Wes Clark stands behind Dean

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:29 pm

"We've got to protect our freedom and our liberty," Clark said. "I'm proud of Howard Dean. I'm proud of the Democratic party. And we're going to stand together as a party."

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... -1/CITIZEN

It figures that Clark would get it.

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:45 pm

BSmack wrote:
"We've got to protect our freedom and our liberty," Clark said. "I'm proud of Howard Dean. I'm proud of the Democratic party. And we're going to stand together as a party."

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... -1/CITIZEN
It figures that Clark would get it.

he's our boy------

bill clinton/bill maher

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:05 pm

Yeah, shocker that a guy who's trying to keep his name in the news would back a guy who is constantly in front of the camera.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:11 pm

Only thing Clarke gets his hig mug back in the news for sucking off Dean.

Just be glad that this fuck-wit is nolonger in charge of anything more important than changing his own diaper.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:30 pm

mvscal wrote:Who?

Exactly what I thought. Is this guy still trying to get people to pay attention to him?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:32 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
mvscal wrote:Who?
Exactly what I thought. Is this guy still trying to get people to pay attention to him?

Who isn't? Like Bill Frist is angling for anonymity?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:51 pm

mvscal wrote:Bill Frist is Senate Majority leader.

Wes Clark resides in the 'where are they now and who ever cared' file.

And your point is what? Clark was one of 7 men to run for the Democratic nomination last year. He is a prospective candidate in 2008.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:56 pm

He is a prospective candidate in 2008.

C'mon, be serious. The guy has a better shot at the Rochester City Council, than the Presidency.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:22 pm

Variable wrote:
He is a prospective candidate in 2008.
C'mon, be serious. The guy has a better shot at the Rochester City Council, than the Presidency.

How do you know that? Who would have pegged Jimmy Carter as the next President in 1973? Who would have figured Ronald Reagan would have eventualy won office after his aborted 1968 attempt? The fact remains that Clark is a former and likely future candidate.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:27 pm

So are Joe Biden and Al Sharpton. Your point?

I hate the years between elections when the pseudo-important people who got creamed in the election hold mini press conferences at Tupperware Parties and elementary school graduations in an effort to stay in the public eye. Just go away, already.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

Variable wrote:So are Joe Biden and Al Sharpton. Your point?

I hate the years between elections when the pseudo-important people who got creamed in the election hold mini press conferences at Tupperware Parties and elementary school graduations in an effort to stay in the public eye. Just go away, already.

It is how you compete with the power of incumbent office holders. And it beats wall to wall Jackson trial coverage.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:39 pm

It is how you compete with the power of incumbent office holders.

I get why they do it, it makes total sense, I just hate it. Plus, when you're talking about a guy like Wesley Clark, who was pretty much fifth place in all put a couple of primaries, it grates on the nerves.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:49 pm

Variable wrote:
It is how you compete with the power of incumbent office holders.
I get why they do it, it makes total sense, I just hate it. Plus, when you're talking about a guy like Wesley Clark, who was pretty much fifth place in all put a couple of primaries, it grates on the nerves.

Well, we could be like the British and require our head of Government to be a member of Congress. That would solve that problem.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:54 pm

I'd rather we also did like the British (I think it's them) where they campaign for two weeks prior to the election and that's it. Our current system, where a 1st term President spends much of year 4 campaigning rather than doing his job, is antiquated to say the least. I think two weeks would be perfect.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:07 pm

mvscal wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with our system.

But, but, but we keep losing. It has to be broken.

Sin,
Democrats.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:16 pm

There is absolutely nothing wrong with our system.

There isn't? As it stands now, the candidate who raises the most money (read: accepts the most technically legal bribes) to pay for the most tv spots and/or best marketing group is the one who wins.

Hell, one of the main reasons PACs have so much influence on capitol hill is because of the cost of purchasing television advertising while running a campaign. And you don't think our system is flawed?

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:29 pm

Variable wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our system.
There isn't? As it stands now, the candidate who raises the most money (read: accepts the most technically legal bribes) to pay for the most tv spots and/or best marketing group is the one who wins.

Hell, one of the main reasons PACs have so much influence on capitol hill is because of the cost of purchasing television advertising while running a campaign. And you don't think our system is flawed?

You think elections are won based on tv spots and marketing??

No wonder you don't understand our electoral process and think it is broken.

I'd say the only problem with the electoral process are the sore losers...

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:27 pm

mvscal wrote:Nope.

There isn't a better system.

No disagreement there. That doesn't mean that you don't ever try to make it better. Our constitution is the standard by which others are written, yet it has been ammended whenever it became clear that change was needed.

Dr. D wrote:You think elections are won based on tv spots and marketing??

No wonder you don't understand our electoral process and think it is broken.

I'd say the only problem with the electoral process are the sore losers...

Good lord, Detroit. Who said anything about the electoral process? Calm down, Beavis.

I said I like the British system where opponents campaign for two weeks. That's it. I'd like to see that change implemented. That's all. System not broken. Comprende?

Let me know of one major political candidate in the modern age who won an election without running millions of dollars in television commercials. Just one.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:31 pm

Correlation does not equal causation. Learn it and love it.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:55 pm

Obviously that would be the quickest way to truly fuck things up.

Or the quickest way to solve things. Really, how would changing the campaign period to two weeks fuck things up?

Take that half-assed abortion, McCain-Feingold. Far from getting money out of politics, it made money in politics even less accountable.

Sure, some things get fucked up or bastardized along the way, but that doesn't mean you give up on everything and just accept things if they're shitty.

The road to hell was paved by dipshits trying to "make things better".

So is the road to prosperity. You don't not try just because there's risk involved. Again, how would that small change take us "down the road to hell?"

Who gives a fuck? The flip side is that the losers have also spent millions in TV coverage.

Brilliant logic. You forgot "It's been that way for a long time."

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:59 pm

What is there to "solve?"

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:17 pm

variable wrote:Our current system, where a 1st term President spends much of year 4 campaigning rather than doing his job, is antiquated to say the least. I think two weeks would be perfect.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:18 pm

mvscal wrote:
Variable wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our system.
There isn't? As it stands now, the candidate who raises the most money (read: accepts the most technically legal bribes) to pay for the most tv spots and/or best marketing group is the one who wins.

Hell, one of the main reasons PACs have so much influence on capitol hill is because of the cost of purchasing television advertising while running a campaign. And you don't think our system is flawed?
Nope.

There isn't a better system.

How about one where third party candidates have more than an iceballs chance in hell of surviving, are given access to national debates. etc. so the public actually gets to see other options?

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:43 pm

What is there to solve?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:08 am

Wes Clark resides in the 'where are they now and who ever cared' file.

Clark was one of 7 men to run for the Democratic nomination last year.

A little redundent here.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:13 am

Mister Bushice wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Variable wrote: There isn't? As it stands now, the candidate who raises the most money (read: accepts the most technically legal bribes) to pay for the most tv spots and/or best marketing group is the one who wins.

Hell, one of the main reasons PACs have so much influence on capitol hill is because of the cost of purchasing television advertising while running a campaign. And you don't think our system is flawed?
Nope.

There isn't a better system.
How about one where third party candidates have more than an iceballs chance in hell of surviving, are given access to national debates. etc. so the public actually gets to see other options?

Of course you realize that implementing such a system would require the support of one of the viable parties.

At this point in time, voting third party does exactly nothing.

T1B

Wes Clark stands behind Dean

Wes Clark stands behind Dean

Re: Wes Clark stands behind Dean