Wesley Clark for President

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Maverick74, Sep 22, 2003.

  1. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    Clark Never Called Karl
    Wesley Clark says he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House phone logs suggest otherwise.
    by Matthew Continetti
    09/22/2003 1:45:00 PM

    Matthew Continetti, editorial assistant

    WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

    Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

    This isn't the general's first whopper. Last June, the latest Democratic candidate for president implied that he "got a call" on 9/11 from "people around the White House" asking the general to publicly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Last August, Clark told a Phoenix radio station that "The White House actually back in February apparently tired to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war."

    Like his other two statements, Clark's latest tale bears little resemblance to reality. While it turns out Clark did receive a call "on either Sept. 12 or Sept. 13," the call wasn't from the White House. It was from Israeli-Canadian Middle East expert Thomas Hecht, who told the Toronto Star that he called to invite Clark to give a speech in Canada. As for Clark's accusation that the White House tried to have him fired from CNN--well, the general admits he has no proof. "I've only heard rumors about it," he said.

    Skeptics of Clark's candidacy argue that the general's political inexperience makes him an unknown in the primary race. Was Clark's latest slip simply proof of his political naivete? Did he not recognize that his words would be taken seriously? And what does it say about Clark that he would have declared himself a Republican if only he had a chance to chat with Karl Rove? Clark may yet make a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. But if he keeps spinning yarns, he'll end up as the H. Ross Perot of the Democratic party.

    What do you guys think? The fact that the democrats actually say this guy is a leading contender is a scary thought for the democratic party. LOL
     
  2. The character attacks have begun folks. A poll comes out saying that Clark would beat Bush and the right wing media put out their pre-prepared content. Forget the context of Clark's comments, or whether or not he's a "legitimate" candidate (whatever that means). The poll does say something about the standing our president has in the US. Most people think he flat out lied about intelligence pre-invasion, and most think that he's gotten us in over our collective head overseas. When someone that nobody really knows anything about declares he's running for president and half of America think he's a better alternative than the current pres., that's sad.
     
  3. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    He moron, those people voting for him are democrats. People on the left will vote for whoever has the best chance of winnning. Sadly they do this on the right as well. The fact that he has a military background gets the liberals all excited so they vote for him in these so called polls. But his votes come at the expense of Gephardt, Kerrry, Sharpton, Kucinch (sp), Lieberman, Dean and so on. Noticed how everyone sold out this cast of candidates as soon as they put his name in the poll. You get the same result with Hillary Clinton. Those votes are not coming from anyone but liberals. Why do you think Arnold's numbers are so high in California? Couldn't you say the same thing about a hollywood actor getting more votes then Gray Davis. The fact is if the republicans believe he has the best shot at winning well then his numbers will be high.

    Come on picknclick, you are so much smarter then this. You understand polling and politics don't you? So don't make it out like this guy has the country behind him. My money says this guy will fall off the polls very quickly. Why don't you see where he is 3 months from now.
     
  4. What are you, a third grader? Yes, I'm the moron:). Ok, first the poll was slanted towards republicans fellow "moron". Here are the details...

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/22/elec04.poll.bush.clark/index.html

    "Fifty percent of 1,003 people questioned for the poll approved of Bush's job performance -- down from 59 percent in August and 71 percent in April -- the president's lowest rating since he came to office in January 2001.

    Of the 423 registered Democrats or Democratic-leaning voters questioned in the poll, 22 percent said they would most likely support Clark in 2004."

    Now, even a third grader can do the math "moron".

    And this doesn't even take into account the fact that there are a few other dems that keep pace with Bush...

    "Kerry narrowly outpaced the president, 48-percent to 47-percent. Bush held a slim lead over Dean (49 to 46 percent), Gephardt (48 to 46 percent) and Lieberman (48 to 47 percent). "

    And my commentary even implied that this would be temporary. Read and understand. Maybe they teach that in fourth grade, eh Mav. TURN AND BURN!!! :D
     
  5. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    No you totally missed my point. These polls are meaningless, get it? good! they mean nothing. There are 20 different polls released every day and they all say something different. The fact that you heavily rely on them is sad. Let me guess, you are the same idiot that started the thread a while back, What do you think the market will do tomorrow? Was that you? Come on admit it. Like most liberals you don't have an original thought in your head. You look at the polls and think you have reached some area enlightenment inside you. You can take a poll and 1.50 and all it will get you is a subway token. Stop throwing out this meaningless drivel like it means something. Come voting day this country will decide who they want to lead this country forward. But please stop your childish attacks on the President like they mean something.
     
  6. You're fudging. That wasn't your point. You got caught not reading the posts.

    These polls aren't meaningless. The president reads them every morning and the candidates gear their rhetoric based on them for one simple reason... The polls reflect the current viewpoints of the voting public. That seems to be important.

    And how did I issue "childish attacks on the president"? All I did was post poll numbers. Interesting interpretation:D Wrong, but interesting.
     
  7. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    Here is what you said."The poll does say something about the standing our president has in the US. Most people think he flat out lied about intelligence pre-invasion, and most think that he's gotten us in over our collective head overseas. When someone that nobody really knows anything about declares he's running for president and half of America think he's a better alternative than the current pres., that's sad."

    My bad, you were paying him a compliment. Please accept my apologies.

    Yes I understand what the polls are used for but what I am saying is there are a lot of polls and a lot of different results. How are you choosing which ones to believe. Trust me man, polls move around more then the mkt, the 2000 election polls said bush would beat gore by 15 pts. That didn't happen did it?
     
  8. No, Bush lost the popular vote, you're right. But you said that I was issuing "childish attacks". I hardly think that pointing out his record and the current poll details can be counted as "childish attacks". And if you don't think that it's sad that the current pres is looked at as an equal to 5 others that are running for the presidency, then you're just blind to the parity that exists so early in this election cycle. As for the poll source, CNN/USA Today/Gallup seems pretty credible. I know it's not of the class and caliber of worldnetdaily.com, but I'm trying to keep an unbiased opinion.

    And I'd love to see that poll that said Bush would beat Gore by 15 pts. Please post a link to that one.
     
  9. Chicago Purchasing Manager report PLUMMETING.
    ( 51.2 from 58.9 in August )

    43.6 million Americans ( or 15.2% of the US Population ) have NO HEALTHCARE INSURANCE.

    The Economy has lost jobs for 22 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS.

    The Bush could be the FIRST administration since Herbert Hoover to see NO jobs created during his Presidency.

    These are the FACTS.
    No spin here, and the republicans are obviously WORRIED.

    :eek:
     
  10. Get a GRIP, will ya?

    Wesley Clark's statement that he "would have become a Republican had Carl Rove taken his phone call at the White House" was a joke!

    Get Real.

    :D
     
    #10     Sep 30, 2003