Don't worry about the spotlight, or the chance it will ever happen. Who do you want to be the next president and why?

Most people think he's a joke. I loved seeing Jesse Ventura as a take charge, no BS leader. I'm not in MN so I could be way off but I understand he did a lot of good for the state. Refreshing to see a non career politician not bend over for the special interests and just do the right thing. The only time I ever watched C-SPAN was when he was being asked questions by a group of college students. He came off really well.

As far as the next election, I'd just like to have a few choices. Was there really a choice at the last election? I'd have voted for McCain if he was still running. He was the only one that didn't seem to be a mindless drone.

I sort of liked the idea of Steve Forbes for president. I will think more about it though and see if I can come up with some one else. To bad Rush is too honest to be a politician.

I am a Democrat; however, if we could bring back Ronald Reagan to the White House, I would vote for him !

actually, the man that has my complete and total support is the man that will most likely be on the ballot i believe come election 2004. General Wesley Clark has my complete and total support as of right now. I actually posted a thread on Gen Clark and the likelihood of him running back in APril or March i think, and got no response. Like i said then, I think that he is the only Democrat that really has a chance at beating Bush, and the polls tend to agree. Actually, a Usa Today, CNN gallop poll had him one percentage point ahead of G Bush. He is the only democrat that can actually compare to the president in the area of national defense. Unlike Bush, he was a military general. Graduated first in his class at Westpoint, and is a Rhodes Scholar. So he actually has the issue of intelligence on his side. I have watched him in debates and campaign stops, and he is one of the most eloquent speakers around. Kind of has the Bill Clinton feel to him, although im sure most of you would hate that. He's good for the Democratic party because he has the potential of being a strong leader in the area of national defense, which is often viewed as a Democratic weak point (kinda like how the Republicans are with healthcare and the economy). I understand that he's viewed as a johnny come lately, and a novice when it comes to politics. But Bush had very little political experience just the same. He essentially bought his governorship, like he did the election. Hell, before he was governor he owned a baseball team! So i really feel like Clarks inexperience at politics is a weak argument. To those of you that are moderate republicans, that are really unhappy with George Bush ( and i know there are many ), you might want to serioulsy consider hearing what Clark has got to say. He's already proposed an economic plan, although he hasn't completely sorted out where he stands on all the issues, but the guy has just started , and is already the leading Democratic candidate. Im really looking forward to this next year to see how things shape up.

Warren Buffet.

- Wasn't afraid to stand up to Bush and trash his tax plan.
- Second richest man in the US. Who's going to buy him?
- Has a great understanding of business and economic systems.
- Sounds like he's actually concerned about the lower and middle class.

To be honest with you, I'd take any of the viable candidate to be president over Bush. No one could possibly have a more extremist ideological agenda than him. He makes Reagan look like a moderate.

Originally posted by LS400Dom
I am a Democrat; however, if we could bring back Ronald Reagan to the White House, I would vote for him !

Wow, I'm shocked (pleasantly). I'd love to hear why. Reagan was truly The Great Communicator.

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
General Wesley Clark has my complete and total support as of right now.

You mean the man who was for, and against, and for, and against, and now maybe or maybe not, for the actions in Iraq? At least Lieberman and Gebhart and Dean are clear on their positions.

Unlike Bush, he was a military general.

Can't remember the last President that was, so not sure why this is a good thing.

So he actually has the issue of intelligence on his side.

Intelligence does not equal leadership skills.

But Bush had very little political experience just the same. He essentially bought his governorship, like he did the election.

How do you figure he bought the Texas Governorship, beating Ann Richards I think (one of the whiniest, *****iest people ever in politics - remember her pathetic "where's george?" speech)? That's pretty negative toward the voters in Texas. Since Republicans almost always raise more money than Democrats, I assume you think all Republican elections wins are 'bought' and all Democratic wins are through the genius of the politician and the clever voters?

Im really looking forward to this next year to see how things shape up.

Me too! :)

Originally posted by lex400sc

No one could possibly have a more extremist ideological agenda than him.


Howard Dean ring a bell? Hillary Clinton?

Originally posted by SDuquette
Howard Dean ring a bell? Hillary Clinton?


Forgive my ignorance but I'm not too familiar with their agendas...

Please explain how Hillary is extremist.

Please explain how Howard is extremist.

Explain how they are both more extreme in ideology than Baby Bush is.

You mean the man who was for, and against, and for, and against, and now maybe or maybe not, for the actions in Iraq? At least Lieberman and Gebhart and Dean are clear on their positions.

Bit, he has clearly mentioned and pointed out his past stances, such as at one time he supported Nixon, Reagan, and even made favorable comments about the current administration. He has already said that a lot of things have changed since he made those comments....events such as 9/11, Afghanistan, WAR in Iraq, etc.....these things and their outcomes can change one's position. He has pointed out that the administration has lost his confidence, as well as the confidence of about half of the American public at this point. I for one, believe that a man can change opinion, and I will not hold his past views over him. Right now, i like what he says. Whether or not you do is not a matter of concern for me. Clark has said all along that he believed Bush's war plan was "fundamentally flawed" and raised the level of risk to the US troops. I watched him on CNN from day one of the war and he was one of the most adament critics on the channel. I've heard little about this "waivering" stance on the issue, and im not convinced that that is a way of spinning the subject, to slow down the Wesley Clarks momentum, which is something that no one can deny he has a lot of right now....and i know that he wasn't FOR, then against, then FOR, then against, like you just claimed.



Can't remember the last President that was a general, so not sure why this is a good thing.

actually, the last president that was a general to my knowledge was Eisenhower during the 50's...secondly, im shocked that you cant see how that is a good thing. As general, Clark oversaw and orchestrated the movement and actions of troops in Kosovo. It shows that he actually does have leadership skills, so point out to me again how being a general isn't a plus when it comes to national leadership.

Intelligence does not equal leadership skills.

your right it doesn't. But above i have explained how Clark does have leadership skills. Intelligence to boot can be a potent combo. Something that the current president at face value seems to lack

Originally posted by LS400Dom
I am a Democrat; however, if we could bring back Ronald Reagan to the White House, I would vote for him !

Ronald Reagan? The guy who created the War on Drugs and D.A.R.E.? No thanks. :thumbdn:

As far as who I'd like the next president to be, I haven't the slightest clue... but not that guy.

I agree being a General means he has leadership skills. What I meant previously was that being a General is no guarantee that he'll be elected, since as you said, it's been 50 years since we elected another General.

Clark seems like a decent guy, I'll give you that. I've just read his 'job creation plan' though, where he plans to spend $100 Billion Federally :eek1: 40% of which is for funding state and local governments so they don't have to raise taxes. He plans to pay for all this by reversing Bush's tax cuts for anyone making more than $200K. If he can raise $100 Bn by doing that he must be affecting a LOT of people. So he plans to hit up the 'rich' so local and state government will, in theory, be less inclined to raise taxes further, but there's nothing saying they can't, so it's just another big money grab.

Just another Robbing Hood. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by lex400sc
Forgive my ignorance but I'm not too familiar with their agendas...

Please explain how Hillary is extremist.

Please explain how Howard is extremist.

Explain how they are both more extreme in ideology than Baby Bush is.

That was more the point of my post, explain with fact, not opinion how bush is an extremist, and how that relates to his extremist agenda he supposedly has. You ask someone like me, gun registering, universal healthcare, and basically expanding the government into every aspect of our lives are extreme ideas, and in my opinion, extreme steps toward a socialist, near communist, run government. I think those two clowns are extremists, hell, I have a few other descriptive words also, but we will leave it there, and you think Bush is extreme. Point is, neither of us really have anything to base our opinions off of, other than our opinions

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Can't remember the last President that was [a General], so not sure why this is a good thing.

Aw c'mon, haven't you heard of George Washington? :D He was our first president after all, didn't you go to elementary school? :p ;)

Originally posted by bitkahuna
I agree being a General means he has leadership skills. What I meant previously was that being a General is no guarantee that he'll be elected, since as you said, it's been 50 years since we elected another General.

A tried and tested general would have more prudence in excercising military power internationally. He would especially think to use it as a last resort. A general knows the costs of war, the logistics, the probability of success, and would have the foresight to devise a postwar plan ahead of time! Bush has absolutely ZERO experience in international politics coming into the White House. He was a governor of Texas and that was it. The only reason Republicans were comfortable in electing him was because of Colin Powell's expertise in internaional affairs, along with **** Cheney's and Don Rumsfeld's experience. Well that obviously didn't work out right since Bush still managed to shoot off his big mouth and offend a whole lot of key nations. Due to Bush's total lack of understanding in geopolitics, his not-so-noble advisors (ie: Rumsfeld), I'm sure, had no trouble manipulating his decisions. I doubt that a former NATO Supreme Commander would have the wool pulled over his eyes as easily...

Originally posted by bitkahuna
I've just read his 'job creation plan' though, where he plans to spend $100 Billion Federally :eek1: 40% of which is for funding state and local governments so they don't have to raise taxes. He plans to pay for all this by reversing Bush's tax cuts for anyone making more than $200K. If he can raise $100 Bn by doing that he must be affecting a LOT of people. So he plans to hit up the 'rich' so local and state government will, in theory, be less inclined to raise taxes further, but there's nothing saying they can't, so it's just another big money grab.

Just another Robbing Hood. :rolleyes:

Actually, it's exactly what you said it was at the beginning of your paragraph: a reversal of an idiotic tax cut that obviously did nothing but suffocate the states.

I think Regan was the most sincere president we have had. If you didn't agree with him, fine. However if you will look at the majority view, most believe he truthfully did what he thought was best and did it sincerely. IMO, he was a very personable guy. I am saddened to see what became of his condition.

'bout the only president that can truthfully say "i don't recall" and mean it though :)

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Wow, I'm shocked (pleasantly). I'd love to hear why. Reagan was truly The Great Communicator.

Hope these would satisfy you:
1.We inherited double digits inflation after Carter, but Reagan brought back the economy successfully by opening jobs in manufactures, technology. (There was also a special help for domestic automobile company – I forgot which one – which almost filed chapter 11 - to boost the Japanese attack in car manufacture).
2.Reagan built our world credibility in foreign affairs. (Ex: The fall of the Berlin Wall). You are right ‘Bit, he was the one of the “Great Communicator”.
3.Reagan’s strategy to in the military development and research which made our Nation to have the most sophisticated technology in the world – plus he maintained the economic growth. We had lots of investment or export/import goods to the third world country especially in Southeast Asia. I am not saying that we had the best economic situation in his 8 years term, but there were jobs everywhere and education was priority and it was strong enough to invite others to come to study here.
Note: In his administration, a lot of students from foreign country came to study compare to Clinton or senior Bush.
4.Do you remember the Tax Amnesty? Americans who owed back taxes could pay
without getting penalty from IRS. Reminder: we also needed money at the time for his “Star Wars”
plan to prevent the Soviet Union threat in cold war era.

I have to admit he was a great leader and was also a smart businessman who could predict and predetermine the need for this country in most aspects.

This is why I hate Bush, hhmm…let me re-phrase that I disagree with Bush plan or his moves in managing our economic system and foreign affairs.

Wesley Clark is a political JOKE..

Look at this website, then explain why you would support.

Wesley Clark Spins EVERYTHING HE SAYS "Click here" (http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~sparta13/wesley.htm)


<Clips from Article>
To anyone who agreed with our policy in the Balkans, which seemed to include most of the audience, I'm sure the presentation was well received. While I agreed with some of Clark's theories on the relationship of political power and the use of military force, I was struck by the number of contradictions between what he said and what he had actually done in the Balkans and his self-serving spin on almost every issue. For instance, he referred to the "shame" of the German bombing of Belgrade in World War Two, which resulted in 17,000 killed in one day. Later in the evening when I reminded him that NATO, under his command, bombed Belgrade during Orthodox Easter week, he replied that "Belgrade was bombed during both Easters," as if that somehow made it alright. During his presentation he stated that a "political problem cannot be solved by military force." What a bizarre comment from one who directed the attack on Yugoslavia and advocated the use of ground troops in Kosovo. He also stated that in the realities of today our leaders have to get away from the "Cold War mentality." This from the man who wanted British General Michael Jackson to launch an air attack on the Russian force at Pristina airfield. Fortunately, General Jackson, in refusing to carry out the order, replied: "I'm not going to start World War Three over you."

Following his presentation, Clark took questions for about 20 minutes. Although the audience seemed overwhelmingly supportive of him, the questions were mostly critical; his answers were sometimes evasive but generally dismissive of the questioner's facts. When Nancy Hey asked him how he could justify the attack on a nation which had never harmed us and the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets and depleted uranium weapons whose effects would last for generations, Clark went into a long explanation of how the U.S. and the international community stood by and allowed the slaughter in Rwanda and how we could not allow that to happen in Kosovo where Albanians were being oppressed. When he received a question that was favorable or of a more general nature he went into great detail in his answer, certainly more than was necessary. It appeared that with a more comfortable question he wanted to use as much of the Q&A time as possible.

I was the third questioner. I began by explaining that I was retired military and I questioned our policy in the Balkans. I held up the flier which my wife, Stella, had distributed and said that I particularly wanted to ask him about the picture on it.

For those in the audience who did not have a flier, I began to explain the picture which showed General Clark in a congratulatory handshake with Hashim Thaci, leader of the KLA, which under the noses of KFOR had murdered or ethnically cleansed thousands of Kosovo Serbs and had destroyed more Orthodox Christian churches and monasteries than were destroyed in 500 years under the Ottoman Empire. Next to Thaci was Bernard Kouchner, Chief U.N. administrator in Kosovo, British General Sir Michael Jackson, and Agim Ceku, who commanded the Croatian Army in "Operation Storm" that ethnically cleansed 250,000 Serbs from Krajina and murdered thousands and who now commands the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), the thinly disguised successor to the KLA. It should be noted that the KLA, with whom we allied ourselves, at one time was designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. Of course, this is the same KLA about whom Senator Joe Lieberman said: "The United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same values and principles . . . Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." (Washington Post, Apr.28, 1999).

More sites with information about Welsey Clark... He is a murderer and is trying to hide his past at EVERY turn.

Read this (http://www.totse.com/en/politics/the_world_beyond_the_usa/wesleyclarkher171320.html)

Wes and the Osama of the Balkans:

In August 1994, during the height of the Bosnian civil war, Clark came to Banja Luka, met a Serb general and ended up looking like a perfect chump.

The Serb, Ratko Mladic, suckered Clark into exchanging hats and posing for pictures. At the time, Clark was a three-star general and head of operations at the Pentagon.

It seemed like a harmless lark at the time, two generals exchanging snappy covers and smiling for the camera. A few jokes, a few laughs, and then off to a lunch hosted by the Serb.

But now Clark is running for president of the United States and Mladic, indicted for war crimes in 1995, is a fugitive with a $5 million U.S. price on his head, the Osama of the Balkans.


"A four star deer in the headlights":

Wesley Clark was a good General, but only marginally so. He served his country adequately in times of war and peace, and is generally looked upon favorably by many in both political parties. On the battlefield, Clark could claim honor and got it. On the political battlefield, he shamelessly sullies himself by accusing a war time administration over its handling of Iraq, knowing full well that as a military man, he has seen and participated in far worse. This from the General who waged war from 15,000 feet over Bosnia, and counseled the Clinton White House against action in Rwanda, where mass genocide ensued.

As stated earlier, Clark has a steep learning curve in regard to domestic policy. At present, he is two steps below Arnold Schwarzenegger. If ranting about the loss of three million jobs, UN participation, and spending eighty-seven billion dollars on the war is "New," than somebody had better inform the other nine Democrats, and the media, that the hate-laced rhetoric we've been hearing from them these past months has fallen on deaf ears. There's a new Democrat in the race now. And the only difference from his contemporaries in the Democratic party is the four stars upon his shoulders, and nothing else.

Originally posted by bluepiz
Aw c'mon, haven't you heard of George Washington? :D He was our first president after all, didn't you go to elementary school? :p ;)

Not in this country. :D Where I went we talked about Kings and Queens. ;)

LS400Dom and onelasttry - I am sincerely thrilled to hear you praising Ronald Reagan, who I think will be remembered over time as one of the greatest Presidents ever. Somehow I doubt lex400sc will agree. :D

I moved to Canada from the U.K. in 1981 and from Canada to the U.S. in 1983 so I lived here through a lot of the Reagan era. He felt like a father figure to me, reassuring, optimistic, classy, eloquent, and self-deprecating.

People say he wasn't smart, but I say he was focused, and principled. The Iran-Contra deal was a blemish on an otherwise great record.