How dose Clark stand up to my "ten points of fight?"

[Code_Name_D]

How dose Clark stand up to my "ten points of fight?"
Okay all you Clark Cluckers out there. Lets see if your candidate can really hold his own in the Code Name D's school of hard political knocks.

Two months ago, I came up with nine criteria by which to define a fighting Democrat. With the tenth criteria benign added some time ago. They were posted here on the DU on two occasions, and no one challenged any of the points the points. So I dare say my criteria stands as logical, and conclusive.

If you truly believe that Clark "is the man" you make him out to be, than he shall mean most, if not all of my ten criteria. Give me examples of how he has done so. But be foreword, as many of your Clark Cluckers are clearly new to the DU, we evilDUers are a savvy lot. I suspect that some may post examples where he has violated one or more of my criteria.

Also unexcitable is the notion that "he just got into the race." Clark didn't just fall off of the turnip truck, so his political record didn't either. Also unacceptable is the argument that this thread is an attack from the Dean or Dennis K camp. I belong to neither, so you can lay that lame argument to rest.

And yes, I am prepared to take yes for an answer. Convince me that Clark meats a significant portion of my list, and I will support him. At the vary least, I will not put him on my "never in hell will I vote for him" list.

Good luck. And my the real truth prevail.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Code Name D's 10 points of fight.

I am extremely critical of the Democrats. Their performances to the recent three year long crises have been disgusting, if not treasonous in its own right. Of course, the DLC apologists usually hit us over the head with "what would you have them do?" And it’s a valid criticism.

Here is an answer to that charge. I have come up with ten criteria that would define "fight." And all though we have seen a few Democratic candidates practice one or more. No one has yet risen to all three. And unfortunately, a few democratic candidates even routinely practice the opposite. If the opposite of war is slavery, than the opposite of shoeing a fight sprit, is to be a shill for the GOP.

One: To oppose bad law. Not to try to "soften" bad law with amendments to make its passage more palatable. A good example of this is Bush's recent tax cuts. The democrats managed to put in a per-child tax cut previsions, making the law more palatable to the public as well as within its own members to vote for it, or risk being painted as being against the child tax credit by the Republicans. But later, when talk arose about repealing the tax cuts, the dems were slammed over the head by wanting to repeal their own softening provisions.

Bad law, such as the tax cuts, must be fully and completely opposed, especially if it is going to pass any way. Only when these laws are informed in their true form, will it be possible for the record to speak against the supporters, as to make it easier for these laws to be over turned later.

Two: To be a voice and advocate for the record. And to use that record of you're opponent, against your opponent. The silences from the Democrats on many issues are defining when all they have to do, is speak the record. What IS in the Patriot act? What is the record with the war on Iraq. A Democrat needs to be nothing more than an echo for the past. But the DLC considers such tactics as "negative campaigning" and opposes it. And certainly the Republicans call this "mud throwing." But they are shooting the messenger, and it is a form of censorship, and enables the Republicans to carry out their agenda.

Beware of platitudes and empty rhetoric. It dose little good to claim that "Bush has not been good for America" because it then becomes little more than a name calling contest. Instead, state Bush's record, and let the people decided for themselves weather Bush has not been good for America or not.

Three: To challenge your opponents through debate and argument. Currently the Republicans have a secrete agenda. A secrete that is held out in plain view, but still never talked about. There is PNAC, Enron, and a whole host of scandals. But the first step to evading responsibilities is to never be asked critical questions. We all know the press won't ask them, but why won't the Democrats ask them?

During the 2000 campaign, Gore limited himself to just three debates under highly controlled conditions that favored Bush. We kept waiting for Gore to tarry Bush apart. But you can't do that if you aren't asking any questions!

Here is the thing. The Republicans love to shoot their mouths off. We have seen them shoot themselves in the foot over and over and over again. But you can see more of this if you start pushing the Repugs buttons, working the debate and trick them into taking the mask off. The court of public opinion will do the rest. But only if you engage them in debate.

And channels of debate need not be a TV exchange. A democrat need send no more than a certified letter with a request for a response. But so to there is the telephone, e-mail, and public message boards. If the republican declines to respond, then you send another letter, then make the charge that "republicans are afraid to debate."

Four: To be a servant and advocate to the spirit of the law. Even if this means that you must violate the letter of the law in upholding its spirit. And you must be prepared to engage in civil disobedience if necessary. The Texas Killer Ds are holding true to this call.

Five: To speak directly to the people. Currently, Gore and Clinton only speak for paid engagements. And shortly before I write this, Kerry spoke in Dallas Texas without even informing the precinct Captain that he was going to be there. This particular captain just happened to be one of the hosts of Radio Left, and would have covered the event, and would have given him a favorable interview. But this didn't happen. Before then, Radio left tried to seeks to find a Democratic congressmen or representative to interview on the air. The only got an answer machine. But a Republican Representative (not some mer staffer) was available within hours for an interview. This what Radio Left referees to as a road map to failure. During the 2002 campaign, when we were critical of the DLC's silence, they answered back with an obscure reference to "a secrete plan."

In contrast is Howard Dean has made him vary public. He has an online Blog, speaks regularly, and has the Dean meet ups at his disposal. When the media attacks him, he responds decisively within 24 hours. He has already taken up Radio Left's offer to an interview.

But there is more. Stump speeches, though for the moment, can not pierce the media blockade against democratic speakers. And they are meaningless to the masses who are not able to make it to the event. Dean needs to flood his web sight with MP3 of his speeches, and write regularly on the issues. He must relearn the art of ordination.

Six: To be persistent and relentless. Governor Davis recently made headlines with the words "Republicans can only work to steal elections they can not win." Truer words were never spoken, and it even made headlines in the so called "liberal media." Now THIS is fight. But what has he done sense? Such momentum is worthless is one is now willing or able to back them up. To press his attack, Davis needs to call attention to Diebold and other voting problems prevalent in his state.

Seven: To show leadership to the public. Currently, liberals and progressive are doing every thing within their power to organize marches against the war, and against other issues seen as priorities of the GOP. But it is becoming apparent that such organizations are not possible without leadership. In time, persons will stand out from the crowd, and have the pretenses and influence to rise to leadership roles. But we do NOT have that kind of time. We must look to our current leaders. If Dean truly opposed the war in Iraq, than why did he not play a role in organizing the anti war marches? But imagine what would take place, if Dean was to ACTIVELY coordinate a march on Washington to oppose the War in Iraq. The media could NOT ignore such an assembly, of the masses, and with his voice speaking there, the message of the anti-war protesters would also made headlines. Just as Dean must speak directly to the people, he must USE the masses to get his message out. He has this right.

Eight: Pay attention to strategic position. This is where I reserve my harshest criticism for the DLC. For the past 30 years, they have practically assisted the Republicans with the destruction of their OWN position of strength within the government. Having the WILL to fight is futile of you do not also poses the means. But this vary means, such as the Fairness Doctrine, and what one can only call an unwillingness to fund or take advantage of liberal programming. Even as radio, TV, news paper, and publications are FULL of sponsored right wing freaks such as Limbaugh and Cuolter, the DLC doesn’t even seem to care that their own constituents can only reach their voice mail. We must now work to over come decades of incompetence and shortsighted ness.

Nine: To advocate and patron for scholars who are knowledgeable in the areas of the given issues. It is the nature of politics today, that this is a "field" in and of it self, that makes it extremely unlikely for any person to be thoroughly educated in any field. Though there are exceptions, such as Dean being a licensed physician, the limitations of simply being human will limit any one to only a hand full of fields. But a politician or office holder is going to have to raise and deal with hundreds, if not thousands of separate issues. Most of which will be extremely technical in their nature, as well as being vary complex. Issues such as education, the environment, energy, and health care. Some will also intersect, such as environmental policy and health care.

This makes it impossible for any one person to even be competent on all issues. The solution however, is not to even try, and instead depend upon the finds and arguments of others who ARE leaders in their field. And in many cases, even "lending their voice" (give up the podium) to these scholars in an effort to educated the public, as well as answer highly sophisticated and technical questions from what ever source they may come from. These scholars should also be the pool from which they draw their presidential cabinet, placing their knowledge and experience directly over the subject at hand to carry out public policy. (As oppose to Bush, who seems to only appoint his friends.)

Ten: Withhold your "respect and admiration" who act without honor or integrity. Be prepared to accept that your opponent may indeed be your enemy. Those whom you would surrender accolades and honors to, even in the name of civility and diplomacy, speaks volumes of your own character. When you show respect to the saint, it reflects well on you. But when you render honors to the monsters, than you reveal yourself to be a beast as well, and you become a powerful enabler for the beasts ongoing atrocities.

[diplomats]

1. This is kind of off the subject

but Clinton gives plenty of speeches for no fee (often on college campuses and at charitable events), and I think Gore does, too.

[Code_Name_D]

3. Actualy, they are quite rare.

Rare enough that when they ARE made, they tent to make the news, as the press usually do not attend the privet speaking engagements. And even the "public" events are not free. When they speak to universities, more often than not, the alumni will pony up a "speaking fee." It is these speaking fees that make up a large portion of Clinton's and Gore's income.

And the speaking fee is an unfortunately reality of today's political landscape. In the past, such persons would be given a stipend by a newspaper of publishing house. They also made money through book royalties and editorial fees, and occasionally the university would entice one too speak with a speakers fee. And a few political figures even sold tickets to the general public. Other times they would be given a stipend from a university. Mark Twain comes to mind.

But the point was the same. To support these persons to free up their time to writing, studying, debating, and research, and thus contributing to the public dialog. How much good do you think Twine could have done, if he had to work a farm, or go door to door selling wall paper swatches?

My point isn't that Gore or Clinton do not do "free" speeches, however, but that this constitutes almost all of their political energies. (With Gore being an exception to this, he HAS spoken out on current events. All though not vary much.) Speaking should only be one avenue of expression. We should also see a regular submission of books, news paper editorials, blogs, debating dialogue, correspondence (in the form of open letters), art, humor, and even fiction and science fiction, to all continue to add to the public debate.



However, on further reflection. I will change the "only make paied speaches" to "mostly make paied speaches." That means you get a kudoes for catching that. :)

[Dookus]

6. Can you point to any stats...

regarding how many free speeches Clinton gives?

From what I've heard, they're not nearly as rare as you make them out to be.

[Code_Name_D]

8. No stats that I am aware of.

I don't even know how you could track something like this. This is only something that I have observed over the years.

[jab105]

10. Clinton spoke at my college in March....

he got $80,000 which was less than poppie bush got a few years ago...from what I understand, it was a reduced fee...

[MisterP]

2. applause!

kick

[Code_Name_D]

4. Where are the Clark Cluckers!

I know you are out their becase I see you posting on other threads. So what am I to make of your silence? Perhaps the only way I can get you to post, is to bad mouth Clark and NOT give him a chance.

Come on. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Classical_Liberal]

5. I didn't see how your posts related to Clark since he has no record

and I don't know whether I am a Clark clucker. I am trying to weigh the candidates.

[Eloriel]

7. That is so good I'm bookmarking it

I think point no. 4 could be phrased differently. I'm not comfortble with "breaking the letter of the law" to uphold its spirit. Maybe you mean breaking some other law to uphold the spirit of a law. It's not that I don't get what you're talking about (in a fairly oblique way, I must add), I just don't think that's they way to phrase it. But the Killer D's example nails it -- we just need a better way of explaining the principle involved, IMO.

I also have to disagree with your example that Dean should be leading and organizing anti-war protests. I don't think that's particularly presidential. Perhaps APPEARING at a protest, but organizing protests would have turned me off (and you probably KNOW how much of a Dean fan I am). BTW, just in case you're interested, he has done a number of petitions on various subjects -- which addresses the broader point you make.

Excellent list. I concur completely!!!!

Eloriel

[Code_Name_D]

9. My response.

Four: To be a servant and advocate to the spirit of the law. Even if this means that you must violate the letter of the law in upholding its spirit. And you must be prepared to engage in civil disobedience if necessary.

I think point no. 4 could be phrased differently. I'm not comfortble with "breaking the letter of the law" to uphold its spirit. Maybe you mean breaking some other law to uphold the spirit of a law. It's not that I don't get what you're talking about (in a fairly oblique way, I must add), I just don't think that's they way to phrase it. But the Killer D's example nails it -- we just need a better way of explaining the principle involved, IMO.

Your discomfort is understandable. After all, how just is it to promote law braking. But I still stand by the wording. Mostly because the wording itself is quite old, "upholding the spirit above the letter" could probably be traced back to colonel days.

But my best defense might be to give you other examples. Rosa Parks, who illegally refused to give up her seat to a white person, and was subsequently, arrested. The labor movement, many of who illegally walked off the job to protest poor wages and poor safety standards, many of whom were arrested and convicted. The recent sodomy case out of Texas, where a gay couple was arrested from their own bedroom for violating an anti-gay statute. Some times, the incidences were unintentional, other times protestors set out to be arrested. This tradition echoes to more than just civil disobedience.


I also have to disagree with your example that Dean should be leading and organizing anti-war protests. I don't think that's particularly presidential. Perhaps APPEARING at a protest, but organizing protests would have turned me off.

You have a right to this opinion, as well as to not head a call to such an assembly. Or even to think less of Dean if he did so. One would hope they would not use such power lightly. But the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, guaranteed within the constitution, still gives Dean the right to call for, and organize a protest for any issue he deems necessary. (All though he doesn't have a right to use tax payer, or even party money to do so.) Dean has this right, just as Dr. Martian Luther King Jr. had it, and just as you and I have it. One doesn't surrender their rights, even if they happen to be a sitting president.

[Code_Name_D]

11. Still nothing form the Clark Cluckers?

Looks like I have given Cleark suporters a good name. Bwakk bwak bak bak.

Oh, they mighty quick with the insults when some one puts down the latests DLC Golden Boy, but it looks like their is ZERO. Count them ZERO resones for any one here to support the man.

Come on, prove me wrong.