According to his interview on NPR this morning, Clark said he became a democrat in 1992 because of Clinton. VOTING democratic is NOT BEING a democrat.

This is bothersome to me. Only because I have reservations about the leader of my party not being interested in being a member of my party for more than a decade. There's just something that bothers me about it.

Yeah, I'll happily vote for him if he gets the nomination. But honestly, he didn't want to take the opportunity to be a part of my party until a few months ago. And now he wants me to support him as the highest ranking member? Where were you in the tough times, Wes?

Edit: This is not to say I don't think he IS a democrat or a liberal or whatever. And it isn't to say that I dislike his policies. I just have a grudge against people who claim to want a better party but fail to do the bare minimum which is to REGISTER.

wake me when something important happens.

Thanks for the kick.

they always fall asleep on que.

as a democrat certainly is important in my book. Even more important than his flip flop on the war and his lavish support for the bush administration and his speaking engagements at republican fund raisers.

If we don't let people change allegiance, or develop their views, we won't win anything. And no. I'm not a Clarkie.

He changed, no biggie. I agree. It's just kind of weird. I've been a democrat longer than he has and he wants me to look up to him. What has he done for our party?

I know, I'm not measuring him by the answer to that question. WHat has anyone done for the party?

While he's still in the Armed Forces?

I don't know. I know lots of military people who are adamantly republican.

But you bring up a good point. Clark's a general, not a politician. Yet he's supposed to be most equipped for the presidency?

I really don't know. General Shinseki was adamantly against the war when it mattered. Is that partisan? Is it wrong to HAVE party affiliation as a member of the armed forces?

Most change once retired.

Thanks. That makes sense. I appreciate your taking the time to rationally discuss this.

Others here could take notes from you.

Forbidden to be active.

Gee I'm surprized that want the military to declare support for a party.

I have no idea what you are trying to tell me. What are you suprized about exactly?

I'm surprized that you want the military to support a specific party.

Care to point out where I said that?

I won't hold my breath.

What is it you wanted Clark to do? Openly be advocating for the Democratic party while in uniform. He only retired in 2000. He has openly campaigned for Dems since that time. He has not campaigned for repubs. He did give a speech as a favor to a friend at a Lincoln Day Dinner which to many who have never read the entire speech as opposed to the sound bite, would indicate a life time of being barred from the Democratic Party.

I believe that being a Democrat is as much about what one's personal actions and ideals indicate, as it is about what box is checked in a dusty office Arkansas. Clark's past actions speak louder than the registrations of many so-called long term Democrats.

The is judge in my area who runs on the Dem ticket, because of an appointement. He and his wife are close friends of the Kennybunk bushes. They also give serious money to repubs, while still showing up at the local Dem fundraisers.

A man who fought while in uniform for education, against sposal abuse, better housing, better pay for his men and women, against genocide, for better international relations, in favor of the environment and specifically the Logger Headed Turtle, for a more open decision making process in the Pentagon...etc. True, he never took any special interest money, but I still think he's more of a Democrat than that two timing judge will ever be.

The Democratic party. Either you are a member or you aren't, and there are no prerequisites for joining.

You aren't a member just by espousing certain ideals. That's a political PHILOSOPHY not a political PARTY. I want the D party to be strong, active, influential, powerful, but most of my liberal friends are registered Independents. I'm against people who aren't IN my party influencing my party. If you want a strong D party, become a D. Theree is no more time for vague affiliation and fear of guilt by association.

I welcome Clark to the D party, but if he considers himself to be a D since 1992, or say, when he retired, he's wrong. He didn't join the party until this year.

It doesn' thave to be a big deal to you. I won't be offended. It isn't that big a deal for me. It's just I heard him say this on NPR this morning, and I wanted to share my thoughts here.

Purity is wonderful. Over one third of the public is not registered Rep or Dem. The Republicans are courting those people, while we, according to this thread, should reject them.

We will have to agree to disagree. I also disagree with you that Clark, or anyone within the military, should actively participate in partisan politics. That means that prior to 2000, I think Clark needed to remain unaffiliated because of the danger posed by the military being active within one of the parties. We are too close to that time as it is.

You seem to believe that Clark's unaffiliated state was somehow a disloyal gesture. We will agree to disagree.

We should appeal to them. Some are left liberals who don't think the D party is left enough for them to be members. Others are the swing votes we need to beat the R's at any given time. We want them to vote D, but I'm saying we should want them to BE D.

I recognize and agree that Clark should never have had an affiliation while serving. But he's retired. And I think that the people can differentiate between the MILITARY being partisan and servicemen being partisan.

I don't believe that Clark's unaffiliated status was disloyal. He would have nothing to be loyal to.

For those of us old enough to remember a former President who was military, "Ike", he would rank as one of our worst Presidents.

signed:
veteran of Korea

...is ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL about politics. The General Officer Corps is one of, if not the most, intensely political bodies on the face of the planet. Especially after the 3rd star.

Reed Thompson
Seattle, Washington

over two years ago, yet only became a democrat on October 17, 2003!

That is a fact...

And that is more than some other Dem Candidates have done (Dean).

Can't support a guy without bashing, eh? SHameful, really.

Dean has never donated to a D candidate? Care to share your evidence of that?

Clark also donated time and money to republicans, so they kind of balance each other out. But that's not what I'm talking about anyway. If you'd actually like to know what I'm talking about, feel free to ask.

Money?

I'd like to see your evidence of that.

When has Clark ever donated money to a Republican? The only candidates I know that he's campaigned for have all been Democrats (Bowles, Swett, Cleland, etc.)

If I'm mistaken, help me out.

I don't know how he donated. It was wrong for me to assert that with nothing to back it up.

at a Republican Fundraiser. This was after Bush* stole the election. Keynote speakers are selected because of their ability to bring in people who will buy their way in. The link has been posted here many times. In Clark's speech he praised Reagan and not a word of Clinton.

I have not heard him once say it was a mistake to vote for Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1. His apologists will say he was being "polite" by praising Reagan at a Fundraiser for Republicans. As if he had no choice about being there.

Also, we can look at any conversion as a "seeing the light" or as indicating a lack of loyalty or being an opportunist. Like when my brother started going to the local Church when he found out they were helping their members get low interest mortgages.

Proof, because that would be serious. He was in the military and therefore could not openly support any party.

That is unless you want the military to openly support a party. I think that is dangerous, but if that's what you want please explain why?

Check my other post.

THAT IS A FACT!

Donated Time and Money To Democratic Candidates

Posted by cryingshame

That is a fact...

And that is more than some other Dem Candidates have done (Dean).

As a Dean supporter I do not have a problem with when Clark joined the Dem party. Hell I didn't become an official Dem until a year or so ago but for ages I was always on the Dem side of issues. I don't much care if Clark donated to politicos during his military career or not.

I do have a problem with the insinuation about Dean. Have you seen this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=807954

The information in that thread seem counter-intuitive to your insinuation. Perhaps you could explain, provide some facts or correct yourself?

Julie

. . .your party affiliation is determined by which ballot you took in the primary. So if Clark voted Democratic in the 1992 primary who would be considered a Democrat in Illinois, however the years he voted in the Republican primary he would have been considered a Republican.

Most people rarely vote in the general election. Primaries are usually driven by party insiders and activists.

so I really don't know the relevance of your point. He was a registered independent. Big pet peeve of mine is when someone who couldn't even be bothered to JOIN the party starts talking about what's wrong with the party. I'm not accusing Clark of that. It's just my pet peeve.

Again, this is more than some other Democrats running have done. (Dean)

You think I wouldn't see your response above? It's just THAT important that I read this bogus information? Check my other reply. And feel free to ask for clarification of my point.

fear that the affiliation of the military would be to the republican party. Whoa? That would be a disaster in a democracy. So I fail to see why you want the military to change its rules about this.

Do you believe we should be in a state controlled by the police?

Maybe you're reading a bit much into what I'm saying. It's OK. You've been trying to squeeze that conclusion jump out for a while now.

...in every state there is different criteria on how you declare your party affiliation. I used the Illinois example to show how one would become a Democrat in this state...it could be the same in Arkansas.

But Clark was a registered independent. It's no secret.

I'm sitting here with a Arkansas native. She said she never registered as anything until she moved to Alaska. In Arkansas you just register to vote. That's it. Register to vote.

This has been posted here many times, but as you can see from this thread, it doesn't matter what people post or what the facts are. Give it a week, and they will post it all over again.

In Arkansas, according to people who have posted here in the past, there was no check box. I'm not talking about registering indy, I'm talking nada_I also remember that 80% of Arkansas' citizens are not registered by party.

Apparently there are still states where no party affiliation is required.

I was a registered indy until I moved to a state with a closed primary, because I didn't think it was anyone's business.

The only record of $$$$$$ by Clark for a candidate is for Bowles. Is Bowles still a Democrat?

Clark donated to Erskine? Is that the same guy?

Clark campaigned and donated $1,000 to Erskine Bowles.

Is Bowles a republican now?

I voted for Dan Blue in the primary. Bowles is running for Edwards's senate seat and will lose badly.

Therefore, he is okay to support. Right?

Since the NC D party has bullied Bowles into the spot and discouraged anyone from challenging him in the primary, I will gladly give him my vote in 2004. Problem is, it won't do him any good. I hope to God he wins, but considering the political climate in my state, you don't win if you don't appeal to the base, and Bowles hasn't exactly fired us up.

A lot of liberals in NC are dying for a REAL democrat. Someone with more aggressive stances. I'll vote for Bowles, but it will be hard to get him in office.

because here is SC, you do not have to declare party affiliation when you register to vote and thus during any given election season, you can vote in whichever primary you choose, you just can't vote in both.

For example, in that dastardly 2000 presidential primary here, many of us Dems (in mind & heart, through actions and past votes) intentionally voted in the repuke primary for McCain so that we could upset the Bush coronation and counter the ugliness of Bushco against the man who had soundly beaten him by 19% in NH). We did it again last year in the repuke gubernatorial primary, voting for the worst repuke so that our then Dem governor might have a better chance a reelection in the general contest.

Sadly, our efforts made no difference but someone looking at MY primary behavior would think I'm a repug when I'm anything but

are welcome. however, they should not be in control of the party.

Can you prove he ever was a *registered* Republican?

It's not my point. I don't care id he was a registered republican. All I'm saying is that during a time when being liberal was a BAD thing, something to run away from in politics, Clark avoided the label like the plague. And I don't even care about THAT. It's the fact that he's never taken an involved approach to the shape of OUR party, and now he wants to lead it. If enough americans believe that he's the man for the job, I'll go along. And I won't have trouble supporting him. It's just that I wish people with left leaning ideals would REGISTER DEMOCRATIC and be proud of it. There's a reason Clark didn't register D in 1992 when he started voting D.

Your point is moot.

when he went to a repuke fundraiser and said:

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

"President George Bush (sr) had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Outside of that speech he donated and campaigned for Democrats.

Howard Dean on George Bush: Great on Foreign Policy.

just curious. I'm still waiting for a transcript.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

MATTHEWS: That’s it? You are a cold man. George Bush Sr., Herbert Walker Bush?

DEAN: Excellent on foreign policy. Not to great on domestic policy.

I do know that this is a man who didn't even bother to register as a Democrat before announcing his candidacy in the Democratic Presidential race.

As far as your alias question, I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's not required in most states.

And I spend TONS of my time trying to convince registered independents in my circle of friends and beyond to register D so that we can have a say in what happens to our party. Just so you know where I'm coming from. My wife is a registered "I" and every day I give her a hard time about switching to D. It's a pet cause of mine.

of your name if you are involved in the caucus. Very few people vote in non-binding elections (primaries and caucues).

My friend who is orginally from Little Rock, and has been to the Big Dawg's house! yes, Until sometime in the 90's there was no party affiliation in Arkansas because they has an open primary. Damn! That means Bad Billy had probably never checked a paper with a box before that time.

No party affiliation does not mean a register indy. It means no party affiliation.

I'm okay with Clark not being a registered Democrat while in the military. I don't want the military to represent one party. So considering the intent of the first post calls into question Clark's nonaffiliated position prior to his retirement in 2000. I want to know what you would have had him do. What is the alternative to 1) registering in a party in a state without that requirement. 2) declaring a party affiliation during a time when his job specifically demanded he remain non-partisan?

Making veiled alligations without a solution/alternative would seem to lay a series of traps for a would be poster.

was it a requirement in 2000?

My question is, if you vote for democrats and agree with democrats, why not BE a democrat?

rather than let the party think for them. Why should one 'BE' anything unless they want to be involved in the party?

The thought that joining a party is tantamount to not thinking for ones self is precisely the notion I wish to address. Where does one get the idea that joining a party requires giving up on thinking for yourself?

Why should one 'BE' anything unless they want to be involved in the party?

I would think that wanting to be a D president constitutes a desire for being involved in the party, don't you? Yet when he declared, Clark wasn't D. Dammit, I really don't care. This was really more of a segue into my rant against being I.

Soon they may try to infiltrate. Do you believe that people who have voted or god forbide registered as republicans, should be branded lest they try to infiltrate. If that should happen, if they change their mind and become active members and leaders within the party we would have no way of knowing about their sorted past.

Do you think we should demand they be branded?

What if they lie?

Independents should be allowed to vote in primaries. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Would the Repubs agree or disagree with this bit of questionable wisdom?

Thank god.

If Dean becomes President, he wouldn't be "in control" of the
party. Same for any of the candidates. Clinton was never "in
control" of the party. I believe we have a "collective
conscience" with many different branches but no one person
controls it. Think about it.

ex-republicans should not be President as a Democrat.
especially when they have only been one for 2 months.

go straight to the point on this issue, in my opinion. Glad he is now a member of the Democratic party, but it does not neccessarily follow that he should now lead it.

Clark has been a registerd democratic canadate longer than he has been a registerd democrat. He just "never got around to it."

The fact is, in 1992, Clark was not a registerd Democrat. Some would call that a Clarkism. I call it...

A LIE!

Its not fair to the other candidates who put the time and effort and LOYALTY in over the past few decades. I'm scared to death of another Zell Miller situation.

Does this bother you?

Got integrity?

He said it.

He said WHAT? Jesus.

and asked Dean what he thought about each.

Dean said he was good on foreign policy, but bad on domestic issues.

I don't have the transcript, but that was pretty much it. He didn't elaborate, and he wasn't asked to.

Tweaty asked Dean about the last few presidents, and Dean said that Bush Sr. was OK of FP but bad on domestic policy.

A far cry from saying bush sr was a great leader of vision and courage at a repuke fundraiser.

But notice that they can not defend CLark, or what he said, so they have to try and argue that Dean is just as bad... but Dean has a long and established record of democratic service and party membrship.

Clark does not.

Dean praised Bush I as 'good on foreign policy'. That was yesterday! Why should I argue a belabored point with someone who wishes to bury their head in Dean's a**.

You were asked to present a quoute. Your responce, and I quoute, "He said it." Unquoute.

I am still waiting for this praise Dean gave W.

Link to transcript: http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

Now explane to me how this dismises Clarks glowing praise of W, the whole PNAC gang, and his balyooing Bush's succsess in Iraq? You are reaching here, and you know it.

No mention of Powell caving in to the PNAC cabal.

...Dean praised Powell last night, too.

I guess Dean is a neocon plant :)

I was like 10 years old when he was President. All I care about right now is Bush Jr.'s policies.

who friggin cares. Clark not being a lifelong Democrat is not news.

Did you think I was providing you with news?

No of course not news, just more anti-Clark people not getting their story straight. First, Clark was bad because he was an independent. Then he was a Republican because he voted for Nixon and Reagan, but not a Democrat for voting for Clinton and Gore.

But during his US Military service he should have been a partisan activist Democrat, right?

I am not a Clark supporter, but I think it's valuable to have someone like him telling the country why this General became a Democrat.

Look I understand the terse responses. Clark fans, Kerry fans, Dean fans are all on the defensive all the time against the assholes on this board who seek only to bash and undermine. That's not me. I didn't want to bring about that response although I knew it would happen.

I was listening to NPR on my way to work, and Clarks response was as I stated it. It just got me thinking about it. That's what this board is for.

I don't care who he voted for thirty years ago. I voted for some idiots in my time as well.

And during his military service, of course he should not have been partisan. But when did he retire?

And we know why he became a democrat, and that's because he wants to be president. I don't honestly think he would have registered D had he not run, not matter how liberal his views are. And that's what bothers me. He is liberal enough. He is a good man and a great candidate. But does he want to be a democrat? I don't know? Does he wish he could run and still be independent? I don't know. The way his candidacy unfolded, well, it made me wonder.

but this line on clark gets old. I am a registered D. Always have been. BUT, I know people who are Ind. and Greens who just don't feel comfortable with the Democrat label. It is far more important to me what they believe, which is progressive values, than what their registration is.

Being a Democrat doesn't always gaurentee you'll be on my side, but being a liberal will. (or at least 99% of the time)

since these are great questions, maybe an e-mail to Chris Matthews would urge him to ask the man directly. They may even be taking questions from the public as a matter of course. I dunno.

He had no problem being partisan... for republicans at a republican fundraiser.


"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

"President George Bush (sr) had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Many keep making much about Clark speaking at a "Republican" Fundraiser. However, when you actually read the speech, you realize that his words are being taken out of context. See for yourself.

on re-reading clark's lincoln day speech:
Here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE

two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats
-------------
And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience. also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

why are we supposed to be "glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. "

that "used" to get respect around here, this is what Michael Moore said again: www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

This is NOT that big a deal to me. I look at platforms, and I like Clark's. That's what matters most to me. I'm just working through all of this. I went through this same thing with Dean 8 months ago.

That the reason that Clark was praising...and he praises everyone, if you haven't noticed. It's called diplomacy. He has always been an internationalist. As the former SAUCER, it would be rational for him to "hope" that in May of 2001, that the Bush foreign Security team would do well in reference to EUROPE. Clark's big wish. If you haven't notice, Clark is big on NATO. So it makes a lot of sense to me, as to what he was saying. I think out of all of Bush's teams, the Foreign policy one (in May of 2001) was the least of our problems, it appeared. Colin Powell was praised by Howard Dean just yesterday. We still didn't truly know then how inept and incompetent Rumsfeld and Condi were at the time.

Look, everything as context. You leave out the context, and then are we any better than the Repugs....that's what they do in reference to everything...that's why they can blur lines between Terror and Iraq....all is done out of context.

Thanks for making that point. Obvious as it is to you, I hadn't given Clark the benefit of the doubt. I hadn't noticed that it was before 9/11.

It still seems odd though that he was willing to even attend a republican fundraiser. I don't know of other prominent D's who have done that. But I don't know the circumstances, and I haven't done any research.

I appreciate your taking the time to rationally work with me on this.

Great title, and very telling of the kind of Democrat this kid is.

BTW, Please answer this for my own curiosity. How old are you and how long have you been voting?

I'm not bothered enough to not support him if he gets the nomination. It's just something that bothers me. Like when a Green complains about the D party.

I'm 77 and have never missed an election. You?

Going on 62.

How old are you? Are you married? Do you have kids that lived? What was your SAT? What is your nationality? How much can you bench?

and i bet at this point you havent even voted once.

How much do you want to bet?

You need a spouse, BADLY.

You want to bet or not?

What makes you think I'm one of them? Maybe the one on the right is my grandson. Perhaps I'm their manager. Hmmmm.

Why is any of this important? Because people don't want to discuss my point? As if my age, gender, socio-economic status is relevant? This is garbage.


This is how the freepers treated me over at frogweenies just before they stalked me in real life. Will I have to change my phone number again because of liberals?

Here's a lovely picture of me.

On edit - Sorry, can't link to my computer.

When you get harassed in real life by someone from the web who is more interested in conflict than compromise, you'll be touchy too. I don't fall for shit like that from right wingers anymore, and I won't fall for it just because it is self proclaimed democrats who are suddenly deeply interested in my personal information.

He doesn't get the point i made. In his questioning Clark's Democartic status , as not being soon enough for "his democratic party" LOL, He fails to see it was he that joined Clark's and our party.

That is what we deal with with these Dean kids. It's nonstop. if a subject heading is posted with articles, opinions and clip shopwing dean in a negative light, they will bring the thread so off topic and weighted down woth trash until the mods lock it.

This kind of series of exchanges is precisely why I don't give that information out anymore.

I never question Clarks democratic status. I know he's a democrat. I know when he registered because it was after he declared his candidacy. And I'm not questioning his values. I know they're liberal enough for me to be willing to vote for him. I'm just saying, it sucks that he's never considered being an active member of our party until he decided to run. Pet peeve. He claims he was a democrat in 1992, and the truth is he wasn't until 2003.

There was no article, clip, or anything showing Clark in a bad light. I made every effort to point out that I LIKE him.

Why some people just want to be jerks is a mystery to me. You're the reason i HAVE a sig.

bizarre claims about your age. That draws attention to the subject and makes us curious.

is tell me how it's relevant. I know six year olds who show more intelligence and wisdom than some people here.

The question was asked because the person asking it has no logic. No brain. No nothing on topic. So that person makes the thread about something else.

I graduated from high school more than 10 years ago. Some folks here (not you) appear to still be posting from their cafetorium during study hall.

While it begins with a claim of innocent speculation about the nature of Clark's "right" to run on the Democratic ticket, this thread exposes some of the ideas, often left unspoken, that contribute to what this writer sees as a source of conflict.

It has been specifically stated by some members of this liberal community that there is somehow a caste system within the Democratic party that trumps merit or one's desire to participate in a two party system as a Democrat. (NOTE: Republicans who are usually much greater adherents of the status quo, do not feel a need for this rule. Actually, they chortle whenever they lure a Democrat over to their side. Do you think this is an enlightened attitude.)

Dean committed the heinous crime of saying something nice about the republicans, but the statement is being lauded. Bowles is just not good enough, but we can hold our nose and keep him. maybe.

Clark is banned from running as a Dem. because he was not actively supporting Dem. until 2001, although he was in the military until June of 2000 and as such prohibited from participating. The criticism has not been supported by a complimenting suggestion of remedy; however, that overarching dilemma has not stopped the questioning of Clark's loyalty oath.

Although, Daniel Defoe might suggest some branding to indicate one’s loyalty or perhaps in the age of technology, a small chip would keep us pure.

Personally, I think this entire demonstration of exclusionary tactics and philosophy of hierarchy on the part of a party who prides itself as being a big tent is either extremely depressing or a hypocritical attempt to disparage a candidate’s credentials. I suspect the latter based on the repetitive theme of this thread, and the willingness to ignore on the part of another candidate, actions which has been “jumped on” by the seemingly offended posters who continue this line obsessive thinking regarding General Clark.

but it looks like you've been looking for an excuse to make this rant, so have at it.

I don't believe you make the D party stronger by avoiding being a member. If you want the D party that represents your ideals, especially considering the consensus that this time we HAVE to vote D, BECOME ONE. It doesn't mean giving up on free thought. It doesn't mean toeing the party line. It means having influence.

Does Clark know that? Or was he being politically sly? I mean, did he really speak at a republican fundraiser 9 years after considering himself a democrat (by voting D)? How many democrats do that?

Does Clark know that? Or was he being politically sly? I mean, did he really speak at a republican fundraiser 9 years after considering himself a democrat (by voting D)? How many democrats do that?

So for Dean to speak at Cato and declare himself a Democrat they will appreciate, is right and just; but for Clark to speak and tell a group of republicans things that they dd not necessary agree with (read more than the soundbite) damns hims to a life sans D respect. Well...let's label that "politically sly" what quaint expression.

Let me see, it would seem that all of the congress people running have voted for repubs (ashcroft, rice, rummy as appointees,) and also said nice things about them.

1) The Cato institute is an institute, the republican party is a political party. No one can register "Cato" to vote. Yes, it espouses many libertarian values. Dean was a D when he spoke at Cato. Clark wasn't a D when he helped republicans raise money. And I don't even care.

2) While I appreciate your sarcatic wit, I'm still not clear on how you let Clark slide for helping our enemy raise money. If anyone else spoke at a republican fundraiser, would you let them off the hook so easily?

3) You love jumping to conclusions, but I would recommend that you take it easy. I shouldn't have to tell you in every post that I like Clark. You're supposed to remember that.

4) You don't seem in tune to my overall point. Do you want me to state it again so you can address it?

terms like "rocking your socks off" and an AOL handle of RangingEsquilanx.

LOL, you don't do steriods do you? or is it you are a adult imposter. Damn Kids!

as in sitting in my rocking chair until my socks fall off.

Is this really what you want to talk about?

Are you married?

Using your warped logic here, I bet you joined Clark's Democratic party not the other way around.\

When did you start to vote?

was my first voting year. I was 24 then.

Hey, are you bald?

You are older than my Grandfather (no longer with us unfortunately. He was a treasure of a man). I hope you are surrounded by generations of grateful offspring.

...he didn't play party politics.

If you remember, back in the day when Republicans were basically begging for Powell to run, he refused to name a party affiliation as well. That's just the way it goes.

But more to the point, if people want to call Clark a "Republican" because he voted for Nixon and Reagan, then I guess they have to admit he was a "Democrat" cuz he voted for Clinton and Gore

You make the best point of anyone so far. I think I'm beginning to understand the connection. Thanks for that analogy.

Hope it helps :toast:

The putative new Great White (Male) Hope of the Democratic Party, General Wesley Clark, came of age politically when he was seduced by Richard Nixon, for whom he cast his first presidential vote. He later voted for Ronald Reagan (twice), and for Bush père. As recently as two years ago, Clark was appearing at Republican fund-raisers. In Arkansas, at the Pulaski County Republican Committee dinner on May 12, 2001, Clark said “that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States.”

Just two weeks later, U.S. News and World Report said, “Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he’d campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan’s Cold War actions and George Bush’s foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush’s national security team. Absent from the praise list — his former boss, ex–Commander in Chief Bill Clinton.”

It’s only been a month since Clark declared that he was a Democrat, although he went out of his way to tell CNN when he did that both parties have good ideas. However, he’s never explained those appetizing GOP ideas. Nor has he ever said in public what made him become a Democrat after a lifelong history of Republican affinities, which makes his conversion sound more like opportunism than principle.

This week’s Newsweek, however, has the explanation: Clark was pissed that the Bush team rejected his overtures in the wake of 9/11. At a conference last January in Switzerland, the magazine reported, Clark told two prominent GOPers that “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” One of the two who heard Clark say this, University of Denver president Marc Holtzman, said Clark “went into detail about his grievances. Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”



http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/45/news-ireland.php

...Rove didn't return his call?

Hadn't heard that one before! Thanks for exposing it!

I bearly have time to go to the grocery store.

I registered to vote when I renewed my drivers license. In many states you can register online. But you have to WANT to.

Maybe he was busy, maybe he was apathetic. I just wish he showed an interest in being a member of my party BEFORE he declared his candidacy.

just x it off.

No checkbox in Washington state.

A Republican, that is. I'm still gay.

-- Allen

P.S. The point of this reply is to let you know that people change. If he's a Democrat now... and if he espouses Democratic ideals and policy, then I have no problem with it. You ought not either.

Maybe for POTUS. Especially with the Right-ward drift of the Dems, I prefer clear allegiances with a record, rather than the DLC, to back it up

You actually registered R? See, that's what I'm talking about. Courage of conviction. It's not WHAT you were registered, it's THAT you registered. It's that you took a stand for your ideals.

Now, Clark has a big out. As a military leader, he didn't take a side. I can't begrudge him that.

... and didn't vote for Clinton until his second term.

I'm really ashamed to say it out loud. It's embarrassing how hateful and poisoned my mind was. (But... it's cleansing to get it out in the open.)

-- Allen


Is there a 12-step program for recovering Republicans?

however if you wanted to run for president, I wouldn't back you because I think the dem president should have a record of democratic policy and party support.

I almost always voted Democratic, but just never wanted to be tied down to one political affiliation. Hey, I'm not the joiner type. But I knew my country was in serious trouble after the SCOTUS coup, and got energized. Sometimes it takes a big kick in the arse to get a person moving.

It never mattered to me until 2000, maybe a while before. This broader subject is the whole reason why I still harbor resentment towards Michael Moore. HE's the one who put the idea in my head that if we want a better D party we have to become active D's. Then he went against that and turned Green. Now he's back on track. You just can't be an active democrat if you aren't a registered democrat.

Michael Moore was never a registered Green. And by using your logic about Wes Clark, voting a way doesn't make you that party. I don't think he's a Democrat now, but he sure is a liberal, and that's what counts.

if it comes to that.

I have been intending to go change my registration but just haven't made it over to the courthouse yet. (Kick in butt). Anyways, I was very proud of my 19-year old the other night when she informed that she has always (for a year now :)) been registered as a Democrat.

:boring:

n/t

There is no rule whatsoever about an officer registering or supporting a political party. All of these Clark propagandists are flat out lying when they use that excuse.

In Arkansas the majority of voters are registered Independent.

In Arkansas if a majority of the voters jump off a cliff...

What was Clinton?

???

He stated his party affliation "UNK".

Btw, he had already declared he was running at that point.

HE WAS ALREADY RUNNING IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY WHEN HE STATED HIS PARTY AFFLIATION UNK!

Makes me want to take a nap it's so tired.

flamebait?

Exactly how is it flamebait? And how is a quote from THIS MORNING "old news"?

I'm glad he is running period. He brings back to the Dem party what the Repukes think they have all tied up. Patriotism, the military vote, moderate christians (as Sharton says "the right Christians, not the Christian right")strong on national defense and national security and actually someone who knows something about economics unlike the moron in office now. Whether he gets the nod or not he is very helpful and I think will be to the eventual nominee if it is not him.

Thanks for giving your candidate such a high level of support. This board needs more of you.

is that we are not all the same. Everyone's experience, everyone's path, is different. Just because you can't understand Clark's motivations doesn't mean that he, or anyone else, is required to toe the line that YOU have established in YOUR head. Don't like him, don't vote for him. Simple. (this post addressed to no one in particular)

Would it make him any better if he had been a Dem for twenty years? Nope. Still the same man. Admit it, youre looking for reasons to dislike him. Either that or your just nitpicking.

This one issue is not going to make a difference in who I support. I was all for CLark declaring and am still a fan of his.

YOU admit it, you didn't really pay much attention to what I was saying, or what I've been saying throughout the thread. You characterized it aas a bash right away and hit reply without thinking too much about what I was getting at.

Yes, it would be better for me had Clark been a D since retiring. It's just me. I don't hold anyone else to that. But I AM entitled to my opinion.

more relevant than, say, his favorite movie.

and even if some don't like it this is more important
to me than my President being a party hack.

Most of Bush's problems is that he is a party hack or
controlled by serious ideological partisan hacks.

Partisanship is part of the problem, not the solution.

Partisanship is not part of the problem. I might be reading too much in, so I;ll ask. Am I a party Hack because I'm a registered D? What makes a person a party hack?

your question was for Doc. But, I think it is harmful also to be someone who is not willing to compromise and any single point simply b/c of party politics.

At the same time, I think that it is very important to have party principles be the guide behind choices, decisions, and policies. I

It's when there is absolutely no willingness to compromise at all that partisanship is harmful.

Yeah, you're right. And I don't want my "I" friends to think that registering D means compromising their more liberal values or anything. I just see registering as meaning you want your more liberal views to be represented by the party.

Put it this way. If every person who voted for Nader registered D and became active in their precinct, we'd have a much more liberal batch of candidates a few years from now. A much more appealing party IMO.

These are not the words of a democrat.


"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

...

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

...

"President George Bush (sr) had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

This would be contradictory to the statements he made on NPR about being a Dem since 1992. But I would like to see your source.

And your man Dean praised Powell just last night on "Hardball" and lauded his performance as Secretary of State, even though he was complicit in the administration's bogus intelligence pimping.

Dean also applauded Bush Sr.'s foreign policy record last night.

Are you saying Dean is not a Democrat?

Now there's a smart career move for any aspiring US Army General Officer -- loudly and proudly declare your partisan loyalties.

That's sure to boost the ole military career.

Think!

Reed Thompson
Seattle, Washington

The notion that you do not declare a party while in the military is bubkus. They have a right to vote, just like every one else. But I notice that the Kluckers seem to think that declaring one self to be a democrat, is partisen bahavor, but giving a speech at a Lincone Dinner is by-partisen.

Aspiring? At what point does one stop aspiring and actually achieve his goal? How many stars does it go?

Sorry, your post doesn't really make any sense.

"I became a democrat in 1992, but I couldn't tell anyone". Is that it? We were fighting to get GAYS into the military and it is bad NOW to simply be DEMOCRAT? Don't ask don't tell?

Look, I understand why an active leader in the military wouldn't be partisan. I've already said that four or five times. But he did retire, and I'm told that was in 2000. And this isn't a big deal. I'm not worried about it. It was just his comments on NPR that made me think about this issue. It's much broader for me than Clark. Clark was just the catalyst.

By the way, do you realize that with that quote in the subject line that you are actually relating yourself to Biff, the idiot/bully in that movie? Good luck with that.

Seriously, when will the regurgitation of GOP talking points stop here?
I miss the DU where even the threads/posts that infuriated me were articulate and made a point .

give it up. I made a point to say that I like cClark and will readiuly vote for him in the general. I made a point that this isn't a big deal. What more do I have to do?

Clark went on the radio and says he has been a democrat since 1992. And it made me thing about a broader issue. And I brought it up. Please stop asserting that I had malicious motives.

You've been open and honest, and it's not like no one else will ever have the reactions you have. Good that you're talking about it. Pro-Clark folks, myself included, often feel like we are constantly going over old ground, because the out right bashers keep bringing up the same "concerns" endlessly as if they were brand new each time. They won't move on, and often won't even acknowledge contrary arguments to their point.

The truth is, though, some questions are reasonable, and if someone is going to be an activist supporting a candidate, you shouldn't let yourself become impatient just because you addressed an issue with someone else, somewhere else before. I know Dean supporters on DU often have the same reaction to the questioning their man gets. It's human nature really.

You've been open and honest, and it's not like no one else will ever have the reactions you have. Good that you're talking about it. Pro-Clark folks, myself included, often feel like we are constantly going over old ground, because the out right bashers keep bringing up the same "concerns" endlessly as if they were brand new each time. They won't move on, and often won't even acknowledge contrary arguments to their point.

I totally understand the frustration. And I understand the short fuses. Too much BS being spewed these days.

If I were a single issue voter, this would not even be close to my single issue. Thanks for the understanding. It's a shame that the civil posts are in the minority.

question registered and elected to office democrats (therefore more pure than Clark who merely voted democrat) who back the bush administration like Zell Miller and a few others?

I don't question them? One thing you can't say about Zell Miller is that he hasn't tried to have an influence on our party.

Since their voter registration form doesn't make it obvious, one wonders which other famous politicians aren't registered as such.

Ah, but who cares.

Daschle and Gephardt have been the most prominent Democrats in the party the last three years, and, well, would you say their party registration was more important than their stances?!

Let's take a look...
Iraq War: Yes; Big Tax Cuts: Yes, etc. etc.

Tempest in a teapot says I! Yeargh!

You raise some good questions. I'm going to have to think about that.

Because it matters. It really does.

Thanks for marginalizing my feelings. You aren't my wife, are you?

I can see you have a lot of respect for people. That's great. Your kids should be proud.

and if Dean gets the nomination, it won't matter, right? If Clark gets the nomination, you'll vote for him over Bush, right?

nothing really matters... anyone can see...
nothing really matters in GD...

Makes one wonder why some folks go out of their way to be abrasive, considering it isn't that important.

It's been explained and explained and explained. I know you know the answer to your questions. You really dislike Clark that much as to NOT want him to vote for Clinton? Gore? So, he was a republican and voted for Clinton and Gore? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

That is so ridiculous it's stupid. Damn.

how many times I have to say I like Clark and will happily vote for him before people take my word for it.

start this thread and question his integrity? If he voted for Clinton and Gore do you HONESTLY believe he's a republican posing as a Democrat? Why on earth would ANYONE waste a vote like that if they didn't feel a conviction to the candidate they cast the vote for? Would YOU, as a Liberal, vote for Bush and waste your vote on that piece of shit? I wouldn't. Clark IS a registered Democrat. He shows he's a Democrat in actions and words. Pro-Choice. Pro-Affirmative Action. He fights for our Veterans. He's against the Iraq invasion. He truly dislikes Bush and his administration. He came out against the Medicare Bill. He wants to OPEN up the Patriot Act and see what NEEDS to be repealed. He cares about the less fortunate in our country. He's extremely sympathetic to the millions of unemployed. He supports Gay rights. He has embraced the Native Americans. There's so much more he has to offer.

I mean, what more does the man have to do to prove himself to you? Here, maybe you would like to read up on him?

http://clark04.com/issues/

I mean, I suppose you can use that term, but it would mean that I question the integrity of most of my friends who remain Independent. I don't look at it that way. I don't hold it against them, I just wonder why.

You don't see me coming here claiming that Rove will use it against him or that he isn't my guy.

I don't think he's a republican hiding as a D. And you will never be able to produce evidence that I even suggest that. Your terse response stems not from what I posted, but rather the reason YOU think I had for posting it. I wish you'd recognize that.

He needs do nothing to prove himself to me as I've already stated MANY times in this thread, as well as the original post. He IS a registered democrat. But be honest, he didn't register until AFTER he started running.Why wasn't he already registered if he shares D values? And I'm not questioning whether he DOES share D values. I KNOW he does. No question. So why?

Who cares.

don't kick the thread, because you KNOW I'm going to reply.

Which things were stupid? I said a lot of nice things about Clark and made a lot ofheadway in my understanding of him. I feel like if he wins the nomination I can support him more strongly than yesterday. But you're right, who cares? I got what i wanted out of it. You can certainly refrain from replying.



Can't you?

VOTING democratic is NOT BEING a democrat. What does that mean? If he voted democratic and in doing so, isn't being a democrat...what does that mean????

This is bothersome to me. Only because I have reservations about the leader of my party not being interested in being a member of my party for more than a decade. There's just something that bothers me about it.

Why would that bother you? The man has shown in actions and deeds that he is a Democrat.

But be honest, he didn't register until AFTER he started running.Why wasn't he already registered if he shares D values?

Because he was in the military for 34 years. If "I" had to register with a political party, I would probably wait until the last minute to register so I could vote....WHY would he have registered to vote democratic in the last 3 years? The election is in 2004. If I recall, he was trying to decide whether he would even run for office, so WHY would he register before he knew he was going to run? He had until 2004 if he was just a regular citizen.

Did he ever register as a republican?