Clark campaign manager quits

From the Times Union / AP

Wesley Clark's campaign manager quit Tuesday in a dispute over the direction of the Democratic presidential bid, exposing a rift between the former general's Washington-based advisers and his 3-week-old Arkansas campaign team.

Clark has never been very good at managing subordinates - he may have a hard time with one's who don't have to take his orders but can tell him to stuff it.

The dispute is between the general''s advisers and his campaign team, not between the general and one of his subordinates. Maybe all of us should read into ral''s interest in General Clark?

Now wait a sec...his campaign team are his subordinates! How could the people working to get him elected not work for him?

I''m not surprised by this; Clark reminds me of every idiot egotist officer I ran into in the Army. He''s probably a major pain in the ass to work for.

But hey...I''m all for him winning the Democratic party''s nomination. Or Dean, for that matter. These guys are both a little too twitchy to get elected to the White House.

Maybe all of us should read into ral''s interest in General Clark?

Yes, you should read my disdain for this vacant, opportunistic liar - we had one of those from 1993-2000. We don''t need another.

There are plenty of ""vacant, opportunistic liar[s]"" out there. Why the interest in General Clark?

Why the interest in General Clark?

He''s the most overt vacant opportunistic liar of the Democratic candidates, and that''s a hell of an accomplishment.

"ralcydan" wrote:

He''s the most overt vacant opportunistic liar of the Democratic candidates, and that''s a hell of an accomplishment.

Prove that Clark has told a lie.

How about his made up assertion that the White House called him on 9/11 to get him to say Iraq was involved in the attacks?

How about his claim that he would have been a republican if Karl Rove had returned his calls?

Still waiting on that proof...

How about his claim that he ""never"" would have voted fo rthe war a day after letting us know he ""probably"" would have voted for it?

Still waiting on that proof...

Gee Rat, I never would have guessed... If you can''t look at him changing his story and see it for what it is then I won''t waste my time convincing you.

Well, I''d point out the number of times George W. Bush and the members of his Administration changed their positions and views over the years, but that''d be a waste of time.

I''d point out the number of times George W. Bush and the members of his Administration changed their positions and views over the years, but that''d be a waste of time.

Also difficult. Feel free. I''d love to see what you can come up with. (didn''t expect me to call your bluff, did you?)

How about Clark''s claim that the White House tried to get CNN to fire him?

Ralcydan seems really, really concerned about Clark, for some reason. Where are his threads about all the other Democratic contenders?

Ralcydan seems really, really concerned about Clark, for some reason. Where are his threads about all the other Democratic contenders?

Or, to put another way:

The media seems really, really concerned about Clark, for some reason. Where are the stories about all the other Democratic contenders?

What other Democratic contenders? Outside of Clark, only ""that angry doctor guy"" and ""the French-looking one"" are in the running. I''ll get to them when they deserve it.

According to a new survey, six out of 10 Americans can''t name a single Democrat running for president. And that poll was actually taken among the 10 current Democratic candidates. - Ann Coulter

I''m more concerned about ral''s interest in Toonces.

"ralcydan" wrote:

I''ll get to them when they deserve it.

Gosh, we''ll try to keep our expectations in check until you issue your decree. By the way, how''s the weather up on Mount Important?

According to a new survey, six out of 10 Americans can''t name a single Democrat running for president. And that poll was actually taken among the 10 current Democratic candidates. - Ann Coulter

Hoo boy. Ann Coulter quotes? The very height of humor. Couldn''t find a pithy Joseph McCarthy comment?

"ralcydan" wrote:

I''ll get to them when they deserve it.

Translation: I''ll smear them when they''re a threat to me.

Couldn''t find a pithy Joseph McCarthy comment?

Which Joseph McCarthy? The one that exists in popular culture references or the real one?

"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

Couldn''t find a pithy Joseph McCarthy comment?

Well I would have posted some stuff I found off the Internet, like open letters to Dr. Laura or quotes from the Daily Howler, and tried to pass them off as my own, but I would consider that the action of troll with nothing original to say himself.

Speaking of which, this may be the longest run of posts where the only thoughts offered were lame attempts at zingers directed towards people actually discussing the ideas. Keep it up!

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Translation: I''ll smear them when they''re a threat to me.

It certainly is easier to say I am smearing Clark than to refute the fact that Clark has to press his uniform with a waffle iron...

"ralcydan" wrote:

It certainly is easier to say I am smearing Clark...

How is what you are doing to Wes Clark different than what some accuse the LA Times of doing to Arnold? I''d quit before you give Wes a 20 point victory over Dubya next year.

How is what you are doing to Wes Clark different than what some accuse the LA Times of doing to Arnold?

Lets see. How is showing Clark''s own quotes and pointing out their inconsistencies different than claiming that anonymous people are levelling criminal accusations at Arnold? Actually, I think the question answers itself.

I don''t think Perot - uh, I mean Clark - will be getting the Democratic nomination, much less beating Bush.

Also, exit polls said that the vast majority of peoples'' minds were made up well before the LA Times story came out. It had no bearing on the election. And keep in mind, I was right about Arnold being a lock. Maybe you shouln''t doubt my prescient Bush predictions.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Well I would have posted some stuff I found off the Internet, like open letters to Dr. Laura or quotes from the Daily Howler, and tried to pass them off as my own, but I would consider that the action of troll with nothing original to say himself

Har-dee-har-har. I mentioned in that very thread that I thought I had put in the source, but hadn''t. I certainly didn''t try to ""pass them off as my own"". And I have no idea what the ""Daily Howler"" is or why you would reference it. But whatever.

My point was, if Clark is so unimpressive and won''t even get the nomination, why are you bothering to devote threads to deriding him? Boredom?

Clark is an interesting case. On the surface, he seems to have all of the characteristics that would make a good President: military ""hero"", first in his class at West Point, NATO commander, obviously intelligent, charismatic and telegenic enough that people respond to him, etc.

Problem is, I think he is opportunistic and lacks any vision. He has publicly contradicted himself on multiple occasions, was fired from his NATO command, and has protrayed himself as just another tax and spend politician.

The only Democrat I like at all is Lieberman, but I think he has also shown himself committed to increasing entitlements.

If any politician were to come out with a sound fiscal policy that capped existing entitlements, ended new enrollment in entitlements and began phasing them out, took a hard stance on illegal immigration, promised to take a hard look at tariffs and subsidies, and change the tax code to eliminate most of the loopholes (allowing for a lowering of the overall tax rate for the rest of us), I would vote for them in an instant.

If we don''t start electing politicians that are willing to make hard domestic decisions, we are going to end up with a global recession within 20 years.

Well said, JMJ.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Lets see. How is showing Clark''s own quotes and pointing out their inconsistencies different than claiming that anonymous people are levelling criminal accusations at Arnold? Actually, I think the question answers itself.

I was referring to the Nazi comments, and the comments made by Arnold in Oui. All comments that he made and that were inconsistent with other things he said(total hatred for Hitler, yet he praised his speaking abilities). He promised not to touch education, but is already talking about streamlining it. He says he won''t increase taxes but has vowed to tax Indian gaming revenue. He has pledged to repeal the car tax hike, but doing that would create another large budget shortfall that he''ll have to make up somehow.

Maybe you shouln''t doubt my prescient Bush predictions.

Arnold''s approval ratings from those exit polls (and the actual vote numbers) were much higher than Bush''s (50-50). I would be careful in making a firm prediction over a year before the actual election.

"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

And I have no idea what the ""Daily Howler"" is or why you would reference it. But whatever.

Really. Hmmm:

"Jacob_Singer (or was it)" wrote:

Nice try, Ral. At least you stay the course, no matter what evidence to the contrary:

The Trifecta.
On many occasions during 2001 and 2002, President Bush talked about a campaign promise made in Chicago that he would only deficit spend ""if there is a national emergency, if there is a recession, or if there''s a war,"" sometimes adding, after 9/11, ""Never did I dream we''d have a trifecta."" Reporters pressed the Bush''s communications staff to prove that Bush had actually made such a statement during the 2000 campaign, but the White House couldn''t turn up any proof. Bush continued to insist he''d made the promise.

Cutting AmeriCorps.
In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush made AmeriCorps the centerpiece of his new, post-9/11 service agenda, promising to expand the program''s roster by 50 percent in order that Americans might serve ""goals larger than self."" But in 2003, he signed legislation that cut the program''s operating budget by 30 percent. This year, AmeriCorps has half as many members as it did in 2001.

Going to War.
During a visit to West Virginia in January 2002, Bush joked, ""I''ve been to war. I''ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I''d rather go to war."" During the Vietnam War, however, Bush served with the Air National Guard in Texas, and had specifically noted on his Air Force officers test that he did not wish to serve overseas.

16 Words.
In making the case for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, President Bush stated in early 2003, ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."" Yet the CIA had itself previously warned top White House officials and British intelligence that the reports of an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from African countries were almost certainly untrue, and no nuclear program nor weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq.

""Average"" Tax Cuts.
Announcing his second big tax cut package in January 2003, Bush stated that ""These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans. Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money."" But because the package was tilted heavily towards the very wealthy, the average tax cut for households in the middle quintile of the income spectrum was only $217, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

What WMDs?
In May 2003, President Bush stated, ""We found the weapons of mass destruction."" U.S. forces have yet to find any evidence of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons in Iraq.

A lovely post, well thought out and apparently original. But there is the matter of this:
A slightly under-cited source

My apologies. I should have said you were passing off articles from the Washington Monthly as your own.

"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

if Clark is so unimpressive and won''t even get the nomination, why are you bothering to devote threads to deriding him? Boredom?

Ah, got it. So in addition to trolling and plagiarism you are going to question the motivation behind the selection of topics... Got it. Well, I guess that''s easier than offering a topic yourself...

Ok Ral, I''m new to this site, and unfamiliar with the process of including a linked url without making it look like this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...

The other sites I post at have a convenient url button to allow easy linkage. If you seriously think by omitting the source above I was trying to claim the thoughts therein as my own, you are mistaken. I assumed folks would understand it was an article. Take me to task for being stupid, trolling, being uninformed, whatever; but I am no plagiarist.

I''m new to this site, and trying to feel one''s way around on a new message board can be a difficult process. If anyone here thinks that by failing to cite a source on the two posts that have been mentioned that I should be banned, that''s fine. I''d understand. But I also invite anyone who suspects me of willfull plagiarism come over to CHUD.com where I''ve been a member for four years, and read any of my posts there. I always cite sources and links to quoted articles.

Jacob,

I wouldn''t worry too much about it. Both of the instances that Ral mentioned happened early in your tenure here, and can easily be written off. Apology accepted.

And I believe I was the first to call you a troll.

Seriously, I keep trying to put a finger on where you stand. Sometimes you make well-articulated arguments, and other times the off-the-cuff remark that sounds like trolling.

Rat is easy. He just looks for anything that sounds like it came from a Republican and opens fire. It''s a real shame too, because when he actually converses instead of attacks, he has some good contributions (such as his recent thoughts on Israel/Palestine).