Run, Sir Clark, Run... (page 9)

SixofNine

willing to make us American's go through a painful rebirth of less dependence on our own government, even if it will cost him a 2-term presidency. One who is also intelligent enough to have the right staff in place & a good head on his/her shoulder's regarding our foreign policy - including relooking at our stance in the Isreali/Palestinian affair and our "presence" in so many countries of the world. Bush so far is "chicken sh*t" in my opinion regarding his domestic agenda - he's trying too hard to appease the "left" by giving them all they want on the domestic front - which is way too much, and more than we American's should expect from our government. And then, on the opposite side, he's too arrogant to realize that he's not the ruler of the world, and can't dictate behaviors based on his own whims & wants.
Clark, I don't know yet - but that's why I'm asking you all - why him? What's he going to do on the domestic side of things besides pushing for increased mpg averages on auto's?

I guess you hit at the heart of why I'm excited about this guy. Why him? Because if you tell me that a career politician, any career politician will be "willing to make us Americans go through a painful rebirth of less dependence on our own government, even if it will cost him a 2-term presidency", I'll know that you're crazy. (I do wonder though, if you realize how truly painful that will be?) Every one of Clark's competition is a career politicians as far as I know. As for intelligence, his is off the charts. I know that's a negative for many stupid Americans, but stupid Americans don't know their ass from a philosophy, no less the symbiotic relationship between national security and economic security and foreign relations. Let's outvote stupid Americans.

Dakota, nice to see you letting the guy speak for himself. Nice that you can do that eh? It's good to have a candidate who actually communicates.

(and what is meant by "not only the diplomats? Is that same message he is giving since deciding he should be running things?)

Hmmm, seems pretty clear to me, unless I'm just missing the obvious. He means and meant the military. And no, that is not at all contradictory to his message before that article, nor his message now. If you think it is, I think you should reread till understood.

pettygrudger

(I do wonder though, if you realize how truly painful that will be?)

Yes, I think I have an "inkling"...but I don't think anyone in our generation can truly understand the sacrifices we would have to make in order to restore balance to our government. Besides, that's more of a societal "ilk" imho. It's how we've stopped teaching our children to be all they can be, and instead taught them how to go after all they can get, which of course they are automatically entitled to.

I hear the passion in your words regarding Clark, but really - this still hasnt answered my question - what is his domestic agenda?

SixofNine

What do the words "domestic agenda" even mean? Talk about a nebulous and soley political statement. Bush has been in office 3 years. Can anyone articulate his "domestic agenda"?

I suppose they'll all say they want to make America great, to restore it's greatness. Don't we all.

Clark does not seem like the kind to trade our children and grandchildrens future for political expediency now. But yeah, alot of this is my gut reaction to reading his words and listening to him articulate his thoughts. He's straightforward, he tells you if an issue is complex, rather than pretend it's simple, he doesn't spin things (he hasn't been a politician). Of course, that will and already has gotten him in trouble, so he'll have to change to get elected. And that is a sad commentary on Americans.

pettygrudger

Can anyone articulate his "domestic agenda"?

Bush I think started with an almost "Reagonistic" trickle-down economics plan.....but he's sold his soul to the devil in order to try to appease the masses. Let's take the tax cuts, Bush didnt fight hard enough to give Business owners what they deserved, and also gave in on giving tax rebates to those that were the "lowest" income families (who also paid the lowest in taxes). Many of the families that got a rebate check didn't even pay a dime in "federal tax" (no I'm not talking about Soc. Security or Fica). when the year had ended. So, due to his wishy-washiness, nobodies happy, companies are still leaving America for "greener" pastures, and pretty much everyone's spent the $300-600. bucks they were given. Economy isn't picking up, because people are still losing jobs, and its just turned to crap because he didn't have the backbone to force his plan. Maybe it would've worked, maybe it wouldn't have......we'll just never know.

But yes, from what I've seen of Clark, he is well articulated, intelligent. Maybe he is "the man" - but I still reserve until what I hear about his ideals on how our government should be run, and what he's going to do about such things as the NAFTA agreement, and enticing companies to stay at home and keep our people employed.

SixofNine

Well, in Bush's defense, America was due for some serious financial hurtin', no matter who was president. Open ended wars to solve problems we don't have, alienating help we could really use, certainly look too expensive for our budget right now, however.

Btw, one of Clarks first proposals is a direct and substantial tax credit to businesses large and small, for every person they hire.

teejay

>>>>> In my heart I KNOW that he president we have all prayed for. -- Michael D, Collins, SSG

Thanks, Six.

I don't pray, but I think I know what Collins is talking about...

pettygrudger

Btw, one of Clarks first proposals is a direct and substantial tax credit to businesses large and small, for every person they hire.

See, I'm liking him more already!

DakotaRed

I see now, Clark using Military in Iraq is justified, but Bush isn't. Praising Bush back in April and condemning him now, with no change in anything, isn't contradictory either.

Hmmm, didn't Clark also claim that WMDs were known to be there? How do you spell Opportunist?

Maybe he'll get elected and start bombing again, just to make sure and kill a few thousand more innocent civilians, to add to his Kosovo tally.

SixofNine

wow Dakota, you sure do have a weird (read visciously partisan) spin on things.

Clark is well respected for his military performance. All of it, especially the last part.

DakotaRed

Clark is well respected for his military performance.

Uh, maybe by a handful, but sure not by most I read about. Perhaps you missed the links I posted before from his superiors and subordinates alike that won't vote for him? Would that "respect" be why Clinton ended up firing him? Is that why he was acussed of war crimes in Kosovo? Do you think the Chinese respect him for having their embassy bombed? Have you noticed who all was absent from his retirement get together?

As for partisan, you are as partisan as anyone else here. I'm still wondering why every other military man that took part in wars is considered a warmonger, but he isn't. Isn't that a bit partisan coming from the left?

Run, Sir Clark, Run...

Share this