Page 1 of 1
Wes Clark stands behind Dean
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:29 pm
by BSmack
It figures that Clark would get it.
Re: Wes Clark stands behind Dean
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:45 pm
by mothster
BSmack wrote:
It figures that Clark would get it.
he's our boy------
bill clinton/bill maher
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:05 pm
by Variable
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:11 pm
by DrDetroit
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:30 pm
by Bizzarofelice
mvscal wrote:Who?
Exactly what I thought. Is this guy still trying to get people to pay attention to him?
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:32 pm
by BSmack
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?
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:51 pm
by BSmack
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:56 pm
by Variable
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:22 pm
by BSmack
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:27 pm
by Variable
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm
by BSmack
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:39 pm
by Variable
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:49 pm
by BSmack
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:54 pm
by Variable
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:07 pm
by DrDetroit
mvscal wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with our system.
But, but, but we keep losing. It has to be broken.
Sin,
Democrats.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:16 pm
by Variable
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?
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:29 pm
by DrDetroit
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...
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:27 pm
by Variable
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:31 pm
by DrDetroit
Correlation does not equal causation. Learn it and love it.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:55 pm
by Variable
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."
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:59 pm
by DrDetroit
What is there to "solve?"
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:17 pm
by Variable
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:18 pm
by Mister Bushice
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?
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:43 pm
by DrDetroit
What is there to solve?
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:08 am
by Diogenes
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.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:13 am
by Diogenes
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.