Some syrup on those Waffles, Clark?

[alchemize]

The great democratic hope "sez":

May 11, 2001:

Of Ronald Reagan, Clark said: "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 services loved him, respected him and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

"If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done," Clark said. "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office ... (Secretary of State) Colin Powell, (Defense Secretary) Don Rumsfeld, (Vice President) Dick Cheney, (national-security adviser) Condoleezza Rice ... people I know very well ? our President George W. Bush. We need them there because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

 

[MonstaThrilla]

May 11, 2001? More like he "sed" it over two years ago. I thought the Administration was pretty capable back then too. He was right though that we had tough challenges ahead in Europe.

 

[alchemize]

OK, so what about Reagan? He's a big Reagan fan. He's had 20 years to think that one over. What about that Monsta?

 

[chess9]

Yes, but Bush has proven to be a complete idiot in the last 2.5 years. Anyone supporting him needs a craniotomy, immediately if not sooner. Hell, I even held out some small glimmer of hope for Bush two years ago.... The guy is a MAJOR disappointment, even for a Republican. Kiss him goodbye....
-Robert

 

[alchemize]

Keep deflecting, keep ignoring the Reagan post. Hey honestly if we get a conservative in sheeps clothing in the white house, who would I be to complain?

But likely, he just sold his political viewpoint to the highest bidder.

 

[chess9]

Yeah, he's not qualified to be President if he liked Reagan. That's a serious moral and political failing. On the order of getting a blow job, at least.
-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Is he even a Democrat yet?

<Snip>
The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said yesterday that the former general is not yet a registered Democrat, but that the paperwork to change his registration "has been sitting on his desk for the last couple of weeks."
</snip>

oops there is more
<snip>
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.
</snip>

Whoops..guess he must have "mis-spoke"

Or is this a Lie BOBDN?

CkG

 

[chess9]

Who gives a rat's ass what label he wears? I want to know what issues he supports and why. I don't care if he says he liked Herbert Hoover, though I'd have to look him over very carefully in that case.

-Robert

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK, so what about Reagan? He's a big Reagan fan. He's had 20 years to think that one over. What about that Monsta?

Umm. Okay so he liked Reagan. He DID lead us successfully out of the Cold War and was an inspiring figure as Commander-In-Chief. I don't see what the big deal is. He's entitled to have his own opinions. But he's running as a Democrat, whether or not the papers sitting in his office were actually filed yet or not.

 

[Gaard]

I must be missing something, I don't get it. It's a bad thing for a D to say an R is doing a good job? Or am I missing the point somewhere?

Is that somehow being a traitor or something to the party?

 

[tnitsuj]

A lot of people liked Reagan. I don't (well I did when I was a little kid), but you will probably find that a majority of Democrats still like Reagan.

Besides, Reagan occasionally talked to people and tried to build alliances and good will. The whole trickle down thing didn't work however...

 

[Gaard]

Many people have asked alchemize question(s) yet he refuses to respond. Was this thread just an attempt to 'stir the pot', which seems to be par for the course lately in P&N (by both sides of the fence).
alchemize, if you truly wanted to discuss something, then discuss it. If all you wanted to do was get under people's skin, then just turn off the computer and take a walk.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Keep deflecting, keep ignoring the Reagan post. Hey honestly if we get a conservative in sheeps clothing in the white house, who would I be to complain?

But likely, he just sold his political viewpoint to the highest bidder.

Uh a lot of Democrats thought Reagan wqas a good president because if they didn't he would never had been re-elected. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans (at least back then there were) it was them crossing party lines that got him re-elected. Being a Democrat isn't the same as being a Liberal though to listen the the UC Spin you would never know.

 

[burnedout]

I like General Clark as a candidate. However, some 'waffling' issues exist on his behalf which I must reconcile before fully supporting him.

-Gays in the military: At his rally the other day here in Austin, he stated "we will go further than President Clinton did with the don't ask, don't tell policy". Here is a former company-grade, field-grade and general-grade officer who had jurisdiction over such matters. What I'm wondering is this: Did he prosecute and ultimately seperate any gays from the U.S. Army while in command? If a researcher can obtain UCMJ summaries during his time in command, this might become ugly for him.

-Medical marijuana: He supports it. Personally, so do I. However, he undoubtedly disciplined soldiers for marijuana (ab)use while serving as a unit commander. Indeed, both instances only relate to each other in a vague manner. Nevertheless, I question the underlying intent.

-Pro Choice: Personally, I also lean toward pro-choice. But wasn't General Clark raised with Catholicism after the death of his father?

We might say yes, General Clark has evolved despite his past. This may be true. I still wonder though.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: burnedout
I like General Clark as a candidate. However, some 'waffling' issues exist on his behalf which I must reconcile before fully supporting him.

-Gays in the military: At his rally the other day here in Austin, he stated "we will go further than President Clinton did with the don't ask, don't tell policy". Here is a former company-grade, field-grade and general-grade officer who had jurisdiction over such matters. What I'm wondering is this: Did he prosecute and ultimately seperate any gays from the U.S. Army while in command? If a researcher can obtain UCMJ summaries during his time in command, this might become ugly for him.

-Medical marijuana: He supports it. Personally, so do I. However, he undoubtedly disciplined soldiers for marijuana (ab)use while serving as a unit commander. Indeed, both instances only relate to each other in a vague manner. Nevertheless, I question the underlying intent.

-Pro Choice: Personally, I also lean toward pro-choice. But wasn't General Clark raised with Catholicism after the death of his father?

We might say yes, General Clark has evolved despite his past. This may be true. I still wonder though.

There is a difference, imo, between upholding the rules that are in place and liking them .

As for Reagan, he was the right president at the right time. His policies effectively ended the Cold War (though at a huge cost financially!). However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I support similar policies now. The world changes, and so does our diplomatic and financial needs. Recognizing the effectiveness of policy for a certain situation isn't the same as wanting to keep those policies in place in a different situation .

As for whether or not he's actually registered democrat yet...who cares? His views are conservative liberal, which suit me just fine.

 

[tnitsuj]

So Alchemize,what you are saying is that anyone who supported Ronald Reagan is incable of winning Democratic votes? What exactly is your problem with supporting Ronald Reagan?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I must be missing something, I don't get it. It's a bad thing for a D to say an R is doing a good job? Or am I missing the point somewhere?

Is that somehow being a traitor or something to the party?

"if you are not with us, you are against us" - Bush

 

[sandorski]

Me is confused.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So Alchemize,what you are saying is that anyone who supported Ronald Reagan is incable of winning Democratic votes? What exactly is your problem with supporting Ronald Reagan?

For the most part, liberals cannot stand reagan.