Clark Favors Flag-Burning Amendment

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

the days i like the general more and more are dawning less and less
on edit: so does kucinich-that's surprising
----

Presidential Elections - AP
Clark Favors Flag-Burning Amendment
46 minutes ago



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

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031111/ap_on_el_pr/clark_flag_burning_3

[dobak]

1. Kucinich and Gephardt also support it

don't forget to add that

:-)

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

9. gephardt doesnt surpise me

dennis does, though

i don't think this is a trivial gripe, either. this guy wants to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION and butcher bill of rights to 'protect' a symbol

it's not a good precendent to set. the first amendment works fine as it is. do we really want to go down the slope of rolling it back bit-by-bit?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. It's a cultural thing

and both Clark and Kucinich know it's not going to happen. In fact the larger point is, it will take a consitutional amendment to ban burning the flag. Now hopefully the Republicans will get to attempting (and most likely failing) to pass an amendment, instead of legislation that has to get shot down in court on a regular basis.

That being said, it's a stupid idea and infringes on free speech, imo.

[MIMStigator]

46. Yup. THIS IS THE WAY to get the redneck vote

Clark won't push it and if he does, it's going to be in exchange for a whole sh*tload of reforms that benefit US.

[Renew Deal]

49. It will never go anywhere.

You need 2/3rds of both houses plus 75% of states. They will never get that.

[MIMStigator]

52. Agree. No risk to rights, but gets him military/southern votes.

go General

[Forkboy]

74. So does he believe it's right

or he just saying what some want to hear to get their votes?

[jobycom]

68. What if they do? What if he is elected and campaigns for it?

If the Democratic president supports the amendment, who's to say it won't get rolling? True, not even most Republicans want it, but we came a bit close to it once. I watched them unanimously vote to support the "under god" part of the pledge, because public momentum wanted it, and they were afraid of the backlash. You know at least some of them opposed that referendum, but voted for it anyway.

Compromising on some issues you will lose anyway to get something else you wouldn't get otherwise is one thing. It's politics. But starting out agreeing with the oppressors is quite another.

Kucinich is off my short list, for now, unless he explains this one away. Clark... his only strength so far has been that he looks presidential and might have a decent chance, but if he's no better than this... I'm back to Kerry and Dean, I suppose. And I'll just pray to a diety I don't believe in that Gore saves us all (though I know he won't run, I have to maintain that hope or I will give up on this election altogether.)

[kathyanne]

94. A flag-burning amendment would be like worshipping idols

I can't think of anything worse than worshipping idols and symbols like the flag.

Clark understands exactly how to extricate us from Iraq gracefully too, but flag-burning amendmends turn my stomach.

Oh, and GW Bush is not a Christian. See the site
LiberalsLikeChrist.org

I am against flag-burning on environmental principles, but am not for singling out one symbol like the flag for "worship".

[bowens43]

108. That's irrelevant.

Supporting an amendment that places limitations on civil liberties is a BIG deal , an extremely BIG deal. If he actually does support the amendment, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the oval office because he is showing contempt for our civil liberties. If he is just using this issue as a political tool, he is a scum sucking dog and should not be allowed anywhere near the oval office.

[jobycom]

61. It's a values thing, too. If Kucinich won't stick up for us on this

Then what is going to stick up for us on?

He's been on the wrong side of two issues that I believe define being a liberal-- choice, and speech. Either he believes all should be treated equally before the law (and defining what expressions are allowed and what are not is favoring one side over the other), or he's not as liberal as he wants us to believe.

[Donna Zen]

101. Up thread Mother Jones said:

Kucinich is perfect on every issue.

[Stuckinthebush]

2. Well, there is one mark against him

Although I still like him, I think the flag burning flap is the silliest thing.

[redqueen]

3. I could care less.

This is IMO just a distraction.

NAFTA, worker's rights, healthcare, militarism -- these are the things I care about.

[HFishbine]

I could care less too

A whole lot less. But I don't.

[info being]

13. I care about freedom of speech

.

[Scott Lee]

16. You think attacking the core of the 1st amendment is trivial?

Holy cow. I sincerely hope you don't vote.

[MIMStigator]

47. If it gets us another 10 percent. He'll never push it if elected

overall a good move

[bowens43]

112. Unbelievable.

You are willing to support the castration of the Bill of Rights so that your guy can get another 10% of the votes??? It's ok if Clark LIES or misleads to get another 10% of the vote? If this is his attitude then all the doubts I've had about him have been confirmed. .

Hopefully we'll never find out. If Clark gets the nomination after this , I think you will begin to see a significant number of people vote green or not at all in 04.

[bowens43]

109. You could care less

about the further erosion of our freedom? Wow, that's scary.

[dobak]

4. Not suprising from a life long military man

While I do disagree with Clark on this issue, it is not a major concern of mine

[Dr Fate]

5. People still burn flags? Why were DEMS aked this as an issue?

...I disagree with Clark 100% on this one, but most average voters probably do not care about it as even a top-ten issue...

...this "issue" will not make or break ANY candidate...I've never even SEEN anyone burn a flag...

[DebJ]

19. Obviously you were not around during the VietNam protests

as a boomer, I saw this on TV quite often

[Dr Fate]

36. So we need to discuss an issue that died 35 years ago???

You are right, I was not around 35 years ago...I wonder how many of those sixties radicals are wearing flag-pins on thier $5000 suit lapels today!!!

Vietnam was a different error, and flag burning does not appear to be causing riots on the streets or causing any other urgent problems in the present day...

[bowens43]

110. Flag burning isn't the issue

The issue is Clark supporting an amendment to the Constitution that places limitations on our freedom.

Trying to trivialize the issue is not going to work with those of us who understand the implications.

[KittyWampus]

Curious Thing Though

On Veterans Day this is the only mention of Clark in the mass media.... they've otherwise put him on ignore.

The article dosen't give a direct quote from Clark... so I'd be interested in hearing his entire comment.

Here is the only DIRECT quote: "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.

[Dr Fate]

42. " it goes a long way beyond the American flag," -he said

this is what he should of said, w/o directly supporting this silly do-nothing amendment...


It appears like he is nipping the "issue" in the bud, since it is not really important at all..

This is a silly "feel good" amendment that is essentially useless- I have no idea what it would accomplish- I've never even SEEN anyone burn a flag, except in very old news clips...- It's best to get it out of the way as an "issue" and move on...

[KittyWampus]

53. Can We Say "Wedge" Issue?

Which is all this is... hope the Left doesn't fall for it.

Someone asks Clark, on Veterans Day, while he's speaking to Veterans no less, is he supports a flag buring Amendment.

Wonder who asked him?

Clark's made it plenty clear that he was aware of the protestors in the Vietnam War and that he was proud to fight for their right to speak out.

[dfong63]

62. oh yeah, like the vietnam war was "protecting our free speech"

Clark's made it plenty clear that he was aware of the protestors in the Vietnam War and that he was proud to fight for their right to speak out.

the vietnam war had nothing to do with protecting our liberties. vietnam was no threat to us, and killing vietnamese people did nothing to enhance our national security.

[KittyWampus]

65. Clark Specifically SAID He Supported The Protestors

and was proud to do so! And he's said this several times... it is part of his stump speech.

Are you going to dump on ALL the "saps" who fought and died in the Vietnam War... you know the ones who thought they were fighting for what America stands for..... like the Freedom of Speech.

[dfong63]

81. don't put words in my mouth

Are you going to dump on ALL the "saps" who fought and died in the Vietnam War... you know the ones who thought they were fighting for what America stands for..... like the Freedom of Speech.

don't put words in my mouth. i didn't call anyone a "sap", so stick that strawman up your ass.

i didn't call anyone a "sap", but if someone tries to tell me that the vietnam war or the iraq war were about protecting our freedoms at home, i have every right to call them on that hoary rightwing b.s.

Clark Specifically SAID He Supported The Protestors

but saying he "supported the protestors" is something far different from "fighting for their right to speak out". if Clark believes that the vietnam war was about "protecting our freedoms", then i sure don't want him anywhere near the oval office. someone needs to ask him that question point-blank.

[Bertrand]

102. youre misinterpreting the context of "fight"

I think cryingshame meant the word to mean "stand up for" and not fight in the literal sense regarding Vietnam.


edit: e

[bowens43]

113. Can we say 'attack on the 1st amendment'?

No one who supports an amendment to the Constitution that places limits on our freedom will get my vote. Being a wedge issue doesn't necessarily mean that it is an unimportant issue or an invalid issue. This is one huge freaking wedge and if Clark gets the nomination and doesn't recant, it will split the Dems..

[bowens43]

111. "I'm in favor of the American flag amendment"

That IS a direct quote.

[Renew Deal]

43. It's what someone else said. A wedge issue.

It's red meat for the right. Most people do not vote on this issue. If you consider the likelyhood of the flag ammendment ever going anywhere, it's a non-issue.

[bowens43]

114. It's become a matter of character.

Clark's support of the amendment calls his character into question. Anyone who is in favor of this amendment places a very low value on civil liberties. If he is using this issue as political then his character is still calls his character into question.

[Zynx]

6. Oooohh...That's going to cost him with me.

I know its a main-stream position, but I think it is against everything this country stands for.

[Renew Deal]

51. You vote on this issue?

There is a candidate selector on MSRNC.com. It is almost immposible to end up with a candidate that fits my views. I always end up with no one.

[info being]

7. I'm getting Greener and Greener by the moment

.

[NNN0LHI]

69. So you think the green candidate is going to say he is for flag burning?

Do you really think that? Or any candidate running for public office for that matter? Save the straw men for someone else.

Don

[bowens43]

116. IMO you really don't seem to understand the issue at all.

It's not about being in favor of or against flag burning. It's about supporting a Constitutional amendment that places restrictions our freedom. Too many people fail to grasp the enormity of this issue. The Consitution was written to place limitations on Government , not to place limitations on the citizens of the United States. This is HUGE!!

[mlawson]

8. I can see two reasons why he has done this:

1) He is a military man, and has watched men die for the flag; 2) He probably doesn't think the issue is worth losing the WH over. Better to neutralize it now.

[info being]

12. To die for a flag is retarded

1) People should die for a cause, not for a flag.
2) He may lose the whitehouse because he does not represent his base...those who support freedom of speech.

[mlawson]

22. Many think differently.

OF COURSE, it's not literally for a piece of cloth. But in the minds of many soldiers, yes, they are fighting for what the flag represents, regardless of how we might see it.

There might be issues worth losing the WH for, but in the case of 2004, losing it over a 'freedom of speech' issue means that the bush regime will have FOUR more years to ensure that freedom of speech is lost.

[KittyWampus]

41. Not Understanding The Power & Import Of Symbols Is "Retarded"

not only that but symbols are in a way more real than the material reality they represent.

[stinkeefresh]

14. no one dies for the flag

the flag doesn't send them to war, doesn't welcome them home and doesn't take responsibility when they don't come home.

a flag is not a country. a military man should know that.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. Thank you

No one dies for a flag.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[mlawson]

27. A flag REPRESENTS a country,

and military men know that! What other purpose does a flag have???

[lastliberalintexas]

39. To be used as a pseudo-patriotic symbol

that must be protected at the expense of what our men and women have really died for- the Constitution.

I'd much rather someone burn the mere symbol of my freedom than actually take away my freedom (a la the Patriot Act).

(though Clark is good on the Patriot Act)

[Selwynn]

71. Fuck the flag.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. Just curious, but have you spent time in the military?

[mlawson]

38. No, but several close relatives and friends have.

Particularly of the WWII generation. The them, burning the American flag is anathema. Now, we can argue all we like about it with them, or we can say that it's not worth losing 2004 over. Which will serve us better on 1/20/05???

[Trek234]

54. Die for a flag...

So patethetic. Yea, that's what they died for. Want to sh*t on what people REALLY died for anymore on veterans day? I don't think you've trivialized them enough yet.

I just recently heard a WW2 vet talking in relation to flag burning about how people always say "died for the flag" and that when the people around him went down not one of them died for a flag. The basic message was that they couldn't give a damn if a flag got burned.

[mlawson]

58. What is YOUR problem?????

WTF do you mean I have trivialized Vets on Veterans' Day??? I have heard that expression, die for the flag, as long as I can remember, which is probably longer than you can. I did not SAY that I agreed with the idea, but that lots of people SEE it that way.

OF COURSE they died for their country, in WWII!! But the flag, to many people symbolizes their country! It's a metaphor, get it????

[Selwynn]

80. For others its a metaphor for exploitation and opression...

..and a mocking symobol of what this country should be, could have been and currently is NOT.

So you excersise your rights by cherishing the symbol. I'll exercise mine, with or without congressional approval by burning it if I deem that necessary protest. The bill of rights did not GRANT me my freedoms - it instead acknowedged the plain FACT of the matter than I HAVE THEM. It codified in the constitution the idea that this government would not persecute people for excerising their basic human rights. I thank the bill of rights for acknowledging the rights that I was already entitled too, but I'll conitnue to lay claim to those rights whether the government begins persecuting me for them or not.

[mlawson]

82. Of course it's been abused and misused.

By more than one regime here (Ronnie, Nixon, both bushes, etc.) But it is also the same flag design that flew over the Capitol when JFK was inaugurated, and minus two stars, when FDR brought about the New Deal.

If we now give the flag the attributes of the bush regime and allow ourselves to hate it as something of THEIRS, then we let them take away something that was respected in earlier times, and a symbol of the US doing some things that were right. It seems that the flag should stand above politics; NO ONE should appropriate it for their own uses, above all, pols decorating a meeting hall. The fact that many corrupt politicians have done this, should be to their own shame, not that of a piece of cloth.

[Le Taz Hot]

119. Excellent response!

And the reason we no longer include Civics in our core curriulum -- that was NOT an accident. Selwynn, may I suggest you re-post as a seperate thread? Apparently there are a lot of people on DU who don't understand this very basic and vital concept.

[Trek234]

86. You spoke literally

Your statement (in reference to flag burning) was how you understood Clarks position on this because "men die for the flag".

Therefore you were saying you understood that we should not BURN THE *FLAG* because people died for *IT*. In other words 'people died for a flag therefore we should protect the flag' instead of protecting what it was actually about. (i.e. freedom of speech)

In a normal situation I would accept that it was a metaphor. However, given the context of this thread and your statement it doesn't seem to be. This is about protecting the physical flag its self. (not what it may or may not stand for) When you come out saying we should protect it because people died for it... well it certainly would seem like you are still within the topic of the thread, and thus you are speaking in regards to a physical flag. Not what it stands for.

I understand people may (in a twisted mind) somehow equate burning flag = hating what it represents. (i.e. freedom, bill of rights) But you shouldn't really expect that here as I am sure you know.

But then again maybe I'm just thinking most people are more intelligent than they appear to be. After all who would POSSIBLY think that when they see people burning a US flag to say, protest a war at an anti-war protest, they would be doing it to protest the US involvment in that war? Obviously they are doing it because they hate our freedoms. Yea, that's it. I'm sure most people would know that. Damn terrorists.

[mlawson]

92. I was referring to how Clark himself might see it.

I am personally against the amendment. I was simply (and innocently) conjecturing as to how Clark *might* have reasoned this through. But not being him, I cannot say for certain.

To me, a flag *should* be something that is above politics. Like the Queen of England keeps herself above the parties. I do not imbue a piece of cloth with all the events that occur beneath it, but it's something that 'endures' through good times and bad, good governments and bad as well. It was here long before the bush regime, and hopefully it will remain after they have been tossed into the famous dustbin of history. When I see the flag flying, I don't connect it with the current criminal regime; I like to remember that it was also flying over the Capitol when JFK was inaugurated in 1961, and when Clinton was in 1993.

Now, hitler changed the German flag in 1933, putting a swastika on it. Had GWB changed the US flag in 2001, that would be a VERY different thing, and I would be the first to bring the lighter fluid!!! I like what the Romanians did in 1989: they literally cut out the device of the Ceaucescu regime, and waved their mutilated (but clean) flag.

[bowens43]

106. if this is true

then he has no right to everstep foot in the oval office. First, men did NOT die for the flag, they died protecting our Constitution (well, at least up until WWII, after that it not black and white) .

Second, a flag desecration amendment is an attack on our Constitution and if he supports it then he is pissing on the graves of all the soldiers who died protecting our liberties.

[info being]

10. What about "black-spotting" a flag?

Who says burning is the only way to deface it.

As long as the flag remains a symbol of Fascist power, people will continue to deface it.

[Dr Fate]

30. I've never seen anyone burn a flag...

...I think it's mostly a media myth- perhaps some of the kids at war protests still do it, but I've been to 4 of them and did not see it.

Burning the flag is probably the worst way to protest conservative policies- because the flag does not represent just conservatives, does it?....

When the average American sees a flag being burnt, he just thinks that person "hates America" and probably does not even listen to the message...

I've always enjoyed patriotic and American flag-motif symbols and imagery since I was a kid- and I'm Liberal...

Having said that, I think it should remain legal-if some idiot wants to burn the flag, or if some idiot wants to use a "flag skull" as his sig-line, then they should be allowed to do it!!!!

I'm Opposed to burning a flag it in that it is ineffective propaganda, but hey, it's your right!

But burning flags at war protests or whatever never gets average Americans to embrace Liberal issues or vote for DEMS...

[xultar]

11. I thought about it and to me it is a minor issue...but think 9/11

When they showed the folks in Palestine burining the flag and celebrating. That made me sad.

I think the General is speaking from a Military point of view. I guess I couldn't blame him if I'd been shot defending the flag or lost a family member in the armed forces and received one at their funeral and came home and people were burning it.

I don't however think we need a law to ban flag burning.

again it is a minor issue to me. I wouldn't quit supporting the General just on this alone. He'd have to be against AA, pro choice, the environment, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

[lastliberalintexas]

25. Ostensibly, he was

shot defending our country. Not the flag.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. If that's the worse he does

I'll be happy. Where I support the right to burn the flag....in the "GRAND SCHEME" of things, it's a very small issue. We have the war, economy, health care, Medicare, SS, Joblessness, Homelessness and SOOOOOOOO many more important things to worry about. This issue just isn't as important to me. How often does a person burn a flag? They do eat food every day and need jobs to pay for it.

[Ilsa]

33. Well said. ITA.

I disagree with Clark on this, but it won't change my opinion of him. I figure it is about par for the course for someone with a long term military career to support a ban.

[Renew Deal]

48. Wouldn't it be funny if someone brought this up in a debate?

THat could be interesting.

[Pastiche423]

20. Unbeknownst to the frog

the water keeps getting warmer and warmer...

[Zero Division]

21. Damn. Although, bad as it is, I still support him.

And how weird (meaning contradicting their stereotypical political image) is it that Kucinich favors the amendment and Lieberman opposes it?

[KittyWampus]

23. One Issue I Don't Agree With Clark

I can handle that. :)

[DebJ]

24. wouldn't this appeal to right wingers?

[dobak]

37. yes - and conservatives, moderates, and centrist Democrats

Last time I saw a poll on this subject, (years ago), it was somewhere around 75-80% in support of the amendment.

----

In the 2004 election, things like this (10 commandments, assisted suicide, etc..) will come up in Repug attack ads:

We need a candidate who can deflect those ads without the dirt sticking. The Republicans are much better at flinging mud (they have alot more emotional issues) than we do.

[MIMStigator]

56. Yup. Clark probably believes in it but won't push it

It won't be a priority in a Clark administration. He won't want to offend the base

[dfong63]

72. our rights are not as safe as you think

if Clark is on record as supporting the flag amendment, then the people who truly believe in it will bring the issue to him, whether he pushes it or not. furthermore, those people may be joined by other wingnuts who want a constitutional amendment for other reasons. flag burning isn't the only issue that has fervent supporters wanting to improve the constitution. they'll probably say they want a new "constitutional convention" to work out the language.

THIS IS DANGEROUS, FOLKS. if they do succeed in getting another convention, there's no telling what kind of idiocy will come out of it. can you say "english only"? "defense of marriage"? "tort reform"? "corporate free speech"? "executive privilege"?

even the flag-burning amendment by itself is not as benign as some people seem to believe. if you accept the principle that harming a symbol is a crime, how long do you think it'll be before that principle gets broadened to cover symbols such as corporate logos?

the constitution we've got is as good as we're going to get. changing it would open a huge and unpleasant-smelling can of worms. in today's political climate, any changes they make are not going to be improvements. let's not go there.

[SahaleArm]

98. About the Constitution

> the constitution we've got is as good as we're going to get.
> changing it would open a huge and unpleasant-smelling can of worms.
> in today's political climate, any changes they make are not going
> to be improvements. let's not go there.

I don't agree with Clark's take on the flag-burning amendment or any other amendment banning acts that don't infringe on the rights of others. The thought that somehow the current constitution is as good as it gets is equally dangerous. The same line of reasoning has been used in the past to prevent women (XIX) and blacks (XXIV) from voting.

[kentuck]

26. He's a military man....

I can see how he would believe that...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. They're trying to build a bigger tent...

...to be more inclusive of everyone that has grown to hate the Bushies.

Remember folks, the object is to outright win the next presidential election, not end up with another general election in the Supreme Court.

[bowens43]

117. Build a bigger tent

by burning the bill of rights? No, thak you.

[Deja Q]

29. I won't not vote for him just because of one disagreement

But I disagree with him on this.

Though it's safer to hang the flag upside down...

[_NorCal_D_]

73. I agree

B-)

[in_cog_ni_to]

88. Better find yourself a new candidate

because Kucinich supports it also.

[Bread and Circus]

31. I support the right to burn the Flag....

But I think this is a small potatoes issue compared
to

"Free Speech Zones"

So:

1.) I disagree with Clark on this...

2.) I wish someone would talk about "Free Speech Zones"
and what a crock of shit they are.

We had our Wesley Clark signs confiscated in Detroit
before the debate. That is disgusting. I am no constitution
expert, but it seemed very dubious. This is America,
not some fascist country (or so I was brought up to believe).

[in_cog_ni_to]

89. What happened?

WHO confiscated your flag? AND WHY??????

[in_cog_ni_to]

90. What happened?

WHO confiscated your signs? AND WHY??????

[jsw_81]

34. The flag burning amendment is BS

Clark should be ashamed for supporting this nonsense.

[Lefta Dissenter]

35. Well,

we knew after his response to Dean's "Confederate Flag comments" that Clark feels strongly about our flag, and nobody could be surprised, considering he spent over three decades defending that flag.

Dean may want to be careful in how he responds to this, given the fact that he could easily come off as someone who wants to burn the American flag and fly the Confederate flag.

I hope that neither one of those issues continues to divide Democrats - remember who the enemy is...

:kick:

[SahaleArm]

99. He did not fight for the flag...

but what it represents - liberty as defined by the constitution.

[Donna Zen]

40. Damned if you do; damned if you don't

So someone asks him at a Vets organization on Vets day, if we should permit flag burning. Actually, he probably hates the concept so politically correct or not, it is not surprising. He does go on to say that the flag does not equal true patriotism.

This is a wedge issue. Of course burning the flag should not be punished. What should be punished is driving gas hogs covered with dirty tattered American flags that were made in Chinese sweat shops. All these flags manage to find their way into roadside gutters.

One man in my town has glued six, flag-holdin' teddy bears on his 93 silver Taurus. The bears ain't small either. American's certainly can out do themselves in rediculous.

I disagree with General Clark on this issue; however, I would have cringed either way.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Four Bullets???

I guess it's better him saying on "Veterans Day" that he believes that burning the flag is not a good thing. I disagree we need an amendment for it though. I never thought Clark was a Green or ultra liberal. This is not a problem for me. plus he did say.......

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

If Deniacs can live with the encouraging the Confederate flag voters...I sure can support and respect Wes Clark for wanting respect for the old Red, White and Blue.

[dfong63]

83. Dean did not "encourage" the confederate flag voters

If Deniacs can live with the encouraging the Confederate flag voters...I sure can support and respect Wes Clark for wanting respect for the old Red, White and Blue.

two completely different things. Dean did NOT say anything to encourage the confederate flag voters. Dean didn't say he would support legislation to preserve the confederate flag, nor did he say anything in support of the bigotry that the confederate flag supposedly stands for. what Dean did say is that (in essence) even confederate flag lovers have been screwed by the rightwing takeover of our country, and that he'd welcome their votes. he didn't alter his platform to pander to them; he pointed out that his platform would benefit them, just like it'd benefit a lot of other Americans.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

45. Not surprising

But not encouraging. The more I look at Clark, the more I think he has tunnel vision, and can only see the world through military eyes. He is trying to be Commander-in-Chief, but not the whole of President. Most of what he says is in the context of his military career, and I am not a soldier (though I appreciate those who are) and I don't want this country to be one big military operation.

At this point, I'm not even sure I'd want to see him in a VP slot, either.

[IranianDemocrat]

50. You're right.

If Dean doesn't get the nomination I'm voting 3rd party no matter what so that Bush gets a second term.

/sarcasm

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

55. What made you think I'm not ABB?

A bit jumpy, eh?

I happen to like our group of candidates more than Bu$h. Do you? Or are you assuming that I will cut off my nose to spite my face, as you perhaps have been pondering?

Sorry, I have looked long and hard at Clark, and he doesn't do it for me. Sue me.

[IranianDemocrat]

67. I respect that.

I'm glad you're ABB.

Sorry if I jumped at you.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

76. No problem :)

I think that sometimes we are so busy reading flame bullsh*t that we forget that most people around here are quite reasonable.

[Donna Zen]

60. Could Clark be a more political animal than we think?

I've read back through several years of his speeches and he always encourages dissent. Burning the American flag, while not my brand of dissent is just that. He also recognizes that it is a symbol of patriotism. While he may believe himself, he changed his mind about several issues, all to the good. Medical marijuana was a move for him. At first he said he had to think about it.

He is very willing to defend the lifting of sanctions on Cuba.

Wedge issue. At least he didn't say he would leave it up to the states.

[bowens43]

118. He couldn't be more of a 'political animal'

then I think he is. I've seen nothing but pandering and flip flops from Clark since the beginning.

[shindig]

104. but wait...

we still don't know what Dr. Dean's position is on the flag-burning amendment. From what I have read, he seems a little wishy-washy on the issue.

He, at first, was adamantly against it, but in December 2001, "leaned on his Democratic leadership engaged in a conference committee with Republicans (eager for a flag resolution)to accept resolution language that left open the possibility of a Constitutional Flag Amendment as a means to protect the flag from destruction." http://www.politicsvt.com/Skinner/flag.htm

So that's that! That's three candidates now (dean,clark,kucinich)who are no longer pure enough to vote for. If Carol Mosely-Braun doesn't get the nomination, I'm with iraniandemocrat and voting 3rd party to make sure that Bush gets a second term.
/ more sarcasm

[belle]

57. Oh, dear.

But thanks for reminding me of another reason why I wasn't ready to go out on a limb for Kucinich. Yukko.

I'm sorry, but this one is important to me: you don't mess with the First Amendment. And you don't add new ones unless you have a damn good reason (i.e. one that's in keeping with the genuine spirit of the Constitution, which this one certainly wouldn't be): that's one of the main reasons we want to get rid of this pack of jokers in the first place. They've been a-messin' where they shouldn't have been a -messin'. Even as a throwaway line, it still sucks. Bad move, Clark. No biscuit.

Annnnd...once more:

DEAN, DEAN, He's Our Man!
If he can't do it...

well, *someone* still can, and it might even still end up being Clark; but I'm less okay about that prospect than I was before reading this.

Actually, it cuts to the real heart of my beef with Clark's candidacy (as opposed to the man himself, who does appear to be a truly decent sort, despite my strong disagreement with several things he's said now): why, WHY do people think that it's more desirable for someone with little or no political experience to go into office--even the highest one!--than a "career" politican? I mean, normally "professional" is a GOOD thing; it means you have prior experience in the field. Would you select a doctor or lawyer this way? It *is* a real job, the presidency, you know, even though it's easy to forget this when the person currently occupying it is no more qualified for it than he is for rocket science, or any job, for that matter.

I'm sure Clark's a terrific general, but it really doesn't translate into good presidential material. He may turn out to have good abilities *despite* his lack of experience, of course; and, let's face it, a ChiaPet would be an improvement over what we have now.
But I feel better about having someone who's at least been a governor--a GOOD governor--or a senator--applying for this job.

Of course, the veep question may be another story...

[Mz Pip]

64. What has Dean said

about flag burning?

MzPip
:dem:

[Guaranteed]

79. I don't know

but I want to know now.

[shindig]

105. see post #104

:)

[Guaranteed]

77. That's right. 1st Amendment = OFF LIMITS.

Don't you FUCK with my constitutional rights, CLARK!

[xultar]

87. Say the SAME THING to DEAN, DENNIS, & DICK

They all have the same stance.

[jobycom]

59. Are we sure Kucinich isn't taking us for a ride?

This guy is labelled the progressive candidate, yet he's consistently voted against choice and only stated an opinion supporting choice once he decided to run for president after he got hammered on the issue, and he works religion into his speeches with uncomfortable regularity.

Why again is he more liberal than Lieberman? I salute him on the war issue, but he's beginning to lose me on a lot of others. (And I used to love the guy).

He reminds me of Jerry Brown. Very bright, very creative, but always shopping for a new shtick. He seems too willing to adjust his core beliefs to make his core constituency happy.

He's been out-liberalled by Joe Lieberman on this issue, and he's sided with Gephardt. On the abortion issue, he wound up voting with Bob Barr.

Sigh. At least Clark isn't trying to be a liberal, not too hard, anyway. I don't trust either of them right now.

[belle]

70. Yeah, Kucinich has put me in mind of Jerry Brown a number of times...

Actually *Nader* puts me a lot in mind of Jerry Brown. All three men kind of give me the wig, to be perfectly honest. Maybe it's unfair; it's how I feel. I just keep thinking, "Sometimes, crunchy is not necessarily better for you. Sometimes, the tasty snack with the bright shiny packaging really *is* the better choice. Not always, but sometimes. That's why you have to read the ingredients..."

...okay, I've bludgeoned that metaphor, moving right along...

[xultar]

63. You guys are acting like he's pushing it or that he has a task force

to make sure that an amendment is passed.

He just said he FAVORS it. Like I'm sure he favors a 1964 GTO but I doubt he's writing the check for it right now.

GEEZ

[funkyflathead]

66. He will sign it if it crosses his desk but he won't push hard for it

I bet that is his tack. Will play well with the military folks.

[jobycom]

78. The president doesn't sign an amendment

For an amendment to be ratified, two thirds of either Congress or state legislatures must propose an Amendment and three fourths of the states ratify it. The president is unnecessary in this since the required ratification would be veto-proof anyway.

For a president to support it means only that he will push for it.

[mlawson]

84. Exactly right. Thanks, jobycom.

Again, an amendment can NOT be vetoed.

[bowens43]

107. Favoring an attack on the 1st amendment is ok with you?

I can't believe that I'm reading these things on what is supposed to be a liberal or progressive website.

Comparing an attack on one of our most sacred rights to wanting to purchase a GTO is silly.

[JanMichael]

75. It's all just pathetic pandering at best.

Just like when the whole damned Senate said the fucking Pledge on the steps of Congress.

Watching these sheep-like, yet manipulative, jackasses is like going to the zoo to watch the monkeys throw shit at passerbys.

[Mike Niendorff]

85. How to make a freeper's head explode:

Ask him this: "Does a klansman have a Constitutional right to display the American flag on his burning cross?"

<cue meltdown ...>


MDN

[KittyWampus]

91. Dog That's Funny

I got the visuals of it too! :D

[burr]

93. Strange what Amendments, cowards will support..and what they oppose.

Clark and Kucinich will back a Constitutional Amendment throwing you or me in prison for properly disposing of a wornout flag. In other words if you burn your wornout flag in a public service rather than just TRASHING IT, which shows extreme disrespect for the flag..you will be imprisoned for doing the Patriotic thing and not even touched for doing the unPatriotic thing.

"The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."


Worst of all, the flag is not to be used as an article of clothing, to be leftout in the rain, or cheapened for advertising as politicians do on their signs and bumperstickers.


"The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general

The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown."

<http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html>

But when will these politicians support a Patriotic Constitutional Amendment, one establishing the democratic election of our President?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

95. Egads! I've created a monster!

i didn't expect this thread to be such a big deal.

anyway, i hope i didn't seem too divisive. i think we do spend too much time attacking our own guys (except, of course, leiberman, who's fair game and can go fuck himself)

i still like clark and would vote for him in the general election, but i'm getting more solidly behind dean as time passes.

i think clark's other main mistake was kind of blowing off his populist appeal by not connecting more with the draftclark folks, and running a by-the-numbers 'handlers'-ridden campaign. it made him bland really fast. he needs to recapture the outsider role.

just my thoughts

[Donna Zen]

100. Attention

Draft clark people in Little Rock. No not everyone, but they are there.

[w4rma]

96. I do not support any amendments to the U.S.Constitution whatsoever.

Especially with these crooks in charge, currently.

You let them pass one amendment and they'll pass another and another and another, etc., etc., etc.

[kodi]

97. when you ban burning the flag the freedoms it symbolizes burn up instead

if burning an american flag is not an expression of speech that is protected by the first amendment, than nothing is.

i am very disappointed hearing about clark's remark because i like him,

but clark will not get my vote if he is nominated. i will go back to being a greenie.

i deem this topic of that level of import to me.

[Bertrand]

103. im sure then

that all of the conservative positions that all of the realistic candidates hold will then send you back to the greenies too, since this issue (although i agree with you that a flag ammendment is wrong) is minor in comparison to the totality of the Bush administrations push toward global neoconservative hegemony.

[Nlighten1]

115. Opiate for the masses

I said this in the other thread.

This ranks right up there with abortion, "states rights", tax cuts, and all the other tools the ruling class uses to control the proletariat.

Rise about it folks and move on.

[wndycty]

120. He was wrong on this. . .

. . .but it is something I will lobbying against once he is in office.