[roger_ramjet]

This is going to be a no-brainer of a campaign ad.

[thunderous_funker]

Doesn't this just make him more appealing to moderates and Independents?

A lot of this stuff aimed at Clark seems to be "he's not really a Democrat". Truth is, he's a moderate who could easily fit into either party and is striking out on a political career while the iron is hot. Just so happens he's doing it on a Democratic ticket.

A lot of Democrats would vote for McCain if he ran on a Democratic ticket. Does that make him unRepublican?

All this smear stuff seems to be doing is proving that Clark isn't a partisan fanboy for either side. I guess if you want to be in politics in America, you have to be perfectly predictable, never change your mind and always always hold the party line no matter how much it stinks.

Clark isn't my favorite candidate, but if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.

[BRussell]

I don't like it; I mean what the hell is he doing at a GOP event if he supposedly became a Democrat in 1992?


I'm starting to think this business about becoming a Republican if Rove had called him might actually be true.

But although I don't like it I think thunderous is right - most American voters probably will like it. They're non-partisan and they believe in supporting your president, especially during war. I seriously doubt Republicans will use it as a campaign ad. All it would do is make Clark look magnanimous and patriotic.

[christ]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
...A lot of Democrats would vote for McCain if he ran on a Democratic ticket...

In truth a lot of Democrats would vote for Bush if he ran on a Democratic ticket (And, for that matter, a lot of Republicans would have voted for Clinton if he had run on a Republican ticket). That is the beauty of party politics.

[thunderous_funker]

There were rumors that he was being courted by the GOP for public office back in 2001 and that was the reason he was at fundraisers.

I don't think there is anything particularly untoward about it. Bascially, the man's politics put him dead center on most issues. Looking at a political career for him is mostly a question of which party can work for him best and give him the best chance at winning.

For party fanboys or the naive who think that the parties are Ideological hubs (rather than cold, calculated lobby groups that buy and sell elections and policy however and whenever it suits them) that might sound strange or perhaps disconcerting.

If you're running for office, you look at political parties like songwriters look at Record Labels. You pick the one that is going to market you best and use their resources to your best advantage. The only differences is that political parties pretend to be loyal to some core of Ideals so it seems like he's unprincipled rather than pragmatic.

[mr. natural]

I think roger_ramjet is Roger Ailes in disguise.

Welcome to the loony, way tooooo loooong, and way toooooo expen$$$$$ive grand American experiment in presidential election follies.

Go Dennis.

[finboy]

Originally posted by christ:
In truth a lot of Democrats would vote for Bush if he ran on a Democratic ticket (And, for that matter, a lot of Republicans would have voted for Clinton if he had run on a Republican ticket). That is the beauty of party politics.

I agree with that. And it ain't just because they're a bunch of sheep. For example, in my case, given the baggage that the Dems have, I'd vote for a moldy ham sandwich on the Republican card before I'd vote for a Dem on a national ticket. They owe too many things to too many people, and they can't back down any time soon out of pride, conflict of interest, whatever.

Regardless of whether he's a Republican or a Democrat, I don't trust Clark. His military record is great, and I'd HAVE TO vote for him as a Republican candidate, but I still don't trust him.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
I agree with that. And it ain't just because they're a bunch of sheep. For example, in my case, given the baggage that the Dems have, I'd vote for a moldy ham sandwich on the Republican card before I'd vote for a Dem on a national ticket. They owe too many things to too many people, and they can't back down any time soon out of pride, conflict of interest, whatever.

Regardless of whether he's a Republican or a Democrat, I don't trust Clark. His military record is great, and I'd HAVE TO vote for him as a Republican candidate, but I still don't trust him.

Then why have elections? You could easily register your preference once and for all and we could just tabulate your vote without bothering you each time civics encroaches on your leisure time.



This is exactly how halfwits like Dubya get elected. The party foists whatever patsy they can easily control as their nominee and the faithful robotically check the appropriately colored box.

Party politics has completely strangled whatever vestiges of democracy we had.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

... All this smear stuff...

What smear? If they have him on tape saying great things about this admin's national security team, don't you think that's practically a ready-made campaign ad? Is that really so hard for you to imagine? Where's the smear? Really, I'd like to know.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
What smear? If they have him on tape saying great things about this admin's national security team, don't you think that's practically a ready-made campaign ad? Is that really so hard for you to imagine? Where's the smear? Really, I'd like to know.

I was just lumping it (rightly or wrongly) with the other breaking news about how Clark is not what he seems. From where I sit, he is more and more what he seems with every revelation.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, just speaking to the general attitude that seems to be swirling around Clark since his announcement.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
A lot of this stuff aimed at Clark seems to be "he's not really a Democrat". Truth is, he's a moderate who could easily fit into either party and is striking out on a political career while the iron is hot. Just so happens he's doing it on a Democratic ticket.

I think that pretty well sums it up. Depending on one's point of view, he could either be described as a brazen, two-faced opportunist (what national politician isn't?) or a complex, independent thinker. As I like to say, he's probably some of each.

I agree with your assertion that both major parties pander to similar interests, and I've often said that they both revolve more or less around the center, but I think there's still enough difference between them to justify voting for one or the other. If Clark ran as a Republican, he'd probably be a somewhat lonely liberal/moderate Republican (a la Powell). Instead, he's running as a moderate Democrat.

That reminds me - didn't there used to be speculation about which party Powell would run with?

If it turns out that Clark is a chronic liar and/or incapable of making up his mind, then he'll deserve to lose. But (a) it's not exactly difficult to find inconsistencies in the President's record either, and (b) whatever his past positions, if Clark offers a worthy alternative now, then he deserves consideration, regardless of his party affiliation.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I was just lumping it (rightly or wrongly) with the other breaking news about how Clark is not what he seems...

He's the new guy. It's his turn. Bad things get said about everybody - Republican or Democrat - who runs for President. Some of it's true. Some of it isn't.

This one isn't going to help Clark in the Democratic primaries, though. I'll bet Karl Rove probably won't be the first to use this in a campaign ad.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

This is exactly how halfwits like Dubya get elected. The party foists whatever patsy they can easily control as their nominee and the faithful robotically check the appropriately colored box.

No, this is precisely how robots like AlGore are KEPT FROM getting elected. As for party control <hillary, cough cough> the Right had to learn from the Left, and they're still taking lessons.

As for Clark, former CJCS Shelton didn't have any kind words for him the other day. It must be nice to be retired.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Then why have elections? You could easily register your preference once and for all and we could just tabulate your vote without bothering you each time civics encroaches on your leisure time.



This is exactly how halfwits like Dubya get elected. The party foists whatever patsy they can easily control as their nominee and the faithful robotically check the appropriately colored box.

Party politics has completely strangled whatever vestiges of democracy we had.

I agree with finboy here. He's much better represented by voting Republican than by trying to vote on the media-filtered personalities or supposed IQs of the individual candidates. Say he does decide to vote on individual personalities, and decides that Gore or Nader are smarter or whatever. Do you really think finboy gets a government that represents him better with either of them rather than Bush?

I think it's the non-ideological swing voters who vote on personality and demeanor that are the real robots.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by christ:
In truth a lot of Democrats would vote for Bush if he ran on a Democratic ticket (And, for that matter, a lot of Republicans would have voted for Clinton if he had run on a Republican ticket). That is the beauty of party politics.

That is why we need to get rid of the two party system.

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That is why we need to get rid of the two party system.

For a one-party system?

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree with finboy here. He's much better represented by voting Republican than by trying to vote on the media-filtered personalities or supposed IQs of the individual candidates. Say he does decide to vote on individual personalities, and decides that Gore or Nader are smarter or whatever. Do you really think finboy gets a government that represents him better with either of them rather than Bush?

I think it's the non-ideological swing voters who vote on personality and demeanor that are the real robots.

That's a different way of putting it, but IF YOU'RE BEING SERIOUS, well said.

TF, of course I wouldn't vote for a moldy ham sandwich. But the Democratic party shows me nothing that would ever bring me to vote for it, and I really don't trust the folks running it. The Republicans are the lesser of two evils because they at least have, at their core, some conservative values and aspirations to lowering the size of government and promoting individual freedom. I don't see them pandering to emotion the way the Left does, and the Left is represented by Dems. I'm afraid that even if McCain would run as a Democrat, I couldn't rationally vote for him.

I get the idea that if I sat down with Clark to talk about these things, he'd have no ****ing clue what I was talking about.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think it's the non-ideological swing voters who vote on personality and demeanor that are the real robots.

And I think its naive and dillusional to think that the Democratic or Republican parties are driven by Ideology other than self-promotion.

That's why just voting party is so loathsome.

Once in a while a polititician will rise up in either party that actually has real ideas and real vision and its worth it to cross party lines to vote for them.

Personally, I would have voted McCain over Gore in a heartbeat. Hell, I consciously threw my vote away on Nader rather than vote for Gore "just because" he's in the party that writes more speeches designed to entice me.

[BRussell]

McCain is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You would have voted for him but ended up voting for Nader? Nader is more liberal than Gore and McCain is more conservative. That makes no sense. Sure, McCain is a charming guy with a great story, and the media certainly love him. But we're not talking about a talk-show host, we're talking about the head of government, and that government would NOT enact policies that you would want.

But that's what happens when you see these things as personality-based rather than based on political philosophy.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
McCain is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You would have voted for him but ended up voting for Nader? Nader is more liberal than Gore and McCain is more conservative. That makes no sense. Sure, McCain is a charming guy with a great story, and the media certainly love him. But we're not talking about a talk-show host, we're talking about the head of government, and that government would NOT enact policies that you would want.

But that's what happens when you see these things as personality-based rather than based on political philosophy.

Well, because unlike most people I don't think there is any analogy between conservative, liberal, right and wrong. All liberals ideas are not right or wrong. All conservative ideas are not right and wrong.

Voting for Nader isn't a vote for a Green president. Voting for Nader is a protest because there will never be a Green president. And even supposing that by some freakist act of nature or mass hypnosist that a Green was elected, he'd never be able to achieve a Green agenda with a Dem/Rep congress.

Do you mean some people actually cast a presidential vote thinking that they are going to revolutionize America? How quaint.

Presented with a choice between a man who will do almost anything for money and man who is willing to take unpopular positions and cross party lines to accomplish important compromises, I'll take the latter.

Some politicians will stand up against a party and some never will. McCain has done it. I've never seen Clinton or Gore do it. And Bush uses the party like goddammed club.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

... Some politicians will stand up against a party and some never will. McCain has done it...

Whoop-de-doo. This wins him plenty of supporters! He sticks a finger in the eye of the GOP leadership and people think he's a saint. We are living in a time when political parties have never been weaker. What has McCain's maverick ways actually cost him?

The only thing that counts for me about a politician is the policies he promotes. The GOP usually disappoints me, but on the whole, it's closer to my philosophy. Democrats simply do not support, even rhetorically, what I believe in. That's what party loyalty is about. I accept the compromises that entails because it pushes the rock further up the hill. I don't expect revolutionary change - just a little at a time.