RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
Well, well, Clark's going to run.(15 posts)
|Well, well, Clark's going to run.||OldEdScott|
Sep 16, 2003 8:13 AM
|Now things get interesting. I wonder what Dean's strategy will be vis a vis The General?|
|I like him...what will he have to do to get elected?||ColnagoFE|
Sep 16, 2003 8:25 AM
|I think he is dead in the water if he moves toward the right like Gore did, but are there enough liberals or people tired of Bush to get him into office? What will his strategy be?|
|where is he considered on the (evershifting) political spectrum?||128|
Sep 16, 2003 8:40 AM
|Is supreme NATO cammander an appointed position? by whom? the president? I'm guessing he has not held elected office.
He's from Little Rock.
Just Googled his campaign and there is plenty out there already.
I wonder if Dean or Clark would consider a VP position.
Just think, if he's elected you could say the H word and maybe even become Forum Moderator....
|Yeah! The Thousand Year Re!ch of a Dumocrat controlled||OldEdScott|
Sep 16, 2003 8:55 AM
You asked the right question, about the VP slot.
The question inevitably deconstructs to: Which of the two would consent to run as VP with the other?
That is the $64,000 question in internal Dumocrat politics right now. Every pro out there is just WILD to get those two on a ticket together. Interestingly, for a political amateur (although generals are by their nature highly political animals), Clark understands the dynamic here better than Dean. Look at the things he says about Dean. He's clearly interested in forming a very formidable alliance. Dean, if he's similarly interested, has not sent the same signals.
It's understandable. Dean right now is an Elk in the Rut, blinded by lust; he has a HUGE political boner and sees that lovely doe right around the next boulder.
A politician primed to get the nomination of his party for president, but not quite there, is near certifiably insane. So he's not thinking clearly in terms of Clark. He needs to tread carefully.
|I doubt Dean would consider being a VP||ColnagoFE|
Sep 16, 2003 9:00 AM
|Seems to "beneath" him. Then again I think Clark would be a much stronger challenge to Bush. Can you imagine the debates over GWBs war record?|
|There is a Clark quote...||ClydeTri|
Sep 16, 2003 9:20 AM
|There is a Clark quote where he says this country was founded on a progessive taxation policy...he somehow missed that day in American history didnt he..progressive taxation was unconsititutional for many decades until Congress changed the constitution......|
|There's another meaning to 'progressive tax policy' that||OldEdScott|
Sep 16, 2003 9:32 AM
|has nothing to do with 'progressive income tax rates.' You can have progressive taxation policy without having an income tax at all. Taxation based soley on capital gains dividends, and inheritance, for example. HAW!|
Sep 16, 2003 9:58 AM
|was our country founded on the ideas you just mentioned? no....as I said..Clark obviously was out sick that day in American history....|
|Well now, Clyde, let's remember||OldEdScott|
Sep 16, 2003 10:16 AM
|that England was imposing some very unprogressive, imperial taxes on the Colonies, and that MAY have spurred a little resentment in some quarters, as I recall ...
'Taxation without representation is tyranny' was a VERY progressive tax idea for the time.
You're hung up on the idea of 'progressive tax rates.'
|Actually, sort of,||TJeanloz|
Sep 16, 2003 10:24 AM
|To the extent that the country was founded with any tax regime in mind, it likely was a progressive structure. Prior to the income tax (1912), most of the Federal budget was paid for with import/export tarrifs - ironically the same taxes that the British had been levying.
The economy has changed drastically since then - something made in China was a luxury good in those days. Taxing imports thus disproportionately taxed the wealthy, who were the main buyers of imported goods. However, times have changed, and a similar tax structure today would likely be considered regressive, because low-cost goods make up most of current imports.
So, if that was what Clark(e?) meant, he's probably right. It isn't really a defense of the progressive income tax regime though - it would be an argument for a progressive national sales tax.
|So, is Clark the Mystery Candidate you were teasing us with? nm||The Walrus|
Sep 16, 2003 9:34 AM
Sep 16, 2003 9:47 AM
|Let's say the Clark candidacy has the welcome potential to blow the current Dumocrat field apart -- we need Phil and Paul to say it:
This race has literally exploded! There are candidates popping of the back! Edwards is gone. Look, there's Lieberman, he's suffering like he's never suffered before! And there, there's Kerry, desperately trying to latch onto someone's wheel!-- and cause an interesting realignment that could make us much more competitive next year.
It was never a mystery that Clark was considering a run; the mystery, still to unfold, is what the party does with that fact. Paul and Phil again: A selection is being made. The heads of state are coming to the fore.
|Awsome racing metaphor||Spoiler|
Sep 16, 2003 10:55 AM
|Will we be treated to another absolute scorcher like we saw in 2000 when a few votes were all that were in it in the end?
Will Clark make an early bid to grab the golden fleece? Or will he bide his time, allowing the Kerry team to bear the burden of race lead?
Who will survive the tortuous race to New Hampshire only to face the sting in the tail that is Iowa?
Alliances will be made, only to be broken when the race really hots up.
And when all the pretenders have gone home, and it's down to the hard-men, will the mighty Texan be successful in his War for '04?
Sep 16, 2003 11:07 AM
|According to MSNBC, he announced today?? http://www.msnbc.com/news/967274.asp?0cv=CB10
But, he is and was, never in the race.
I liked the Paul/Phil color commentary.
|Ironic, isn't it? Just as he 'announces,' news filters out||OldEdScott|
Sep 16, 2003 11:35 AM
|that means he's already beat.|| |