Clark Favors Flag - Burning Amendment

[Noordam]

AP NEWS


November 11, 2003
Clark Favors Flag - Burning Amendment
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:36 p.m. ET

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Breaking with most of his Democratic rivals, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Tuesday he favors amending the Constitution to ban flag burning.

Lawmakers have debated such an amendment almost annually since 1989, when the Supreme Court ruled that destroying the American flag amounted to protected free speech.

In June, the Republican-controlled House approved a one-line change to the Constitution -- ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States'' -- for the fifth time in eight years. The Senate never has passed the proposed amendment.

Speaking at an American Legion hall on Veterans Day, Clark said he agrees with the amendment, although he cautioned that true patriotism involves more than respecting symbols.


..more at article...

[Leados]

1. I have to disagree with Gen. Clark on this issue. I cannot live

with partial freedoms.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goobergunch]

34. Why? (n/t)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bucky]

69. I'm VERY disappointed w/ Clark on this. It won't cost him my vote, but...

Clark is just wrong on this. Way wrong. He seems like a reasonable person and certainly any Democratic administration is going to have enough advisors who see clearly on this issue to turn him toward the light.

I can't see him putting any political muscle behind this idea--sort of like Reagan's lip service to abortion bans while doing very little to put a policy in effect.

I'm very disappointed. Still, I can see where a man who dedicated 30 years of his life to the army would want to protect the most cherished symbol of the country. But it is only a symbol and outlawing the use of it for opposing statements is fundamentally unfair and contrary to what the rest of the Constitution stands for.

[Bucky]

74. Oh, BTW, my favorite flag-desecration incident

... is when Poppy Bush on one of his four White House birthdays got a cake where the frosting was in the configuration of the American flag. First he cut the flag, then they all ate the flag, and then they all pooped the flag out their Republican keisters.

Now THAT's what I call desecration!

[Leados]

99. Actually, its a defecation

[Voltaire99]

89. It will probably cost him mine. What pandering cowardice.

Those afraid of freedom have no business trying to lead a democracy.

Your point - that it's all for show - is well taken. However, in an age of shrinking civil liberties, neither America nor the Democratic Party can afford trafficking in fascist solutions.

So much for the "liberal" buried beneath the bombardier!

[saigon68]

95. Clark won't be nominated.

He's a Dino and any true party member for any length of time sees him as an opportunist and a shill. In my neck of the woods where 100 miles south there still exists a Serb Hall, and a real labor movement and he is regarded as a crass hypocrit and a man, who has a lot of explaining to do about his role in Kosovo.

[DeathvadeR]

92. Keep extending your false hopes into a symbolic lie.

You want to pursue something pursue this........
<>
And apply it to this.......
<>

[La_Serpiente]

2. Geezers

I don't like burning the flag, but sometimes, there needs to be free speech. Even Scalia voted to overturn the Texas anti-flag burning law.

[Kahuna]

3. This is very dissapointing. But it's not a deal breaker...

I don't think he would try to actually amend the constitution to ban flag desecration. I hope not any way.

[La_Serpiente]

5. They've been trying to do it for years

It's the only way they can. The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 (I think it was then) but they made a ruling saying that anti-flag burning laws were unconstitutional because it was a violation of free speech. Even Scalia was in the majority on that ruling, and it was 5-4.

[soupkitchen]

4. Now I will never vote for Wesley Clark

Anybody who would waste our time with flag burning amendments is too simplistic for me.

[ResistTheCoup]

10. Kucinich and Gephardt also support the amendment

I was disappointed to hear this but I'd also like to hear more on what he says about it.

Also surprised to find out that Gephardt and Kucinich (the one who I always thought was closes to my own personal beliefs) are also for it and have voted for it!

Here are the links:

http://ontheissues.org/House/Dick_Gephardt_Civil_Rights.htm

Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Reference: Resolution proposed by Cunningham, R-CA; Bill HJ.Res.33 ; vote number 1999-252 on Jun 24, 1999


http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Civil_Rights.htm

Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration.
Proposing a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Bill HJRES 36 ; vote number 2001-232 on Jul 17, 2001

[Guaranteed]

35. I'm not voting for them, either.

I can't believe anyone would try to do that. The freedom to burn the flag is what America is all about. It's the only thing worth fighting about the United States government that's worth fighting for.

[bread_and_roses]

61. DK too?

I missed that...obviously not keeping up. Oh well, another one bites the dust.

[robbedvoter]

13. Are all Kuchinich supporters on the same page with you?

Because the guy voted for it and still passes as the most liberal candidate...

[Trek234]

32. Care to tell us

who is more liberal than kucinich?

[Bucky]

72. Care to tell us

what is more conservative that banning free speech?

[arcos]

6. Who else supports this ammendment, apart from Kucinich and Clark? n/t

[ResistTheCoup]

12. Gephardt (see Post 10) n/t

n/t

[dean4america]

7. surprising, but maybe not

I'm surprised at this, but maybe not given his military background. The few military men that I know are steadfast in their abhorrence of flag burners, so i can maybe kind of see where he is coming from. It's not a make or break issue, but it is kind of disappointing to hear, even though he's not my top choice.

[ProudGerman]

64. My dad's a 20 year vet

He's said several times that he sacrificed 20 years of his youth to protect your right to burn the flag. There are more people in the military than you think that don't like flag burning, but also don't quite like the idea of raising a mere piece of multi colored polyester to sacred status.

But if they are gonna go for against flag desecration, can we lock up the repubs who run around in flag colored clothing? (like the repub politician who ran for local office around here, all her commercials showed her in a flag shirt, not a flag on a shirt, but a flag shirt)

[rocktivity]

8. It we don't have the right to burn the flag

Then we don't have the right to wave it. If you don't approve of flag burning, DON'T DO IT!!!!


rocknation

[gratuitous]

9. Dammit, aren't there any REAL issues to talk about?!

This stone-headed proposal keeps floating to the top of the toilet bowl, like an immature turd. It doesn't mean anything, and the 14 people in the country who care so much about it aren't worth the vote-courting this demagoguery takes. I would donate heavily to the first candidate who, when asked this asinine question, rolls his or her eyes, makes an impatient sighing sound and dismisses the reporter or questioner with a curt "Don't you think there are more important topics to discuss? What do you think about the disgrace that there are 40 million uninsured children in the richest country in the world?"

Clark should have side-stepped this stupid non-issue.

[robbedvoter]

14. I agree.

:-(

[Rose Siding]

18. I'd vote for him

but crap! How is it that so many of us can be so divergent on the basics?

**not in any way exclusive to Clark- all the candidates have some freaky thing or other that must be overlooked

[dusty64]

87. Me too.

x

[LiberalTexan]

21. Real issues?

I certainly take offense as a person who's been restricted to First Amendment Zones, pushed into silence off to the corner of some side street, told what is freedom of speech and what isn't. I marched in November, December, January, February, March, April.....flag burning and the thought of losing it was pretty DAMN important to all of us then. Now all of a sudden it isn't just because Wes Clark doesn't want to see us do it?

I take issue. It IS real.

[gratuitous]

43. Well, my point (and I recall that I did have one)

Is that of all the things a candidate has to talk about, I'd rather hear about practically anything other than a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. To wit:

The millions of uninsured children in this country
Homelessness
Chronic mental illness
Real enforcement powers given to the NLRB
A revitalized SEC to watch over the greedheads on Wall Street
Building and infrastructure restoration projects
Foreign aid
Prescription drug availability
Updating the Mining Act of 1872
Fair royalty payments for extraction industries
Job training programs that really work
Assistance to first time home buyers
Living wage laws

And so on, and so forth.

[Guaranteed]

37. This is EXTEMELY important.

It shows whether or not candidates actually understand what the word "freedom" means.

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. Well said!

[Voltaire99]

91. This is Clark's version of "Mission Accomplished"

You're right. The nation's bleeding, literally in Iraq and figuratively economically. Why talk about destroying our freedoms?

Clark's use of this grief-filled holiday to play to this coarse anti-speech sentiment is substantively little different from Bush's histrionic flight deck landing: it's an abandonment of real issues for the cheap, easy substitution of patriotic claptrap.

Shame on Clark for pretending to be liberal. But thanks to him, too, for showing his true colors.

[Mairead]

11. I have to think it's political calculation

Like all the bills that get brought up and solemnly voted on to appease the constituency ...and then left to rot in committee

[Pale_Rider]

28. Thats my thinking as well ...

... appeasement of his military and barely moderate right-wing constituency in order to court their vote. To create a landslide to ensure the ouster of the Shrub, some things will have to be spoken that the majority of us liberals may disagree with. I'm pretty sure Clark won't be advocating socialism to win more of the left-wing votes. Also as a previous poster noted, most military types are mo' flag-lovers than flag-burners.

Anyway seems strange Dean made comments about the Confederate flag and now we have Clark making comments about the American flag. Wonder if Clark will be criticized for his remarks?

[Paschall]

101. Appeasement? With regard to Clark that earns a big "Ouch!"

I'm sure others will call it pandering.

[goobergunch]

15. Disappointing, but not even close to enough for disqualification IMO (n/t)

[maddezmom]

16. disappointed but not surprised with his background

but in the scheme of things...I can live with it.

[seventhson]

17. Clark would probably favor a burn the Constitution amendment too

It's the same thing.

Tyrrany can exist under ANY flag.

Honor the Constitution not a symbol.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I don't like an amendment such as this either......

but it doesn't make even a little dent in my support. I believe that Clark is a true patriot and that the flag means something to him. Hell, he took 4 bullets for it. I think that if this country got it's act together, than the flag would be a much more worthwhile symbol. This part of his reasoning does reassure me.....that it's what's behind the symbol that counts, and currently there is not much there, there.

Speaking at an American Legion hall on Veterans Day, Clark said he agrees with the amendment, although he cautioned that true patriotism involves more than respecting symbols.

``I'm in favor of the American flag amendment, but as I travel around the country, what I see is a new spirit of patriotism, and it goes a long way beyond the American flag,'' he said

[Guaranteed]

48. He didn't take four bullets for a flag.

He took four bullets for the right to burn the flag.

NOW look what he's doing.

I can't believe this. I was actually thinking about VOTING for this guy. I was about to change from Dean to Clark. That will NOT happen now.

I can NOT believe this.

[KittyWampus]

81. Dean Said Affirmative Action Should Be About Economics

Not race... oops!

Don't lift the Trade Embargo.... oops!

Deregulating Energy while Governor...oops!

Forgoing Matching Funds.... oops!

Thinks nothing of invoking the Confederate flag... oops!

Calls congresscritters as a whole cockroaches... oops!

Oh, and guess WHAT! Dean said the Flag should be 'protected'. Now whatever does THAT mean? I don't think he meant treated with scotchguard.

All the candidates have SOMETHING to overlook, indeed :D

[thebeaglehaslanded]

20. Another step back towards his Republican roots. Pity.

[scottcsmith]

22. Free speech all the way

The subject of flag burning doesn't ever seem to go away, yet I cannot recall hearing about a flag-burning incident (other than in Iraq) here in the U.S. Does it happen so often that it needs a law to stop it? Are thousands of people in hundreds of cities engaged in flag-burning marathons? I don't get it. I'm a vet and I say, let them burn the flag if they want. I don't think I'd like to watch one being burnt, but I wouldn't want someone stopped from being able to do so.

If the proper handling of the flag is such a concern, you'd think the people that want an amendment to ban flag burning would put out some PSAs on the proper handling and display of flags. Americans went flag crazy after 9/11, but I don't think a majority of the flag-waving crowd were even aware of all the flag-handling protocols. Flying them at night, wearing them as a T-shirt or on a hat, hell, even W. signed a miniature flag at some fund-raiser a few months ago, which is a violation of flag protocol. The photo is no longer available (it had been posted on Yahoo news), but in the photo, Bush is shown signing his name on a flag. He actually violated United States Code when he did so (not that it's enforced). USC 36.176 sub-paragraph G, "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture or drawing of any nature."

[Zhade]

76. Quite correct. Welcome to DU, ScottCSmith!

And thank you for your reverance for, and service in defense of, our freedoms!

:hi:

[Xyxzy34]

24. This IS an important issue

If a candidate won't protect this free speech what other free speech rights will they remove? You all attack Lieberman for censorship, but I can't think of anything less worthy of censorship than the patriotic act of protest that burning the flag is.

[Mz Pip]

25. I disagree with him on this

and think it's a pretty dumb issue anyway. How often does it ever happen? Waste of time. Still I agree with Clark on other more important issues, so I'm not jumping ship over this one.

MzPip
:dem:

[dolstein]

26. Newsflash: It doesn't matter what Wes Clark thinks

If he were president, he wouldn't vote on the amendment, nor would he have any power to veto a Congressional resolution.

[grytpype]

27. Disappointing.

But if it helps Clark win a southern state, I'm willing to live with it.

[MattNC]

29. very disappointing

but it doesn't make drop my support for him.

[burrowowl]

30. Desecration

what about the dirty ragged flags waving in the wind?
Which commandment is it: Thou shall not have false gods before me?
Corporations are raping and pillaging America and there are no laws?
Idiocy sheer insanity.

[bleedingheart]

31. The proper way to dispose of a flag is by burning

http://www.usa-flag-site.org/faq/disposal.shtml

So if we ban burning flags there will have to be all kinds of amendments to that amendment to allow for proper disposal.

[Guaranteed]

33. WHAT?

I will not be voting for Clark, now.

The day it is illegal to burn the flag in the United States is the day I renounce my citizenship.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shamanstar]

39. idiot?

nice name. fitting if you are implying that flag burning and crack smoking go hand in hand.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

40. You really shouldn't

smoke crack. That's what they do over at Free Republic, and you can see it in their political views. Nobody respects them.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goobergunch]

52. Just hit "Alert"

He's still a DUer, and you can't call a DUer a freeper.

EDIT: Forget that...he's gone now.

[Guaranteed]

54. Well, when he mentioned his crack-smoking

that was the conclusion that I drew.

[shamanstar]

57. me too

i wasnt meaning to call a legit DUer that- i just didnt think he was based on his posts here and only having 7 posts total.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

42. You don't take this seriously?

This issue goes to the heart of the FIRST AMENDMENT, for Christ's sake! Are you trying to say that this is a non-issue????

[shamanstar]

44. every little thing?

i think something as major as changing the constitution is something that should be considered when decided to vote for someone- especially when it concerns freedom of speech.
why would we just "let him do whatever it takes to win the election" without ever questioning if he is someone we want to lead the country?
maybe you need to review the steps one should take when deciding to vote for someone.

[Mz Pip]

46. Well said.

Kind of like a slap in the face, but sometimes it's needed to see the big picture.

MzPip
:dem:

[Guaranteed]

51. Guns, god, gays....

Those are issues that can be offered up as bargaining chips.

This is NOT negotiable. EVER. I will NOT live in a country where I can't speak out against it. FUCK....THAT!!!!!!!!

He's giving up the ship.

[Zhade]

79. "Guns, God, Gays" are bargaining chips, huh?

Gee, I and my fellow queers certainly thank you for your overwhelming solidarity and support.

[54anickel]

45. Have to disagree. Please read this essay by 12 year old...

Charlotte Aldebron. From the mouths of babes.....
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0403-01.htm

[Orangepeel]

50. disappointing, but wouldn't be a deal breaker for me

if I were supporting Clark (which I'm not)

[_NorCal_D_]

53. I disagree with Clark,

however it's not exactly a paramount issue IMO.

[Guaranteed]

56. Would it be an issue for you

if you weren't allowed to disagree with your government?

[shamanstar]

59. flag burning is symbolic

and outlawing it would also be symbolic. ive never burned a flag nor have i wanted to. but i do not think it is a small issue that he wants to outlaw it.

[mac56]

66. What these people don't realize is -

that if flag burning becomes illegal, it will just become THAT MUCH MORE of a powerful political statement.

Find foot, pull trigger, BANG.

[Saudade]

55. What a Dick

Clark is hopeless.

First, he came out with that nauseating article on Israel in which he came off as far more right wing than Bush, jabbering about how the apartheid wall is a good thing.

Now he supports the Flag burning Amendment, which, if there were ever any doubt about his total lack of guts, honesty, courage and integrity, resolves any such doubt.

Just go away, Clark.

[CWebster]

62. A hawk on Israel?

does not bode well to future resolution with the US as honest broker.

An issue with flag-burning?


Noted.

[Terwilliger]

58. Clark supporters...

I was trying to like him....honest! Now fuhgeddaboudit!!!!!

[mitchtv]

90. he was in my top 3

he's not anymore. I think I'll wait til primary day to decide. Let's see how far they can stoop to win.

[Guaranteed]

60. I hope people aren't saying they're willing to give up their First

Amendment rights just to get Wesley Clark elected. I give a lot of leeway to candidates, but this is an issue that all of them need to be on the right side of.

For me, it doesn't get much worse than this. The First Amendment is our most cherished right, and to offer it up as a gambit is absolutely unacceptable. This makes Dean's flag blunder look like NOTHING.

[MsChiff]

63. why don't we just.....

fight that battle if and when we come to it?

[shamanstar]

65. would that apply

to voting for bush regardless of what he says he wants to do when he becomes president? "lets just worry about fighting the battle when we get there"
in the mean time lets just sit by quietly and wait to see what happens?

[MsChiff]

71. it applies to....

voting for someone who can get The Appointed One the hell out of the White House. Assuming that Clark was my candidate, he couldn't do any worse than the current occupant. If I voted for him and he tried to push legislation on this issue, I would demonstrate and fight just as hard as I am now. The particular battle we are engaged in right now is the one I am putting my mental and physical energy into winning, not the spectre of one that has a small chance of appearing sometime in the future.

[shamanstar]

100. right

you are absolutely right. but the race is still in the early stages. we need to find out NOW what these people stand for and not just sit around and find that we have elected someone who doesnt really stand for what we thought they stood for.

it is so important that the democratic vote doesnt split, or bush will get in. or ralph nader could run again. we all know where that got us.

[sujan]

67. proving to be a jackass day by day

[54anickel]

68. Hold it, clarification Please! - Dean vs Clark

From this threads article that's title Clark Favors Flag-burning Amendment

In June, the Republican-controlled House approved a one-line change to the Constitution -- ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States'' -- for the fifth time in eight years. The Senate never has passed the proposed amendment.

Speaking at an American Legion hall on Veterans Day, Clark said he agrees with the amendment, although he cautioned that true patriotism involves more than respecting symbols.

Noticed the article does not make mention of Dean but does state, "Among Democratic presidential hopefuls in Congress, Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards have opposed the amendment. Reps. Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich have supported it."

So, lets look at Deans stand:
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/40656

Gov. Howard Dean said he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, but is comfortable with suggesting it to Congress as the Vermont Legislature did last week.

“I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment,” Dean said Monday. “A constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances.”

He said that he supported the resolution that passed both the House and Senate last week by wide margins. It voiced support for protecting the flag and suggested a constitutional amendment as one possible option, but stopped short of calling on Congress to take that step.

So, is it the resolution that Clark supports or the actual amendment itself. I think we need to have some clarification here.
Call me stupid if you'd like, but I find these 2 articles rather confusing and it appears the entire resolution is yet another political ploy that allows folks to take both sides of the argument.
If you're against flag burning, you should also be against the resolution, no?

on edit - change subject to beg for help understanding this!

[Paschall]

103. "Favor protecting the flag"

Dean might have been more explicit. Or he--and any of the Dem candidates--might have easily avoided this idiotic issue by reminding people that the flag is already protected by the US Flag Code. And it might be nice if it were enforced more vigilantly. For example, by really clamping down on prohibited uses of the flag in commercial and political advertising, which would point attention again to the disgusting war- and "patriotism-profiteers!"

<end of rant>

[lostnfound]

73. If our pres lived up2principles it represents, no one would want2burn it

I NEVER imagined why anyone would want to burn it until W started bombing innocent people in its name.

I seriously think that an appropriate answer would have been that such decisions should be left to the courts, but that the role of the President and Congress is to honor the flag with all of their might, by leading the nation based on principles not greed or special interests.

I seriously believe that flag-burning would not be an issue if our nation honored JUSTICE the way that we were taught to believe it did.

Wesley Clark is no Al Gore..but maybe this nation we are living in, folks..maybe this nation is no America, either. Not the America that I believed in as a child watching fireworks on the Fourth of July. That America would never bomb somebody else's land, unprovoked, under the guise of 'freedom'.

[Cronus Protagonist]

75. He's differentiating himself from Bush

Bush has no problem with flag desecration:

(completely unretouched photo)



Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Dr Satan]

77. sounds like Clark

agrees with duct taping the mouths of people who criticize the USA.

[KittyWampus]

82. His Entire Campaign Is The Exact Opposite

His whole campaign is built around the idea it's patriotic to dissent.

[Democat]

97. Campaign talk is cheap

He now says he supports changing the constitution to outlaw free speech.

Which is it? Free speech or no free speech?

[Khephra]

78. Check one negative box

This, as far as I know, is the first thing I've REALLY disagreed with Clark on. I'm aware of Dean's comments as a Dean supporter, but he's at least not in favor of an ammendment. Both of their comments aren't enough for me to vote for a IWR voter though.

But I don't like it one bit.

The supreme court has said that spending money is a form of free speech. If that is so, then damn it if burning the flag isn't free speech as well.

[KittyWampus]

83. Dean Does Support "Protecting The Flag"

As the resolution that passed in Congress....

This is the first NEGATIVE in Clark's column for me BTW :(

Seems like all the candidates will find a way to speak out of both sides when it comes to the flag... it's a wedge issue.

Gov. Howard Dean said he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, but is
comfortable with suggesting it to Congress as the Vermont Legislature did last week.

“I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment,” Dean said Monday. “A
constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances.”

He said that he supported the resolution that passed both the House and Senate last week by wide
margins. It voiced support for protecting the flag and suggested a constitutional amendment as one possible
option, but stopped short of calling on Congress to take that step.

[Khephra]

85. see above

"I'm aware of Dean's comments.."

I also said this is the first negative for Clark I have. That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him. The Iraq War (which involves death) trumps everything.

[54anickel]

86. Thank you!!!

[Bucky]

80. Clark isn't posturing; What Kerry said IS posturing

I doubt Clark is posturing on this. It's just too contrarian to his base of support. Kerry on the other hand is trying to pose on this point.

Kerry said Tuesday, "As I've said before, if I saw someone burning the flag, I'd punch them in the mouth because I love the flag, but the constutition that I fought for preserves the right of free expression."

Please note, Senator Kerry. If burning the flag is legal, there's no justification for violence. Even if burning the flag isn't legal someday, it'll still be against the law to just up and slug somebody. Jeeze, what a poser.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

84. I don't like Kerry at all

but your statement seems a bit out of whack. The meaning of what he was trying to say was that he would be personally offended if he saw someone desecrating the flag, but it should be legal to do so.

You are distorting Kerry's comment the same awful way Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt distorted Dean's confederate flag statement.

[TexasPatriot]

88. well, general

i respectfully dissent. all a flag burning amendment does is cheapen the constitution - and that's intolerable. I'm an American, and though I dont burn flags, I revel in my right to burn any damned flag I want - because hundreds of thousands like you fought for my right to do so.

I still love ya... but I think you're wrong. It doesn't really change my opinion of you. You've had so many sidebar questions tossed at you I'm actually surprised it's taken this long for you to throw out something that twisted my sack - and it's not reasonable for me to ask for a candidate that rubs me the right way all the time.

In my book, this speaks to a different sort of problem. The guy is so good - and he's such a natural without coaching - i really wish a scary coach would take it upon themselves to get in there and work with the guy's talent. WTF are you doing Carville... get your ass off the sidelines. Hey Begalla - quit having nightmares about losing to Hank the Hallucination and get your butt into the race. Hank isn't running.

Anyway - i really hope Clark will reconsider this stance. The constitution is a hell of a lot more important to me than the flag.

[Voltaire99]

93. Well said!

I can't conceive of agreeing with flag burning.

But if we want to be a free society, we will avoid criminalizing dissent. That's always been at the heart of this touchy matter and nothing's changed. Freedom means allowing disagreement, even obnoxious disagreement.

Especially obnoxious disagreement.

[PurityOfEssence]

94. So...fucking...what???

News flash, kiddies: all of the candidates will shrink from this issue, just as they will from "under god" in the pledge. These are divisive issues designed to marginalize them.

Yeah, I hate it too. I hate the fact that a 99-0 vote of Senators backed a non-binding resolution on the "under god" issue right after the 9th Circuit made its ruling. Face it: there are wicked idiots out there aplenty, and this kind of stuff is deadly.

Any sane politician knows that you have to dance around crap like this, and purists who don't get that, should find a nice gentle retreat where they can while away their days.

I hate guns too, but I hope that doesn't become an issue in the election either, and I hope gay marriage can be kept back also. Politics, like society, is compromise; people who can't compromise are more dangerous to their allies than anyone else.

Sheesh!

[Democat]

96. An anti free speech Democat? I will not be sending any money to Clark!

Free speech is not just for those who support the government.

What else does he think should be illegal? All dissent?

This is very disappointing coming from one of the only people who can beat Bush.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

98. Oh, well

He just lost my vote.

[VolcanoJen]

102. Clark just forced the hand of the other candidates...

... and he probably knew it when he made his comments.

This issue is, and always has been, a non-starter for me personally, but look for his comments to roar into the headlines (if the GOP is willing to abandon their current "don't even talk about Clark" meme).

Now, the other Dem candidates will be put into a position of either agreeing with Clark, or disagreeing. Their agreements will mean nothing to the winger media, but if they disagree with his postion, their comments will be spun as "Dean Burns Flags" or "Gephardt Supports Flag-Burning."

See where I'm going with this? I don't really care about this issue anyway, but there's a good chance it will spin out of proportion due to Clark's position. Interesting development, and not a good one, in my opinion.

ON EDIT: You know, I'm not at all surprised that a man with Clark's military background would support such an amendment. But, even though I'm a Clark supporter, and will remain so, I think it was a needless thing to say, and that it could likely reframe the "patriotism" debate, in the most needless of ways, for the next few days. What a strange way to try to win the Democratic nomination. Sigh...

[Enjolras]

105. But that's just the point

"You know, I'm not at all surprised that a man with Clark's military background would support such an amendment."

But that's just the point, Jen. If Dean or Lieberman or Kucinich says that, they definitely get hit with charges of anti-patriotism. But how can anyone do that to Wes Clark? He's got more credibility on the issue than anyone, and can therefore afford to publicly oppose a flag burning amendment. He's probably the only one who can, and still didn't. How disappointing. I would agree, though, it's not a major issue, and we will all have forgotten this by Saturday. And I was never in Clark's camp anyway.

BTW, I spent 9 1/2 years in USAF, and will staunchly defend the right of any of my fellow citizens to demonstrate their dissent in this manner. I'll just exercise my own right not to, or to assist in anyone else's endeavor by handing them the lighter.

[VolcanoJen]

106. I agree with you, Enjolras.

And I join you as yet another DU vet. We're living proof that not all ex-military vote Republican. I'm ready to bury that myth into the damned ground, for good, in '04.

Clark did indeed have the credibility to oppose such a silly amendment, but I certainly wouldn't expect a 4-Star to come out, politically, "for" flag burning. Yes, we all realize that's not what he said, but this stupid, banal issue comes up every freaking election year, and when it reared its boring head this election cycle, he said he supported such an amendment. Speaking in front of the American Legion on Veterans Day, it would be more newsworthy if a 4-Star and former SACEUR running for President said he didn't support such an amendment. In fact, if he said he didn't (and the issue was bound to come up eventually), it would be political suicide for a candidate of his background.

I absolutely split with Clark on this issue, personally, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. What worries me more is that this will open up the floodgates of patriotic hell from the right wing, demanding to know what the other candidates' positions are on this issue so that they can frame them as unpatriotic. It's the blowback, and the way it would affect other candidates, and divert this campaign from the real issues, that I fret.

Arrrgggghhhh... what a headache the whole thing is giving me. If my instincts are right, though, the winger press will ignore the issue so as not to give any more "patriotic street-cred" to Clark, and it will go away, go away, go awaaaaaay....

:-)

on edit: freakin' typos, and stuff.

[Enjolras]

107. I think those flood gates were already open

Thanks to the the Bush administration, we now have war without end. Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity has finally come to an end. And in this atmosphere, with troops in harm's way every single day, the scrutiny of the magnifying glass of patriotism was bound to be intense, anyway. But I think you're right, the flag amendment issue will probably be allowed to go away. That's OK, it's hard for Dems to win on it. And they don't have to.

This eternal war sure favors the GOP because of perceived credibility on national security issues. I still don't believe in the wacky cover-up/conspiracy theories "linking" the administration to 9/11, but they sure know how to use a tragedy to their advantage.

[Bertrand]

104. What's funny

is that a minor issue such as a flag burning amendment (which incidentally would be nearly impossible to implement because of the plurality needed to change the constitution) in comparison to the conservative positions by the other major candidates for the Dem nom and especially the Bush administration would be the dealbreaker that would stop someone from supporting Clark. I hope the Democratic Party hasnt imploded to the point of puritanism over progress.

[Myra]

108. Bummer

Don't like his stance on this.
I'll tell him so via email.
But there is no such thing as a perfect person or candidate.
He's still my first choice for now.

I hope everyone that disagrees with him on this
will write and tell him so.

[JCMach1]

109. Someone PLEASE tell Clark this is a LOSING issue

for Dems.

SHUT UP ALREADY!!!