Clark: Registered Dem in 2002 - independent prior to that

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/16/politics1041EST0547.DTL

Lost in the news of Clark releasing all his financial info was his voter registration records:

Clark made personal records available to the public at a Manchester hotel and on his campaign Internet site.

Voter registration records from Arkansas show Clark, who has been accused by Dean of being a closet Republican, was a registered Democrat in 2002. Registration records from 1996 and 2000 do not show a party affiliation.


So much for "he was a Republican until 4 months ago".

I really couldn't care less if he voted for Reagan two decades ago. In fact, I think it will win us additional votes from disillusioned Bushies.

Many DUers on here voted for Nixon or Reagan.

I would say they both had a considerable amount of crossover support. Reagan even carried Massachusetts, for Christ's sake!

I sure went at him over the war, but I'd give my pension to see the Great Society still with us.

when he's honest and comes clean with his records. Clark is every bit the candidate that the GOP fears.

eom

..

LOL... :)

:shrug:

he wasn't a Republican prior to 2002. He was an independent.

And proud of it.

Clark--thanks for seing the light 30 years later than i did.

But you still have a lot to prove to me before you will get my primary vote.

the day I turned 18.

So what? Let's focus on TODAY! Clark today has shown that he walks the walk when it comes to transparency and honesty. His positions on issues put him squarely to the left of Howard Dean.

Even while voting for Republican presidents, Clark was a major supporter of affirmative action (even going so far as to call the Pentagon to complain he wasn't getting enough minority officers). He was a strong advocate for the families of servicemembers under his command, lobbying constantly for improvements in their pay, schools and other facilities.

He's a proud liberal, as am I.

As I posted below, this new claim is diametrically OPPOSITE what the Clark camp was claiming only a few months ago. THIS IS A LIE!

Honesty, my ass.

that it was a simple error either on the part of the newspaper who originally reported that he wasn't a Dem based on a phone call to the county registrar, or that a clerk at that county office made an error. I don't think the automatic assumption is that Clark would forge a voter registration document in order to show he was a Democrat one year prior to previously believed.

If it was an error in reporting, why did Fabiani makes excuses for why he hadn't yet registered?

Did Fabiani just LIE at the time? Why did Clark not set the record straight THEN? Why leave it till now, and bury it in amongst a bunch of other records, rather than release it in response to the accusations when they were made?

one possibility is something like this:

Fabiani to Clark: Did you register as a Dem yet?
Clark: yeah, last year some time

Reporter calls Registrar's office and asks. A clerk gets the answer wrong.

Reporter calls Fabiani: Hey! He's not a Dem.
Fabiani: Ah, I guess he didn't get around to it yet.


In this case (which I'm not saying is true, but is more plausible than a deliberate attempt to falsify a public record for no conceivable gain), nobody lied. A clerk made a mistake. Fabiani presumed what the reporter told him was true.

But according to today's report, the records show that Clark was in fact registered as a Dem in 2002.

On edit: this is further backed up by the fact that Fabiani initially claimed that Clark was indeed a registered Democrat. There was a big stink here when that reporter claimed he wasn't.

The correct answer must be this....

Gen. Clark, a top Republican under-cover operative, neglected inexplicably the elementary construction of his deep-cover legend, and neglected to plant the necessary documents with the Registrar.

This elementary slip endangers the entire scheme to take over the Democratic Party, and surfaces when a reporter asks a question about the operative's registration.

A systematic cloud of lies is thrown up like squid's ink to obscure the matter, and under cover of this, a Delta Force team penetrates the Pulaski County Registrar's office to plant forged documents for later discovery. The testimaonmy of various watchmen that they saw nothing is absolute proof, because such clandestine operatives are never detected, and so must have occured....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:7

Wesley Clark officially became a Democrat yesterday, nearly three weeks after announcing his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The campaign of Mr. Clark, whose fealty was questioned by some party members, filed the candidate's signed affidavit at the Pulaski County, Ark., elections office to change his voter registration from unaffiliated to Democrat.

"We've had the papers on his desk, filled out and ready to go, for some time," campaign spokeswoman Kym Spell said yesterday. "But he has been busy, and he hadn't even been to town for some time until this weekend."

Last week it was discovered that Mr. Clark had declared no party affiliation in his December 2001 renewal for his voter registration, despite saying in a Sept. 27 interview that he had filed the paperwork to become a Democrat.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031006-101700-9310r.htm

Don't you REMEMBER any of this? I do.

It is clear as a bell. ONE WEEK after the accusations, NO records proving he is a Dem are produced, only excuses as to why he WASN'T.

Now tell me, have you got ANOTHER theory to explain this discrepancy, or will you just admit they either lied then or are lying now?

he thought he was registered (and in fact was), but was told that the county office didn't have a record of it. So he thought he had to re-register.

I really have a hard time understanding why you think the most obvious answer is that they're forging documents to change something that has little or no bearing on anything.

I haven't seen the documents, all I have seen is a claim by a reporter as to what the documents say. For all either of us know it is the reporter from sfgate that is wrong or is lying.

I am basing my view on what the Clark campaign SAID. They did NOT say, even a WEEK after the accusations were first made, that Clark was indeed a registered Dem, they said that Clark was NOT a registered Dem because they hadn't got around to it yet.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that when an accusation like that is made, they don't dig through the records for proof that supports their candidate? Come on...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well, except for veiled ad hominem attacks, that is.

Clark's spokespeople CONFIRMED that he was a registered independant until a month AFTER he put his hat in the ring. Of course, Clarks spokespeople could have been lying then though...

Hardly.

Perhaps Clark's spokespeople believed the reporter who told them (erroneously) that Clark wasn't a registered Dem and made up an excuse.

OR... it's a conspiracy, and they all plotted to somehow manufacture a fake voter registration card and have it planted in the Pulaski Registrar's office just so they could claim that Clark was a Democrat 12 months prior to what was previously believed.

Furthermore, they believed that nobody would remember the registration issue, even though it's been thrown at Clark every day since day one of his campaign.

Occam's razor: a clerk made an error, Fabiani made an excuse, they fixed what they thought was a problem a few days later. Turns out it wasn't a problem to begin with.

That's NOT what the story you posted said! What the story you posted said was Clark's campaign released records, amongst which the article claimed was a record saying he registered in 2002.

Now you can't even get your own story straight!

Clark's campaign, ONE WEEK after intiitally admitting he wasn't registered, AGAIN admitted he wasn't registered and said that he had finally filed the required paper work.

You seem to have Occam's razor backwards. You are expecting me to believe a number of ridiculous claims:

1) A reporter made an error, and Clark's campaign "made up an excuse" to explain it.
2) A week later, rather than correcting the initial error, the Clark campaign again "made up an excuse".
3) Months later, they finally release the "truth" but don't even bother to point it out, they just leave it to another reporter to "find" it buried amongst a whole raft of concurrently released documents.
4) All of this is central to one of the most serious allegations against Clark - that he is in fact a Republican running as a Dem - yet is seemingly so unimportant to the Clark camp that they forgot the truth back then, and don't bother to point it out specifically now.

Sorry, but to me the most simple answer is they didn't correct the "error" because it was NOT an error.

States that there is such a registration on file.

The "charge" Gen. Clatk is a Republican operative plotting to take over the Democratic Party is taken seriously by only a vanishingly small number of cranks and faddists, and can thus hardly be considered "one of the most serious allegations against him", no matter how much you elect to huff and puff over it.

Here is what it says:

"I challenge all Democrats in the race to follow suit," Clark told a news conference as he released military, voter registration and financial records. "Everybody ought to be open about what they've done in public office."

<SNIP>

Voter registration records from Arkansas show Clark, who has been accused by Dean of being a closet Republican, was a registered Democrat in 2002. Registration records from 1996 and 2000 do not show a party affiliation.

In other words, these were records released by the Clark campaign.

Now, where does it say that these records come from the Registrar? Remember, the Registrar claims that there is no such record. So either the Registrar suddenly found the records, or this is some other form of record such as a confirmation or something he received at the time.

The question still remains, why did Clark not produce these records in October last year, rather than admitting he had "not had the time" to get around to changing his registration?

You are back to claiming forgery....

Gen. Clark's campaign produces copies of registrations, which, if they did not purport to be certified copies of the actual records, would not even be commented on by reporters. It is generally easy to tell if such things are in fact certified copies; there are embossments of official seal, or similar precautions, taken in the issue. A competent forger could probably duplicate them to a fraudulent document, but of course, someone will certainly check the Registrar's office....

The Registrar's claim no such record could be found was made some while ago, and it is unremarkable if that was found to be in error in the interval.

I am claiming that Clark released documents. What is in those documents I do not know, but I know what the REPORTER said was in them, and I also know what Wesley Clark and his campaign said last year.

Now, I find it much more easy to believe that the reporter got it wrong, than the Clark campaign got it wrong. Clark himself said that he only registered TWO WEEKS before announcing his candidacy! Why would he lie?

Now here is my THEORY: Clark releases records, amongst which is a confirmation that Clark was registered to vote in 2003. A reporter makes an error and misreads the year as 2002.

Simple answer.

It explains why Clark himself would not mention this at any time in the last three months, why the records did not say he was a registered Dem last year, and why the Clark campaign has not made a big deal about these records in reply to the claims that he is a plant.

And there were no comments made by the campaign, merely a display of papers....

This is below even your accustomed standard in these matters, that we have come to know and love over the years here....

he registered as a Dem in 2002?

Come on, Mr Magistrate, you KNOW they said it don't you? So prove it!

Here is Clark saying he registered as a Dem in 2003:

Mr. Clark told the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat "on or about Sept. 3, about two weeks before announcing for the presidency," the paper reported in a Sept. 27 story.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

So, let's see your quotes!

To omit the portion of it in which Gen. Clark says he voted in Femocratic Party primaries. As there were none in '03, this can only be reference to events in '02, or even earlier. Request of a party ballot is public, and most consider it a declaration of adherence to the party in who's primary one wishes to participate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have merely cited one version of events appearing in the public prints, and chosen to impute lies where mere muddle would serve as well....

All I have done is post quotes from the Clark campaign that shows that they admitted in October last year that he wasn't a registered Dem.

Is that the version of events that you claim is a lie? If so, then I could possibly agree - if the records exist, then the Clark camp lied in October last year. Why they would WANT to lie about such a thing is beyond me.

English is a remarkably clear language, well suited to the conveyance of clear meaning.

You are the one slinging about accusations of lying, fellow, not me. My experience leads me to presume muddle in the absence of evidence otherwise. You seem to prefer the most melodramatic view imaginable, in all things, and seem to judge by pulse-rate more than otherwise....

In case you haven't noticed, Clark doesn't shoot from the hip every time someone aims a supposed "smoking gun" his way. Thus far, most of those guns have contained empty chambers anyhow.

As for setting the record straight, I think the OPEN RECORDS set the issue straight... straight to the "whoops" basket, where all the other debunked slander has gone.

Mr. Clark told the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat "on or about Sept. 3, about two weeks before announcing for the presidency," the paper reported in a Sept. 27 story.

The Union Leader reporter quoted Mr. Clark as saying that as far as political affiliation, "I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't have to register for parties. You vote in primaries, and, of course, I voted in Democratic primaries."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

So why did he say he registered as a Dem only two weeks before announcing, when in fact he had done it the year before? Was he lying?

Editted to add the forgotten link

because I don't presume I can speak for another. Why don't you ask him yourself, instead of assuming you already know the truth?

I mean, I am taking him at his word, and saying he only registered as a Dem last year. What is it you believe? That he registered earlier? If you don't believe Clark was telling the truth last year, shouldn't it be YOU who asks him about it?

People will believe what they WANT to believe. You want to believe "Clark lied" and there is little I can say or do to convince you otherwise.

What I believe is that Clark's party affiliation prior to this election does not dilute the character he has shown during the primaries. It does not dilute the issues he has brought forth, and it does not dilute his electibility.

I am truly unconcerned with this issue, and I feel anyone who opens his records to public and media scrutiny has nothing to hide. That certainly makes it a far cry from being dishonest.

And yet as I type these words I realize that nothing I say will convince you to consider my words or opinions, for people will believe what they want to believe.

Edited to note:

In response to your above statement, "If you don't believe Clark was telling the truth last year, shouldn't it be YOU who asks him about it?" I defy you to point to any post on this board where I have said that I don't believe Clark on any point. Your question-without-response tactic of putting words in my mouth is a poorly spun argument in support of YOUR belief, not mine. Since I am not the one assertaining that he lied, I have no cause to question him. Since you, dear poster, are the one asserting he lied, you should take your own advice and pen him a speedy inquiry.

He said he registered as a Dem last year. It was a reporter at sfgate that claims he registered as a Dem in 2002. So by saying I agree that Clark registered as a Dem last year, I am saying that CLARK is telling the truth, and that the REPORTER is wrong.

Since I am not the one assertaining that he lied, I have no cause to question him.

Re-read my post again. I am NOT saying Clark lied! Can I say that any more clearly? I am saying Clark told the TRUTH - he registered as a Dem in 2003!

It is YOU who seems to believe that he lied when he said that, and in fact registered as a Dem in 2002!

Why don't people seem able to understand that CLARK SAID HE REGISTERED AS A DEM IN 2003? Does loyalty to a prefered candidate go so far as to enable people to blind themselves to the words of their own candidate?

2 biggest Repuke newspapers in the country

just because they printed this, doesn't make it true.

Look what happened this week: series of false statements based on Drudge & RNC talking points.

Oh and Strom Thurmond was too...and Jim Traficant.

His records from 96 and 2000 are while he is still in the Army, and no general would list a party preference on a voter registration form.

until recently.

We continue to wait. The Bush Team will find a way to get them anyway. He should be aware that if need be one of Karl Rove's goons will burglarize a building or bribe the appropriate bureaucrats to get what they want.

Need more be said?

and he's NEVER voted for a Republican in his life

I couldn't seem to find one.

You may be in the wrong thread. I'm referring to a news article paragraph about his voter registration.


on edit: since I'm a nice guy, here's what I found on clark04.com:

Clark isn't just talking the talk - he's walking the walk. Today, he opened his records -- military records, tax returns that cover the period since he left the military, financial records and voting registration documents to the public.

The documents will be available at the Sheraton Four Points hotel in Manchester. They will be posted at www.clark04.com as soon as they are scanned.



Patience, grasshopper.

I remember when this issue first raised its head, and the Clark camp made a big deal out of how he did not need to be registered as a Dem in Arkansas, and he hadn't had the time to do so since he decided to run. In fact I googled and found this:

It may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, but Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley K. Clark still hasn't joined the Democratic Party. According to the Pulaski County (Ark.) Voter Registrar's office, the former four-star general remains a registered independent. Even though he has been a declared candidate for the Dem nomination for two weeks now, he has yet to officially change his party affiliation.

A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

So is Clark trying to re-write history now?

I don't know the answer. I thought he was independent until September, too.

But this article says his now-released records show him to have been a Democrat in 2002. Maybe sloppy reporting the first time? I have no idea.

I'm just bringin' ya the news.

is now in trouble for poor recordkeeping. Seriously, it has been in the news lately. Will see if I can find a link.

In fact this was a big deal back then, and I am SURE if Clark had records that proved he was registered as a Dem in 2002 he would have released them at the time.

Hell, he was being accused of being a Republican plant! If he had proof that he he was a Dem long before he decided to run, he would have produced it!

It seems to me that this is more likely a re-write of history rather than an old error corrected.

he would forge a voter registration document just to show he became a Democrat one year earlier than previously thought? I really don't see the upside in that.

The prospect of an answer promises some low amusement....

the office where records would be kept is now being accused of bad record keeping. So NOW would be the perfect time to fake such a registration to overcome the accusation that he was NOT a registered Dem until AFTER he started campaigning.

Of course they were hoping we forgot what they said at the time the accusations first arose...

"What a world, what a world...."

they were hoping we'd forget a charge that has been thrown at him every day since he announced he was running.

They conspired to falsify a public record for little or no conceivable gain.

OR... perhaps a clerk made an error when talking to a reporter.

Why didn't they release these records THEN? Is this so hard to understand?

If they had these records, why did they let this accusation stand for so long? Am I the ONLY person who finds it IMPOSSIBLE to believe the Clark camp wouldn't be waving these records fromm the highest hill within HOURS of such an accusation?

I've explained a few times.

Clark registered Dem in 2002.
A reporter calls Pulaski County Registrar of Voters and asks for confirmation. Due to the horrendous database they had (see elsewhere in this thread for links), the clerk gives the reporter the wrong answer.
Reporter calls Fabiani. Now HERE is where the only possible error on the Clark Campaign's behalf is: Fabiani believes the reporter and makes an excuse. He presumes Clark was mistaken when he said he was already registered as a Dem. So Fabiani says "we still have to take care of that, and will do when he gets back".

Clark, being told that he's not registered as a Dem, shrugs it off, thinking some error has happened somewhere along the line. He re-registers.

End of story.

The campaign of Mr. Clark, whose fealty was questioned by some party members, filed the candidate's signed affidavit at the Pulaski County, Ark., elections office to change his voter registration from unaffiliated to Democrat.

"We've had the papers on his desk, filled out and ready to go, for some time," campaign spokeswoman Kym Spell said yesterday. "But he has been busy, and he hadn't even been to town for some time until this weekend."

Last week it was discovered that Mr. Clark had declared no party affiliation in his December 2001 renewal for his voter registration, despite saying in a Sept. 27 interview that he had filed the paperwork to become a Democrat.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031006-101700-9310r.htm

If your story is true, why did they still fail to tell the truth ONE WEEK LATER? Why did they still come up with EXCUSES, rather than a correction?

Simple answer - because he WASN'T a registered Dem until then. End of story.

they BELIEVED the reporter who said Clark wasn't a registered Dem. Perhaps they even called the County registrat themselves and a clerk, using the same bad database, confirmed the report.

So then they figured there'd been a goof-up, and it needed to be corrected.

YOUR explanation requires a forged voter registration card. Mine requires a simple clerical mistake.

"The truth is out there...."

For all I know, NO SUCH RECORD was included amongst the Clark campaign's release. Have you thought of that? Is it possible in your mind, that rather than the Registrar, a reporter and the Clark campaign all making an error in 2003, that in fact only a reporter in 2004 made an error?

Which is the simple explanation? You seem to like Occam's Razor, so which is it? A string of errors including from people involved intimately with the issue, or a single error from a reporter much later?

That there is no registration of Gen. Clark as a Democrat in existence in Pulaski county today?

It is sometimes difficult for us lesser beings to keep track of your thought....

Are you saying they were lying?

Is that the matter is of monumental unimportance, and if it were not for the comedy value of the exchange, would not engage my attention for more than a few seconds....

If this is so unimportant to you, why are you wasting so much time on it? Actually, it seems to me that this is VERY important to you, because it proves that Clark is either a liar, or was NOT a Dem until last October.

Clark supporters will not be able to let this go unanswered, and here you are...

This world is a grim place, and the brightness of comedy is invaluable....

You do seem a bit more excited about it than most....

The manufacture of mountains from mole-hills can be lonely work in a serious venue.

I wasn't the one who originally thought that this was a big issue. To me it is clear that Clark was not a registered Dem until October last year. You on the other hand seem to want to turn this into an issue because you immediately began attacking me.

Your No. 48, alas no longer available for public view, is fondly recalled....

Of course I have not been hitting alert wherever possible in an attempt to silence you.

Seriously, I don't. I don't even remember ever seeing it although I'm sure I had one at some point in the past 20 years.

That said, it is your right to believe what you want; however, I don't have to believe it with you - any more than you have to believe that it was an oversight.

To answer you question (although from looking at your debate here, I doubt you will agree), there were many inexperienced people working in the early days of the campaign. Being a part of it, I have been amazed at how things have changed and come together. It is very possible that one of those early people jumped to make that statement b/c he didn't have any proof b/c he didn't know where his card was.

Please be careful when you start laughing - don't want you to bump your head, you know.

Like I said, you don't have to believe it. Just like I don't have to believe your idea.

Thanks.

Mr. Clark told the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat "on or about Sept. 3, about two weeks before announcing for the presidency," the paper reported in a Sept. 27 story.

The Union Leader reporter quoted Mr. Clark as saying that as far as political affiliation, "I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't have to register for parties. You vote in primaries, and, of course, I voted in Democratic primaries."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

Surely you Clark supporters remember all this? It was a major issue in the first weeks of his campaign! How could you forget what his explanations were back then? I didn't, and I don't even like him.

Link: http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1003/107611.html
Link: http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1003/106801.html
Link: http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1003/107301.html
Link: http://www.sherwoodvoice.com/Pages/11-20-03/Grand%20jury.htm

more ammunition for my theory. These article all state that the Pulaski County voter registration database was a mess.

So it seems Clark DID register in 2002, a reporter was given wrong information about that. Being told that he was NOT registered as a Dem, Clark re-registered.

If there was any error by the Clark's campaign here, it was Fabiani jumping to the conclusion that Clark had not registered when told that was the case. His first response to assume that the reporter was correct and then made an excuse.

Mr. Clark told the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat "on or about Sept. 3, about two weeks before announcing for the presidency," the paper reported in a Sept. 27 story.

The Union Leader reporter quoted Mr. Clark as saying that as far as political affiliation, "I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't have to register for parties. You vote in primaries, and, of course, I voted in Democratic primaries."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

Does your theory explain why Clark would lie about when he registered?

Who, by the way, do you plan to vote for in your state's primary, and in the general election?

In fact do you have ANYTHING to say about the issue?

How do YOU plan on voting for?

As near as it is possible to answer this, by maintaining my voter registration, and getting myself to the polls on election day. In the primary here, my vote will be cast for Gen. Clark; in the general election, for the nominee of the Democratic Party....

Now, fellow, be good enough to answer my question concerning how your vote will be cast in the upcoming election here.

As for the rest of this trifle, there is a disagreement between various reports, and not much grounds to distinguish between them, without access to the actual records. The matter is of no particular consequence in any case. Persons howling "Republican plant", even at that time, were in no case serious persons, for the thing is not a serious charge, and carries weight only with those subject to conspiracist delusions: that is not how the world works....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It has been a long time since anybody called me naive....

You will find, fellow, that the shrill dudgeon of mere spectators to our political process carries less and less weight with participants as the actual decisions near.

It is likely, by the way, more sober observers might disagree with your characterization of the split in your Labor Party, but doubtless you know best, cold-eyed realist that you are....

I thought the US was the "leader of the free world"? I thought that the US President was the most powerful person on Earth, with the ability to wipe out civilisation with a simple command to launch?

Are the Iraqi people, mere spectators to you?

If you can't see how US presidential elections affect the rest of the world, then you are even more naive than I thought.

You don't know anything about tha NZ Labour party, so what makes you think I'm wrong? Because YOU are the great "Magistrate"? Tell you what, Google Mike Moore and WTO, and you will see where one of these plants ended up.

Of course, your willful blindness would probably not allow you to do so.

A mere spectator to the political process in the United States; its outcome may well effect you, but you have no material say in it whatever. Should you wish such a say, emmigrate and become a citizen here....

Some people may be convinced to vote against him, and I will have had a "material say" in the election.

Of course, you are free to ignore me.

You will never convince anyone who does not already agree with you, not with the style of argument you put forth.

Quotes from Clark and his campaign manager and spokesperson are silly debating tools. No-one will believe them! No it is much better to engage in subtle ad hominem attacks and IGNORE the issue totally. That is MUCH MORE convincing.

But, I am a creature of habits, so here is another quote for you to ignore:

Mr. Clark told the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat "on or about Sept. 3, about two weeks before announcing for the presidency," the paper reported in a Sept. 27 story.

The Union Leader reporter quoted Mr. Clark as saying that as far as political affiliation, "I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't have to register for parties. You vote in primaries, and, of course, I voted in Democratic primaries."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

Yep, you're right no one should EVER believe a single word out of Wesley Clark's mouth.

The quoted statement includes the claim Gen. Clark voted in Democratic Party primaries. Though it does not give the year or years, there was certainly one such in '02. A registered voter must ask for a party ballot in a primary, and sign in on doing so. There will certainly be a record of this, and they are public records, accessible to any researcher. Many persons consider asking for a party ballot tantamount to declaring membership in that party publicly, though the actual regulations concerning this vary from state to state, and those in Arkansas at the time are not familiar to me.

Your assistance in this matter is much appreciated, as "own goals" always are by the opposition. It is always well to be sure you know in what direction the piece is pointed before you pull the trigger: for future reference, you want the round open part, known as the muzzle, pointed away from yourself, at a minimum....

So how many registered Dems are Republicans then? Because they do it all the time. Just ask the Freepers.

You do not know much about the election process here.

Very few persons do as you suggest, and in some jurisdictions it is not possible.

Most people do view request of a party's ballot in a primary election as a public declaration of adherence, and there is a public record that the thing has been done. You are free to believe what comforts you, in matters of which you know little, but your belief, in this case, is not in accord with fact.

Registered independent, voted consistently for Republican presidential candidates while I and others worked our asses off for McCarthy, Kenndey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis.

This is not one of the General's more endearing or reassuring biographical notes.

I would say that even Joe comes off better in this department.

In the end, I don't trust Clark or his campaign.

I am happer aligning myself with Gore, Bradley, Richards, Harkin, Mosley-Braun, and others who were on MY side when it counted, all those years ago.

Go Dean!!!!

Or, if not Dean, make it Kerry, Kucinich, or Edwards--heck, even Gephardt and Lieberman.

All of them are more appealing to me than the latecomer, Clark.

to idealogues, but I suspect it won't hurt him among mainstream voters, large numbers of whom voted for Nixon and Reagan.

No candidate can win with only the support of registered Democrats. It's mathematically impossible.

Instead of his 20 year old voting record, why not look at his positions today? They place him squarely to the left of Howard Dean.

No way for Clark. He is at the bottom of my list. I also guarantee you, if there was a Clark nomination and a strongly liberal third party candidate ran, I would be VERY TEMPTED to vote for somebody other than the Democratic candidate.

I just plain do not trust Clark and even if he's nominated, I still won't trust him. He comes off as disingenuous and phony to me.

Let's demand all candidates provide all records, as a contrast to Bush & Co.

get in the way of his duties. He loves this country very much too and that was his first priority and still is so!

Is his memory okay? Or could these records be nmanufactured?

that either Clark or one of aides said that Clark WAS a registered Dem, and had done so in the past year. Then it was reported that he wasn't (based on a call to the Pulaski registrar of voters). I'll see if I can find something about that.

Sounds like a either the newspaper messed up, or a clerk at the county office did.

the accusations that he was not a registered Dem first arose. The fact is that the Clark campaign made all sorts of excuses ("he hasn't had the time") for why he was still a registered Independant.

Now, they expect us to believe that in fact he was a registered Dem all along? Not bloody likely.

...

"When it comes to family values, number one to start with, is to have a job," Gert Clark said. "Another important family value is education."

The Clarks converted from Republicans to Democrats in the late 1990s, and before the change, she volunteered for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. But the couple saw a shift in the GOP and made a choice to leave the party.

Steenbergen brought this up in her introduction of Gert Clark, saying that she "did not fault" the Clarks for being former Republicans but commended them for being "conscious Democrats."


Edit for link:
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=80371

the voting records released today, as well as all other statements made by Clark and his team say he was a registered independent.

'They supported Republican candidates together, before their Democratic conversion; when he worked at the Pentagon in the mid-1990s, she volunteered almost daily for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas. Gert Clark even describes a political change of heart in lockstep with her husband's.'

The General's Wife

Clark voted for Clinton over Bush in 1992, regardless of his general political leanings at that time, and Clinton over Dole in 1996. I've never included Hutchison in the rabid Republican bunch by the way. A 2002 Clark Democratic Registration is earlier than I had previously heard.

Was Dean the one who called Clark a Republican?

but I don't think it's an "answer" to anything. It's Clark making all his records public. His voter registration was one of the things in there.

If it's an answer to Dean, it's much more a response to Dean sealing his public records, while Clark releases his private records.

They keep setting up, and we keep knocking them down. Great ferreting, Dookus!

I hope his campaign manager copies that onto a 10' X 10' board, in a very BRIGHT COLOR and show it to the world. People can no longer lie about that one. tsk...tsk...tsk.

Mr. Clark told the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat "on or about Sept. 3, about two weeks before announcing for the presidency," the paper reported in a Sept. 27 story.

The Union Leader reporter quoted Mr. Clark as saying that as far as political affiliation, "I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't have to register for parties. You vote in primaries, and, of course, I voted in Democratic primaries."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

If you say it's a lie to say Clark was not a registered Dem until last year, then you better tell Clark to stop lying.

:kick:

you a da man...or da woman

:thumbsup:

a TANK repelling all nerf cannons

Then what was he doing at a GOP fundraiser in 2001? Why did he praise Reagan, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld?

And spoke at a Democratic event a couple weeks after that . . .

And campaigned for Dem candidates in 2002 . . . Cleland, Swett and at least one other (name eludes me right now).

just before launching into a very unfavorable evaluation of Bush's foreign policy. He was a non-partisan speaker at the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day event. And, as mentioned elsewhere, he gave a similar speech to the Arkansas statewide Democratic Party Annual Dinner.

He did not solicit funds for the GOP. He was earning his living as a paid speaker. They paid him, he spoke.

If you'd read the entire speech, you might find it's not all that complimentary to Bush, et. al.

I think apologies are owed him.

"Clark has never been registered as a Republican. During his Army service he registered to vote as an independent (as do many career military officers) in his home state of Arkansas . Clark says he voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan out of concern for national security during the Vietnam and Cold War years. But he says later he found Republicans to be “shrill” and “isolationist.” And so he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and most recently for Al Gore, both Democrats."

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=97

After Presidents Johnson and Carter, many people chose to vote Republican, in the belief that party was better capable of handling national defense. That belief was mistaken, in my view, but too widespread among the people to be dismissed as a factor in assessing someone's actions at the time.

It is this long established "brand loyalty" on military questions that the criminals of the '00 Coup hope still to make hay from by their actions in Iraq. Gen. Clark offers, among other things, a point for identification by many people who shared that belief in the past, but must be persuaded to discard it today....

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"