mudcat.org: BS: Clark for Prez
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: Clark for Prez

Alice 28 Sep 03 - 06:54 PM
McGrath of Harlow 28 Sep 03 - 04:21 PM
Alice 28 Sep 03 - 12:29 AM
GUEST,pdq 27 Sep 03 - 01:19 PM
GUEST,Frankham 26 Sep 03 - 08:05 PM
Don Firth 26 Sep 03 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,pdc 25 Sep 03 - 07:38 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Sep 03 - 07:34 PM
GUEST,pdq 25 Sep 03 - 07:30 PM
GUEST,pdc 25 Sep 03 - 02:14 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Sep 03 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,pdc 25 Sep 03 - 01:18 PM
Don Firth 25 Sep 03 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,pdc 25 Sep 03 - 12:46 AM
katlaughing 25 Sep 03 - 12:26 AM
GUEST,pdc 24 Sep 03 - 06:24 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Sep 03 - 10:11 PM
Reiver 2 23 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM
Ebbie 23 Sep 03 - 12:00 PM
Alice 22 Sep 03 - 10:14 PM
Charley Noble 22 Sep 03 - 10:10 PM
Nerd 22 Sep 03 - 03:45 PM
GUEST,pdq 22 Sep 03 - 02:15 PM
Raptor 22 Sep 03 - 01:51 PM
Nerd 22 Sep 03 - 03:05 AM
Reiver 2 21 Sep 03 - 10:38 PM
Alice 21 Sep 03 - 05:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 03 - 04:48 PM
michaelr 21 Sep 03 - 04:47 PM
Alice 21 Sep 03 - 02:02 PM
GUEST,Frankham 21 Sep 03 - 01:08 PM
toadfrog 20 Sep 03 - 09:36 PM
GUEST,pdq 20 Sep 03 - 05:05 PM
Big Mick 19 Sep 03 - 10:09 PM
Charley Noble 19 Sep 03 - 09:13 PM
michaelr 19 Sep 03 - 07:29 PM
Amos 19 Sep 03 - 07:22 PM
toadfrog 19 Sep 03 - 07:04 PM
Peg 19 Sep 03 - 04:51 PM
curmudgeon 18 Sep 03 - 08:50 PM
McGrath of Harlow 18 Sep 03 - 08:38 PM
TIA 18 Sep 03 - 03:28 PM
Rapparee 18 Sep 03 - 03:07 PM
McGrath of Harlow 18 Sep 03 - 02:16 PM
TIA 18 Sep 03 - 02:13 PM
Uncle_DaveO 18 Sep 03 - 02:05 PM
McGrath of Harlow 18 Sep 03 - 01:41 PM
Amos 18 Sep 03 - 01:26 PM
TIA 18 Sep 03 - 01:19 PM
Charley Noble 18 Sep 03 - 12:47 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 06:54 PM

For more Bush similarities, check this out.... spooky.

http://www.fiziwig.com/bushnclark.html
Click here
Separated at birth?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:21 PM

That speech reads a bit like a more articulate and intelligent Bush, which takes some imagining.

But at least you get the impression that he actually knows where these places are, and has some understanding of the complexities involved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 12:29 AM

From what I have read about Clark so far, I am concerned that he is still a Bush-backer, now in sheep's clothing. Clark is well educated, has a made for TV persona, name recognition, but until recently, he was making public speeches promoting the current Bush administration. To change into a Bush opponent so quickly makes me skeptical about Clark.

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal about Clark's record and quotes from a speech to the Republican Party Clark made in Little Rock, praising W.Bush and the administration.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004066

Alice


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 27 Sep 03 - 01:19 PM

frankham- Thanks, Frank, but I cannot let that statement about Waco stand without a rebuttal. Here is what I said:

"Sorry folks, but when Middle America finds out that Gen Clark is the one who sent 17 tanks into Waco, where over 80 people were killed, he will be toast. "

1) The people in The Branch Dividian compound were Christians, although they may not qualify under your definition. Cult is a loaded term and is usually used by opponants as a term of derision.

2) The people died when the compound caught fire. It happened because the army used flammable CS gas which was ignited by pilot lights in the stoves. Surveillance cameras show clearly that the fire started in the kitchen.

3) The term murder is yours, not mine. I see Waco a tragic accident and a good example of why the U.S. Army is not supposed to be used against civilians.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 26 Sep 03 - 08:05 PM

Dear GUEST,pdq
The 80 people you mentioned at Waco were murdered by the leader of the so-called Davidian cult.

Hi Amos, Having had no prior governmental qualifications means not having held public office but extensive military experience. Describes George Washington perfectly.

That said, a general in the military must have executive experience which may or may not translate into running an efficient government.
I would suggest, though without really knowing too much about it, that it would take political experience to survive the military hierarchy.

The guy currently running the show is on record as a failed businessman in oil.

Hi Charley,

As I understand the war in Kosovo, it was given the green light by the Clinton administration. Not clear as to why this nearly started WWIII. It seems to me that the Bush invasion would fit this description more neatly.


I can't understand why the Waco incident has become such a cause celebre against the US government. Do people really think that if the Davidian cult were left alone that it would govern itself within the guidelines of the law? Do they really think that those buildings and the people in them would be spared if let alone from another kind of brutality? Maybe this is a rhetorical question based on the idea that there is something inimically wrong with government, a Libertarian idea. Something goes wrong, it has to be the government's fault?

It may well be that he spearheaded the invasion of Panama. But where is this idea come from that he advised Israel on using force to subdue Palestinian? I'd like to see more proof of this (not that it isn't possible).

I understand that the term "cowboy" regarding military agression was coined by Adolph Hitler (which is neither here nor there).

You are right though. These questions need answering. Dean also has claimed support for Israel. This may entail subduing Palestinians as well judging from the actions of the Sharon government.

Damn, it's the lesser of two (or more) evils again! Apparently God in His wisdom didn't care to make politicians particularly honorable and made them notably flawed. :)

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 03 - 02:17 PM

My great-grandfather was from Orkney and came over in 1851 with the Hudson's Bay Company. Yeth, indeed.

Really, folks, I've heard all the gags! Even started some of them myself.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 07:38 PM

I met Fred once, and fell in love. But he just drifted on...

(Okay, I'll behave and get back on topic.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 07:34 PM

Fred Drift!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 07:30 PM

Firth IS better than lath.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 02:14 PM

Yeth, I know! If it was Scotch, it would be a fifth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 01:38 PM

"Firth of Forth" is in Scotland.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 01:18 PM

Thath why you come firth inthtead of fourth!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 12:45 PM

I have always made it a point to note the differences between pdq and pdc.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 12:46 AM

I'm actually pdc, kat, but you may call me by my first p.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 12:26 AM

pdq, thanks for the link!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 06:24 PM

A friend just sent me the following site, which is entertaining (turn up your sound) but also very serious -- make sure you read each fade-in as it comes along. This is terrific stuff!

Voterrevolution


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:11 PM

I posted this on the other thread about Clark/Dean:

Clark's response when asked about gun control - as quoted in that Michael Moore piece to which a link was given earlier - was nicely done: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them."

It was a beautifully phrased soundbite. And rather neatly, it manages to do it without being dismissive of gun-freaks - in fact it's the opposite, quite flattering and welcoming. But without backing off from a potentially contriversial position.

And the response about America being "founded as a liberal democracy" was similarly adroit, pulling the rug from under the liberal-haters, and implying that they are the ones who are un-patriotic.

He either thinks well on his feet, or he's got a very good scriptwriter and coach.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Reiver 2
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM

I'd have no difficulty with a Dean-Clark ticket. I agree we've got to get the Bushies out. I voted Green in 2000 (and here in AZ it made no difference)... but if I'd been in Florida... I won't do that again.

Reiver 2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:00 PM

Here's what I wrote last night- just as the Cat crashed:

At this point the only thing I'm sure of is that whoever the Democratic candidate is, I will work for him or her. Green, for me, is completely out in this next election- we need to get this crowd out of Washington.

McGrath: "things are going to get very dirty indeed". My hope is that certain political elements won't feel pushed too far, and take matters into their own hands. This is the first administration I have felt such dread about.

Get 'em out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:14 PM

Dean's position is here:
Dean's Record On Women's Issues Click here for PDF


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:10 PM

Reiver 2

Intersting quote from the Common Dreams Website of Clark getting caught up in the euphoria of "liberating" Bahgdad. I know some of the folks who coordinate that website and they generally have their heads screwed on with a left hand thread. In fact I worked full-time for one of them, Tom Andrews, in a failed U.S. Senate campaign. Nice folks but they sure burned out the campaign staff.

Let's keep this thread going.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 03:45 PM

So far the only place I've seen Dean's positon on abortion rights specifically mentioned is the Boston Globe:

"As governor of Vermont for five terms, Dean angered the left by seeking the counsel of a group of conservative businessmen, and he angered the right with staunch support for abortion rights and conservation."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/264/nation/Born_to_privilege_searching_for_a_purposeP.shtml


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 02:15 PM

raptor: Sad fact, but it is getting more dfficult to tell the truth from the lies no matter what subject or who is talking. The Clintons still run the Democrat party as the presence of Nancy Pelosi and Terry McAuliffe prove. The Clintons must be very worried about Dean, the only candidate who is not begging the Clintons for support. Be careful in assuming that Clark is on the "up and up". He may be a "plant" by the Clintons to divide the "outsider" vote. Hillary/Clark ticket, anyone?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Raptor
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 01:51 PM

I say Dixie Chicks For President!!!!

Hillery? She couldn't even manage her husband let alone the counrty!

Is the waco thing true about Clark?

Raptor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 03:05 AM

Reiver 2,

a correction: Dean does not oppose gun control. His position is that the Federal rules as they stand are fine (but that they should be better enforced), and that the states should then have a right to institute whatever gun control they feel they need. His point is that in Vermont there is practically no gun crime, so ordinary Vermonters would feel that strict gun laws weren't useful to them. In New York or Illinois, many people would want stricter gun laws. The NRA has given him a very high rating for these positions, which could actually help him win.

Also, a confirmation. Dean is a centrist and calls himself one. It's the media and the right that has somehow decided to paint him as a liberal. This has much to do with his signing the civil union law, giving unmarried couples, including gay couples, the right to register as couples and obtain the same legal rights as married couples have. This has infuriated the right, even in Vermont.

I still like Dean better than Clark given what I've seen, and a Dean/Clark team could be great. But it's not necessary for them to decide which will be first on the ticket just yet. All they need to do is pledge not to attack one another, and that if one wins the nomination the other will have first crack at the VP spot. Then they can see what happens from there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Reiver 2
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 10:38 PM

I watched the Little Rock speech, too. I was a little disappointed... not by what he said, but by how he said it. He seemed a bit tentative and stiff. He needs to project a warmer personality if he wants to win. I still haven't made up my mind, but I'd vote for ANYBODY to get rid of the disaster we've got in power now. Kucinich is the candidate I find myself most in agreement with and probably Braun next, but they have no chance for the nomination. I like Kerry and think he can stand up to Bush on the (phony) "patriotism" issue, but somehow Kerry just doesn't project enough... "passion" I guess you'd call it.

A couple of things: Dean is very much a centrist and not a liberal. He's a fiscal conservative, has opposed gun control and is lukewarm at best on a woman's right to choose. People mistake him for a liberal because he opposed the war in Iraq and opposes Bush. Still I have to admire the campaign he's run, use of the internet, and... yes, his passion. I'd vote for him if he gets the nomination but I'm still not ready to commit to him.

As for Clark, I'm keeping an open mind. I saw some things on Working Assets Radio (http://www.workingassetsradio.com) that raised some questions in my mind:

"Former NATO commander Wesley Clark has thrown his hat into the ring. He's the first four-star general to run for president as a Democrat, and he's anti-war. At least that's what the media say: The Boston Globe called him 'A former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war.' Salon called Clark a 'fervent critic of the war with Iraq.'

But the website Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/)has posted the General's commentary from the London Times this April. It reads in part: 'Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation... the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air... President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.'

And the media-watch group FAIR (http://www.fair.org/) has pointed out that Clark, as a paid pundit for CNN, said that Saddam Hussein 'does have weapons of mass destruction.' 'And you could say that categorically?' Clark was resolute: 'Absolutely.' (1/18/03)

It makes you wonder about the media's definition of anti-war. Maybe he opposes it now, but then? It doesn't sound like it."

Still, I care more what he says now, than what he said then. People sometimes do grow, become enlightened, or whatever, and change. So, again, if he's nominated I'll vote for him... just not yet ready to commit to him for the nomination.

Reiver 2 (Bryce) (Sorry this is so long... but when did you know me to be brief?)
http://news-opinion.blog-city.com (my own personal blog site)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 05:27 PM

I just watched Clark's Little Rock speech about his candidacy, broadcast on CSPAN. Clark has a masters degree in Philosophy and in Economics (pay attention, Mr. Bush). Clark did use some obvious Dean lines, like "we can do better", which has been a Dean campaign slogan from the beginning. I think it is going to be a very interesting primary. I liked Clark's statements about questioning the current policies... he clearly stated it is true patriotism to question what the government is doing in Iraq and with the economy - that made the crowd cheer.

Alice


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 04:48 PM

very little of the voting population is "up for grabs".

But the voting population is only half of the population that has votes, but for various reasons doesn't see fit to use them. (Or in some cases got stopped using them by the crooks in charge of rigging the vote, which is why you - and all of us for that matter - got landed with Bush.)

There's lots of room for surprises from the people who haven't seen anyone worth voting for in previous elections.

One think I predict - things are going to get very dirty indeed. I am sure Bush doesn't want to see this guy up against him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 04:47 PM

Guest, pdq writes: "That means 90% is not open for change unless it involves misconduct."

Well, then we'd better convince the Dems to go after the Bush team for their lies, misrepresentations, and war crimes! Misconduct is a polite word for what those bastards did and are doing.

I was thinking it would be better strategy for the Dems to hammer Bush on taxes, unemployment, the economy, and the environment, and not concentrate on the war where the Resident is sure to play the patriot card. What do you think?

Cheers,
Michael


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 02:02 PM

Here is an interesting quote from Clark in Newsweek:

WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president's political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. "I would have been a Republican," Clark told them, "if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a "humorous tweak." The two others said it was anything but. "He went into detail about his grievances," Holtzman said. "Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked."


Is Bush a one term president? Question of the day poll:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/poll.shtml


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 01:08 PM

I think that sometimes the only person to really understand the nature of war might be a dedicated military man. At least they can assess the cost unlike Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I'm not sure Clark would want to appropriate slush funds for the Pentagon. It sounds as those he's his own man and not given to swallow the Pentagon line.

I think he can beat Bush.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: toadfrog
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 09:36 PM

Sorry Mick. Surely I respect your views. But when I here someone say "trust me," I know I'm in trouble. Bad news, that turn of phrase.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 05:05 PM

Truth be known, very little of the voting population is "up for grabs". Union member votes in federal elections comprise 25% even though unions are about 13% of the total U.S. work force. Add to this 92% of black voters, 85% of Jewish, and the vast majority of new immigrants and the Democrats have about 42% before the nomination process even begins. It does not matter who is nominated. Clinton got 42 1/2 % of the total vote count when he was first elected in 1992. The great "middle", mostly rural America and Christians, give the Republicans about 48%. That means 90% is not open for change unless it involves misconduct. The 10% remaining is actually +/- 5% if you want to look at it that way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 10:09 PM

Well toadfrog, I guess we will see. The problem with your thesis is that it presumes the voters in the states you cited are democratically oriented. That hasn't been the case in a number of years. It is true that the Democratic nominee will have to turn out the base, but it is always a battle for the middle. Trust me on this one.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 09:13 PM

Interesting, Michael.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 07:29 PM

Turns out Clark was fired by the Pentagon, ostensibly for being hard to get along with. This is from Richard Cohen's Washington Post column, Sept. 18:

...then-Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, joined by many of Clark's colleagues, came to just plain dislike him... He won the respect, even the awe, of his colleagues, but too much of the time he did not win their friendship. The rap on Clark is that he lacks precisely those qualities that define a politician, particularly warmth and affability... even his most steadfast champion in the army, Gen. John Shalikashvili, recognized that Clark was too brash, too cocky, too driven, too self-absorbed, too hard on subordinates, too dismissive of critics and criticism - but, also, too brilliant and talented to be overlooked... the personal qualities that bothered his critics would be intolerable in a president.

FWIW...

Cheers,
Michael


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 07:22 PM

I believe this will be a Dewey versus Truman kind of election with a nasty surprise biting the Republicans. Keep your fingers crossed!!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: toadfrog
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 07:04 PM

I don't believe any of those guys has enough experience to run the country. Clinton took 3-4 years to catch on. Bush still hasn't caught on. I want to see a whole bunch more of Clark before I believe in him. And a whole lot more of Dean, although I like him. It's a job that requires a lot more in the way of understanding, political skills, communication skills and force of personality than specialized knowledge.

I disagree with Mick. This election won't be won in the "great middle." Things have changed a lot since 1992. Even a General from Arkansas is not going to carry Arkansas, if he's a Democrat. To win, a Democrat is going to have to bring out the Democrats, en masse, in places like Ohio, Florida, New Jersey. To do that, Clark will have to discover some populist roots. Bottom line: I vote for whoever the Democrats nominate (unless it's Lieberman - then I guess I turn Green).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Peg
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 04:51 PM

Dave O. (and others): I think the concern over Clark's lack of experience in government might be amended to suggest he has    little experience with ECONOMICS: balancing a budget, seeing   trends, understanding how to keep social programs afloat even in the midst of cuts, etc. One also fears he might want to spend an exhorbitant amount on military funding and we simply don't need any more of that in the near future. Our economy is tanking and the rest of the world hates us. Our next prez has his or    her work cut out.
I think he'd be great to have in the cabinet, though. Maybe as Chief of Staff? That guy Leo Mcgarry on The West Wing seems to run the country.
(sigh)   yes, I would like to have Martin Sheen for president right about now, as a matter of fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: curmudgeon
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:50 PM

The reference to playing blues guitar was Howard Dean, not Wesley Clark. But maybe, like Schwartzkopf he plays autoharp?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:38 PM

I think this must be a different Wesley Clark. Shame really - he appears to be musical enough.

Though look what happened when you had a saxophone player for President. And Tony Blair can play guitar. Doesn't really help.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: TIA
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:28 PM

Haven't found anything on his musical abilty, but he studied economics at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Also, currently a licensed investment banker.

His economic credentials seem better than Bush's military credentials.

Now, what instrument does he play.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:07 PM

Regarding Clark and various invasions, etc.:

In the US, civilians run the military -- says so in the Constitution, and EVERY member of the Armed Forces takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Thus, if Reagan (I have a personal problem with adding the word "President" to his name) said to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Invade Canada" the invasion would be the responsibility of the President, NOT of the JCS.

However, no member of the US Armed Forces is required to carry out any order which they find illegal-- but you'd better be right about it, be willing to take the consequences, or be willing to quit rather than compromise your opinions.

I want to hear more about Clark, though, before making any decisions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:16 PM

Isn't the fact that he hasn't got governmental experience likely to be a positive thing for a lot of your voters?

Is there any evidence that people with lot of governmental experience are any particular use? After all, being governor of a huge state like Texas sounds as if it would be a guarantee of some kind of competence...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: TIA
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:13 PM

In answer to MoH's question...

(excerpt from Christian Science Monitor article, May, 2002)

"Howard Dean tips back his cowboy hat, adjusts his guitar, and lets fly some fancy finger picking. The crowd of state lawmakers hoots in delight, clearly surprised at their 11-year incumbent governor's musical prowess. They roar even louder as he launches into a parody of his recent cross-country travels to the tune of "On the Road Again. "Just a nonpolitical tour of the United States," he croons, his female staff singing back-up vocals. "Everyone's my friend, if they're from a state with lots of delegates, but I'm not a candidate.... Yet!""

Off to check on Clark's musical ability...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:05 PM

As to the statement, repeated above several times in essence, that Clark doesn't have governmental experience, I have two things to point out:

1. He DOES have lots of experience running large organizations. Yes, it's true he doesn't have political (as in beating the bushes for votes) experience, but if you don't think there's a lot of politicking necessary in the rise to and executing general's rank in the Army, you're sadly misinformed, say I.

2. No significant public officer is just an individual. He (she?)is a team, with experts, specialists, allies, and advisers--and with obligations and debts which have to be served, for good or ill. This applies whether the officer is a judge, a governor, a legislator, a general, or POTUS. So one needs to look at the connections a candidate makes, the quality of his support, and try to find out what kind of management style he exemplified in his tenure as a commanding general. Eisenhower, for instance, was a "staff general", building bridges, maintaining consensus both within his staff and in relations with WW II allies. A "top-down" general would be a different kind of potential president altogether.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:41 PM

So can these guys play the blues or not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:26 PM

SOrry, TIA -- I should have written "the rational civilian (who can play the blues) in the first position".

What it is see, is that I secretly believe that the ability to play the blues well is a kind of intelligence test far more accurate than the mechanistic sort espoused by the psychological weenies. (Oh, sorry, Harp!! :>)))

The litmus test is whether or not one can combine the words, emotions, and technical skills required ALL AT ONCE to create a persuasive presentation of affect. It's a purdy good test when you think about it!!

And maybe other kinds of music -- providing they contain genuine emotion--could qualify similarly, such as Zydeco. But not the super-refined stuff with the false veneer. We can leave that to the Bush WHackers.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: TIA
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:19 PM

Mind always on music, I read the first part of Amos' sentence...
"the rational civilian who can play the blues in the first position...", and thought he was implying he couldn't go up the neck. Rest of sentence quickly disabused that notion.

Someone asked about Clark's grasp of the economy. I heard somewhere that he taught economics at West Point. Is this true?

Dean/Clark...Clark/Dean...hmmm...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:47 PM

CORRECTION!!!

According to my Peace contacts:

"I mispoke regarding General Wesley Clark's role in the invasion of Panama. He didn't assume command of the Southern Command until 1996. General Maxwell Thurman commanded the invasion of Panama."

At least my friends still make an effort to verify their remarks on the internet.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 4 March 7:39 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.