I wish there was a way you could limit the vote to independents only....my guess is that Batman etc also voted...... DD
We're talking about Ramsey Clark, right? Honestly I don't know enough about the good general's domestic & economic views to make an informed decision just yet.
I am an independent. I voted for Clark. This is an easy choice, since Bush is clearly the worst President in our lifetimes.
Well now Timing and No Worries have voted. This thing is getting totally skewed. I think it is really meant for people in the middle politically, not people who are too far to one side that they don't like the party on their side.
I have supported Republicans in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, which might preclude me from being an independant, but on the other hand the Democratic party usually follows my own principles more than others. I am politically independant. That said, however, I am so dismayed by the actions Bush et al have taken thus far that it would be hard for me to imagine voting for him this time, but I am not affiliated with any other party, so I qualify as an independant. All that being moot, I feel that Clark is superior to Bush in almost every regard. The reasons I supported Bush last time; his record of bi-partisanship, his stance against US involvment in other nations when uncalled, etc. have all proven to have been more smoke than substance, and I have real difficulty in pointing out one significant thing he has handled well so far, and several he has grievously mishandled. I also, now that his intellectual shortcomings have become more apparent, have a hard time picturing him representing us to the world; if this is the best we have to offer, we're in deep trouble. The one area I give Bush the nod over Clark at this point, and it's pretty big, is experience in the internal machinations of the US political system. I feel that that can be overcome, and certainly Clark's record and abilities show that he can easily do it, but it's a relative weakness at a pretty key area. That said Clark genuinely represents the outsider mentality in Washington that Bush was supposed to represent last time. Also I still have areas where I cannot give the advantage to either party, as I know little of Clark's positions on the economy, or key issues like the death pentalty, abortion, etc. But in every aspect where there is a comparative evaluation possible; intelligence, war record, accomplishments and success in career, independance, work ethic, presence, articulation, experience in related fields, etc. Clark comes out about as high as an individual can come, whereas Bush...er...does not. This one is a no-brainer for me. From my perspective, I need to hear more about Clark's positions, and I suppose he could lose my support, but right now he's won me over based on his persoanl abilites, resume, and positions on very important issues. He will need to be complemented by the right people who are strong in areas where he is weak, but in terms of foreign policy, experience, strategic thinking, understanding the relationship between military and poltical and diplomatic and conventional means of accomplishing agendas, and representing the US as a leader to the world, it would be hard to find a better candidate, outside of possibly Powell. Electing Clark would go a long way to repairing much of the damage Bush has wrought on the US' position in the world and within the diplomatic community. He gets it.
OK, I confess I voted for Clark. Subtract one. Now if those 4 Republicans who voted for Bush would just confess ,we could get a good read.
Perhaps one of the stronger candidates if he runs. For those still on the fence.. http://www.veteransforclark2004.us/page5.html Not much but it gives you an idea of him on the issues. Although I disagree with his stance on abortion overall he might be a "safe" Dem for Indendents. Affirmative action I don't take much issue with but I wish it were more focused on the poor rather than race. If momentum swings Clark's way before the election then I'd give it to him by a hair.
I am in the middle politically. Before you were here I was quite supportive of Bush and the Afghan war while others bashed him even then and called me a war monger. The affiliations on this board didn't just begin the day you showed up.
Mr. Clutch, Don't confuse my anti-Bush stance as being from a Democratic perspective. I have never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate. The last three Presidential candidates I voted for were Nader (2000), Perot (1996), and Perot(1992). The only major party Presidential candidate I voted for was Reagan (1980).
Gore was the first Democrat presidential candidate that I voted for. In 1992 I voted for some weirdo socialist, and in 1996 I accidentally voted for one of those crazy conservative parties (I think it was the Natural Law Party ).
http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html If we were discussing a Conservative, this is the article that Glynch would have posted.
Wild. We have a johnheath sighting. Kindly address all the posts which have addressed all your posts (weeks or months ago) and proved them wrong, wrong, wrong and we will answer in kind. You're way behind, as I'm sure you know, and have much catching up to do. Having 'shamed' us with repeated, furious 'evidence' that we were 'wrong' about the Iraq war, having ignored all evidence that you were WWWWWRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNGGGGG as you could possibly be with every single one of the articles you posted, it would be great if you would either explain why you were so incredibly wrong about every single thing you've posted here over the last year and apologize about being wrong and apologize for all the incredibly ****ty things you said to respected posters here while being WRONG or just say, well, I was misled by my government like the rest of you, but I still want to b**** about Wesley Clark. Either way. It really is great to have you back. It's too bad how every article you've posted turned out to be false and worse that you never had the balls to acknowledge it, but even so, I look forward to you taking the licks you so desperately deserve during the coming election. Welcome back, baby. Shalom, Shalom. Batman
"Frankly, what irritates me the most are these blow-dried Napoleons that have their own agendas. General Clark is one of them that is running for president. He's questioning the plan and raising doubts. I think they would serve the nation better if they would just comment on what they see and what they know, rather than putting their own agenda forward as an expert." -- Tom Delay "Tom Delay's got it exactly backward. It's upside down. I am saying what I believe. And I'm being drawn into the political process because of what I believe and what I've said about it. So it's precisely the opposite of a man like Tom DeLay, who is only motivated by politics and says whatever he needs to say to get the political purpose. When our airmen were flying over Kosovo, Tom DeLay led the House to vote not to support their activities, when American troops were in combat. To me, that's a real indicator of a man who is motivated not by patriotism or support for the troops, but for partisan political purposes." -- Wesley Clark
