Clark - "US plans to attack seven Muslim states"

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You're either with us, or you're a Bushie! Oh wait, no. Never mind, that was stupid.

I've heard that before somewhere..

Clark is electable. He could command all the big coastal states including Florida and probably pick up Arkansas and Tennessee along with a small central northern state.. if Kerrey of Nebraska ran with him, he'd pick up that state too. I also think New Mexico would lean his way. No other democratic hopeful could manage this. I don't think.. In any event, he also has the Clinton machine with him in all the key slots and Bush's strong hold, the military would move away from Bush towards Clark but, they already are in the large state calc's.
To win the democratic nod, Clark just needs to act presidential and charismatic. If he gets hit with US Economic issues he needs to stick to vision and not specifics. In Foreign affairs... focus on how to undo the ill advised philosophy of the current administration.. while being strong... Americans like strong.. especially, the Central State folks.. Flags and Strength will carry the day.
At no time mention Hillary. She would upset the close states that he needs.. She has democratic support but, he'd get that anyway.. the game would be won by attracting the Bush states to his column..

First rule in politics is to never count your chickens ... but I agree with a lot of this assessment except New Mexico because that is a very winnable soutwest state regardless, for any Democrat as it is trending more Democratic with more hispanics and a sorta popular hispanic, Democratic Governor though Gore only won the state (his only southwest state) by like 3000 votes. Nevada is also winnable simply because of the Yucca Valley radiation dump issue. I don't think that any national Democrat can win a northern central state.

Clark can be very competitive in the South. The Democrats need to be at least competitive in the South to win this election, IMO. They need one large southern state like Florida or a combination of smaller states like Arkansas, Tennessee. I would be very curious to hear his views on gun control as that is delicate issue in many swing states i.e Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, etc.

A combination of much of the Rust Belt, California, New York, New England and one large southern state would win the presidency.

I think I'd not argue against your assessment. Maybe more realistic than mine. We will see where the $ is spent and depending on who wins the nod what the focus on which southern states. I really feel that Clark is the only one who can swing the Southern states... but, who knows.. I'm just an accountant... I'll count the votes..

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clark/Kerry would probably be a more viable ticket than a Clark/Dean Cage Match,
even though Dean has a higher Poll Number than Kerry.

The Double-Up on Military Service Records would serve them well as strong on policy,
and the two alone would provide twide as much Service Record as the entire Bush Administration.
Yes, Rumsfeld <EM>was</EM> in the service - an <EM>Instructor</EM> for the Navy, but George W. Felony Bush went
AWOL during his 'National Guard' stint, and somehow had charges kept from being pressed against him.
I guess having his father as CIA director, and his affiliation with the Nixon & Reagan Administrations
may have had some influence on keeping his records clean so as not to reflect on Daddy B.

Woops - guess that pairing seems a bit more doubtful already rivals questioned his commitment to the Democratic Party

<snip>
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during a brief news conference here that Clark will have to answer for his past support of Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

"It's for Democrats to judge how they feel about people's lives and history," Kerry said. "But while he was voting for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of their policies."
</snip>

CkG

Good thing the republicans were above sniping in the last election

Seriously, I wonder who Clark would choose. Maybe Powell

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
I don't think You are a 'Bushie'. I think you are ROBOCAD, the guy who believes in something deeply and will not bend. That is commendable so long as you have full and accurate information on which to base that belief. I rather suspect that if Bush Violated your belief system you'd drop him and his like a hot tater. I just interpret the same thing as you interpret differently and thus we see different sides of the orange and the side I see has worm holes.. I assume the entire orange is the same. I think you see the orange without all those worm holes and thus your position.. I only wonder why you don't see what I see and you wonder if I'm looking at the same orange..

No - we're definately looking at different oranges. You see California Oranges(wormy) and I see Floriduh Oranges...well ok so they are wormy too I rather liken it to a cob of corn Just because there is a worm that has eaten the tips of the corn(which is what they like best) doesn't mean that the whole cob isn't edible I liken you to my wife - when husking corn(for corn on the cob), if she starts to husk it and sees a worm - she screams(like a girl) and then throws the whole thing away. I take that ear and hack the tip off with a knife and then proceed to cook and eat it

BUt you are right - Bush hasn't so flagrantly violated or gone against the ideals I have - so I haven't dropped him. The other "candidates" most certainly have stated they'll do things my ideals are against so they don't stand a chance. Now if there were a viable 3rd party(independant or whatever) who more closely resembled my ideals - then they'd most likely get my vote. In my youth, I definately supported one of those 3rd party kind of guys...good thing I wasn't able to vote I'd be kicking myself today for it *cough*Perot*cough*

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Winston,
I agree with you position.. I am of the opinion that Bush makes any of the democrats look good even though they may have a few pimples or scars. I wish I could vote based on a more 'high level' position. I just have to vote to eliminate the policies Bush will and has put forth. I'd be hard pressed to vote against McCain in a contest against Clark. This would be a hard one for me... Bush/Clark is too easy, least ways for me.

 

[LunarRay]

CADDYcorn,
If I saw a worm on a cob or corn or whatever it is.. I'd not eat it either... wouldn't screem unless the worm happened upon me..

I voted Perot in '92... Then I was into the reality of the economy and figured he would act like I would like to see... no ties, no lies, and the best of the best in all the right slots and not political paybacks.. I saw this as the way to do it. I didn't think he'd win but did think if he showed well enough it may catch on... wrong..

I still see that Whooshing sound that Clinton pushed, NAFTAing us down the tubes.. he did a good thing if he had first insured open markets for us.. cart before horse.. now the horse is dead and the cart is broken and no parts seem to fit..

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: LunarRay

They even made fun of Perot's mate in '92 and he a MOH winner. Stockdale was not political.. neither was Perot but he garnered quite a few votes in some of the states I didn't think he'd do nearly as well in.

Yeah, that was really awful how Admiral Stockdale was viewed and treated back then. MOH awardee, POW for 7 years, scholar, academic and stoic philosopher. They drug him through the mud. Totally uncalled for.

And now This fine General... folks forget, I guess, that the president nominates those stars and the Senators bless them and NATO Command is also Senate Blessed... He must have been reasonably OK then one should presume. The only extra baggage Clark took from Vietnam is three wounds and the associated metal... I don't know if they've mentioned that yet.. but, I think he has three purple hearts among other upper row decorations. But, it is his brain that will be tested here and I opine his is a sturdy and sharp as they come.
CADafryer say's Clinton backs Clark... That is correct. But, Clark is not Clinton and he should not respond to those kinds of pointed questions.
The Right is unleashing another barrage of Blonds.. now along side Ann Coulter is Laura Ingraham.. the dynamic duo, as it were. Pit Vipers spewing off their party line. But, like in the blond joke... they speak to the dummy on the ventriloquist's knee.

You know the real irony here, Ray? Two of those stars were approved by George H.W. Bush himself.

 

[LunarRay]

Burnedout,
You know the real irony here, Ray? Two of those stars were approved by George H.W. Bush himself.

*********

I checked out his medals and it only lists one purple heart... hmmm
Any how, I didn't know that Papa Bush nominated the first two... but, division command is two stars and he had that before Clinton. What surprised me was that during Clinton's problems the Senate could easily have rejected Clark if he was even the teentsy bit off.. General Clark is a good person with an opinion that rankled some of the established or entrenched war hawks.. He'd go to war in a second if we were indeed in a defensive or offensive need.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You're either with us, or you're a Bushie! Oh wait, no. Never mind, that was stupid.

.

I think I'd not argue against your assessment. Maybe more realistic than mine. We will see where the $ is spent and depending on who wins the nod what the focus on which southern states. I really feel that Clark is the only one who can swing the Southern states... but, who knows.. I'm just an accountant... I'll count the votes..

Just follow look at where Bush is travelling/speaking/fundraising to see which states they think are in play and cruical to the election.
States President Bush has visited most often since taking office:
Pennsylvania: 22
Florida: 16
Missouri: 13
Michigan: 11
Ohio: 11
Iowa: 9
Illinois: 9
California: 8
Wisconsin: 7
Tennessee: 7
North Carolina: 7
Minnesota: 7

Bush Sees Electoral States Ahead of 2004

The only one is California. If California comes into play, the Democrats have already lost.

 

[DealMonkey]

Hmmmm, what's up with Pennsylvania? Why so many visits? Swing state?

 

[Moonbeam]

The Republican machine is the greatest collection of sleaze bags and moral scum the world has ever seen. The television has become a circus of vicious attack dogs who spew a stream of constant hate and scream bloody murder when they get back a tenth. It's fun watching them react to Al Franken. God how they hate what they do. Of course we know why.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

. . . nothing comes close to CA oranges . . . the best in the world.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Pennsylvania = Rust Belt & Steel Workers
Steel Tariff that put up a protection against foriegn import steel
& it cost over 200,000 jobs accross the U.S. for him to gain the
temporary vote support of the steel workers, maybe 30,000 votes.
I think it's called pandering.

 

[Nomerc]

Well from the looks thread it is is pure Democratic. LOL

Well one thing is for sure.. oh Hillary is going to run for office. My quess is the 08 ticket. She will not take the Vice or second seat this election. She wants top seat and god help us "when" not if but "when" she gets into office.

 

[LunarRay]

Chowderhead,
I think many of Bushes trips are not for his own quest, although that may be true in the marginal states. I think it may be to reward the folks in the party so the right can keep control of Congress. Mid year photo ops and the associated fund raising.
It is obvious that every thing any President does has some strategic goal. Those states that are solid Red or solid Blue have no real value for his time other than Congressional upkeep and the odd $ so consequently they receive token personal attention if not perfunctory. They get their quid pro quo in Congressional Pork, for the most part.
Mr and Ms Person out there has this notion that legislation is aimed at some noble cause... and it is! The re-election of the Party into power to continue the Agenda. Folks think they know what that Agenda is, some may but, I doubt the Real Agenda is know by but a few... the Puppet Masters... The Rich and Powerful... The Dukes and Earls and Counts and Barons of Planet Earth..
Folks look at what occurs and the published causation and either agree with it or not. They argue the merits and go off on all sorts of tangents. But, if you just look at the occurrences and add them together, piece by piece without defining whys or wherefores... just what did occur you will begin to see the picture being developed.. I don't pretend to know what may be the Agenda. I do know, however, that there is an Agenda and it is not what is propounded unless the occurance was obvious, necessary and supportable by the implementors.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Chowderhead,
I think many of Bushes trips are not for his own quest, although that may be true in the marginal states. I think it may be to reward the folks in the party so the right can keep control of Congress. Mid year photo ops and the associated fund raising.
It is obvious that every thing any President does has some strategic goal. Those states that are solid Red or solid Blue have no real value for his time other than Congressional upkeep and the odd $ so consequently they receive token personal attention if not perfunctory. They get their quid pro quo in Congressional Pork, for the most part.
Mr and Ms Person out there has this notion that legislation is aimed at some noble cause... and it is! The re-election of the Party into power to continue the Agenda. Folks think they know what that Agenda is, some may but, I doubt the Real Agenda is know by but a few... the Puppet Masters... The Rich and Powerful... The Dukes and Earls and Counts and Barons of Planet Earth..
Folks look at what occurs and the published causation and either agree with it or not. They argue the merits and go off on all sorts of tangents. But, if you just look at the occurrences and add them together, piece by piece without defining whys or wherefores... just what did occur you will begin to see the picture being developed.. I don't pretend to know what may be the Agenda. I do know, however, that there is an Agenda and it is not what is propounded unless the occurance was obvious, necessary and supportable by the implementors.

I don't know if there is some grand conspiracy. There may be a covert agenda that we don't know about but I dunno. What I do know is that the main agenda of most politicans is self-preservation (i.e. getting reelection), obtaining or maintain political power, and helping others that share your political leanings get into power.

GWB is travelling to large swing states. Those states are ones that either side won by relative small numbers of votes. They can turn either way. Clinton came to California like 60 times in his terms in office. He knew the importance of winning that state. GWB can count so he can do the math of the importance of the Rust Belt and Florida.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
. . . nothing comes close to CA oranges . . . the best in the world.

That's right and don't forget it Cad. It's easy to see worms when you have a corn cob up your rear.