For those who used Clark's praise for Bush against him

[LiberalBushFan]

I'd like to bring up the fact that these comments were made in May 2001.

If you are going to keep using this as a knee-jerk reply to every positive comment about Clark or to every criticism of your candidate, please do these few things if you want to show some integrity:

1. Explain what Bush had clearly done wrong between his inauguration in January and Clark's words in May.

2. Provide some criticisms from your candidate from before or shortly after May 2001 of these Bush wrongdoings.

3. If your candidate uttered similar praises after or shortly before May 2001, explain why it's ok for him and not for Clark.

If you can't give these three simple explanations, you should stop using the quote.

I think there are probably a few candidates whose supporters could very well be able to answer these three points. However, those who use this quote most often aren't the ones who support those candidates. If you don't ever use the quote against Clark, no need to reply to this.

[poskonig]

1. Fundraising and supporting Republicans,

especially Republicans like Wolfowitz, is asinine. Everyone knows their Straussian ideology, and Clark, with degrees in economics, philosophy, and political science, is no stupe.

[LiberalBushFan]

4. since you seem to be one who DOES use the quote

could you provide your candidate and the answers to the three questions, or at least your candidate's name?
Also, do you have a link that Clark fundraised for Wolfowitz?

[blm]

5. Dean liked Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz's strategy in Afghanistan

AFTER they allowed Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda escape. Dean could not admit that Kerry was on target with his attacks on Bush so Dean lied and sided with Bush. He had to be lying because noone could POSSIBLY have believed Tora Bora was a success.


 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. He voted for Clinton TWICE and Gore in 2000.

Sheesh. He could have, just as easily, said he was a Democrat and voted accordingly, but told the TRUTH. THAT, to me, says a lot for the man's character and integrity.

He worked with Wolfowitz. He had no choice. He was in the military for crying out loud.

[QC]

8. Yes, but that will never be enough for the Purity Police.

God knows we don't want people coming over from the other party. We might win an election if that keeps up!

[poskonig]

9. Imagine if Dean did the stuff Clark did.

Suppose Dean fundraised for the Republicans in 2002, said great things about the most extreme ideologues in the Bush administration, voted for Nixon, Reagan (twice), Ford, and Bush I, pimped the war on a corporate news network, and said he would have voted for the IWR.

We would never hear the end of it from the likes of blm, bearfart, and others.

But since Clark has stars, is our messiah, whatever, this stuff is okay for him.

[QC]

12. If Dean had done those things, many of his

supporters here would be telling how they were actually virtues and that it is "bashing" to mention them.

Can you not see that this stuff goes both ways? All of the candidates have supporters who love to spin and do it at every opportunity.

[LiberalBushFan]

13. now that I know where you're coming from

I'm not surprised you haven't answered the questions.

I doubt you have any answer to 2. or 3.
>Suppose Dean fundraised for the Republicans in 2002, said great >things about the most extreme ideologues in the Bush >administration, voted for Nixon, Reagan (twice), Ford, and Bush I, >pimped the war on a corporate news network, and said he would have >voted for the IWR
Okay, I'm already supposing he said great things about them.
http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/July%202002/Is%20It%202004%20Yet.htm

Also, you will not find a link verifying that Clark fundraised for Republicans in 2002.

[poskonig]

14. Clark, about Wolfowitz & co: "We need them there."

Clark has degrees in political science, economics, and philosophy. You can bet he knows who Leo Strauss is.

[LiberalBushFan]

15. fine, just ignore everything I said

and criticize Clark again without justifying your candidate's actions.
And at least edit your post saying Clark fundraised for Repubs in 2002 because it's a lie.

[dogman]

16. He isn't capable.

Remember that hole he talked about? He worked fine with the Rs in Vermont. He even wanted to work with Gingrich. If you didn't get the message, he criticized the conduct of the war and was pulled off the air because of that. I know, I watched him and was so impressed by his honesty that when the chance of him running developed I was there. He is a proven leader not another misleader.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. I'm sorry, but

today he was crowned "Pretty Prince." I happened to agree with that one though. He IS pretty. :7 :loveya:

You need to keep up with the rest of Clark's bashers.

What about the fact that he could have lied? He could have said he was a Democrat for his entire life, but he didn't do that. Does that not say anything to you about his character, intergrity and his George Washington honesty?..."I cannot tell a lie." He could have lied. He didn't. Had he lied, this crap would never have been an issue in the election. Right? He is honorable!

[xultar]

17. Dean did a fundraiser with the top Republican fundraiser in FL

He raised money for his campaign to use against Democrats.

Dean had a fundraising event by a REPUBLICAN in FL. The money will be used to campaign against Democrats.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/sfl-cpol06dec06,0,4315209.column?coll=sfla-news-col
Hmmmmm:

The newest supporter of former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont is super-lobbyist Ron Book, who is a host for a Dean presidential campaign fund-raiser later this month. Wait a minute! Isn't this the same Book who raises money for President Bush and his baby brother, Jeb? "This is money for the Democratic primary," Book quickly points out. In other words, Dean now is running only against Democrats, so any money Book raises will not hurt Bush. ...

How do you feel about that?

[poskonig]

18. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

My candidate is supported by a single lobbyist. Your candidate IS a lobbyist. In addition, Clark thinks America benefits with adherents of Leo Strauss in office.

But if you've been convinced already, nothing I say will change your mind.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. You're wrong.

He's NOT a lobbyist. He USE to be one. Be truthful anout the Pretty Prince, eh?

[hedda_foil]

19. This gossip column article was fully debunked by research here at DU.

The guy in question has donated only to Dem candidates per opensecrets.org and is a Graham fundraiser.

[dfong63]

21. all of Clark's money is going to fight democrats too

that's the way primaries work - the candidates have to spend money competing against people in their own party.

despite your feeble attempts at twisting reality, the fact remains that Clark raised funds FOR republicans, and whereas in this case a republican was raising money FOR Dean.

huge difference.

[TorchTheWitch]

26. not so

despite your feeble attempts at twisting reality, the fact remains that Clark raised funds FOR republicans, and whereas in this case a republican was raising money FOR Dean.

Who's twisting, eh? It's been debunked here many times that Clark did not fundraise for Republicans. He was a paid speaker AT a Republican fundraiser. He didn't raise a single penny for Republicans. In fact, since the Repubs had to pay him for the speech, the Repubs LOST some money from that fundraiser.

Obviously you never read the speech. It's a pre-100 year vision. The whole speech is a testiment to what we were doing wrong, what we needed to do to get it right and even gave a warning if we didn't get wise:

"Anyway, a lot of that is in my book. The title of the book is 'Waging Modern War'; I'm not going to go through all of that tonight. But I'll just make a small prediction: When this book comes out, it may be World War III. Because when you're there, when you're a general and you're caught up in these things, it's just like politics or business or anything else--you know a lot of people with different ideas. And I hope that we have learned something out of this experience in the Balkans."

Now tell me how predicting World War III while the current administration is in office is praise for this administration.

[HFishbine]

25. Wrong

This story has been revealed as misleading already. Ron Book is a huge contributor to numerous democrats, including:

Bob Graham
Dick Geprhardt
Ted Kennedy
Joe Biden

and scores of other democratic candidates for congress and state offices.

http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/indexhtml.exe?MBF=NAME

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Those who use that May 2001

speech against Clark, don't give a shit that it was prior to the war. They NEED that speech as bashing material because it's all they have. JMCPO

[shance]

3. You could benefit from your own advice Fok

Start citing examples instead of making broad statements how Dean supporters attack Clark.

Contrary to what you believe or atleast the threads you post, most of us Dean supporters actually want to unify the party and not divide it. Yes Dean is in the lead, and yes I believe he has deserved it, and YES, I like most of the other candidates, including Clark.

You wont see me criticizing Clark unless some huge concern crops up. However, Im sure I will be able to spot you and your threads.

[LiberalBushFan]

6. Dean isn't even mentioned once in my post.

Nor did I mention his supporters.
I'm just addressing people who DO use the praise against Clark.
If you don't use the praise quote against Clark, I wasn't addressing you and have no qualms.

I admit my post on another thread that included a similar quote from Dean was too broad. I only intended to refer to Dean supporters who do use this quote. (You have to admit, there are a LOT of them here, no?)

[Racenut20]

10. I think some are just frustrated that all their efforts are going nowhere,

And that Clark is going to win the nomination after we get past the 80,000 caucus goers in Iowa, and the 100,000 or so voters (many being "Republican Independents") in New Hampshire. Perhaps then we will get to see how the rest of the country feels about who.

[TexasSissy]

11. I don't care if Clark was Republican or supported this admin. @ the

beginning. What I DO care about is what he thinks and will do now.

In my view, the fact that doesn't hate Republicans makes it all the more convincing that there are problems with them, since he's not inclined to be overly critical of them. When he criticizes them, it resonates more.

There are some candidates who moan about the other party over and over. So who listens when they simply moan some more?

[Hoppin_Mad]

23. Appointment of the cabal of the contra criminals was a CLEAR signal

that bush* was a DANGEROUS radical extremist. Negroponte for Ambassador ? Poindexter ? Reich ? Abrams ? Anyone who didn't take a stand against this was a neocon assslicker.

[LiberalBushFan]

24. Ok that's question 1.

Still no answers on 2 or 3 for Dean yet.

[TorchTheWitch]

27. ah geez

Appointment of the cabal of the contra criminals was a CLEAR signal that bush* was a DANGEROUS radical extremist. Negroponte for Ambassador ? Poindexter ? Reich ? Abrams ? Anyone who didn't take a stand against this was a neocon assslicker

It's been debunked here many times that Clark did not fundraise for Republicans. He was a paid speaker AT a Republican fundraiser. He didn't raise a single penny for Republicans. In fact, since the Repubs had to pay him for the speech, the Repubs LOST some money from that fundraiser.

I see you never read the speech either. It's a pre-100 year vision. The whole speech is a testiment to what we were doing wrong, what we needed to do to get it right and even gave a warning if we didn't get wise:

"Anyway, a lot of that is in my book. The title of the book is 'Waging Modern War'; I'm not going to go through all of that tonight. But I'll just make a small prediction: When this book comes out, it may be World War III. Because when you're there, when you're a general and you're caught up in these things, it's just like politics or business or anything else--you know a lot of people with different ideas. And I hope that we have learned something out of this experience in the Balkans."

Predicting World War III while the current administration is in office is some real neocon asslicking. Writing a book that bashes neocons throughout is real asslicking. Bashing PNAC is real asslicking. :eyes: