Clark Presidential Campaign in Disarray, Campaign Manager Quits

Yes! I will admit it this is pretty serious and I am disturbed about the "Washington" influence.



We’ll see...

 

Yeah, If you read up on him, he's pretty much Bill Clinton's little b****.

 

Just like your current pResident is Karl Rove's, Tom DeLay's and Roger Ailes' little b****!

 

At least those guys have integrity.

 

I think you need to re-read Webster's definition of integrity!

 

Well, this should make you happy T_J

----------------------------------------

Clark May Have Broken Law in Paid Speeches

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 8, 2003; Page A06

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark may have violated federal election laws by discussing his presidential campaign during recent paid appearances, according to campaign finance experts.

Clark, a newcomer to presidential politics, touted his candidacy during paid appearances at DePauw University in Indiana and other campuses after he entered the presidential race on Sept. 17. Under the laws governing the financing of presidential campaigns, candidates cannot be paid by corporations, labor unions, individuals or even universities for campaign-related events. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) considers such paid political appearances akin to a financial contribution to a candidate.

Clark is getting paid as much as $30,000 for speeches, according to people familiar with his arrangement. He has two more scheduled for next week.

Clark, like any other candidate, would likely be permitted to deliver the paid speeches only if they did not "expressly" cover his campaign or his political opponents, the experts said.

But in his speeches, Clark has talked about his campaign positions and criticized President Bush's policies. At DePauw, during a question-and-answer session after the speech, Clark "absolutely" covered his political views on everything from education to the economy, said Ken Bode, a visiting professor of journalism who moderated the session.

Larry Noble, a former FEC general counsel who heads the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, said Clark's speeches are "problematic" because "the insertion of campaign-related items into his speech can turn it into a campaign speech." If so, the paid appearances would amount to "illegal contributions," Noble said.

"If somebody is going to get involved in a presidential campaign, they need to know the rules," Noble said.

William Oldaker, Clark's general counsel, said the retired general did not run afoul of FEC laws because Clark "is not attempting through those speeches to specifically . . . influence his election."

Oldaker said Clark only "incidentally" mentioned his candidacy in the speeches, and, therefore, the purpose of his appearances had nothing to do with his presidential campaign.

But Don Simon of Common Cause, a campaign finance watchdog group, said, "It's potentially a real problem if he used these speeches in any way to even refer to his campaign." Simon said the FEC should investigate whether Clark crossed the line by talking too much about his campaign, even if that wasn't the candidate's intent. Simon said the FEC would look at the "totality" of Clark's appearances to determine if he violated any laws.

Clark has been paid for speeches at DePauw, the University of Iowa and Midwestern State University. If the FEC reviews the matter, it would look at how much of each appearance was campaign-related, according to Noble and Simon.

Clark's appearance on Sept. 23 at DePauw appears most problematic for the candidate.

Throughout his speech to the DePauw audience, some of whom waved "Draft Clark" signs they were handed on the way in, Clark blasted Bush's Iraq policy and outlined how he would handle foreign affairs differently. During the Q&A that followed, Clark talked in detail about his qualifications and ideas for the presidency.

Ken Gross, the former head of enforcement at the FEC, said most candidates "shut down speaking" because "it just creates too many problems for them." In 1999, Republican Elizabeth Dole, who was exploring a run for the presidency but was not officially a candidate, came under fire for allowing corporations to pay for her speeches. At the time, her spokesman said Dole would quit delivering paid speeches once she was officially running. Clark is officially running.

Gross said Clark would "be open to investigation," but it is not clear what the FEC would do because there is "no entirely bright line" that indicates when a paid appearance becomes a political one.

The FEC dealt with a similar case in 1992, when Republican candidate David Duke requested permission to allow Vanderbilt University to pay him an honorarium and cover his travel expenses for a speech on affirmative action.

In an advisory opinion, which reflects the view of the FEC at the time, the commission said if Duke discussed his campaign or the "qualifications of another presidential candidate, either during the speech or during any question and answer period [it] will change the character of the appearance to one that is for the purpose of influencing a federal election."

Brad Litchfield, who helped draft the 1992 FEC advisory opinion as head of that department, is now working for the Clark campaign.

---------------------------------
dangit Clark! Get it together!

 

I don't get my definitions for things such as integrity from the dictionary. Look up Justice or love in the dictionary while your at it.

 

You don't get your definitions from a dictionary???

Love:love ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lv) n.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
often Love Christianity. Charity.
Sports. A zero score in tennis.


Justice: jus·tice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jsts)
n.
The quality of being just; fairness.
The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.
Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Abbr. J. Law.
A judge.
A justice of the peace.


What is wrong with those? (from dictionary.com)

 

For love, it is ok, but really shallow completely lacking in any depth of what love is, I mean the one I see as love is the second from the bottom and even then it takes more than a blurb to explain... caritas, or charity.... it focuses more on love being an emotion, which isn't love but a fancy, a whim, an infatuation, because emotions go away...

As far as justice is concerned, see Plato's Rebublic and you'll see how inadequate that entry is....

And I didn't say I didn't use the dictionary for a lot of definitions, I said, some things can't be defined as easily as a dictionary would like...

 

Dictionaries tend to do a pretty good job for what their purpose is: to give a concise definition of a word or phrase. You are talking about a treatise

trea·tise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trts)
n.
A systematic, usually extensive written discourse on a subject.

Dictionaries aren't supposed to try to encompass anything and everything that a term connotes, they are to give a general definition. I could write a treatise on prohibition, but the dictionary definition allows anyone to understand the meaning of the word.

 

Clark would be a good vp for Kerry or Dean. Clark and Kerry together = 7 purple hearts in vietnam, 2 silver stars, etc. Bush and Cheney together = 7 keggers at home during vietnam , 2 silver spoons

 

Leave it to Trader Jorge to post this sort of thread.

Working overtime to make sure any negative press on Clark gets out there. Thanks, Associated Propaganda (AP).

Of course some Washington insiders are on Clark's staff. How else will he have a chance? You can't be a complete outsider in this sort of race, despite what presidential candidates assert.

I really hope Clark comes through as the candidate that beats Dubya next year.

 

First let me say that Jorge totally freaking slays me. I mean I really laugh out loud -- good, hearty, satisfying gut laughs -- whenever he declares that one of these Democrats (Clark, Dean, Kerry, Bill White), each of whom has a claim to some sort of frontrunner status, is dead in the water. I'm not being snide -- it is genuinely funny. And I appreciate it.

In other cases though, he's been entirely wrong. In other cases, he's declared candidates dead for stuff that barely made page last of a newspaper (if that). I can't imagine what he thought of Bush when McCain won New Hampshire. But here he's just mostly wrong. This stuff (the first article not the second - the second's much ado about nothing) is a serious concern for the Clark campaign. It's done zero damage to his campaign so far, but how he responds to this issue will define his campaign as it stands now. He can't be Gore and he can't be Kerry. That is, he can't make the mistake of being over handled and he can't play by old rules. In other words he can't be a cynic. That works to lift other campaigns, but it won't work to lift his. And he can't afford to offend 'them what brung him.' Why? Dean. I actually think Clark's hip to the Dean phenomenon, which means he has a shot at handling this particular briar patch with some grace and success, but it will be tricky.

And finally, twhy: you are even funnier than Jorge. You and DaDakota with your hilarious "well, at least our guys have INTEGRITY" stuff... Are you kidding me? You ever read a newspaper? I'm gonna tell you something right now you're not gonna like hearing. Tom DeLay is not Jesus' kind of Christian. It hurts to hear it and maybe, by your rules, it's even sacreligious to say it, but it is just true. You're obviously a well educated guy. I don't know why you fall for that particular stuff. Gaping hole in your credibility.

 

NEWS FLASH:

BUSH'S WHITEHOUSE SPOKESMAN RESIGNS

BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN DISARRAY

 

Sinking ship? I know another ship of state that seems to be slowly leaking its way to obscurity.

 

BUSH'S WHITEHOUSE SPOKESMAN RESIGNS

I assume this is a joke?

 

Clark does seem pretty clumsy to me, with him not registering as a Democrat, violating FCC laws, changing his mind on whether he would vote for the war, etc. But when the Clinton people get in control he should run a pretty good campaign. I still don't think he is much of a long term candidate though. Maybe a VP to Dean.

 

batman.

no doubt I know that mr. delay has some flaws in his character. overall, in politics, we are forced to go with one noble lie or the other in order to gain some sort of footing for our beliefs. that is why politics sucks, but it is very much needed. now we can wait for some utopia, or we can stand behind guys who get things done for our side. personally, I like this guy rick renzi from az. he's a good man and he stands for what I believe in, protection of the family and the unborn, so I put my trust in him. ultimately, most politicians are going to have to do pretty slimy things to get their agendas done. its a shame but it really just becomes a game of who can cover up the best...by no means am i trying to advocate the doing of slimy things...its just that politics suck, and we just gotta realize that...in the end its always about ideals...

by the way i'm being a minimalist by not using caps letters