.2%, Uncommitted 6.4%, Harkin 5.8%,
Kerrey 4.8% MN caucus: Harkin 26.7%, Uncommitted 24.3%, Tsongas 19.2%,
Clinton 10.3%, Brown 8.2%, Kerrey 7.6% UT primary: Tsongas 33.4%, Brown
28.4%, Clinton 18.3%, Kerrey 10.9%, Harkin 4.0% WA caucus: Tsongas
32.3%, Uncommitted 23.2%, Brown 18.6%, Clinton 12.6%, Harkin 8.2%,
Kerrey 3.4%
3.5.1992
ND primary: Clinton 46.0%, Tsongas 10.3%, Brown 7.5%, Harkin 6.8%,
Kerrey 1.2%
3.7.1992
AZ caucus: Tsongas 34.4%, Clinton 29.2%, Brown 27.5%, Harkin 7.6% SC
primary: Clinton 62.9%, Tsongas 18.3%, Harkin 6.6%, Brown 6.0%
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
