BS: Clark vs Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 05:52 PM

Spoken like a true Dean for Prez crusader there, Nerd. ;)

I don't think most people have come even remotely close to making up their mind as to which candidate they will support for Dem prez candidate. My family is currently sending the Dean AND Kerry campaigns $25/month, and we've let both campaigns know of our financial support for the other candidate, just to try and keep them both on their toes. But we're feeling rather disillusioned with both right now, truth be told, which is why I feel like I'm still shopping for somebody who can really unseat Bush. I fear Dean has peaked too early, and I am pissed at the Kerry campaign for not having anything shaking. Hell, Ted Kennedy sounds more like a candidate than Kerry does.

Wait--could that be it? This will be Teddy's year?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 04:56 PM

But polls like that don't mean too much - for example anyone who wants Bush to win can click in and vote for someone they think he can beat without too much trouble...

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Alice
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 04:49 PM

There is a CNN poll up right now for which Dem candidate could beat Bush. Dean leads with 52% followed by Clark with 26%, the rest far behind.

Click here for poll.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 03:33 PM

Dean is not "cozy with" the NRA. They have given him a high rating because in Vermont there is no gun crime, so he has enacted no gun control. His stated position on gun control is that he supports the existing Federal gun laws, the Brady Bill, etc, but that he wants other gun control to be left up to individual states, so that Vermont would not be subject to stringent federal requirements. I understand that this is a sticky issue for some of us Democrats, but he's not suggesting scaling back gun laws or anything like that.

There are a number of lies being spun about Dean. Gephardt is telling the elderly that Dean wants to take away their medicaid coverage, which as far as I can see is a complete fabrication. Others are saying he flip-flopped on Social Security, which is based on a willful misinterpretation of two statements, one of them made eight years ago. (when does a change in policy based on vastly changed circumstances become a "flip-flop?" Did Bush flip-flop on Iraq because at one time he was not at war with them?) Lieberman is telling Jews that Dean's Israel policy of acting as a neutral third party during negotiations is throwing away our fifty-year alliance with the Israelis (in fact it is identical to Clinton's, and Carter's, and, for that matter, Bush's). So don't believe the spin!

I think Clark could be good, but so far he hasn't really identified his positions on a lot of issues. I agree the gun control line was a good one, but it doesn't really say what his policy on gun control laws would be. I also wonder if he is really committed to democratic principles, having voted for Nixon and Reagan (I know, I know, it's not a flip-flop if it happened so long ago!) But I remain hopeful that one of these gentlemen (or perhaps both of them on the same ticket) will defeat the Dick n' Bush show.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 12:09 PM

All this, with the only way to get the empire out of a mess being seen as having a general take over, is very much in line with the idea that we're experiencing a kind of rerun of the early Roman Empire, but with advanced technology.

That doesn't mean that it might not be the only option available in the circumstances. That advanced technology means that this is a very serious situation when control is in the hands of a cabal of crazies and an ineffectual but obedient frontman, which is what we seem to have right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 11:54 AM

Helluva thing, isn't it? When the measure of possibility for an aspiring leader is whether or not his opponents can make up good lies about him?

O, tempora, o, mores!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Alice
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 10:05 AM

Electability is a good point to make, GUEST, as the Repbulican's Karl Rove is going to go after whoever the candidate is with as much dirt as he can. In five elections as governor of Vermont, the Republicans tried their best to find something negative to dig up about Dean... they didn't succeed. He is squeaky clean. The best they can do now is to put out "liberal" misinformation about him. It remains to be seen what they will pull out and start slinging about Clark's past. Maybe the Waco incident will stir things up, maybe not. It will be interesting to watch.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 09:45 AM

The US has had a number of military men as presidents, only one of which distinguished themselves in their job as president--Gen George Washington. I don't think anyone is knocking retired military men robinia. I think some of us are rightfully skeptical about their abilities to hold the highest civilian office in government. I mean, we are already having serious problems with the current Oval Office executive, who thinks he is CEO of the world's largest corporation. Government isn't a business. The whole Republican ideology that it can be run as such has been widely discredited, yet it doesn't stop the Republicans from still thinking inside their same ole shoe box.

It is true that military men do learn to administrate and act in an executive capacity in their general jobs. It is also true that they are political animals. But the military bureaucracy is but one part of the entire federal bureaucracy, it operates quite differently than the civilian bureaucracy, and the political and administrative process is different, despite both being a federal job.

So my question about Clark is, how effective will he be in ousting Bush? Because at this point, I think the nation could much more easily survive an ineffective president than the destructive administration we have in there now. More than anything, we need to get the country out of the ditch the drunk frat boy drove us into, as quickly as possible. If that means getting someone who won't do anymore damage, but at the same time, doesn't effect any real change, I'm OK with that. The country has seriously gone to hell in a hand basket as they say, and the current administration is on the top three list of the most destructive and malevolent administrations in US history, if not at the very top of the list. And their ideology! Religious nationalist militarism, and a president with a messianic complex to equal Hitler.

I intend to vote for almost anyone to run this administration, and rescue the nation from the disastrous place they have put us. I'm guessing even the Republican right wing won't think much of their beloved Crusader, once North Korea starts blowing off a few nukes to get our attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,robinia
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 07:57 AM

(what I meant to submit)
For those of you who have a problem with generals, remember that it was Ike who warned us about the "military industrial complex" -- and some of the most powerful criticism of our Vietnam adventure came from retired military men. Don't knock them...

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,Axis of Steve Earle
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 11:19 PM

Yeh, Jimmy Dean 'n Dick Clark...cool dudes...

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 05:06 PM

I took a pek at the Vote Smart link that GUEST 23 Sep 03 - 10:40 AM (use a bloody name!) gave. You do seem to have an awful lot of candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 04:08 PM

Clark's response when asked about gun control - as quoted in that Michael Moore piece - was nicely done: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them."

It was a beautifully phrased soundbite. And rather neatly, it manages to do it without being dismissive of gun-freaks - in fact it's the opposite, quite flattering and welcoming. But without backing off from a potentially contriversial position.

And the response about America being "founded as a liberal democracy" was similarly adroit, pulling the rug from under the liberal-haters, and implying that they are the ones who are un-patriotic.

He either thinks well on his feet, or he's got a very good scriptwriter and coach.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: open mike
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 04:04 PM

what about Kucinich (sp?)
I'd lkike to see a comparison
between Dean and him, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 03:52 PM

One big problem I have with Dean is his position on gun control. Clark has the better position on it IMO. Dean is much too cozy with the NRA for my liking.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 02:03 PM

Kevin, it is true that Bush was governor of Texas (one and a half terms). But Dean was the five term governor of Vermont. Of the two of them, the "veteran" governor is Dean. It might be revealing to examine what each of them did for (to) their respective states.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 01:08 PM

Kevin:


I'm sorry -- the implicit comment is too obscure for me to understand the question...what do yyou mean?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:01 PM

Here is the link to the Boston Globe "article" about Dean:

click here

This article is not so much a "puff piece" as it is an endorsement of Dean. It comes from a paper that is solidly in the Kennedy camp. That means Kerry and Dean are OK with Ted.

Clark is Rhodes Scholar and a native of Arkansas. Sound Like Clinton? The feeling among much of the military top brass is that
Clark did not earn the fourth star, the one pinned on his chest by
Bill Clinton. That means Hillary and Clark are Clinton boys, loosely speaking.

This thread has a chance of balance, which is great. However, the story may not go any deeper than the power struggle between the older Kennedy camp and the Clinton camp to control the Democrat pary.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 11:56 AM

"I'd rather have my nation led by a veteran governor than a veteran warrior, myself."

Would that really mean you prefer Bush to Clark?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 11:52 AM

I am disinclined to support Clark over Dean because of their different qualities of experience. I'd rather have my nation lead by a veteran governor than a veteran warrior, myself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:54 AM

Thank you for the links. Like Moore, I never thought I'd be interested in a General as a civilian leader, but so far, I am interested in Clark. I am also very interested in Dean. Gephardt and Lieberman shouldn't even be considered, imo. Reading Moore's letter and info on Clark brought tears of hope. It's been a long time since I've felt any kind of hope. Moore is right, there is a war on, right here in our country.

Thanks, again,

kat

Subject: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:40 AM

Someone had to start this one, so...

I got to wondering about this as I was reading the Michael Moore site the other day. He has a letter to Wesley Clark he posted last week, which you can find here:

Clark letter

For those of you who are wondering what the ideological differences are between the two, this website is an excellent place to start:

Project Vote Smart

And finally, if any of you still need convincing that Bush must go, Michael Moore's website provides this as their link of the week:

Misleader.org

For myself, I don't know who I'll support yet. I like both Dean and Clark in some ways, but both also make me nervous in ways Kerry doesn't make me nervous. I really feel like with Kerry, I know what I'm getting, and would be delighted to live with it in comparison to what we have now. I also realize that isn't much of a recommendation for a progressive future for the US and the world, but it would be a great victory for humanity and the planet if we can defeat Bush.

In my mind, electing Lieberman and Gephardt would not qualify as defeating Bush.