I am strongly against abortion, so he may be a no-starter for me rsa.
Cervaise, I like the polar bear idea provided that the babies have the chance to grow up and prove that they deserve to be eaten by wild animals. There are several classes of people that I could list there.
My comment about “restricting freedoms” was towards the gun control issue. He said in the page linked to that “if the public wanted to have assault weapons the should join the military, we have them.” I don’t think that this is the place to discuss the meaning of the political term 'assault weapon," but I don’t think that the name has any significant meaning.
I like his credentials, including the fact that he hasn’t been elected before. We’ll have to see what comes out in the debates and such.
Here’s something that I really don’t get about people’s political choices, and I’ll use MDSL’s statement as an example:
From this quote, my assumption is that because a candidate supports access to abortion that you could not vote for them. Ever. End of story. Does this mean that an opposing candidate, regardless of all other qualifications, or lack thereof, would always get your vote?
Since there has never, ever, been a candidate that agrees with me on all things, I have always had to vote based on the majority of things we have in common, OR, sometimes, I’ll vote for the person that I see as having the highest integrity. (This means that I’ve voted for the losing side a lot in elections). My assumption is that no one person controls the political process entirely; it’s not as if any of the Republican, anti-abortion candidates has succeeded in overturning Roe v Wade, and if it were overturned, then a pro-choice candidate probably couldn’t directly affect it.
Women’s rights (or fetal rights) is polemic, but this would hardly seem to be the most pressing issue that our country faces at this moment. And if it is, it would seem that those that find abortion morally offensive would do best to draft an amendment to the constitution instead of using fetuses as political cannon fodder.
Integrity is a good trait. However it means that they are going to be true to their ideals. They are going to try to push their agenda and be faithful to the people who put them in office by pushing that platform.
That’s a good thing to have in a candidate. If you agree with the platform. I don’t happen to agree with the platform.
I am opposed to abortion. I think it’s pretty terrible. I am opposed to affirmative action. I am opposed to gun control. I like his military background and his experience in foreign policy.
Those first three things are the ones that affect me the most and because of that I don’t see myself voting for this guy.
The Democrats, being innately quite out of touch with reality, will end up nominating yet another unelectable who panders to the left-wing party extremists in order to win the primary and can’t understand why they can’t garner an overwhelming electoral majority in the general election.
Since 1968, Democrats have held the Presidency 1/3 of the time. One would think that they might develop a clue as to who can and cannot get elected, over the decades.
Oh, so you’re basically a right-wing Republican, eh? Then you’re probably right, the Democratic Party is not really with you on your key issues.
I’m intrigued by Clark. I need to see more from him economic/domestic issues, but everything I’ve seen so far looks great. I may soon be breaking out the checkbook for the second time this primary season.
The winner is whoever gets the electoral college majority. Everything else is fluff.
Democrats have shown themselves over and over to be utterly incompetent when it comes to that. In the last election, had they shown the SLIGHTEST competency at all, there would have been no controversy over Florida.
Look at it this way: Democrats claim that the vast majority of people support their ideals. So just how stupid did the Democrats have to be to end up making the whole thing ride on getting one state?
Or are Democrats just a bunch of liars? Your choice. Either the vast majority of people support them and they’re too stupid to capitalize on that or they’re bald-faced liars about their level of popular support.
Go back to the Free Republic, then. What the hell did you expect when you opened a thread about DEMOCRATIC candidate running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination?
I’m intrigued by Clark, but suspicious of voting for a general for president. He could get me out of the Dean camp if he comes out in favor of some sort of universal health care.
This sentiment interests me. E-Sabbath said something similar about being leery of voting for a soldier. I feel exactly the opposite way, and I’m as crazy-ass liberal as they come. I prefer to vote for candidates with military experience, because if it comes down to it (and it has a woeful amount recently), I want the person ultimately responsible for sending Americans off to kill and die to really understand what it means, because they experienced it themselves, and I think they’re less likely to make that decision lightly. I’m uneasy with Presidents who haven’t served – like Bush. And don’t tell me about his time in the Air National Guard…gimme a break.
Obviously, that’s not my only criterion for judging a candidate, and it’s certainly not held in all cases (Clinton & LBJ being two). But it does matter to me.
Both parties would be responsible, would they not? Did you mean that if the Dems are as good as they think the would have won aby a large® margin?
Thanks.
The winner of the general election is whoever gets the electoral college majority? Dogface, either you were drastically changing the subject, or you need to take another civics class.
Can we discuss Wesley Clark’s merits and shortcomings here without the typical dogmatic mudfest over the 2000 election? Dems: it’s over, get a grip. Reps: it’s over, don’t gloat, it’s annoying.
I doubt that the vast majority of Americans are Democrats or Republicans, nor do they, as a vast majority, buy 100% of either platform. Sure, there are people who do buy 100% of their party’s rhetoric, and enlightened debate with them, of either stripe, is nigh on impossible. Likewise name calling should be beneath us all, and really unnecessary outside of the Pit.
Let’s try and stick to relevant discussion here:
who is General Wesley Clark?
is he a viable candidate?
if he is, is he electable in a general election?
Personally, I’m not really sold on either party, although I probably lean towards Democrat sympathies. There are, however, a lot of things that I don’t like about (some) Democratic policy planks, and some Republican policy planks that I find enticing. It’s a sad day for me and other voters like me (and there are probably a lote more of us then either side would care to admit) when the debate becomes churlish.
minty, I wouldn’t say that I’m “right wing” for a republican. When I think of “right wingers” I think of the extremeist fundies and their ilk. People who would never consider a Democrat for office.
I’d call myself Republican, but sorta center or left-center.
That means to me that I hold certain views and I would like some one to represent those views and I don’t care what party it is from.
So, if he impresses me I’ll vote for him. What the heck else am I supposed to do? I don’t like Bush much at all and I don’t have another Republican to vote for. Nader is probably going to run again and Forbes too…but I really don’t want to vote on a single party candidate
Snake Legs, I can safely predict that you will never vote for a Democratic presidential candidate, as you will never find one who is anti-abortion, and you are exceedingly unlikely to find one who is opposed to gun control and affirmative action. Sorry, mate. Wrong party.
Seems like a stand up guy. The military analyst on Fox news certainly spoke highly of him. He gets bonus point for being fired by the Clinton administration. Which for some reason, seems to be supporting his campaign now?
