clark criticizes Dean

[Pastiche423]

clark criticized Dean's business proposal stating, "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Say what? Does he think de-regulation is good?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

BROOKLINE, Mass. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark criticized rival Howard Dean on Wednesday, arguing that the front-runner's business proposal is a throwback to failed Republican policies and abandons the success of former President Clinton.
The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

More...

[Closer]

1. And as usual, Trippi has already responded

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 19, 2003

Contact: Dean for America Press Office [phone]

Campaign Manager Joe Trippi Responds to Clark, Lieberman Attacks

BURLINGTON - "Under the Bush Administration, the balance of power has
shifted away from the American people and toward the special interests
and large multinational corporations. When energy corporations write our
laws in the Vice President's office and media monopolies run roughshod
over consumers, not only do people suffer, but so does the innovative
spirit which has made our economy the envy of the world.

"Governor Dean has traveled the country and has heard time and again a
mistrust and concern about the power of large corporations over our
democracy and our markets. He believes we need a public dialogue to
ensure that our system works for consumers, workers and investors - not
simply to line the pockets of the special interests.

"If Dean's democratic opponents aren't concerned with protecting
consumers, investors, workers and the average American, then they are truly
out of touch."

[montanacowboy]

8. Woo Hoo

for Trippi - right on...where the heck is Clark's head? what does he think he will gain by those remarks? really dumb

[Skwmom]

26. That's not what Clark is referring to.

I can hardly see Clark selling out the American public or letting corporations write the regulations.

[Pastiche423]

29. Were those not clark's words?

"Clark, who has enlisted several of Clinton's economic advisers for his campaign, said the Democratic Party's hopes of toppling President Bush next year are doomed if they support more regulations."

clark is for de-regulation!

That is what has gotten our country into the mess it is in today!

Please explain how you think MORE de-regulation helps.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Clark did not say "MORE de-regulation".

He said re-regulation would hurt the economy. I'd like to know details from both candidates before taking a position.

At face value, Dean is hitting a populist note, but we all know he was a big de-regulator as Governor, so this could be yet another "election-bed" conversion.

[ProfessorGAC]

134. I'd Like To See His Advisors Publish Their Proof

There isn't a shred of proof that reregulating the industries under consideration would hurt the economy. That's made up nonsense, based upon pre-existing economic hypotheticals.

That's the stuff of conservative economics, and we all know how well those theories have worked out.

If Clark is going to say things like this, he should have his people show how they arrived at these conclusions. If they can't, Clark should say, "I'm for as little regulation as possible, and don't agree with re-regulating." That would be intellectually honest, but this statement flies in the face of reality.

The Clinton dereg of telcom had NOTHING to do with the success of the economy in the 90's. Not one whit of leverage applied to the major economic indicators. It only helped those with money in the market. That's a financial success not an economic one. And, unlike Clark's advisors, i can prove it.
The Professor

[Skwmom]

38. I hate to tell you but under re-regulation if you have a

crooked admin like Bush and Co you just appoint an oversight body that will let the "regulated" companies rip off the public.

Bottom line - fraud can happen both in regulated and deregulated industries.

[Clark Can WIN]

79. Nice of you to spread disinformation about Clarks words

I know that's the first time you've ever done that *cough cough* *hack* *hack* ********* hairball ************

[sfecap]

2. Just ask an (ex)airline employee....

How well deregulation worked.

[Demobrat]

3. Or a Californian.

Love those $200 power bills.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. If Clark is proposing deregulation, he's done

stick a fork in him, he'll never win.

[_NorCal_D_]

5. I see.

However this criticism is not particularly harsh.

[Pastiche423]

12. The criticism may not be harsh

But the meaning is extremely harsh to the American people.

clark said, "You have to create incentives that let people follow their natural market instincts, and through following those instincts, they have to do the right thing," he said.

Creating more incentives for corporations and the wealthy via de-regualtion sure won't help the low to middle class!

[hedda_foil]

6. Mark my words...

This is a huge mis-step for Clark. And it was no accident of speech, as he read his statement aloud from prepared text. Lou Dobbs ran a poll on the subject tonight and the result was 88% FOR re-regulation. Not that I'm surprised by those results.

[Eloriel]

37. FANTASTIC!

Those were the results on DOBBS? Whooooeeeeee, baby. The tide is turning, fer shure. Dean, as always, is ahead of the curve. Why? Because he's been actually listening to The People for well over a year now.

Eloriel

[Renew Deal]

53. Right

he has no authentic positions. He just changes his positions to what you want to hear. I guess the term Waffle Powered Howard is not a joke.

[Guaranteed]

99. Different times,

different measures, I suppose.

[blm]

7. The reason I don't trust dean is because he pushed deregulation as gov.

I doubt his core principles have changed.

I think he is campaigning as someone he is not. The GOP will hang him on his own lack of principles. When he decided to run for office it was probably because he thought the principles he had were right for this country. Now, he's reversed himself on so many issues that his core principles cannot be found.

Who would trust a man's current campaign words more than his actual record?

[Larkspur]

15. Dean's not an ideologue. He's a pragmatist.

He supports what works for the best of the commonwealth, whether it be Vermont when he was governor or the entire United States as Presidential candidate.

[Clark Can WIN]

74. Pragmatist.....................

Is that Dean for waffle?

[blm]

153. no...compromising centrist translates to "pragmatist" in Deanspeak.

a waffle translates into "re-assessing the science"...and on and on.....

[sfecap]

28. You must doubt Kerry's core principals, then.

He voted to DEREGULATE the Telecommunications industry.

Of course, he and his wife have millions in investments in telecommunications, and benefited financially.

Nice core principals....

[blm]

44. and wanted them re-evaluated if they didn't live up to their promises.

@ already expressed in his talk at Harvard on the media back in 2000.

I believe you can watch the video of that if you google for it.

btw....Dean was LAUDED as a deregulator for YEARS, and boasted of it himself. What are his core principles?

And, do you think CATO has Dean on audio or videotape boasting about his love for deregulation? Do you think they'd give it to Rove?

[retyred]

71. But that was before Dean wanted to be president

and needed to pander to be everyones candidate.

Just like Social Security, Just like Medicare, Just like the retiremant age, Just like Yucca Mountain....believe it when you see it.


Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[IronLionZion]

83. The entire US is different from Vermont

so what worked in Vermont may not work for the whole Country.

[Myra]

124. BLM, could you please elaborate on how Dean pushed for de-reg

As gov?
I'm not challenging you; I just am unaware of
when he did that. And since this is one of the
most important issues, I'd like as much info as
possible.

Thx.

[blm]

130. Here's some high praise for Dean and his deregulation efforts

from the CATO Institute who gave him highest marks for Dem lawmakers.

The Appeal of Howard Dean
From the September 15, 2003 issue: Why he could be Bush's more dangerous opponent.
by Stephen Moore
09/15/2003, Volume 009, Issue 01

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.
"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.

>>>>>>>
But he weathered the storm. Dean is nothing if not a survivor--as well as an iconoclast. Even as he pursued wild-eyed social experiments, Dean carefully nurtured a reputation as a "business-friendly" governor. On numerous occasions he pragmatically swept aside onerous environmental regulations and last-use restrictions (this is the greenest state of all) to make room for business expansion and jobs, jobs, jobs. He supported electricity deregulation to take monopolistic pricing power away from big utilities. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students.
>>>>>>>
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp 

[blm]

135. and more on his governing style with environmental and energy issues

Dean only backed off on deregulating electricity when the Vermont legislature stood firm against it. Those who say he changed his mind on his own are being disingenuous.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/23996

MONTPELIER - A leading environmentalist was asked to leave Gov. Howard Dean's council of environmental advisers after she criticized the governor's short-lived proposal for a coal-fired power plant in Vermont.

Elizabeth Courtney, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, was one of 20 members of the governor's environmental council, which meets about once every three months with the governor.

But after Courtney wrote a newspaper opinion piece faulting Dean for his brief advocacy of a coal plant, she learned she was no longer welcome on the council. David Rocchio, the governor's legal counsel, wrote her late last month to say she will be replaced on the council by VNRC's board chairman. The move came after she had written the governor on energy issues and showed his staff her draft newspaper piece, Courtney said.

"From the tone of your letter (to the governor), the content of your (newspaper) essay, and your rejection of the concerns we have raised with you in conversation, it appears that you do not seek a dialogue," Rocchio wrote to Courtney and to VNRC's board. "The governor sees little point in continuing to try to discuss these issues with you."

Meanwhile, another prominent environmentalist - Mark Sinclair, Vermont director of the Conservation Law Foundation - was also asked to step down from the council. Sinclair said it was not yet clear whether he was being removed to make way for another environmentalist, as he was told, or because he had criticized Dean's environmental policies.
>>>>>>>

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html


Dean raises money from energy sources

February 27, 2002

By David Gram


ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

>>>>>>>
“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

Dean’s close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.

A list of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.’s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

— After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean’s Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>

[Eric J in MN]

9. The Enron scandal was encouraged by deregulation

Congress passed a law making it difficult for defrauded investors to sue.
(The Securities Litigation Reform Act).

Clinton vetoed it.

His veto was over-rided (the only time in his Presidency) with the vote of Joe Lieberman, among others.

http://www.dailyenron.com/

[xultar]

10. I bet his regulation will be to enforce current SEC rules n/t

[Pastiche423]

34. Whose regulation?

clark is for de-regulation.

Do you understand what de-regulation has done to the energy industry, the media industry, the healthcare industry, the food industry, etc?

[Renew Deal]

56. Please cut and paste

those words. I have not seen them yet. Thanks ;)

[Pastiche423]

59. It would help to understand a lot

if you read the article. The link was posted w/my original post.

"Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again." So sayeth the mighty clark.

[Renew Deal]

62. Right, but

I still don't see anything that says he wants to de-regulate anything. I do see this:

"Clark said he would increase efforts to hold corporate America responsible for misconduct and indicated that in some instances, would go beyond the Clinton administration. But he said he would do so without writing rules and regulations."

It's called enforce the laws. I am not defending de-regulation. He never said it, and for you to repeat it is intellectually dishonest.

[slinkerwink]

69. so far, enforcing the laws hasn't helped

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

70. Have the laws been enforced?

People are bring up cases all over this thread of missteps. I would like to see some more detail about this.

[slinkerwink]

89. for example, Ken Lay's gone off lightly with a smack on the palm

and Enron didn't pay back its stockholders.

[SahaleArm]

92. Enron had no assets, financial and accounting fraud.

If we had a real president, AG, and SEC, Ken Lay wouldn't be walking around free. Laws that don't get enforced may as well not exist. Enron aside, companies can go into bankruptcy so if that's a worry don't invest in securities or junk bonds, stick with government bonds.

[dobak]

101. really?

Where does Clark say he is for more de-regulation?

I don't see those words in his speech?

[Zero Division]

107. Yeah, I'm having that problem, too...

can't find where he said that he's for "more deregulation", just against some regulation.

Hmmm, guess I need to put on my I-hate-Clark-more-than-Bush glasses to read it "correctly". :eyes:

[andym]

11. Corporate responsibility: What does this mean?

From the same link:

"Clark said he would increase efforts to hold corporate America responsible for misconduct and indicated that in some instances, would go beyond the Clinton administration. But he said he would do so without writing rules and regulations."

How does he do it without rules/regulations?
Tax code?

[Renew Deal]

57. Rules

It sounds like he is saying "enforce the law." It's not without rules, but without new rules.

[frank frankly]

13. oops

terrible move for Clark. terrible.

sorry to hear it and could not disagree more.

:shrug:

[StephNW4Clark]

First of all...misleading post.

Clark didn't criticize Dean, the person. He criticized the proposal.

The point is - re-regulation is essentially creating a duplication of existing laws. Investment companies ran amuck because the regulations in place weren't being ENFORCED. Regulation is there - there are bylaws and commissions in place to enforce those rules. The problem is that those charged with enforcement compromised their duties.

Re-regulation is essentially putting another band-aid over the existing one.

Clark said he would increase efforts to hold corporate America responsible for misconduct and indicated that in some instances, would go beyond the Clinton administration.

There are 2 ways to approach that: 1) create more rules and regulations or 2) build in incentives that discourage illegal and unethical practices. Clark is choosing the latter - which will not only prove in the end to be less costly to the companies who do make a good faith effort to abide by the law, but will also promote a more transparent business environment by having market participants who actively grow their businesses through good business practices, which in turn will provide and attract better employees and favorable publicity. In other words, market rewards for ethical behavior.

Don't intentionally misconstrue.

[Bread and Circus]

17. Good post Stephen....

Makes sense to me.

I will have to learn more about all of this before I weigh
in officially.

[Spazito]

30. I agree, I hope Clark fleshes this out....

in more detail. It seems to lack some detail at this point.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. that's total nonsense

Everyone here knows what "deregulation" means - we've experienced it.

"The point is - re-regulation is essentially creating a duplication of existing laws"

No, it's not, it's replacing laws. Deregulation occurred, the regulations were repealed.

"Investment companies ran amuck because the regulations in place weren't being ENFORCED. Regulation is there - there are bylaws and commissions in place to enforce those rules. The problem is that those charged with enforcement compromised their duties."

That's purposefully misleading. Investment companies did run amok becuase regulations in place weren't being enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that regulations were repealed and reduced.

"Re-regulation is essentially putting another band-aid over the existing one. Clark said he would increase efforts to hold corporate America responsible for misconduct and indicated that in some instances, would go beyond the Clinton administration."

Let him explain which regulations he will start enforcing, and which new regulations that Dean proposes he doesn't want.

"There are 2 ways to approach that: 1) create more rules and regulations or 2) build in incentives that discourage illegal and unethical practices."

That's so deceptive as to be offensive. "Build in incentives" - you mean add new regulations or amend current ones, or just deregulate altogether? By "building in incentives" you are *regulating* that's the point.

It seems that Clark wants corporations to have even more power than they already do, and he doesn't want our democratic government to regulate their operations. I hope I'm wrong. I guess I'll wait to see how Clark explains this one.

[Eloriel]

41. Couldn't be more wrong

And for someone who splits hairs over what all the rest of us CLEARLY understood was the intent of the original post, we have to chalk this up to pure spin, and ignorant spin at that.

The point is - re-regulation is essentially creating a duplication of existing laws. Investment companies ran amuck because the regulations in place weren't being ENFORCED. Regulation is there - there are bylaws and commissions in place to enforce those rules. The problem is that those charged with enforcement compromised their duties.

Nope, not even close. The Repugs spent the 90s undoing gobs and gobs of regulations, many of which allowed Enron (and others) to do exactly what they did. Go track the career of Wendy Gramm, for example.

Further, they went into a de-regulation frenzy, deregulating the airlines, electricity, and privatizing just about everything they could get their filthy mits on. A good bit of that needs to be reigned in as well.

Now, could the laws that remain be better enforced? No doubt. But that doeesn't address what Dean is addressing and Clark is dissing.

Clark LOSES big time -- EXCEPT AMONG BIG CORPORATE DONORS, of course. And that's the point. This is pure DLC/Clinton bullshit from Clark. ANd oh yeah, Jackson Stephens and Acxiom and others too, probably.

Eloriel

[SahaleArm]

42. Enron didn't fail because of energy deregulation.

Quit falling for silly rhetoric; Enron failed because of lame SEC and financial markets regulation, not energy deregulation. In fact Dean's big point, stock option expensing is being pushed by the FASB and will at some point become law. If the SEC enforced laws the Enron failure wouldn't have come to be.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

45. no Enron failed because of fraud

"lame SEC and financial markets regulation" - yes it was called "deregulation" and it has been a disaster don't you think? The SEC never had an interest in going after Ken Lay and Enron considering how powerful they were and who was backing them. All the financial companies went along.

How often do you think Lay and the chair of the SEC went to lunch together? Giving these people more power by deregulating their corporations makes things worse, not better.

[SahaleArm]

46. Can you point me to this SEC deregulation you speak of?

It's called lack of enforcement because the laws do exist. Spitzer is taking the entire financial industry to task while the SEC and Ashcroft stand on the sideline. Change the President and AG and watch things get turned around. You can't fix every company by having it run by the government, heck that's not what Dean even calls for.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

48. I didn't say that, and you ignore the point

Things that would have been illegal before deregulation became legal. The SEC didn't have a political interest in going after the biggest corporations and their executives, until the fraud got too big to hide.

Spitzer wants to be governor of NY, he's got my vote, I couldn't care less why he did it, he did it. Deregulation just means letting these people write their own rules - so we "enhance enforcement" of the rules they wrote for themselves? When we got to write the rules, they didn't follow them anyway, and their partners in the regulatory agencies didn't .

Any proposals that ignores the fact that corporations and their executives have significant political power and need to be regulated in the public interest is just warmed over GOP ideology. Perhaps some sort of pragmatic argument could have been made in the Clinton era, but it's obvious that's not what we need now.

We just had 50 financial industry people arrested today for fraud and theft - some were executives of big Wall Street firms - and we're supposed to want to deregulate these people more? We supposed to be against regulating them? If we make all their crimes legal that's supposed to be good for us?

[SahaleArm]

50. Deregulation is a loaded word.

I have many options in the deregulated cell phone and long distance markets but none in cable or local phone service. Utility deregulation is very different from financial market deregulation. There was no financial market deregulation, just lack of enforcement. I guess we'll have to diagree. :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

61. no financial market deregulation? on what planet?

"There was no financial market deregulation, just lack of enforcement. I guess we'll have to diagree. :)"

I guess you'll have to disagree with the facts then. They deregulated financial markets when they repealed Glass-Steagall, and the Financial Modernization Act 1999 with the help of Graham no less.

[SahaleArm]

72. Helped to further the collapse of Enron.

A Congressional act designed to restore financial stability to the country during the Great Depression, through the creation of federal deposit insurance and the separation of commercial banking and investment banking through the Glass-Steagall Act.

1933 Congressional law which authorized deposit insurance and prohibited commercial banks from owning brokerages. The latter rule has softened, and many banks now own discount brokers, sell mutual funds, and participate in underwritings.

The repeal was bad (though the FDIC still exists), but even still prosecutable errors occured and it took Spitzer to make it happen. The fact that the BushCo SEC did nothing is still most of the problem. Enron could still exist with Glass-Steagall in place.

[Classical_Liberal]

150. Enron screwed california because of energy deregulation.

.

[knight_of_the_star]

66. You're not one to talk

Considering your entire post was nothing but spin backed up by sweeping generalizations. Very impressive. The current laws we have in place are sufficient to hold the corporations in place. The reason that Enron got away with what they did was not JUST because of deregulation but because the Bush DoJ did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop it. All this BS has been going on because the laws are not being enforced, not because there aren't any laws in place. If there weren't any laws in place, then the corporations wouldn't even be bothering to keep what they are doing secret simply because it would be, well, legal.

Betcha you didn't consider that, huh?

[retyred]

80. WOW someone gets it!!!!

Nice post!



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Bertrand]

14. General Election Gold

A northeastern supposed liberal without any foreign policy experience running on a platform of eliminating middle class taxcuts and economic reregulation.

This is the candidate the Dems are possibly sending out to face Bush after 9-11. The Democratic Party deserves to lose to Bush.

[Larkspur]

16. No, we'll be sending out Fiscally Responsible Dean vs Squander-in-Chief

Bush, and Dean will nail Bush's a**.

[Bertrand]

19. No

Obviously Dean is better than Bush, but that means nothing if he gets trounced in the election (not to mention bringing down the congressional candidates).

If i wanted to vote for a candidate based on progressivism, id vote Kucinich or Nader.

[Larkspur]

22. Dean will beat Bush becaue

Shrubby is a lazy campaigner and will underestimate Dean, just like the rest of the Dems have.

[Bertrand]

25. you dont believe this

or maybe you do...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

109. the Kool-Aid is strong

don't bother. Dean is the gay fiscal super hero who will cure all war and disease and peace will finally reign over the planet.

[bhunt70]

96. Shrubby a lazy campaigner?

My god who are you trying to kid?

[Bread and Circus]

18. Yeah, Dean's platform is going to be all show and no go...

with a lot of folks. Maybe anger at Bush can push him
over the top. We may very well get to see if he soars or
flops.

[Larkspur]

20. You must be talking about Clark, Mr. Hyped Dem Candidate

All show and poor campaigning habits just make it difficult to get traction against Dean, the energetic campaigner.

[SahaleArm]

27. The news says Dean, Dean, and more Dean.

Where's the hype for Clark coming from? Cause it sure isn't the mainstream press.

[Renew Deal]

60. All that poor campaigning and show

has gotten Clark tied for first. Is Dean a poor campaigner also?

[retyred]

85. Now that's not fair!

Dean only had a 12 month, $15 mil head start, looking at Dean now it's obvious, his handicap should've been bigger.



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Bertrand]

23. Dean would have to run back to the center

because his current platform is nothing but party suicide. That said, im sure if that were to happen, his supporters would rationalize it as smart politics forgetting that theyve been lied to (or better yet, hes lying to the general because they know the "true" Dean, which is opposite of the previous Dean that wasnt a candidate for the presidency)


Edit: I cut out obviously

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skwmom]

39. How can anyone believe a word this guy says?

I've told my son since he was little that he has to be honest. If he does something wrong at school he has to fess up or the teacher will not trust him. Obviously the truth is no longer an issue for many Democrats.

[Pastiche423]

43. What guy?

The very 1st line in my post:

clark criticized Dean's business proposal

That is exactly what clark did. But the point of my post was that clark is for de-regulation.

Where have you been in the last three+ years? De-regulation is destroying our country!

[blm]

75. But it was alright with you that Dean was a deregulator

and pushed it in Vermont. When I posted two articles that talked about Dean's love of deregulation and his cozy relationship with the CATO Institute who rated him high for his deregulation efforts, Deanies responded as if they could care less.

NOW, you want people to care?

Well I DO care and I have cared for YEARS about this. And I don't trust Dean and his election year conversion to regulating industry.

[RetroLounge]

97. "What will we tell the children?"

Now where have I heard that before?

[Rose Siding]

21. The electorate doesn't favor corportate power

or abuse and there is ample evidence of both that is available to the average voter.

Bush has been deregulating (beyond what Clinton did) ever since he took up residence. There would have to be re-regulation just to come even again!

[annxburns]

32. Hey man, ....

.... I need to study this issue and both proposals a little more, but the fact that Dean, Trippi, and Clark are actually talking about POLICY differences instead of blathering about "your a flip-flopper", "no I'm not, you liar", "sez, you after you throw my grandma off Medicare", is sorta refreshing .....

[IranianDemocrat]

36. Amen Bertrand.

If Dean gets the nomination, there is no way in hell we'll win UNLESS he selects Clark as VP.

[andym]

33. Misleading title, Clark criticized Dean's policy, not Dean

Misleading title, Clark criticized Dean's policy, not Dean

That said, Dean is right, we do need better regulations/rules to
help reign in corporate misbehavior.

We also need more enforcement of the current rules (Hello SEC, Hello congress, why don't you fund the SEC adequately?)

And, I think Clark is partly right that a carrot approach wouldn't hurt either,
------------------------
From the article:

Clark said he would increase efforts to hold corporate America responsible for misconduct and indicated that in some instances, would go beyond the Clinton administration. But he said he would do so without writing rules and regulations.

"You have to create incentives that let people follow their natural market instincts, and through following those instincts, they have to do the right thing," he said.
-------------------------

I assume Dean would agree with creating "rewards" for corporate behavior in the public interest.

[StephNW4Clark]

40. Deregulation: Examples of California & Pennsylvania

I thought I would briefly summarize these points because it's often very easy for people to catch the buzz words and miss the nuances.

An often cited example decrying deregulation is the energy crisis in California. But is this a completely 100% fair assessment?

I'd say no. Not because there isn't ample evidence of consumer fraud and violations of public trust. The charge of deregulation doesn't really account for everything that happened.

California's energy crisis occurred during a period of deregulation, but was caused by the MISAPPLICATION of deregulation. Just with anything else, there is a RIGHT way and a WRONG way to approach an objective.

What failed in California were price controls on retail electric rates and an overly restricted wholesale market. Californians reduced the price rate by 10% and then froze those prices for 6 years. What occurred then was the DISINCENTIVE to conserve energy. Also, potential new suppliers were not attracted to investment in California because of those price restrictions which led to lack of competition in the energy markets.

One of the most serious mistakes made during the California years of deregulation was the decision to NOT allow utilities to enter long-term contracts. Why was this a mistake? Because it subjected the public to the price spikes that occurred seasonally. Instead of having stabilized prices, the public suffered because public utilities couldn't hedge against price spikes in the spot market.

Because of all these factors, CA residents ended up paying 8x as much. The misapplication of deregulation allowed for a ballooning energy crisis that gave Enron traders an opportunity to milk the desperate CA government for all they were worth and then some.

So it's not deregulation - it's the misapplication of deregulation.

In contrast you can look at Pennsylvania's deregulation of the energy industry. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's fairly successful.

The PA program has attracted over 100 power suppliers, including green power. 36,000 jobs have been created in PA, consumers saved an estimated $3 billion over the past 3 years, and capacity is on pace to increase by over 50%.

My point with all this is - deregulation in and of itself is not a bad thing, if it is done properly and planned for to secure the greatest good for the public. Deregulation is essentially a move towards free markets where consumers have the ultimate say by leveraging their power of demand. Consumers are not only motivated by price but also by good will - just look at the proper outrage against NIKE for its unethical treatment of workers. Consumers punished it and drew attention and continue to do so with other companies that follow similar tactics.

And I believe that is Clark's point.

[CWebster]

47. Garbage (same response to the same post in LBN)

My electic bill has TRIPLED since deregulation in PA. How much did Kucinich ultimately save by not kneeling under and selling the local public utility in Cleveland?

Frontline exposed the intentional fraud that produced the California energy crisis, any doubling back with revisionist views is little more than rationalization.

[SahaleArm]

49. The problem has as much to do with poor deregulation.

No competitors in local markets for cable, phone, electricity, and natural gas. On the other hand I have many more options for cell phones, airlines, and other markets that were never consolidated in the first place. So does re-regulation mean price control or complete co-option by state governements? It's a loaded word that could mean anything.

[TorchTheWitch]

94. hmmmm...

My electric bill is slightly less in PA after deregulation here. And I admit I'm no conservationist... I think at this moment I've got a light on in every room in the house which is something I shamefully do all the time as well as abuse heat and airconditioning (ok, so I like to be comfortable).

Out of curiousity, what electric company are you with?

[CWebster]

51. RichM, if you are out there

You don't know how tempted I am at this moment to release the hounds. Don't know if I can hold that wickedness at bay, given the delicious opportunity. For now, I will savor the tortured contortion and pleading desperation as they endlessly spin out of this one. What a howl. ;-)

[Pastiche423]

54. Where am I?

Am I having a nightmare and only think I'm at DU?

People supporting de-regulation
People supporting the School of Americas
People supporting amending our Consitution

Someone please pinch me (softly), so that I'll know.

TIA

[CWebster]

86. Clarks trojan horse

the troops pour out.

[BootinUp]

87. I don't see

where you have added any substance to this debate. Maybe I missed it can you point any out?

[Pastiche423]

93. Jim

This is a democratic board. We discuss and support democratic issues here. CWebster was responding to my post about the feeling I have been getting lately about the shift some people on this board have been advocating.

It is a shift I do not like, nor feel comfortable about. It began happening when a Trojan horse was purported to be entering the race. He has since entered. The topic of this thread is about this horse's view on a topic we feel strongly about. That view is in vast contrast to how many DUers have felt for a long time.

CWebster has contributed greatly to the topic on this thread.

[BootinUp]

98. Ok

I believe you care about the democratic party. The same party I have been a member of since 1980.

I just get the feeling you don't know politics, or how our party can make any gains against the real enemy.

The name calling I responded to is not substance, it is empty rhetoric, and does not jive with the facts. If you have a candidate that has better policies or a record of achievement you want to point out, that would be substance. If you want to debate facts then present them in a way that can be understood clearly.

I'm sure we'll get to discuss this again.

[Pastiche423]

104. Our party?

Our party does not support

The School of Americas
Amending our 1st Amendment
Giving speeches at a repug fundraiser
Voting for the enemy
Lobbying for the MIC, while invading our privacy
De-regulation
Someone that said, "I like these people a lot", when speaking about PNACers
Someone that said, "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush."
And someone that has no record of achievement for the Democratic Party.

[BootinUp]

120. Ref blows the whistle

You have a unique talent for taking things out of context, ignoring the dozens of times Clark has reponded to some of these issues and swatted them down.

1. I have already discussed the Schools of America Issue with you and you failed to make a compelling case. The fact that reforms were made in 2000 and a yearly review of the school is made by congress, non-governmental orgs etc. makes it a non-issue.

2. What constitutional change are you talking about?

3. Clark was a registered as an Independant. Did you know we need some Independant votes to get democrats in office? He hasn't voted for a repug president in the last 3 elections.

4. MIC..don't remember what that acronym is for, but I don't have a problem with a principled guy like Clark supporting companies that provide for the defense and security of the U.S.

5. What de-regulation? Be specific please.

6. PNACers, please provide information on the direct quote or source where it can be found.

7. The speech you reference was not all glowing support, he also covered the need for changes in our foreign policy strategy. He does still stand by Colin Powell, as most all of our country does. Personally I think Powell should resign since he disagrees with most of what happened since 9/11.

8. So he knows them, he worked in Washington, during Ford, and Clinton. He was in the military for 34 years, big deal.

9. You haven't been paying attention. He has had a positive affect on the national debate already. He has a record on environmental issues, looking after military family issues like schools, healthcare, and more, while commanding in the military. He fought against the repugs, and Sec of Defense Cohen to stop the attrocities in the Balkans. He has a record we can be proud of.

If you give him an honest look instead of believing every slime attempt on him you will see there is nothing like what you are making this out to be.

[Myra]

123. You may think CWebster has contributed to the thread

But the heavy handed and relentless attacks
on Clark and his supporters may well have the
effect of turning people off to his/her viewpoint.

CWebster could learn a lot about psychology.
I, and many others on DU, are trying to
evaluate candidates and many of us aren't
committed to anyone yet. I have favorites:
Clark, Kucinich, Dean in that order, and major
reservations about each one. We're trying to
flesh out their positions as they form them.
And as we find out more, our reservations may
be allievated or we may stop supporting a candidate
accordingly.

Constant, condescending, self-righteous bullying
and sarcasm from another DUer doesn't help that process.
It just becomes an intolerable noise to filter out.

So I may or may not ultimately support Clark.
But I'll decide about him in spite of hectoring from
fellow DUers, not because of it.

If someone wants to influence fellow DUers, then
present some info without getting in our faces,
then show enough respect and self-control to
step back and let us decide for ourselves what we
think.

[CWebster]

128. Yo--This is against the rules ain't it Myra?

Coming from a family of psycholgists-- I am not clueless to the dynamics of human behavior. You're just in a sulk because I called you on your massive denial on the LBN thread. In fact, ever since the General stepped in his own poo-poo, his loyal minions have closed ranks to cover Sir's flanks in trying to deflect the matter with technicalities or distortion. Is there any question why he must be kept on a tight lead? Can't have him bashing into walls in the dark. Clark is a packaged candidate to front for power brokers in the party who will market his image as a pop icon, so he must not cloud the illusion at any cost.

Someone whose opinion I respect expressed concern over this level of gutter politics. But you know, the entire appeal for civility was code for suppressing justifiable outrage. The Dems got caught up in that farce and they found themselves neutered. And at the Wellstone memorial Democrats were cowed by Republican charges of inappropriate behavior, likewise the suggestion that Democratic party grassroots enthusiam is cult-like. We on the Left should not be driven down--either by the forces outside who oppose us, and seek to keep us subservient or the new Democrats who in their simplistic reaction against Bush, still share some of the same Republican values. Dean has taken alot of crap from these camps, so why, under these circumstances, would it be a wise move to lie down and get rolled over while getting stabbed in the back?

[BootinUp]

131. Battling to go nowhere

"We on the Left should not be driven down--either by the forces outside who oppose us, and seek to keep us subservient or the new Democrats who in their simplistic reaction against Bush, still share some of the same Republican values."

You don't want the party to grow? Why don't you run for Party Chairman...lol

I must disagree "share some of the values". Don't you think its a difference in policy on how to achieve what we want? What values do you mean?

If you had your way the dems would be in horrible shape. In local politics you will have candidates at the more extreme right or left depending on constituencies. But to think that you can have that for the office of President is absurd.

[CWebster]

133. Party to grow into what?

The Republican party?

[BootinUp]

136. I Keep Trying

To get you to spell out specifics so the discussion can actually draw more interest and you keep spewing rhetoric. I await a well reasoned argument.

[CWebster]

141. Speaking of

substance.

[BootinUp]

143. If anyone is paying attention

I believe they would agree I have tried to bring facts into the debate about whether Clark has a real democratic platform or not. All one needs to do is take a glance at his issues page here:

http://clark04.com/issues/

topics available:

Al Qaeda Plan
Strategy for Addressing the Threat Posed by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Iraq Strategy
A Real Plan for Success in Iraq
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Making Good on America's Promises
Wes Clark's commitment to American Indians and Alaska Natives
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Restarting the American Jobs Engine
Ensuring that Americans have the opportunity to get back to work as soon as possible
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Standing Up for America's Workers
Protecting workers' rights to bargain collectively for the greater good
» Read the policy | Download PDF

My Economic Vision: Jobs and Growth for All Americans
Growing the economy through responsible fiscal policies and smart stimulus programs
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Invest in the Education of America's Future
Preparing our children for global leadership
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Protecting the Environment
Responsible conservation of our natural resources, to protect Americans' health and welfare
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Statement on GLBT Issues
Ensuring each and every citizen's ability to reach his or her full human potential
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Gun Safety
Ensuring responsible gun laws to protect all Americans
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Improving our Health Care
Providing every American access to quality health care
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Prescription Drug Benefits for America's Seniors
» Read the policy | Download PDF

Seniors Make America Great
Responding to the concerns of America's senior population with honor and dignity
» Read the policy | Download PDF

The Call to Service
Calling responsible Americans to aid their country in time of need
» Read the policy | Download PDF

A Veterans' Security Plan
Protecting the Americans who have sacrificed to protect us
» Read the policy | Download PDF

An Agenda for Women
My commitment to addressing women's concerns
» Read the policy | Download PDF

:think:

[roughsatori]

88. When I read the recent posts in defense of SOA

I felt as if I had entered the Twilight Zone. Now we have posters supporting DE-regulation. :shrug:

[Zhade]

127. WHAT???

People supporting the School of Americas

WHO? And WHEN?

There is NO ONE with an ounce of justice in their soul who could actually support the School of Assassins.

Please tell me you're not serious. Please!

[SahaleArm]

55. Give us the grand plan where every

corporation will be run by the Federal government. I've read Dean's words and at this point he could be talking about sweeping change or very little. I still see lots of wiggle room.

:evilgrin:

[economic justice]

52. Interesting responses

Interesting responses in this thread. I like Clark and am leaning to him with Edwards and Gephardt still in my mind (though I would support ANY Democrat in the general election). This thread shows a rather blind candidate allegiance. I have the feeling that if this were REVERSED the same Clark people would be defending their guy from "attacks by Dean." It just seems there is a lot of blind loyalty to candidates here. On ALL sides, by the way.

[Pastiche423]

58. Where is the blind loyalty

when one opposes de-regulation?

[BootinUp]

65. Using labels again and its mostly...

the candidates fault. We need specific proposals, we need the details to make a reasoned judgment. I do not favor de-regulation in many cases. On the other hand there are cases where it would make sense as well. It only makes sense to learn from the past and use the lessons learned going forward. Clark is basically saying that in a "safe" way.

The candidates are jockying for votes, Dean thinks he needs more democratic base votes, and Clark is trying to gain some repukes. But without specifics it don't mean much.

[slinkerwink]

68. still, it does show where each candidate stand

and it only further illustrates Dean's distinct status as the "trend-setter"

[BootinUp]

73. Well

I posted the Clark campaign statement that they are sending out in the De-Regulation thread.

here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=741952#742483

And if you actually read it you'll see my point. I also like some of what Dean is saying but it will cause him problems in the general election.

[economic justice]

67. In this thread, it's the Clark people

In others it's Dean or somebody else. If you read my post again, I was really saying that the attacks from Clark people in this thread show a blind loyalty because if it was the other way around they would be screaming at Dean for selling out or something.

[SahaleArm]

95. I don't think Dean will overregulate.

Based on Dean's history and reality. I won't argue Dean's position until I can get get a firmer understanding of the rehtoric.

[Rose Siding]

64. It's also about beating Bush

Clark has done Dean a favor here, imo. Focus on this issue highlights Bush/corporatism and Dean's positive message of change. It is not an uncommon public opinion that corprations have too much power. It's a concept that is thematic of Dean's whole campaign.

[slinkerwink]

63. this is why I'm firmly behind Dean

My aunt, was a victim of Enron----de-regulation was bad for that company and other companies. Doesn't Clark understand the way to get the Democratic base riled up against Bush is to remind them of the Enron debacle? It looks like he doesn't.

We need re-regulation, not deregulation of major business industries. This isn't the first time Clark has disappointed me on this issue.

[Zero Division]

76. Without knowing what exact regulation or deregulation....

Clark supports, these statements tells us very little, other than the fact that he does not support some kinds of regulation.

To infer that he supports some kind of Bush-style deregulation from this article would be a grossly overreaching assumption (although, not surprising given the profound level of animosity expressed toward Clark by a few posters on this forum). For one thing, he is simply expressing opposition to regulation, which is not the same thing as support for deregulation (one can make an argument that we really need to step up the enforcement of current regulations, rather than deregulate, for example).

I'd like to see Clark's comments put into the context of his full speech (can anyone find this?), as well, since Clark has been attacked unfairly numerous times by others who take his comments out of context (something I think many Dean supporters can sympathize with).

[BootinUp]

81. Look here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=741952#742483

This is an official Clark campaign statement e-mailed to supporters.

[xultar]

91. Nah, I don't think they can. They jump in and read a snip and think

that's all that was said. When Dean mentioned reregulating he was only talking about 3 industries. When Clark mention deregulation he only mentioned 1.
So Deanies went off on a wild scream-a-thon saying he was for deregulation across the board. I don't think he was for it across the board just like Dean isn't for re-regulation across the board.

[Myra]

113. I'd like to see this in context too

'Cause I don't trust the media whores to
report his position I'd like a definitive state
from him. I don't see one on his website issues
page. Then again, his issues page is rather vague anyway,
which bother me.

Hm, I'd like an answer on this, I consider regulation/
free market fundamentalism to be a deal breaking issue.
If he's for it, I wouldn't support him.

I'm also concerned about his lobbiest activities
for Acxiom, which I just found out about on DU
today.

I just want to be careful and skeptical 'cause the
right wing seems so eager to trash him, and I
don't want to take their bait.

[Mattforclark]

138. Precisely

'de-regulation' is not an absolute term. It is not a clear term. It is a blanket term, and the blanket is full of bumps and canyons. It means different things.

In some cases 'de-regulation' is desirable. In others it is not. It depends on what we are actually talking about.

[Code_Name_D]

77. Clark is a supply sider. My comment now stands one point stronger.

This was obvious when I dissected his 100 year vision. It was loaded with the supply side rhetoric, thinly disguised too. He even argued that "market forces" will be needed to display citizens, with some kind of modernized Home Stead Act. (I have yet to see an explanation for this point.)

[SahaleArm]

100. Yeah and I'm sure he's into Voodoo Economics like taxing the wealthy

:shrug:

[Code_Name_D]

103. Are you emplying that Clark dosen't beleive the rich should pay any taxes?

Yeah and I'm sure he's into Voodoo Economics like taxing the wealthy.


Certainly looks like it.

[SahaleArm]

105. I'm not 'emplying' anything.

Just pointing out that Clark's economic plan has nothing to do with supply-side (voodoo) economics.

Krugman on Voodoo: http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/RollingStone052903.html

Clark's plan: http://clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

[Code_Name_D]

125. Then how do you explane

Clark's most resent statment on de-regulation.

And buy the way, his economic plan is loaded with supply side mentality. He proses giving incentives and tax brakes to emplyeres to higher new emplyeees. That IS supply side.

[SahaleArm]

126. Do you have a Rosetta Stone to go along with your posts?

Tax cuts for the middle class are actually a good thing. They actually spend the money they get, regardless of what hoho tells you. Do you go to DFA to come up with these lame retorts?

[mvd]

78. I'm for strong regulation

But with the higher unemployment rate, we have to be careful about who we hurt.

[slinkerwink]

82. Deregulation definitely hurt people like my aunt

:sigh:

[IronLionZion]

84. What has Clark done for the Economy?

Don't get me wrong, I still like the guy and would gladly vote for him.
But he's just a military man. The corporations are wicked powerful now. Like the pharmeceutical companies try to block imports so they can gouge prices and hold on to patents for a long time, and Clear Channel likes to control mass communication. Not to mention Enron. These companies need to be watched carefully or they will take this country for all its worth.

[SahaleArm]

121. Vote for Dean - He liked giving corporate welfare to IBM.

Now he's some sort of quasi-populist:shrug:?

[Cocoa]

90. I see Clark as the most pro-business candidate

maybe tied with Lieberman.

It's what Clark did when he retired, he went to work representing corporations.

Doesn't make him bad, just puts him at the bottom of my list, since I'm not a corporation and I want a candidate that represents me, and there are so many others running that do represent people first.

[jeter]

102. Clark just killed himself

I don't agree with regulating everything. But deregulation of energy and telecommunications has been a disaster.

[slinkerwink]

106. I agree......

Dean's going to come after him on this in the debate and he's right to do so

[SahaleArm]

110. What's Dean's concrete plan for dealing with corporate malfeasance?

And what does he plan to do different from Clark:shrug:? If Dean goes with the I'm gonna control everything plan, he's done. He's going to have to explain his vague generalizations.

[slinkerwink]

114. here

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.


Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

[SahaleArm]

116. A bunch of rhetorical gibberish!

Give me specifics not random theories about re-regulation. The question is how and what will be the effect.

[SahaleArm]

108. What's wrong with your phone bill?

Energy I can understand due to the certain states having exorbitant electrical rates. Can you explain how telecom deregulation has affected you?

[CWebster]

129. the most pivotal industries

of all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. I know I'm projecting here

some of my hopes onto Clark, so I will admit it right upfront. I know some have questioned some of the business connections Clark established upon retirement. Clark was never independently wealthy so he was going to do something to generate income when he retired in his mid 50's, and most men with his connections go into business in one way or another. Politicians are shielded from that so long as they can remain in office, so with the exception of Al and Carrol it wasn't a bridge our other Presidential candidates had to cross. CLark made a clear conscious decision not to hook up directly with an arms manufacturer which is what most ex military brass do upon retirement. Some claim that some of Clark's resultant new income still came tainted from partially politically incorrect sources. I don't doubt that possibility.

Here is my gut feel on Clark. The man has been somewhat isolated from the inner workings of economic policy and the real world interplay between capitalist forces, economic growth, and social justice. The military to an extent is a closed loop society that is less driven by market forces perhaps than any other segnment of our society (with the possible exception of the clergy). Clark has a good intellectual grasp on economics, he has a Masters in it from Oxford, but he has not had to grapple with it much as a decision maker in the civilian world. Most would consider that as a weakness of his as a candidate, understandably so. Somehow though I don't see it that way.

Because the military is not market driven and could never pay competitive wages compared with the private sector, it is organized around a completely different set of guiding principles than the for profit sector. One of those principles is service to one's country. Another is, (at least while in uniform) freedom from most basic economic concerns. Heath care, housing, schooling, subsidized supplies etc. are part of the package deal offered service men and women. Nothing fancy, but the basics are covered. And a good commander always fights for the well being of all those serving under him or her. The military can't afford to waste anyones talents, so affirmative action became much more than a politically correct slogan in the military. In battle, everyone has to watch everyone else's back, lives are dependent on cooperation loyalty and trust. It is always said that soldiers fight for each other while in battle, not for an abstraction.

Clark enters politics at the highest level now with a slightly different value syustem than is prevelent in the private sector. I think that is a good thing. His initial economic instincts are being tutored and worked with by members of Clinton's prior economic team. They are his advisors at the moment, and evidence of their influence is evident in Clark's early policy statements. We can do a lot worse than having our nation's economy steered again by people associated with the Clinton Presidency, but we can also do better. I think we will if Clark becomes President.

Clark has the intellectual capacity to master complex issues, he was head of strategic planning for the Pentagon. Right now he is having to learn the nuts and bolts of how to be a politican at the same time as he is tackling the wide range of important issues facing the country. He is up to speed on international affairs in my opinion, and he is rapidly keying in on other areas but he is still a work in progress. When in doubt, he defaults to the Clinton economic world view because those who hold it are the on hand team of experts he can lean on now to quickly develope a coherent stand on economic issues, and without one he would be dismissed as a credible candidate. I am not suggesting Clark is a blank slate in this process, but some brilliant people guided our economy under Clinton, and Clark recognizes their accomplishments, and they are his current advisors.


I expect Clark to evolve on the job, quickly. I expect some of his military values and priorities in regards to meeting the basic needs and providing for the well being of the men and women who served under him to transfer over to his responsibilities as President to see to the economic well being of the American people, down to those on disability, or working minimum wage jobs. In other words I am looking at Clark's personal character and beliefs, his sense of accountability for the lives of those he is responsible for, and I am anticipating that they will increasingly color his domestic policies and priorities as President. I am backing him because I think Clark has the qualities of leadership this nation needs, and among those qualities is empathy and compassion for those who face life's hardships. I am looking at where Clark is coming from to help predict where he is heading to. I don't believe Clark will govern as the Corporations man. I think he an entirely different animal than George Bush Jr. Inherently I believe Clark is progressive in his values.

Over the years my politics have subltly shifted from being almost exclusively issue driven to where they are now, and now I look much more closely at the human qualities of the people who seek to represent me than I ever did before. I look closer for honorable, intelligent decent men and women who have the courage of their convictions, strong but realistic ideals, and genuine compassion that extends to those who have little to personally offer them. I've met Clark, I like and trust him. That means my opinions are enhanced to an extent by my faith in him. It is an essential aspect of real leadership, that ability to inspire a degree of faith.

[BootinUp]

122. Nice post (n/t)

[Rose Siding]

112. a new Clark quote on this issue

"This is an area where the differences between the choices Howard Dean and I would make for the country are clear," Clark said. But exactly what those differences are was not clear. Clark said he, too, favors clamping down on media ownership and imposing new regulations. "I agree that we need far stronger protections for workers, consumers and our environment going beyond where the Clinton administration went in several respects, as times and circumstances have changed, too."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63424-2003Nov19.html

Is he backing off? He seems to be on *both* sides of the issue.

[slinkerwink]

115. huh?

that is odd.....guess, Clark saw the political backlash that might come at him from Dean....

[Renew Deal]

118. Or maybe

he got soundbited in the other article.

[SahaleArm]

119. Don't bother responding.

Unless you enjoy regurgitation.

[Renew Deal]

117. He has always been for bringing back the fairness doctrine

He is not for deregulation of the media.

[Mattforclark]

139. Right on N/T

[Mattforclark]

137. No, he has been against media conglomeration

He said so at the end of the Hanniker N.H. town hall meeting shortly after he entered the race.

http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=wesley+clark

It is near the end, when he is 'leaving' and talking to people one on one. He says that he is against the recent media conglomeration and also said that he wants to reverse Reagan's legacy on this issue. The fairness doctrine, equal time, and all those things that Reagan destroyed.

[CWebster]

132. A vote for Clark is a vote for corporations over citizens.

:kick:

[Mattforclark]

140. Care to provide

Evidence for yer claim?

I could say 'a vote for Bush is a vote for citizens over corporations,' but that wouldn't make it true.

[CWebster]

142. Sure, let the General speak for himself

"Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Music to the ears of every conscientious Democrat in these times, I am sure.

[Mattforclark]

144. What kind of regulation?

Some kinds of regulation are eminently desirable, other kinds are not, and in some cases are even counterproductive.

I think you are interpreting an exceedingly broad statement to fit in with a preconception.

[CWebster]

145. I think you are avoiding an obvious

truth.

[Mattforclark]

146. The obvious truth being?

that Clark wants rampant de-regulation and not sensible use of de-regulation? I'm sorry, but I don't see why that is obvious unless you think all de-regulation is by definition evil.

[CWebster]

147. Why am I even having this discussion?

This should be self-evident for anyone on the Left, yet I feel that I am in the similar position of having to point out the obvious, obviously to you and me anyway, reasons why Bush is such a bumbling imbecile to a freeper who believes he is on a mission from god.

With all that has transpired in the past 3 years as a result of deregulation and privatization---especially in the media, where we hear screeching every damn day about the corporate media whores-- to the energy industry that owns our government, these 2 areas that Clark specifically referred to, and you are asking me for further explanation?

[Tom Rinaldo]

148. Here is Clark's full updated statement

"In today's Washington Post, Governor Howard Dean said he plans to make a major departure from the proven economic strategy that our party adopted in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, the same economic strategy that brought us more than 22 million new jobs and the strongest economy in American history.

This is an area where the differences between the choices Howard Dean and Wes Clark would make for the country are clear.

The Clinton economic approach was to create jobs, wealth and growth by bringing labor and business together - not pitting them against each other. That's the only way to create real, long-term growth for both business and workers. And the results spoke for themselves: 22 million new jobs. 1970s-style regulation is not going to get our economy going again. It failed in the past. And it will fail again.

Clark agrees that we need to dramatically ramp up our efforts to hold corporate America responsible for their misconduct. He agrees that we need to limit media ownership. He agrees that we need far stronger protections for workers, consumers and our environment - going beyond where the Clinton administration went in several respects, as times and circumstances have changed, too.

Clark's jobs plan is based on the core Clinton formula of creating jobs by investing in urgent needs and investing in our people, especially in the hard-hit manufacturing sector.

Clark proposed a $2.35 trillion Savings for America's Future plan to restore our fiscal discipline. He supports unleashing high growth job-creation sectors like high technology and why he supports a strong science and technology program.

Clark will make unprecedented investments in our human capital: in health care, in education, in job training. He will promote smart, fair, market-based incentives regulatory reforms, rather than red tape, and volumes of outdated regulations."


You may or may not feel comfortable with Clark's approach. You may or may not trust him to make the right implementation calls regarding how to handle individual instances on regulations. But based on the position he has taken it is unfair and unsupported to claim he is for big business over workers. That is not what he said. There may be a dispute over how to best promote and protect the interests of workers and consumers, create jobs, grow the economy, whatever. The same can be siad about Dean also. Will he make the right specific calls? Will they bring about the desired goals? It is a valid topic for public debate, but neither Dean nor Clark should be smeered for the comments they have made to date regarding it.

[CWebster]

149. Just goes to show you he is Clinton's frontman

but here is the real deal.

Democrats may find Clinton's charm attractive, and they may defend him against freeper attacks, but the base is angry with the DLC policies he championed that sold out the party and who it represents. It is an angry base and those are the activist Democrats who vote in the primaries. If this gets out, Clark is dead in the water.

[Tom Rinaldo]

151. Clark and Clinton

Your last post is a fair one, except I don't think Clark is "a frontman for Clinton." That he is currently alligned to many positions eminating from the Clinton camp I would agree with. Earlier on this thread I made a post under the title "I know I'm projecting here" where I gave my thoughts about the relationship between Clark and Clinton's policy advisers. I was not in battle mode when I made that post. I did not defend my position with rhetoric, facts or figures. I just shared my true impression of Clark and how he will evolve as a candidate and why. I still think he is the man who can beat Bush and that he will make a surprisingly good and progressive President. I am very confident about the first prediction and reasonably confident about the second. I hope the activist base gives Clark a long and close look. Furthermore, his potential "Presidency" is still well over a year off. Clark shows an openess to Progressive concerns, he can be further influenced in that direction by activists who chose to work with him in developing his domestic programs.

I think the news out of Turkey today is just the begining of a very rough year regarding terrorist attacks. I think the public will want someone seasoned to deal with national security, someone who knows how to appear tough and unfortunately the only thing Bush is good at is apearances. I think we win with Clark and lose with anyone else. That's my honest opinion. I will campaign for any other Democrat if Clark fails to get the nomination, but I don't think anyone else would beat Bush.

[Pastiche423]

152. "If this gets out"

It is getting out. It is the activists that do the work. Thankfully, the internet is making it easier for the activists to spread the word faster and wider.

The internet also makes it easier to educate others about exactly what the candidates are supporting and who they are supporting.

This coming election really boils down to corporations/the elite vs We, the People.

We, the People need to know who is on their side.

Someone that is against re-regulation is not on their side.