Why it is not important whatsoever who Clark voted for 20 years ago

In 1770, John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre. In 1776, he lead the fight in the 2nd continental congress for Independence.

In 1953, Robert Kennedy was a semi-spoiled rich punk that worked with Joe McCarthy in his communist witchhunts. In 1968, he was the leading voice for peace in Vietnam, and the chief proponent of the poor and minorities in politics.

Ron Kovic went into Vietnam as a young man, ready to serve his country. He hated how people would protest it, questioning their patriotism. Later, he became one of the chief anti-Vietnam demonstrators in the country.

Earl Warren was a conservative governor when Ike appointed him Chief Justice. But soon later, he made a very sharp turn left and presided over the most liberal and most influential supreme court in US History.

I could go on, but what I'm trying to say is people change. It doesn't matter if it takes them until they're 57 to do so, it matters that they do. Clark is more liberal than Kerry, Dicky, Johnny, Joey and maybe even Dean. What was he like years ago? Who cares? If he was exactly the same 20 years ago, I'd worry because that would mean he would never grow anymore or have any new ideas. As Sharpton said, it's better to be a new democrat that acts like a democrat than an old democrat that acts like a republican. Clark's got my vote, and the Limbaugh-liberals can eat shit if they think stupid attacks like this will work on any intelligent progressive.

so it really shouldn't matter.

Who were you DATING 20 years ago? Remember what a bad choice that was? People make mistakes, people change.

Don't do that! Now I have to wash my mind out with soap!

The memories.... Must... make ... them ... stop

in a political sense that is.

a lot of fears could be put to rest if he would just publish a photocopy of his voter registration card so we could see how long he has been a registered dem.

He says he voted twice for President Clinton, and for Vice-President Gore.

it makes my skin crawl.

We are assured of being consigned to the dustbin of history.

And I don't want this to be a party of fundamnetalists like the Christian right or worse.

than the ones who used to be.
I myself only became a dem after my vote was stolen. So, when pedigrees are checked I feel personally attacked. So are people who became dems to vote for Dems in primaries (such as Dean for instance)

> http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/archives/000287.html

It's not important. Some people have a rather large axe to grind...

I could go on, but what I'm trying to say is people change. It doesn't matter if it takes them until they're 57 to do so, it matters that they do.

it matters because Clark has never proved his new ideals. to use your own examples, Adams and RFK didn't immediately run for president after their "change"; they first proved their trustworthiness with deeds. not just words, but deeds. Clark hasn't done that. the only evidence that he's changed is his words. and words are cheap. yesterday Clark was a repub; to day he's a dem. tomorrow, who knows? in short there is no reason to believe he won't flip-flop just like he did on the IWR.

Don't lie.

and don't accuse me of lying

And this has been addressed. But since people whine when they read something, ignore it, make the same (rebutted) claim again, and then get told that it has been addressed, here goes.

Quite simply: his position was that the United States should have force on the table, however, the resolution should not have authorized the President to go to Iraq without coming back to Congress. This would basically be a critique of two foreign policy positions in one statement: the treatment of Iraq (all force, no negotiating), and North Korea (all negotiating, force basically removed from consideration).

Buddha was right - it's all about the middle road.

A "deed" is an accomplishment. clark has not accomplished a Democratic deed.

He has no track record of doing anything for Democrats. He has only done something for himself by entering the race a democrat,

supporting affirmative action at univ. michigan; this would be considered a 'Demo' position. I believe he is sincere is in his support of Democratic positions.

I also believe that he has the best chance of beating Bush, and I'd rather have a moderate Democrat than a wingnut in the WH.

a true blue, Democrat, w/a track record of what he/she have done for the Democratic Party is vital!

Clark has no track record. He only "became" a democrat less than a month ago.

I care more about my country than to place it the hands of someone that has only been talk. I want someone that has lived and breathed the Democratic ideology.

Btw, why do you think he has the best chance to beat whistle ass when he has done nothing for the Dems since whistle ass stole the WH and during that time frame, he has praised whistle ass et al?

...is that a Dem deed?

.... maybe so. So, it all comes down to a simple calculation. Do you "trust" Clark in what he is saying or not?

If you think he is lying, then of course you should not vote for him. It doesn't matter whether he's lying about things he's done, or things he's said, or what he believes. Nobody wants a liar.

I kind of doubt that he is a liar. Does he have a history of lying? Has he been caught being less than truthful often enough to indicate that he is a liar? That is the real question IMHO, because I was a Reagan Republican once and I got over it. People *do* change.

During the Cold War, many persons considered Republicans more apt to that need than Democrats: though that was mistaken, in my view, it was common enough no real stigma can attach to it.

He was widely castigated as "Clinton's General" by rightists during those years, which at the time certainly seemed something of a credential to me.

He was INTENSELY interested in education as SACEUR, and vastly improved the schools our military dependents attend. He instituted the first PRO-active domestic violence program in the history of ANY modern military! He was a HUGE proponent of affirmative action, and was responsible for advancing more minorities and women into 'command positions' than ANY General in the history of the Pentagon! He....

Do you get my point, or are you just going to join in with the 'litmus test Democrat' folks? He voted for Clinton TWICE, and Gore once (11 years, by my math), and he says he's a Democrat now. Unless someone has *PROOF* to the contrary, I say "Put a sock in it!".

Hello? I'm a DEAN supporter! Does that say something to you about this whole host of flame bait non-issues? :eyes:

but that he is an opportunist.

Btw, he flunked my litmus test when he praised whistle ass and said he liked and would like to work w/PNACers again. He has gone down hill since then.

is that part of being a good leader is the ability to be flexible. If they changed their views over time or voted or favored certain policies because of that certain strategic time in history it doesn't matter as much. Not if they have learned and grown to be better men because of it. Now has Clark become a Democrat because of opportunity? Has Dean become progressive and anti-war because of opportunity, as well? Are their words as empty as Bush claiming to be a compassionate conservative? Not sure. Dean's fiscal record shows a man who isn't all that liberal and Clark's voting record the same thing. Have they truly evolved? None of will really know unless one of them get in the WH or become a ticket together. I am optimistic however, and believe that both men have developed their views over time and either one would make an excellent president. My guy is Kucinich, and it took him years to develope pro-choice views. I think that shows he is capapable of looking at all sides of an argument and coming to a proper conclusion through creativity, critical thinking and the proper amounts of emotion and intelligence. Clark and Dean strike me as men who are capable of that same process. I'd rather have someone flexible in the WH than someone who is stuck on ideology. That's why I'm excited about the diverse group of candidates out we have right now.

is that we know ALOT about him before selecting him as our nominee. What's important is that a candidate have a political history.

I fear most people who support him know very little. (With the exception of most DU-ers, that is...)

It's a sad statement about our country IMHO.

I saw Clark at the 'town meeting' and he seems reasonable, personable. But, we are nominating the most powerful person in the world, don't we want concrete knowledge based on a solid political record?

Sorry guys, the Clark Phenomenon is baffling to me. I mean no offense to his supporters.

That some of those same people who once applauded Bush for his flight suit antics are now into Clark because he is a General. Some people believe we need a military type to be secure when that is not the case. (see Ariel Sharon) Clark is intelligent, articulate and has a great resume'. No doubt. But is he a politician and can he run a country? Unfortunately, his uniform will get him votes for no other reason than he simply has one on. Substance is going to be hard to gauge with Clark and for Dean somewhat too. They look good, talk good and say all the right things, but how many people are swayed by appearance and rhetoric and not records? As I always say, my personal belief is both Clark and Dean are capable men and either would be a good choice for President. Right now, people are jumping on bandwagons and not thinking critically about all the candidates. I like all our candidates, I would just love to see people making informed decisions, as opposed to making one on a photo op or headline.

He is rather immunized by profession against a number of the enemy's standard attacks against Democrats on national security issues, which will loom large with the people in the upcoming election. This will force the enemy away from their familiar moves, and onto a ground strange to them: rather like boxing a southpaw, mistakes are likely to be made.

so I don't think it's a fair comparison really. But, I understand your point about Clark. ;)

always add up to what he has been saying this year. It's tough to gauge if he has evolved for real or out of political opportunity. If you look at his record he's a moderate and a fiscal conservative. If you listen to his speeches -I have saw him in person- and the image he materialized over this last year is one of a staunch progressive. He hasn't had all that liberal of a record. Not as much as many presume anyway.

We actually know a great deal about Clark by inference. We know he could not have risen as far as he did in the military without being tremendously industrious and able. We also know that the military has a disgustingly strict honor code. You can get kicked out of the Army for bouncing checks, for example; and careers have been ended because of marital infidelities. He could have simply lied about his past voting record -- he didn't. We have the 'waffling' issue about the IWR. Again, the easy thing to do would have simply been to give the politically opportunistic answer -- instead, he chose to try to answer the question honestly. He might have made a mess of it, but the intention was pretty clear there. On the personal morals issue, I would rate Clark the highest; maybe Lieberman comes in a close second. Frankly, I don't think any of the other candidates comes even close in this area -- they all have admitted drug use, and/or marital breakups or other evidence of lapses in their histories. Personal morals do not always translate to bigger-picture stuff, but it's fair to say there is a correlation, probably a strong one; moreover, the perception that a candidate has strong personal morals helps in an election. Clark has a lifetime of adhering to a high moral standard behind him.

Now, what else can we pick up about Clark? He's written two books that were largely academic in nature: they weren't written with the aim of boosting his political career. Those books enunciate a philosophy that is certainly not right wing. His commentary on CNN was as critical of the war as could be while maintaining a putatively neutral stance, which took integrity given the flag waving then going on.

One issue that is overlooked is the drawn out nature of his political affiliation announcement itself. There are a couple of ways of reading it: the opportunistic one, which has been discussed here, and the more idealistic one -- he delayed announcing so long because he understood what a huge step he was taking, and he wanted to make certain it was correct. Again, it would have been easy for him to say he was a Democrat earlier than he did, and it would have deflected some criticism. But the easy road is not always the morally correct one. I don't know for sure whether this read is correct, but no one discusses it here, and I think that's a mistake.

My read on Clark is that he is a man of his word. I do not believe he would go around making all these speeches, taking these stands, unless he was willing to fight for them in office. It would go against everything we've seen from him to do so. And of course, no one has presented any credible evidence that he is dishonest -- just innuendo and disjointed facts that require bizarre logical leaps and gyrations to twist into evidence of dishonest intent, not even dishonest past actions.

For my purposes, I know enough about him -- either he is what he says he is, or he is one of the cleverest, and most patient, liars history has ever seen.

that a man/woman serve as mayor at the very least, before being elected to the highest, most powerful position in the world.

that's why.

If I were hiring a CEO for a major corporation I'd want an employment record to review.....So I say the compelling question is ... why NOT?

question.

Do we know whether he supports trickle down economics or union busting, or whether he supports actions like arms for hostages with the profits supporting South American rebels?
As president would he support actions like what brought down Alende in Chili?
I got a bunch of questions that I keep asking and I get no response from the Clark supporters. All we seem to get is assurance that he has changed.

You are asking Clark supporters to tell you what he is not, and give you assurances about issues that haven't been addressed. I can't speak about where he stands on issues in his place -- as he is asked those questions, he'll answer them. Of course, there is at least one union that delayed its endorsement vote until he got into the race because its head knew Clark personally -- that's a positive inference.

In fact, your questions are so specific and exact that I doubt any candidate has been asked them. They are the sort of questions someone asks when they are less interested in getting an answer than they are in trying to get in an attack. Do you have any evidence that he supports these things?

He has answer those questions, would you provide a link?
And they are specific so what is the problem? None of the others have been asked because we know that they think of trickle down and union busting they have been democrats all the time and opposed Reagan then, and did not vote for him. Surly Clark would not have voted for Reagan if he had not at one time at least supported those ideas.
I have asked fair questions and you have not provided answers.

It is true that a lot of his support just comes from the title General. However, I signed up for the draft movement the day it was launched, I've read everything he's said in the last year, and I am confident he is the man for the job. I really like his economic plan and he has done more for civil rights than most people in the race (excluding Al of course) by filing support for affirmative action, something no other candidate though to do. He has no voting record, but life doesn't start and stop in DC, people can do good in the outside world also. He was on the board of WaveCrest, trying to help the environment. He's the best man for the job in my opinion. He needs some work and to learn a few things, but he has unlimited potential, which is more than I can say for the candidates who've been in politics since the 70's.

once upon a time...


:kick:

we should have the right to know it. While not voting repug might be a small matter to many sunshine party members, it's very important to many of us. If the guy has voted repug before, there's no telling what other things he's capable of.

Ah yes - trivializing the enemy.

My problem with Clark is not who he voted for 20 years ago. There are plenty of other problems.

I understand that completely. Everyone needs to be looked at, I am just coming to his defense on this particular issue at this time, and I think I make a valid point.
What really gets me is the "Limbaugh-liberals" that claim to hate the right-wing media but use Rush's logic when it fits their agenda. That truly truly just sickens me. No principles whatsoever.

we even have to talk about such nonsense. :cry:

clearly, it's not only important to those who would judge him because of how he voted in the past, but to his supporters as well. ergo... it must be important :shrug:

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

You do have a point here, but it is a relatively weak one. And in your eagerness to make it, you ignore the wealth of evidence BESIDES the votes for Reagan & Nixon, that ALSO make suspect Clark's credentials as a liberal.

The fact that you feel comfortable using a crude phrase like "Limbaugh-liberals can eat shit" to smear those who have legitimate problems with Clark shows at least two things. 1) - you're not a real progressive yourself. 2) - you belong in the Clark camp, because that type of abusive bullying is standard for Clarkie supporters.

Clearly is not a real progressive, and just another sap buying into the right-wing media. Clark needs to be examined, as does Dean, Johnny, Dicky and the other guys. But I would NEVER use Limbaugh and Hannity as my guides on how to look at a candidate. I have more loyalty than that.
By the way, this isn't a personal attack, for I am defending myself from your personal attack that because I don't buy into the right-wing spin that I'm for some reason not a true progressive. I really don't understand that claim at all to be honest.

and she changed..didn't she? :)

i think by the time she was old enough to vote when nixon had ran for president she was a democrat. i think she supported and worked for goldwater, but wasn't old enough to vote for him. in any case, i don't think it's that important when you look at the overall record, including in wes clark's case. clark did vote for clinton.

People change and who Clark voted for 20 years ago does not bother me whatsoever. Although I do think there are some valid concerns about Clark, this is not one of them.

The Texas legislature who, as Senate Majority Leader, made damn sure no civil rights bill passed on his watch, at least not until he had the Presidency in his sights. The man who would have been one of the last on anyone's list of people who would get a real civil rights bill passed became the man who passed one of the most important piece of legislation in American history.