Clark fans, tell me why he should get my vote

[reitz]

I'm a registered Republican, and an avowed anti-Bush. I plan to change my party affiliation to Democrat so that I may vote in PA's primary...after which I'll switch to independent until a party comes along with an actual platform, instead of a core of special interests.

I was initially a Dean supporter (even donated $50...wish I could get that back), but I've been rethinking my stance lately. I don't like his labor policies or his health care plan, and I have no patience for pandering--in Dean's case to the labor unionists and Jebus freaks. His secret energy task force and sealed records have all but sealed the deal for me.

I'm looking for another candidate that can reverse the course that Bush has set, without doing too much damage in the process. I can not and will not vote for Bush, for a litany of reasons: irresponsible tax cuts, states' rights, cronyism, the war in Iraq, the medicare drug benefit, the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, No Child Left Behind, Valerie Plame, Poindexter, faith-based initiatives, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, "Healthy Forests", "Clear Skies", Cheney's Energy Task Force, 20+% increase in discretionary spending, Homeland Security, "enemy combatants", Patriot II, freedom fries, and Tenet still in charge of the CIA (Your agency tracks known terrorists from a terrorist meeting into the US and tells no one; said terrorists parade around in plain sight for eighteen months, meeting with other known terrorists, and then murder over 3000 people. How the fuck do you keep your job?).

I've been checking out Clark today, and so far I like what I see. His [near] actions in response to the Russians securing the Pristina airport and his friendship with the Clintons make me skeptical, but I really like his Iraq plan. His economic plan seems quite tolerable, and I could support his al-Qaeda plan.

I still have a lot more reading to do, but I'd like to pose these question to the Clark supporters on AT: Why should I vote for Clark? What makes him the best of the Democratic candidates for president in 2004?



(If all you wish to do is spout partisan rhetoric, please don't bother replying. I can find that in almost every thread if I care to read it...I'm looking for intelligent comments here)

 

[smashp]

What makes him the best of the Democratic candidates for president in 2004?

He is rather conservative on security and defence Issues and possibly the Strongest in these Area's. Personnally i feal he Would make a Better VP candidate.

I feel though He would above all be a good Bridge Rebuilded On the International Level due to his experience working with Our Nato and Un Allies. Its a unified International approace that will help make Iraq a success and limit the chance For Failure. Granted, The Current Admin has also recognized or Just Realized this but is a little too late.

I think more importantly a New face is what is needed in the Executive branch. The policies and Programs Will stay almost the same with a Republican Controlled Congress.

Actually, If there Was a democrat In the Presidency, The Republican Congress Might Actually begin Acting CONSERVATIVE!

Anyway, Clarks Problem is he Is rather Cut of the Mill centrist who is stong on National Defence.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that, as an avowed republican, you need to work for change within your own party, refrain from acting as a fifth-column agent within the Democratic Party. Your stated course of action is repugnant, at least to this lifelong Democrat.

Want to become a real Democrat? Welcome Aboard! Want to poison our primaries, then jump ship? Uhh, take a look at yourself in the mirror, first- figure it out. GWB extended the "with us or against us" line in the sand to domestic policy after the midterm elections- he means you, too...

I'm no particular fan of Wesley Clark, but then I'd vote for anybody but Bush, and I'll lend financial support to any Democrat chosen to effect the ouster.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think that, as an avowed republican, you need to work for change within your own party, refrain from acting as a fifth-column agent within the Democratic Party. Your stated course of action is repugnant, at least to this lifelong Democrat.

Want to become a real Democrat? Welcome Aboard! Want to poison our primaries, then jump ship? Uhh, take a look at yourself in the mirror, first- figure it out. GWB extended the "with us or against us" line in the sand to domestic policy after the midterm elections- he means you, too...

I'm no particular fan of Wesley Clark, but then I'd vote for anybody but Bush, and I'll lend financial support to any Democrat chosen to effect the ouster.

AHHH let the Party Think For You ohhh Person with a Tiny Brain.

Hey Reitz, Vote for Who appeals the most to you and is most inline with Your Beliefs

 

[reitz]

I think that, as an avowed republican, you need to work for change within your own party, refrain from acting as a fifth-column agent within the Democratic Party. Your stated course of action is repugnant, at least to this lifelong Democrat.

Not gonna f'n happen. Re-read my first post; I never said I was an avowed Republican.

Party loyalty, in our current system at least, is utterly useless. Neither party works for any real set of ideals, unless those ideals happen to be shared by the Trial Lawyers Association or the energy companies...or anyone with a big enough bank account. The Democrats and Republikans have become morally bankrupt, and no longer have any sort of ideological consistency across their platform; why should I pledge loyalty to either party? The Libertarians have a decent national platform, but they lack organization and a real drive to change things. The Greens have that, and I admire their enthusiasm for their causes, but the party is simply too far removed from my beliefs.


No current political party really matches my beliefs. I'm a social progressive--favoring gay marriage, gradual decriminalization and eventual legalization of most drugs, affirmative action in higher education (but not employment), legalization of prostitution, targetted investments into disadvantaged communities--and a staunch fiscal conservative. I'm an atheist and a secularist, and I vehemently oppose "god" in the pledge, faith-based initiatives, and the general effort by the hardcore religious right to inject their brand of mythology and "morality" into our culture and political system. I generally favor laissez faire capitalism with strong oversight, and I oppose most government subsidies and bail-outs of failing companies. I recognize the importance labor unions have to play in our societies, but I believe they have too much influence and power. I strongly oppose a national single-payer system of healtcare, and I'm on the fence about an increase in the federal minimum wage.


I have decided that my best course of action is to support the candidate who will reverse the policies of the Bush administration, and do the least amount of damage in the process. Bush will be unopposed in the Pennsylvania primaries, so if I wish to have a choice when I vote in May, my only option is to do so as a Democrat.

Jhhnn,
Why not actually try to add to the discussion at hand, instead of jumping to conclusions and criticising me for how I choose to participate in the political process?

 

[Zebo]

You should'nt. He was the "heat" for another carpet-bagging war crimminal,, but Clinton this time. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has also accused Clark and other leaders of war crimes and crimes against humanity and in September 2000 a Belgrade court found Wesley Clark and other Western leaders guilty. Hell he even virtually admits it in his book. Balkans wars: "was coercive diplomacy, the use of armed forces to impose the political will of the NATO nations on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or more specifically, on Serbia."

He also had a hand in the waco seige which is still be debated. This dude would be 10X worse than bush. He's a little power hungry megalamanic who's finger you would'nt want on the button. Almost started WW3 with russia during the kosovo war.

Plus for being #1 in his class at westpoint he pretty stupid, in believing FTL is possible and should be researched. I hear he was a big art bell fan.

 

[Martin]

A word of warning: Kosovo isn't the success Clark claims it is. I don't know where Clinton's responsibilities began and where Clark's ended, but the chosen course of action was one of the worst possible ones.

Here is somethign that sums it up nicely.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040102/COGEE02/TPColumnists/