If Clark is nominated, will we have a real choice?

If Clark is the Democratic nominee, will we have a real choice in the general election? I base this off the following:

1. Bush is a militarist, Clark is a militarist: Bush supported unilateral war in Iraq. Clark initiated unilateral war in Serbia, in defiance of the UN, and said he would "probably" for the blank-check Iraq War Resolution.

2. Bush favors corporatism, Clark seems to agree: When Dean proposed to regulate corporate abusers, Clark slammed him.

"Clark criticizes Dean's reregulation plan as bad business"
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/11/20/clark_criticizes_deans_reregulation_plan_as_bad_business/

Clark: "The results in the '90s spoke for themselves...Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again."

--
Is the Green party going to get a second wind if Clark is nominated? After all, their raison d'etre is to offer a true choice to the militarism and corporatism that dominates our society today. Clark supporters- I'd like to hear your thoughts why Clark is not a militarist or corporate supporter.

if you have any, please let me know.

HOUSTON -- After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines, and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive "reregulation" of US businesses.

ADVERTISEMENT
The former Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents -- including, in some respects, Bill Clinton -- to help restore faith in scandal-plagued US corporations and better protect US workers.

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "reregulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "reregulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would mandate new workers' standards, a much broader right to unionize and new "transparency" requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Oxley-Sarbanes law.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/19/dean_calls_for_reversal_of_deregulation/

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you


DU Moderator

proposed by Clark in his economics plan.

Clark didn't initiate war.

Dean was a major corporate whore in Vermont. Sad but true. And he was a big deregulator.

Clark did initiate the bombing campaign in Kosovo. And don't blur the lines with Dean- creating jobs through tax incentives is fine...I'm talking about corporate abuse like Worldcom where we NEED regulation and Dean is ready to rein the corporations in. They are playing without rules and that is what is speaking to. So don't mix tax-breaks with regulation.

You said, "Clark initiated unilateral war in Serbia." He did not.

creating jobs through tax incentives is fine

Guess it's fine for Bush, too. :eyes:

No Clark didn't initiate the war. He didn't initiate the bombing campaign, etc. That must have been someone else though I swear he was the NATO Allied Commander at the time.

Yeah, that's right. I couldn't care less about tax incentives. You obviously don't understand the difference between that and the kinds of regulations we need in the corporate sector to prevent wholescale abuse of employees and consumers.

Clark took orders. He didn't do much without authorization.

Yeah, that's right. I couldn't care less about tax incentives. You obviously don't understand the difference between that and the kinds of regulations we need in the corporate sector to prevent wholescale abuse of employees and consumers.

The EXACT same argument the Republicans used to justify Bush's corporate tax incentives.

Your initial post spoke of corporatism. Not surprising you have created a distinction on different types and, of course, put Dean in the "good" corporatism category.

...please name 3.

largest tax have. Name one. Howard Dean.

...why are you so defensive? Isn't this an opportunity to explain why we do have a choice.

I read your post this morning & agree 100%. After reading some posts today & have stayed out of them, just goes to prove who the better person is.

Thanks for you advise xultar!

...and therefore am the better person" How humble. Some day you're going to have to address these issues, because people want answers.

That was not unilateral war in Serbia, that was a NATO action.

The UN opposed this action. Clark and his Pentagon pals did it anyway.

Just want to make sure we stay factual here.

The nuremberg trials defined the responsibility lies with the people who carried the acts out, not merely one's superior.

I guess you didn't see the poll where the majority in Kosovo Love Clark for what he did. How dare you for even trying to associate Clark with the Nuremberg Trials.

I'm not comparing it with the crimes in Nuremberg. I'm saying that Clark has to own up for his involvement in that unilateral war.

... someone who hasn't done their homework.

With all due respect, your logic (i should say insinuations, because you've produced no logic) is superficial. You assert Dean helped corporations in VT- he gave tax breaks and that's fine. What people are concerned about is corporate abuse as a result of acting independently of the will of the people can causing undesirable externalities, acting as cabals or monoplists. That's where regulation fits in.

Howard Dean is fond of criticizing politicians who provide tax breaks to "large corporate interests," and one of his favorite campaign lines is a blast at the Bush administration for doling out tax cuts to top executives of Enron Corp.

But during Dean's 11 years as Vermont governor, he enacted tax breaks that attracted to the state a "Who's Who" of corporate America -- including Enron -- to set up insurance businesses. Indeed, Dean said in 2001 that he wanted Vermont to "overtake Bermuda" as the "world's largest" haven for a segment of the insurance industry known as "captives," which refers to firms that help insure their parent companies.

With little notice then -- and barely any mention now in the Democratic presidential campaign -- Dean succeeded in turning Vermont into the kingdom of captives. Vermont has more of these companies than the other 49 states combined. As part of the enticement, Dean led efforts to cut state taxes of such companies, and he helped defeat a Clinton administration effort that would have eliminated $100 million worth of federal tax deductions given to the industry.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/12/for_dean_captive_insurance_a_vt_boon/

While governor of Vermont, Howard Dean accepted personal pay from special interests at least five times for speeches and also received more than $60,000 in checks and pledges for his charity fund from insurers who benefited from a state tax break, according to documents and interviews.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/09/politics1546EST0686.DTL&type=printable


Anxiously awaiting the famous Dean supporter rationalizations...

I already addressed that tax breaks are fine by me. What allowed Enron to screw its employees were NOT tax breaks, it was lack of regulation that allowed execs to sell their stock but not the "worker drones". You have NOT shown one example of Dean opposing regulation.

As for accepting fees, that has NOTHING to do with corporate regulation. It's a non-sequitir.

No...

I already addressed that tax breaks are fine by me.

You mean corporate tax breaks.

I finally see your angle. Before Dean's corporate whoredom became news, Bush was condemned for doing what we now now Dean did. But now that Dean is guilty of it, you have to find a way out for Dean by making that corporatism OK and put the focus on something else - deregulation.

Well, here's the deal. Corporate tax cuts are fine by you. Deregulation is fine by me.

...we will have another Enron, Worldcom, Tyco all over again. It's just a matter of time. I can't think of a single governor that didn't offer businesses some incentives for joining their state.

as the "world's largest" tax haven?

I've seen media try to manufacture this quote by filling in the blanks themselves- but I need to see the direct quote.

Indeed, Dean said in 2001 that he wanted Vermont to "overtake Bermuda" as the "world's largest" haven for a segment of the insurance industry known as "captives," which refers to firms that help insure their parent companies.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/12/for_dean_captive_insurance_a_vt_boon/

That is not a direct quote. That is someone stuffing words in Dean's mouth with a set of disjointed quotes. That's like saying, Dean said: I "will" eat your children and then "overtake Bermuda".

environment that is not a Dem. value. Why should we vote for a Democrat that does that? Aren't we supposed to be better than the Republicans in these regards.

http://timesargus.com/Archive/Articles/Article/43125

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.
Nearly a fifth of the roughly $111,000 collected in its first months by Dean’s presidential political action committee, the Fund for a Healthy America, came from people with ties to Vermont’s electric utilities, according to a recent Federal Elections Commission filing.

-snip-

That donor is Robert Young of Proctor, who also is a top official at two utility companies that have had a lot of important business before state government during Dean’s nearly 11 years in office. Young is chief executive at Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and chairman of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

-snip-

But the governor himself has said the donations buy access. “People who think they’re going to buy a contract or buy some influence are mistaken,” Dean famously said during the debate over a campaign finance reform bill in 1996. “But they do get access — there’s no question about that. ...They get me to return their phone calls.”
Advocates of public financing for campaigns complain about the message conveyed by the contributions.

“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

-snip-

...given my present understanding of his past, his qualifications for high civilian office, and my STRONG distrust of career military officers in civilian government.

...can be unlearned overnight.

I think as long as there are two names there, that will be enough for most folks.

Politics is not about issues and policies, and if the voting class wanted a change, there would have been one by now.

This post is just flame bait bullshit. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.

...is a bit of a concern. Either you support militarism and corporatism or you don't but can't explain Clark's actions. I would like to be dissuaded of these impressions of Clark.

and not a progressive.

Yes because Clark isn't a seasoned politician.

Yes because Clark has been with and has empathy for regular folk.

Yes because Clark knows 1st hand what war is like and how 2 get out.

Yes, because Clark wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Basically he is everything Dean is and more. With Clark what you see is what you are going to get. He hasn't tried to pull the wool over everyone's eye's by portraying himself as a progressive when he is actually a moderate.

The only true progressives running for the presidency is Kuchinich and Sharpton and we all know what their odds are for winning the Whitehouse!

>Yes because Clark knows 1st hand what war is like and how 2 get out.

Clark left Kosovo to let the ethnic Albanians wreak terror on the Serbians, initiating an ethnic cleansing campaign of their own- driving 180,000 Serbians from their home. 180,000- that's not just a statistic, it's a human catastrophe. But Clark had already left because "he knows how 2 get out".

When logic hits you across the forehead, it just leaves you dazed.

Give me a break.

I will let you define You!

It will make you feel better.

and you are such a sweetheart for being so considerate of my feelings.

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

Clark's bombing campaign accelerated the killing of Albanians and left a messy aftermath where hundreds of thousands were driven from their home in retribution. He obviously didn't account for the complexity of war. And he wasn't around because he got kicked out for incompetence, at the approval of Clinton,- that's his excuse?

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

Happy Friday everyone! Beerz on me.



:toast:

OK, thanks. Just wanted to know if my first assessment of Clark was on point.

But there's no smiley.

:toast:

I need a drink!!

I've been trying to sit these things out a while, but what the hell.

"Retired general Wesley Clark, on the rise in two recent polls of the Democratic presidential race, on Thursday vowed to end "corporate welfare" by cracking down on the shelters U.S. companies use to avoid taxes and increasing the penalties faced by offenders.

"Campaigning with Enron Corp. whistle-blower Sherron Watkins, who has become a symbol of U.S. corporate governance reforms, Clark fleshed out details of his plan to finance middle class tax cuts by clawing back up to $10 billion a year in revenues now lost to corporate tax avoidance schemes.

"We seem to have created a tax system that's encouraging American businesses to devote resources to avoiding taxes," he said. "It shouldn't be that way."

"Clark's plan would seek to outlaw all tax shelters, which would be defined as any financial transactions conducted solely for the purpose of avoiding taxes. It would also double the current fines for corporations found to have abused the tax code and quadruple them for repeat offenders."

Source: Reuters 1/8/04

Wasn't there something about Dean's relationship with Enron not long ago?

Personally, I don't care too much about tax issues. Tax shelters are the tip of the iceberg. I do care about companies stealing pensions from their workers and colluding to charge higher prices. How can Clark say he opposes re-regulation of a corporate sector that is out of control.

Oh....wait......never mind.

Let me guess "Saying Bush is a moderate isn't praise!!!"

Riiiiight.

Wesley Clark is not George W. Bush. Repeat after me: No Democratic candidate is the horrifying George W. Bush. Enjoy your ideological purity in a second Bush term. Sorry, I don't normally visit the "General Discussion: 2004 Primary" site. This discussion is a good reason why. Back to your spat, now.

...that's fine by me. I will remain ignorant about key issues that define why we're Democrats in the first place.

When the left becomes indistinguishable from the right, when Democrat becomes indistinguishable from Republican the need for a third or fourth or fifth party becomes more evident.

Well Said. It was at the forefront of our mind when this election began and it's as if, as a result of cold feet and a rabid pursuit of winning at any cost, it doesn't matter what the candidates stand for any more. In the process, we're in danger of creating a scenario where either we lose or enjoy a Pyrrhic victory.

After all, wasn't that the last person who tried to say that there was no real difference between the two major candidates?

Anyone can find points where "fill-in-the-blank"=Bu$h-after all, even a blind pig like Bu$h can make the right decision every once in a while (although it's usually for the wrong reason). But this is just anti-Clark rhetoric to try to gain support for another candidate, not an honest question-otherwise the comparison to Bu$h wouldn't have been made.

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

See post #36.

McCarthy labeled those who disagreed with him, absent evidence. The simplest way to defuse criticism of Clark is to label the critic a Nader supporter, who many here assume would be an unproductive crank. It's much harder to debate the issues.

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

..with that low a post total, attacking me on the boards, they have their message deleted and are later revealed as a troll.

And he/she didn't attack you.

I didn't attack you,printer70-I was trying to make a point that comparisons of any democrat to Bu$h are like Nader's claim that the two parties are identical. That obviously isn't true to anyone who has a brain, he was just looking for support. And it looks like the same is happening here-anyone with any sense knows that Clark and Bu$h are nowhere near the same. And if you look hard enough, you can find two or three points of agreement of any democrat candidate and Bu$h-it's the fact that there are 427 other points of disagreement that really matter.

Your claim that they are the same just smells of trying to smear someone to garner support to someone else.

YES YOU WILL HAVE A FUCKING CHOICE!!!

I have heard this shit ad infinitum by DEAN FANS that he is the only real choice for freedom and they won't vote for anyone else so let me give you two words that will sober you up after you pull your head out of your dark SMELLY positional POINT OF REFERENCE


SUPREME COURT!!!!

The WORST FUCKING DEMOCRAT in the WHOLE fucking LOT will NOT be vetting the NEXT Supreme Court justice from the FEDERALIST society and therefore FURTHER undoing ROE V Wade and who knows..we MIGHT just end up with SOME of the Sherman Anti-Trust act salvaged.

The following Supreme Court justices are considering retirement or are OLDER THAN FUCKING DIRT:

Rehquist
Kennedy
and O'Connor has HINTED that she will be gone soon..

In the meantime, Ginsberg has had health problems...that could mean up to FOUR supreme court justices.

Can people on DU please begin to consider something other than their ONE DIMENSIONAL VOTING ISSUE and their vapid putrid blind hero worship??
The WORST DEMOCRAT will do better than ANY judge George W Bush puts on that court....I REPEAT the WORST Democrat will do better.

I rest my case

We'll have 40 votes in the Senate to fillibuster an extremist nomination to the Supreme Court, so I don't have too many concerns there. America is going in the wrong direction with our reliance on militarism and the people are at the mercy of corporations. Clark gives no confidence that he will change that situation with his unilateral support of Serbia, Iraq; and his criticism of proposals to regulate corporate abusers.

and you are a one trick pony on the response.

Democrats always knew they had 5 votes on pro-choice. They won't give up their majority on the Supreme Court.

I cannot add anything except "bravo"!

Its the Supreme Court stupid to the NBD crowd (and NB_ crowd!)

I think we are making the same point, but yours is far more succinct. Prepare to be called "ignorant" by the original poster, and thanks for using language I don't post to emphasize a much needed observation.

Just an altruistic locker room mouth :D and the poster has no clue..his argument doesn't hold water..Clarence Thomas would be my proof.

think I used the f-word and bs tonight myself. If it works? :)

Dude, you're acting ridiculous. ANYBODY will be better than Bush. Say hi to Rush for me.

But thanks! Great response. "Say hi to Rush" ROTFLMFAO.

LOL. Nothing like a spineless fellow "supporter". I think you can change your signature image now to reflect your true intentions and stop kidding people.

especially when the rest of the nation is salivating over the prosepct of one.

and I would hope to change his opinion on that matter if he gets the nomination. I think all the Kucinich supporters would vote for him if he is nominated but, because of Kosovo, it may take a little convincing for some.

That being said, Dennis is still a better nominee and would beat Bush easily.

I haven't gotten a single response that addresses these issues. Not one. I don't know if it's because ther are no answers or if it's a Clark campaign tactic not to respond to concerns about their candidate.

Bush likes Patriot...Dean doesn't plan to repeal it
Bush likes NAFTA.. Dean will not cancel NAFTA
Bush likes the death penalty... Dean likes the death penalty.
Bush took money from big energy... Dean took money from big energy(Koch)


Is this what you meant?

TWL

Patriot Act, Death Penalty are far afield. NAFTA is free trade and I don't advocate protectionism. As far as Energy, Dean had a strong record on renewable energy (sponsored a net metering bill with solar) and was big on conservation:

"In our state , we have the 7th highest electric rates in the country because we come from New England and New England's got all the high rates and Hawaii, now California's joined us. But our bills are only 22nd in the country; why is that? Because in our state we take a little piece off of everyone's energy bill and we hire a group of people called an energy efficiency utility and their job is to go around to factories and farms and houses and business even and show them how to save electricity. That's what you should do with conservation, 7th highest rates, 22nd highest bills. We do almost nothing in this country with conservation. We have a program in out state called the weatherization program. We just don't subsidize peoples bills, because that's just money that goes up the stack. We actually take money and go around to low income houses and weatherize their house so all their heat doesn't leak out. People say "Oh, just another subsidy for poor people?" If you think if it that way, I don't mind that, buts its a saving of energy for every American and everybody in the world." ("Hear it from the Heartland" candidate forum, 5/18/03)

Your concern was militarism and corporatism - of which Dean has less than squeaky clean records on.

Pentagon Budget="miltarism"
Money from big energy="corporatism."

eom

Addressing them doesn't make them go away or make them less Republican-like. The facts remain - unless you think those instances are fine and dandy.

Bush can get legislation enacted. General Clark has never even been elected. And abased on his few actual legislative agenda items, he has no chance of getting anything proposed much less enacted.

Better stick with Bush if you're in this camp.

Bush is so much smarter and better than Clark.

then I guess Bush IS smarter than Clark.

I'll leave the better part out of it, too subjective and irrelevant.

:)

we all believe you! anyone who claims to donate money after reading a post on DU...it's a dubious claim that's been overdone.

...

....is give genocide a chance.