Is Clark having voted Republican a valid issue for candidates to raise?

[CMT]

The debate the past week or so on DU has been dominated by this.

Is raising the issue of Gen. Clark's past votes for President and comments at a GOP fundraiser a valid issue for his opponents for the Democratic nomination to raise?

[bunk76]

1. I believe ...

that most here welcomed Jim Jeffords with open arms,should we not do the same for Gen.Clark?

[poskonig]

2. A Zell Miller/Jim Jeffords ticket?

People would be excoriated for advocating that merely weeks ago.

[Padraig18]

5. Yes

This place only tolerates 'ideologically pure' Democrats whose grandmothers are willing to SWEAR that the 1st word out of Candidate X's mouth was "FDR"! :P

[CMT]

7. your point is well taken

but Jeffords also had years of votes in the Senate that opposed Reagan more times than he ever supported Reagan (or Bush) he was more liberal than some democrats. He also isn't running for president.

[roughsatori]

11. Jim Jeffords switched to Independent and is not running for President

as a Democratic nominee. You imply that he switched to the Democratic Party, he did not. Very flawed analogy.

[robbedvoter]

17. Not so flawed. Jeffords for President threads were florishing here

in spite of his independent affiliation. I myself only joined the party after the stolen election. As long as people like Ed Koch or Lyndon LaRouche keep calling themselves Democrats, all claims of "purity" are ridiculous. For once, it's good news rather than bad.

[bowens43]

14. I welcome him to the party but not to the presidency.

I'm not willing to give the top spot to a guy who just a short while ago was speaking at republican fund raisers and praising the neo-cons in the bush administration.

[bearfartinthewoods]

20. there is a difference...we are nominating our LEADER, not one of 50 senato

more than the issue of how he voted is the issue that he even considered running for congress as a republican. that's the killer!

how many liberals would give that serious consideration? how many of us would go to even one, let alone more than one meetings to discuss the possibility.

we all welcome new dems, but the newest members of any organization are rarely but into leadership positions!!!

two years ago, he was considering running as a republican for congress.
now we are talking about running him as a dem for prez? it seems to me that he is a dem because we are making him a better offer. that is not the kind of dem i want as leader.

[eileen_d]

3. It's a boring issue.

yizzawn...

[guajira]

4. Seems like Repukes are doing Clark a big favor when they "accuse"

him of voting for Reagan. Remember there were lots of Reagan Democrats who will relate to Clark on this issue.

Also Clark voted for Clinton twice - and voted for Gore!!

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. Only because he couldn't "remember" at first. That concerns me. One

should be able to remember who they voted for. It strikes me as a bit sketchy.

[jumptheshadow]

8. I voted yes

In order to come to an objective opinion you must look at Clark's complete history.

So far, after reading as much as I could about him, I believe he is a very strong Democratic candidate.

[DemExpat]

9. I voted yes too for that reason, and feel Clark

will be a good Dem candidate.

:kick:

DemEx

[_NorCal_D_]

10. To me

it seems awfully trivial, and I'm not saying this just because I am a Clark supporter.

I don't care how the candidates voted in the past.

[LWolf]

19. "I don't care how the candidates voted in the past"

:WTF:

So we pick our candidates based on what...if not their record?

Since Clark hasn't held office, we can't evaluate his record there. Where do we evaluate his record on our issues? By what he says or what he does?

I assume you mean who he voted for in previous elections...I think he has the same right to privacy as far as his votes go as the rest of us. So I guess you have to look at where he has put his support.

I care about how my choice has voted in the past. I can check that, because his votes in congress are public. And he has a few votes I don't like. And many, many I do. And they all align quite well with what he says.

Voters have to evaluate Clark on something. What should we care about, if not his past record???

[ant]

12. none of the above?

What's important to me is WHY he voted as he did, and why he's changed his mind. That's the information that would help me make a decision, and that's the question that I think is valid.

If he is, as his critics claim, simply getting on the Dem ticket because it's available, that's a problem.

If he's simply changed his mind on certain issues, or if he has certain views that are more in line with the Reps than Dems, and if he's honest about all of that, I've got no problem with his record alone and will have to evaluate his explanations separately.

I've voted Libertarian in the past (I was in my Ayn Rand phase, give me a break), and I'm not a big fan of gun control. I also supported the first Gulf War, and I still stand by that decision. From what I've read I think my assessment there is in line with Clark's.

[gully]

13. HELL YES, it's an issue. It doesnt mean I wont vote for him

but I do want to hear Clark address it, as he should have already.

[Sweetpea]

15. I think it will be an issue

It wasn't like he was 15 when he made the decision to vote for Reagan. People are going to want to know more about that change of heart. He is definitely going to need to emphasize why he changed platforms. People bring up politicians voting records all of the time. Like the ones who didn't support the Civil Rights act of 65. The thought is how at any time in your life, could you align yourself with these people. It is one thing to be a senator and vote with republicans on certain issues, it is another to support an administration.

[diamondsoul]

16. Comments at the fundraiser, yes, votes, no.

Sorry, but that's an infringement on something I view as sacred ground, purely because it's core to our nation's values. We can vote any way we choose, period, and we aren't supposed to have to answer to anyone for that.

Honestly, that to me is no better than the extremism of the Patriot Act. How can we rant about invasions of privacy like that and then engage in the same sort of invasion just because he's a candidate for the next Presidential election? There's always an excuse for it, that still doesn't make it right or just.

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. It's all in the timing.

When I heard General Clark voted for Reagan in 1980, it didn't concern me in the least. That was 23 years ago. But to hear him praising Bush Jr, Cheney, Wolfoshitz, Rummy and the PNAC gang two years ago - that's entirely a different matter. I'm also troubled by what his own website refers to as a "100 year plan" for America.

100 years = Century. Plan = Project Coincidence? maybe.

[CMT]

21. yes

he can change and said he voted for Clinton yet he was raising money for GOP in the first year of Bush's presidency.