Presidential Election 2004
Smoke_Nova
Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8697Members
Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8697Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Who is your choice, and why?</div> Who is your preferred candidate(s) and why?
For me, I only have two candidate's really:
Gen. Wes Clark - This guy is smart, and while he might be career military, he's got lots of brains. Look at his education, look at his rank, and look at his policies. He's the mix of Republican and Democrat that might just win it all. He is running as a democrat, but I think that's because his policies tend to go more with Democrat stuff.
Fmr. Vermont Gov. Dr. Howard Dean - Why? Well, he has a lot of policies that I agree with. In his time in Vermont, he managed to balance the budget and such. If you want more details on it, I'll respond to PM's.
For me, I only have two candidate's really:
Gen. Wes Clark - This guy is smart, and while he might be career military, he's got lots of brains. Look at his education, look at his rank, and look at his policies. He's the mix of Republican and Democrat that might just win it all. He is running as a democrat, but I think that's because his policies tend to go more with Democrat stuff.
Fmr. Vermont Gov. Dr. Howard Dean - Why? Well, he has a lot of policies that I agree with. In his time in Vermont, he managed to balance the budget and such. If you want more details on it, I'll respond to PM's.
Comments
My choice is Howard Dean. He is sincere, moderate, and has strong support by the public.
Clark will do anything to get into power; which is they ONLY reason he acheived such a rank.
Because of some of the things he has done in his military career, I personally will never vote for him. He put soldiers at risk to ensure his own promotion. From what I've seen, he lacks integrity, honor, and everything the US military stands for through years of tradition.
Oh wait, he'd make a great politician.....
Clark will do anything to get into power; which is they ONLY reason he acheived such a rank.
Because of some of the things he has done in his military career, I personally will never vote for him. He put soldiers at risk to ensure his own promotion. From what I've seen, he lacks integrity, honor, and everything the US military stands for through years of tradition.
Oh wait, he'd make a great politician..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When has he put soldiers at risk? I read a couple of articals about him and I have yet to find this gem. Could you toss me a link or something?
Also, his wife isn't a politician, or has any intrest in politics. Worst thing she might do (unlike Hilary C.'s fiasco) is suggest a national Dr. Dynasaur program so her patients can afford to visit her. His wife is a practicing doctor, with her own practice in Vermont still. Dean also admits his faults and such. In a recent press conference, the candidates were asked if they had ever smoked Marijuana. Dean didn't dodge or lie, just came out and admitted that he has.
His son (who kicked my fargin arse at Floor Hockey in High School) was arrested recently when he and 3-4 friends were caught trying to steal alcohol from a country club in a nearby town. Dean, instead of ignoring it, canceled his appearances for a couple days and went to Vermont to deal with it.
Training is vital, as everyone knows. When you rig the training excercises to make YOU look impressive when it comes time for promotions, while the soldiers really didn't learn anything, then you are putting them at risk. They are preparing for combat, and if you reduce training to nothing more than an expensive pretty fireworks show, then the soldiers aren't gaining the experience that they need. This is a big risk once you go into real combat.
Besides the fact that he almost started WWIII in kosovo.
Others, actually in the military, express it better than I can (from another conversation on the same subject)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Subject: FW: View Of Gen. Wesley Clark April 19 Counter Punch Magazine by Andrew Cockburn
While politicians and journalists accord General Wesley K. Clark a respectful hearing, the reaction from inside the army is very different.
Among officers in the American forces in Europe (all of whose generals, excepting Clark, opposed Operation Allied Force) he is now known without affection - as The Supreme Being. "The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fofrt Hood, Texas, from1992 to 1994. While Clark's official Pentagon biography proclaims his triumph in "transitioning the Division into a rapidly deployable force" this officer describes the '1st Horse Division' as "easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff." Such strong reactions are common. A major in the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado when Clark was in command therein the early 1980s described him as a man who "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career." While he regards his junior officers with watchful suspicion, he customarily accords the lower ranks little more than arrogant contempt. A veteran of Clark's tenure at Fort Hood recalls the general's "massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded (canteen) checkout lines didn't jump out of the way fast enough to let him through."
Clark's demeanor to those above is, of course, very different, a mode of behavior that has earned him rich dividends over the years. Thus, early in 1994, he was a candidate for promotion from two to three star general. Only one hurdle remained-a war game exercise known as the Battle Command Training Program in which Clark would have to maneuver his division against an opposing force. The commander of the opposing force, or 'OPFOR' was known for the military skill with which he routinely demolished opponents. But Clark's patrons on high were determined that no such humiliation should be visited on their favorite. Prior to the exercise therefore, strict orders came down that the battle should go Clark's way. Accordingly, the OPFOR was reduced in strength by half, thus enabling Clark, despite deploying tactics of signal ineptitude, to duly triumph. His third star came down a few weeks later.
Battle exercises and war games are of course meant to test the fighting skills of commanders and troops. The Army's most important venue for such training is the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, where Clark commanded from October 1989 to October 1991 and where his men gave him the derisive nickname of 'Section Leader Six' for his obsessive micro-management. At the NTC, army units face a resident OPFOR that has, through constant battle practice coupled with innovative tactics and close knowledge of the terrain, become adept at routing visiting opponents, who are known as 'Blue Force' for the duration of their visits. For Clark, this naturally posed a problem. Not only were his men using unconventional Tactics irksome to this devotee of the manual and rulebook-they were also humiliating blue force generals who might Consequently nurture resentment against the NTC commander and thus discommode his career at some future date. To the disgust of junior OPFOR officers, Clark therefore frequently fought to lose, sending his men on suicidal attacks in order that the blue forces should go home happy and owing debts of gratitude to their obliging foe. All observers agree that Clark has always displayed an obsessive concern with the perquisites and appurtenances of rank. Ever since he acceded to the NATO command post, the entourage with which he travels has accordingly grown to gargantuan proportions, to the point where even civilians are beginning to comment. A Senate aide recalls his appearances to testify in front of the Armed Services Committee, prior to which aides scurry about the room adjusting lights, polishing his chair, testing the microphone etc, up until the precisely timed and choreographed moment when the Supreme Allied Commander Europe makes his entrance. "We are state-of-the-art pomposity and arrogance up here," remarks the aide. "So when a witness displays those traits so egregiously that even the Senators notice, you know we're in trouble."
"Clark is smart," concludes one who has monitored his career. "But his whole life has been spent manipulating appearances (e.g. the doctored OPFOR exercise) in the interests of his career. Now he is faced with a reality he can't control." This observer concludes that, confronted with the wily Slobodan and other variables inescapable in a real war, Clark will soon come unglued. "Watch the carpets at NATO HQ for teeth marks," he warns.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And thats from a reletively left-winger. A response to this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The source of that article, Bob, is interesting. Counterpunch is an extreme Left website and Alexander Cockburn is an extreme Left writer. I'd have thought a character like that would pull punches since a Clark candidacy could conceivably beat Bush (or a ticket with Clark as VP candidate). Even given his affiliations, Clark is a former general so can't be too palatable to the far Left, but I would think they would regard him as the lesser of evils. Glad they're not, if the Left fringe actively opposes him that could keep him off the Democratic ticket.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And another speaks:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, he was so wedded to appearance and personal control that he made my BDE follow his exact commands and truly suffer his "Squad Leader Six" tendencies, mostly to just look good. It got so bad in his visit that the staff called it "Clark's Kevorkian Box" when he forbade any BDE maneuver in anything other than a mandated task force box. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So essentially, he wanted to have his army look pretty- this is akin to someone doing wargames and being overly picky about the formation of your troops. In some cases, it does make it easier to control, however when done to excess it really slows you down and such micromanagement puts everyone in danger because you can't react- hense the "Clark's Kevorkian Box". This was also shown in the NTC debocale
Some stories from soldiers working under him:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Story #1. Wesley is Bn Cdr 1/77 Armor. On Reforger, Fifght breaks out in huge beer tent, Wesley is going to stop it because He's a Ltc.... He got a huge black eye, The Cdr of 1/10 Cav assembled his NCO's and CSM and said..."CSM you have a problem that needs fixing... have at it."
Story #2.
Cdr 3rd Bde.(I was MG for 2/34 Ar one of the Bdes tank Bn) He wants to turn every bodies U-Coft day into a massive training event, involving road march to site with tanks, drawing weapons, and all the associated other stuff that goes with it.... U-Coft time is universally loved by the troops, because it's essentially a huge video game, and while one crew is in the others can be attending the multiple tasks that exist in the motor pool that require constant attention , loose bolts, greasing etc.... So his idea is to take some thing that is genuinely fun and easy to do from a setup perspective and sucks all the enjoyment and fun right out of it. I stood there and
listened to 2 Bn S3, and 3 other MG all nod their heads and say yes sir, yes sir.... I stood up and said esentially why I said here, (on much more diplomatically) The looks I got were of the hope you like your new job in Bum**** Egypt and the like. O'l Wesley pulled out a cigar, and looked around asked me if I was dead set against this, I said yes and he said "ok, maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all..." The trick to dealing with Wes was to have a solid arguement, and not be afraid to stand on it. He was pretty intimidating, but only if you let him be. The idea was stupid, and everybody knew it, but they didn't have no cojhones.... He respected you if you dissagreeed with him and were diplomatic about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And, as to what happened in kosovo:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, more knowledgeable people will correct me, but in a nutshell what happened was that the Russians managed somehow to get to Pristina airport before NATO so he ordered the Brits (?) to "remove" them...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct on the incident. The sneaky Russkies snuck in a BMD company (imnagine that, rapid execution in an unsure environment) and seized an airfield. Clark wanted airfield, and now the russians had it (big embarrasment for him). Clark to the nearby Brits to go take the airfield back. Brit commander told him to go get bent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is about the size of it, but it went a wee bit further. The helos full of Para Reg were in the air and inbound just minutes away from Pristina when Jackson pulled the plug. I have talked to a couple of blokes who were there, and they thought they were really going in, and were most relieved when the abort came thru...
Oh, and it was a Russ BTR company from IFOR or whatever, not BMDs. I have a video tape somewhere with a days worth of live news showing the Russ openly motoring the length of the former Yugoslavia to the enthusiastic approval of the Serb locals. good advert for vehicle reliability. I remember talking to a Russian guy on another forum just afterwards, and apparently the Russ were getting tooled up to airlift a lot of VDV people into Pristina, so Jackson's response to Clark along the lines that he was not going to start WW3 for his benefit was perhaps closer to the truth than he realised.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still have trouble believing that Wesley Clark or any other man in reasonable control of his faculties would order his troops to assault an allied-held airfield because the wrong allies were holding onto it. It sounds like something straight out of Doctor Strangelove!
Were the British paras really ordered to go in there and start shooting Russians?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dan,
I think you have misunderstood the Allies bit. IIRC there was a deliberate effort to exclude the Russ from what was going on in Kosovo. Remember NATO were going in there against the Serbs and the Russ are not allies of NATO even if they had contributed to IFOR or whatever in Bosnia. More importantly, the Russ are the Serb's traditional supporters as fellow Slavs, and their even handedness were therefore suspect in any tussle between the Serbs and Albanian Kosovans. Hence the desire to keep them out.
Also, IIRC Pristina airport was actually held by the Serbs when all this kicked off. NATO were supposed to be going after it, but there was a lot of messing about at the beginning of the ground advance into Kosovo and the airport did not get taken. I believe there was some concern that the Serbs might put up a fight for it and it was long way ahead of NATO ground elements. So while Wesley and the top NATO brass were hemming and hawing (I think there might have been some delay with Washington trying to micro-manage) the Russ drove all the way across Yugoslavia on live TV and occupied the airport first. NATO considered this a preparatory move by the Russ prior to flying more troops in, to get their foot in the door in Kosovo. I believe a Russ airborne division were on standby to move for this very purpose, and it was reported on Russ TV. It caused a fair bit of alarm in Russia becaue a lot of folk thought they were going to war.
Consequently I can quite see why Clark might want to seize the airfield even if it meant a fight - he had egg on his face for delaying even if it was down to Washington, and the need to prevent the Russ flying in reinforcements was imperative. Maybe Washington ordered him to get the airfield, who knows. Major wars have started from equally mundane catalysts in this very region...
The people I heard about this from were senior NCOs in the Parachute Regiment, not young Toms blowharding, and they were adamant that they were locked, loaded and cleared to do the business, and were aborted only a matter of minutes before contact. The helo launch (using Chinooks & Pumas) was shown on BBC TV news and reported as moving to the airfield, but I don't think the journalists knew the blokes aboard had been briefed and cleared for a fight.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welp, that's the long of it....
Make up your own mind and do your own research, I'm not trying to convince you to blindly change your mind <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm thinking more of his extremely left social stance. But I believe he is a good man, and I would rather have him then someone such as Alan Greenspan.
I do find it funny Smoke, that someone as avidly left wing as yourself finds it great that he admits to his faults and doesn't make fun of him for his kid getting aressted yet hounded Bush for his daughter's problems. (not saying you personally did)
and yes, Howard Dean has very...different social stance (Civil Unions, which are different then **** marriage).
One of my main reasons for disliking the current president is the "fuzzy" way that he is running everything. He doesn't come out and tell us the open truth. Once the hosilities in Iraq ended, we never clearly got news from the administration on what they were doing. Or why they truly did what they did. Beyond that, I have no clear-cut reason to dislike him, except for the entire constant, "God bless America" thing. but that's just my paganistic nature.
1) I don't think Dean will play well in the South, so I'm a bit afraid that he'll get the nomination. After all, Ralph Reed et al delivered most of the South to Bush against an honorable Republican like John McCain, so . . . <i>shudder</i>.
2) I'm still of split mind about Clark. I'd hardly say he's overly left (he voted for Reagan. <i>Twice</i>) And I'm still trying to separate the character assasination from the personality-- I mean, this is a man who took 9 bullets in Viet Nam and continued to not only fight but direct his troops.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Clark will do anything to get into power; which is they ONLY reason he acheived such a rank.
Because of some of the things he has done in his military career, I personally will never vote for him. He put soldiers at risk to ensure his own promotion. From what I've seen, he lacks integrity, honor, and everything the US military stands for through years of tradition. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, let's wait to see what becomes of this. I've been hunting for info on this man, and half of it comes back that he's a hopeless idiot brown noser, and the other half comes back that he's an incredibly intelligent scholar-warrior.
But, on the face of things, he graduated top of his class at West Point, was a Rhodes Scholar, and saw combat in Viet Nam. I'm sorry, but I admire intelligence and valor, so he's got my vote ahead of Bush right there.
Further edit: As you may or may not have guessed, while I'm not registered for either party, I'm in the 'anyone but Bush' ticket. But the Dems are <i>****</i> me off. They're going to spend the next few months tearing each other apart trying to get the nomination, and end up weakening whoever breaks through the fold. It's a matter of unification and organization-- two things the Dems utterly lack.
Can someone give me a list of the candidates? What is pleasing me greatly is that Bush's name hasn't shown up here once <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Bush is the republican candidate... That's a given. The question at this point is who will be the Democratic candidate... And right now they all seem to be foaming at the mouth for some reason... Whether it be at Bush or at each other. It does get tiring to see all this "hate" speech. Its ok to disagree... But these guys take it to a whole other ball park.
Dean
Clark
Kunich ( or how ever you spell his name )
Kerry
Edwards
Al Sharpton ( LOL )
.....
Can't remember the others.
I need to start looking at the candidates more. WHen I do vote, I do it responsibly.
Plus, what I really like is that he isn't using super-big corparate sponsors. I went to a "Barn Concert", organized by some old-school Vermonters and it was worth the 10$ cover. They raised 2,000$ for the campaign.
Dean is a very charismatic guy, and very open. If you look at his record running Vermont, it's been a very good time since he was put into office.
He might not go to pre-emptive war (he lost his brother in Vietnam) but I think if we were threatened/attacked, he would make it a short and quick battle, with minimal losses and minimal cost. Definetely not the fiasco of Aghanistan.
<a href='http://www.deanforamerica.com/' target='_blank'>Dr. Howard Dean's website</a>
A great Al Franken Joke: We've dropped 4,000 bombs today, fired 50 Cruise Missiles, spent a billion in one day...and caused 42 cents of damage.
Afghanistan was just a great display of un-needed force.
*Shudder* God forbid if Al Sharpton becomes president. (which, thankfully, he wont) People rallying for him always seem to "forget" that he once did, and still does, have ties to a very violent black rights group. There is such a thing as too much "equality" and I think he would most likely cross that line.
Howard Dean hands down. Not so much because I like him, but because there is really nobody else out there that I consider decent. He's not a radical and acctually has some good experience. Bush will win though, no Democratic canidate has the power he has right now, if only the Democrats could stand behind one person (such as Dean <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ) we could finally get that buffoon, Bush, out of office.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You crazy Americans with your ability to not vote. It's compulsary here, which I will admit is a double-edged sword. Still, for a nation that fought a war for the right to vote, it's strange that so many Americans don't. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just because we're naturally lazy and fat, we would rather watch everything from the comfort of our couches and T.V.'s than acctually get out their and have our voices heard. WTG Democracy. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
A great Al Franken Joke: We've dropped 4,000 bombs today, fired 50 Cruise Missiles, spent a billion in one day...and caused 42 cents of damage.
Afghanistan was just a great display of un-needed force. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We haven't abandoned Afghanistan.
And if these people largely surrendered ( which they didn't )... Who do we still have our forces fighting over there?
Yeah... Jokes are good... They just shouldn't be taken as fact. Especially when they lack context. It may be a "great" joke but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality.
Yeah.
<a href='http://www.Deanforamerica.com' target='_blank'>Dean's Webpage</a>
Umm..Othell, it's Al Franken. Most of his jokes are political in nature. and based on the truth. Let's look at it: We invade Afghanistan about late september/early October 2001. We have most of the Taliban rounded up by December. Most of the money we spent militarily replacing dropped bombs and fired missiles could have been used for small force tactics routing through each town. Not to mention that the military had no idea what they were doing.
If I still had the Newsweek, i'd type the entire article on the Afghanistan fiasco.
Our technology, expensive or not, helps saves american lives. It is one sided; that's the point. You can complain about the costs, but if we lowered costs, reduced our "tech" to meet the opponent on their own level and lost more lives, you'd complain about THAT too. There is no pleasing people like that, but fortunately pleasing them is not one of our concerns.
If I still had the Newsweek, i'd type the entire article on the Afghanistan fiasco. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, our military had no idea what it was doing, they just winged the entire thing. Thank god Newsweek knows more about how to run a war then our Generals and DOD, or we would probably would have lost Afghanistan. Honestly they knew what they were doing, if we spent one billon dollars bombing one cave and saved the lives of three troops that may have died capturing it, then it was money well spent. If you didn't have such obvious contempt for our military you would see we were trying to minimize casualties. Besides with some of the articles that come out of Newsweek you would think it was printed in Syria *cough based cough* Try TIME, I find it to be much more reliable and much less based.
Bush is a fuckup, I hate the guy.
Bush is a fuckup, I hate the guy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another perfect example of a "Bush basher", no reasons supplied, seems to be driven by some personal hate for the man.
Now to spite some of the things Bush may have said, he has never said anything this stupid.
<a href='http://www.charleston.net/stories/110403/sta_04dean.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.charleston.net/stories/110403/s...ta_04dean.shtml</a>
I've listed my reasons a lot of times for hating bush, didn't think anyone would want to hear them again.