I suppose one could see Clark’s shift from being supportive of the Bush administration (at a time when it was just three months old) to being very critical (after quite a bit of things have been done) a sort of flip flop.
Anyway, if Democrats are the ones concerned over this, they should be grateful Fox news is looking out for their interests. We all know how much weight Alan Colmes has over there.
I was mainly pitting (not I am not much of a pitter) the tone of Fox and Drudge, like “we really have really got him good now!”. You’d think he was videotaped in a motel room smoking crack with a hooker, as often as they played the video. I am impressed with Clark’s C.V., I am not too sure about his campaign so far. But if this is a smear, it is the lamest political smear since Claude Pepper was accused of having a thespian sister.
I think Fox’s and Druge’s points were that Clark is possibly a political opportunist.
At the time he was retired, so no, he wasn’t praising Bush because Bush was his boss. Also 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, so no, he wasn’t caught up in the post 9/11 patriotic thing.
He also is quoted as saying “if Karl Rove returned my calls, I’d be a Republican”.
Now, it’s a little hard to say you’re a died in the wool Democrat, favoring big taxes, expanded social programs, affirmative action, generally skeptical of the military (he wants to cut spending 15% I think he said. He also said he wasn’t really a “military man”), if you voted (from what he said) for Nixon and Reagan and had such nice things to say about Bush. And also, if all it would have taken for you to be a Republican, was a returned phone call. And no, the people who heard him say it insist he wasn’t kidding.
Reagan changed his mind too. He was a Democrat who voted for FDR. But his change occured at the beginning of his political career when he was a nobody, not when he was running for President.
So given the evidence, it does seem that Clark opens himself up to charges of being less than sincere in his hard-core Democrat beliefs. Also, I would think it would almost doom him amongst the primary voters, who tend to be on the liberal side of the Democratic party.
Does anyone else find it strange that the best “dirt” the Repubs can get on Clark is he once said he supported them?
This is damning how?
It’s like someone releasing a two year old video tape of some current fitness guru eating Burger King Whoppers and saying “I can’t get enough of these”.
I don’t claim to understand the repub party ideals, but is learning from ones mistakes considered a bad thing. Are Repubs not allowed to EVER change their stand on issues?
If that is the case, how is Pres Bush still not a drunkard cokehead?
Frankly, we don’t care how sincere he is about his Democrat beliefs. That does not affect his most vital and attractive characteristic…namely, that he is not George W. Bush. Do not underestimate that as a selling point with liberals.
The fact that he is capable of praising conservatives and probably isn’t a raving liberal may help him with moderates and centrists and it does not hurt him with the left wing of his party. The overwhelming moral imperative for the left is simply to get that chimp in the flightsuit out of the White House. If Clark can accomplish that, then Clark is our man. If Emmanuel Lewis can accomplish that then he is our man. We’re not picky. You don’t have to be FDR or JFK. Just don’t be Bush. Our criteria has shrunk considerably in past couple of years.
Does anyone else find it strange that the best “dirt” the Repubs can get on Clark is he once said he supported them?
This is damning how?
It’s like someone releasing a two year old video tape of some current fitness guru eating Burger King Whoppers and saying “I can’t get enough of these”.
I don’t claim to understand the repub party ideals, but is learning from ones mistakes considered a bad thing. Are Repubs not allowed to EVER change their stand on issues?
If that is the case, how is Pres Bush still not a drunkard cokehead?
Does anyone else find it strange that the best “dirt” the Repubs can get on Clark is he once said he supported them?
This is damning how?
It’s like someone releasing a two year old video tape of some current fitness guru eating Burger King Whoppers and saying “I can’t get enough of these”.
I don’t claim to understand the repub party ideals, but is learning from ones mistakes considered a bad thing. Are Repubs not allowed to EVER change their stand on issues?
If that is the case, how is Pres Bush still not a drunkard cokehead?
So let me get this straight: The fact that some are taking issue with the fact that Clark seems to have done a fast 180 is your rational for an indictment of Republicans in general.
So let me get this straight: The fact that some are taking issue with the fact that Clark seems to have done a fast 180 is your rational for an indictment of Republicans in general.
You know, several years ago my mother bought a Ford Taurus. She loved that car. She was very pleased with it. After a few weeks the trunk started to leak. It was in and out of the shop several times as they attempted to find the problem. They managed to get it fixed. But then the drivers side door lock had problems and the rear view mirror broke. It was about 4 months later when she noticed it was dripping oil on the floor of her garage.
She kept putting up with this car for another year expecting the problems to go away but the minute one did, another would pop up.
Ask her how she feels about the Ford Taurus today.
Would YOU like to call her up and say she’s wrong for doing a 180 about her feeling on the Taurus?
I think it would be strange to “call her on it”.
I wasn’t an “indictment of Republicans”, I was questioning if this was SOP for the party. If this is the case, are the same repubs now looking at Bush being a drunk coke abuser. Logic says they must be because it seems people can’t change their mind.
Still having trouble with the mirror, I see, Scylla. You do know that thoughtful, incisive commentary about the rules you think everyone else should obey, of the nature of that last, will only make Thanksgiving sweeter for us here, don’t you? Now grow the fuck up and accept responsibility for your own statements, lamer.
Seven, I don’t think anyone will ever face up to Bush’s being a drunk coker, and not only since that seems to be behind him now. What matters is how he’s conducted this administration in the here and now - anything else doesn’t need to be mentioned, and would only be diluting and ineffective if it were.
First off, go take a look at what I said and tell me what you think it is that I owe you on thanksgiving.
Secondly, Thanksgiving will be sweet for you if nothing is found. You don’t want anything found. Your rooting for your country’s failure and embarassment. That pretty much makes you a piece of shit.
The failure (i.e. to find WMDs) has already happened. That doesn’t make ElvisL1ves a piece of shit. Your persistent denial of reality makes you psychotic. You exhibit the gambler’s mentality.
“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Scylla knows!”
By what voodoo do you claim to peer into friend Elvis’ psyche and ascertain his motives? Have you a cite wherein he proclaims his disloyalty? Have you any evidence whatsoever to level such a charge? Then bring it. Failing that, your charge is repulsive, repugnant, and Republican.
Shame on you. You know better. If you are not thoroughly Pitted for this disgusting display, it will only be because Elvis is tolerant and forgiving, lessons you should take to heart.
You owe him an immediate and sincere apology. Failing that, you invite a reputation as a bitter and intemperate partisan.
