Hagel probably has a pretty good idea he'd have a better than average chance of winning any race he decides to enter. This is from a soon to be launched website, "Who's Counting" in "The Companies" chapter on ES&S.
Senator Chuck Hagel, former ES&S Chairman, (AIS at the time- just prior to the 1997 buyout), was running the company in 1995 that would count his votes in his amazing surprise victory in 1996--the first Republican Senate winner in Nebraska in 24 years! Local papers called it a "stunning upset." It was his first race for the Senate; he had been living out of state for 20 years, and was running against Nebraska's popular former Governor, Ben Nelson. Nelson was leading in the polls by 65% to 18%, yet Hagel came from behind and won at 56%...
In both Hagel's 1996 and 2002 elections, ES&S counted 85% of his winning votes.
His opponent in the 2002 re-election, aware of the ES&S connections, requested a hand recount of the vote, but Election Officials refused. Senator Hagel retains a one to five million dollar stake in ES&S parent company, McCarthy Group... as he contemplates a run for the Presidency himself in 2008. Incidentally, Hagel's campaign Treasurer for his successful run was none other than the founder of the McCarthy Group himself, Michael McCarthy--who also sits on the Board of ES&S. And did I forget to mention that Senator Hagel was also President of said McCarthy Group from 1992 to 1996?
D.C. reporter, Alexander Bolton, was about to file his story on the Hagel/ ES&S connection when, just before the article was to appear in The Hill, he received an unexpected visit from Hagel's Chief of Staff and a "prominent GOP lawyer." They warned him to change, soften, or kill the story. It was Mr. Bolton's first experience with an intimidation tactic like this in his four years of reporting on Capitol Hill. He ran the story anyways.
Craverguy - By posting things that are not true, you put me in a position of believing nothing you say. I realize this means nothing to you, but for that reason I have no desire to engage in pointless conversations with you.
He's spent his life in service to country and since retirement has consistently been speaking out and taking actions that aren't based on a personal agenda but rather based on working for common good. He doesn't hold back when he sees injustice. He has the heart and soul of a warrior. (And before anyone runs with that statement as he's "pro-war," he has consistently said that having seen war he would NEVER send young men and women to war except as a last, last last resort.)
Just as he was blasted by some for taking the job as commentator on FOX News (which was done so that those who got their "news" from FOX would be exposed to truth), so he will be criticized for this. Either criticized, painted as "crazy" or ignored as Corporate power knows Clark won't "play" their game.
If anyone could build a willing coalition and help these people, Wes Clark is the man. He is respected throughout the world and has the intelligence to pull it off. I sadly don't hold much hope that the thugs running this country now will listen... I hope I'm wrong.
I should have included this piece: (same link as above)
What did Clark actually say? He actually said this: I supported Afghanistan, I opposed Iraq. So how did Cameron handle the matter? He only showed you the first little bit of what Clark said, then claimed that Clark did not deny repeated praise for "the war." Of course, that's not what Clark said--he didn't say that at all.
But so what? Cameron lied in your faces. Clark "did not deny his repeated praise for the war over the past year?" Here's what Clark actually said, in response to the question which came before Cameron's: "I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now. It was an unnecessary war." But according to Cameron, Clark "did not deny his repeated praise for the war!" At Fox, Cameron lied in your faces.
On Monday, it was Adam Nagourney who was typing the script, telling readers that "General Clark appeared to struggle as he explained his views on the war in response to a challenge from a questioner." As we noted, Clark's actual answer was blindingly clear (full text below), so Nagourney did what he had to do--he simply provided a fake, bogus "answer." He quoted one part of what Clark had said, then typed in part of an earlier answer! After creating this phony amalgam, he typed the script: General Clark wasn't clear (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/27/03).
This morning, the Times pretends to correct this strange "error." You might have thought that the paper would show what Clark actually said in response to the question Nagourney cited. If you thought that, of course, you'd be wrong. It's the law: Corrections must always hide the extent of the "error." Here is the paper's "correction:"
NEW YORK TIMES CORRECTION: An article on Monday about a debate in Detroit by Democratic presidential candidates referred incorrectly to a response from Gen. Wesley K. Clark: "Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait-and-switch on the American public. President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today." The comment responded to a question about where he stands on the war in Iraq, not to the question "Are we to understand that what you're saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?"
On-line, that "correction" will live forever, tagged to Nagourney's astonishing article. But please note: You're never shown what Clark actually said to the question Nagourney cited. Is it true? Did Wes Clark "appear to struggle as he explained his views on the war?" No, of course, he plainly did not (text below). But New York Times readers will never know that. Let's be plain: The mighty Times--and their script-typing scribes--don't want you to know what Clark said.
Nagourney's article will be on-line forever. It will still say that Clark "appeared to struggle." But the correction won't show you what Clark really said. Readers will have no way of knowing: Clark didn't "appear to struggle" at all. That was just scribes typing scripts.
Statement of General Wesley Clark on the School of the Americas
(now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) http://clark04.com/issues/soa/
"I strongly condemn human rights abuses of any kind. Throughout my career, I have fought to protect the fundamental rights of all people and to promote democratic values that empower people to prevent abuses of power and combat them when they occur.
It is unacceptable that some who passed through the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) committed human rights abuses. Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, we must promote a policy of engagement and education with friends and allies in the region.
I strongly support the reforms that have been implemented at WHISC and encourage careful vetting of students. I strongly support oversight measures that ensure that antidemocratic principles are not taught at the school. Thanks to the work of human rights campaigners and others, WHISC is constantly improving the way it teaches the Army's values of respect for human rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent."
I don't think you and I will ever understand each other which is fine but I want you to know I didn't call you a liar. I said your statements were untrue. I assumed you were misinformed because your statements do not match what I know of Clark. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I think I understand that you 1) prefer a "professionl" politician, and 2) don't want a "military" president.
But for others reading this thread I will not let misstatements about Clark go uncorrected, so...
Your statement: "...is against gay marriage" Truth: Same-sex couples deserve the same federal benefits, rights, privileges, and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.
Clark went on to write that he supports the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (PPIA), a bill which would allow a partner in a same-sex couple to immigrate to the United States -- something opposite-sex couples can already do. Clark also indicated he supported the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt.
Clark publicly signaled support for the first time for two key pieces of legislation - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would outlaw job discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which would add sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the 1968 law which currently covers crimes based on race, religion and national origin.
As part of his larger health care plan, Clark pledged to increase funding for the Ryan White CARE Act which provides critical assistance to HIV/AIDS prevention efforts as well as those living with the disease.
He also supports the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) which would allow low-income Americans better access to HIV/AIDS treatment; as well as comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education for young people based on scientific HIV/AIDS prevention methods.
In addition, Clark believes that adoption decisions should be based on the best interest of the child and that preventing qualified gay and lesbian people from adopting children is wrong. He also supports the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (PPIA) which would bring same-sex couples on par with opposite-sex couples for purposes of immigration law. http://www.texasforclark.com/glbtissues.htm
Your Statement: "...supports ban on late-term abortion" Truth: Clark is firmly pro-choice and supports a woman's right to make decisions regarding her body without government regulation. http://www.texasforclark.com/abortion.htm
When asked his position on abortion, Clark said, "I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion--"
"At all?" asked a puzzled Joseph W. McQuaid, the Union Leader's publisher.
"Nope," Clark said.
"Late-term abortion? No limits?"
"Nope," Clark said.
"Anything up to delivery?"
"Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?"
"I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. . . . You don't put the law in there," Clark said.
Your Statement: "...who supports the death penalty across the board, even for federal crimes" Truth: He would support mandatory review of all death penalty sentences. "I'll tell you, I'm uneasy about the death penalty," Clark said answering a question recently in Arkansas. "A government like the United States has the right to, in extraordinary cases, take the life of a criminal, but I don't like the way the death penalty has been applied in America," Clark said. "I think it's been applied in an unfair and discriminatory fashion and I think we need to go back and use modern technology and unpack all those cases on death row."
Your Statement: "... supports the way the NRA has twisted the second amendment" Truth: "I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms," said Clark, who has been shooting weapons since he was young.
On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!" http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0116-12.htm
And just in case anyone's interested:
He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He is anti-war. General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0116-12.htm
Saying Clark lacks the experience to be president not only overlooks the variety of roles and responsibilities Clark had in his extensive military service (34 years of service, from front-line grunt to 4-star and SACEUR), but the breadth of the military's capabilities (including a judicial system, health care provider, and its educational facilities).
Clark addressed this myth in a Newsweek article before he announced his candidacy:
"It would depend on how you define political experience. My political experience is in dealing with governments. I dealt with 19 governments in NATO and 20-odd governments that were part of NATO's Partnership for Peace. I worked with ambassadors and ministers of foreign affairs and ministers of defense and, in some cases, heads of state, in Latin America and Europe and parts of Africa. I dealt extensively with the U.S. Congress, as well as, in some cases, local authorities here and in Europe. You could say that it is a true fact that I have not stood for elective office, but I have held high positions of authority and dealt extensively at the political and diplomatic levels with major issues."
Just posting to show I'm a proud Clark supporter and not "freeping" the poll. I don't understand why Clark winning polls convinces people the polls are being freeped... eventually people will figure out it's because there's a lot of us out here. And if people took the time to read up on Clark I have no doubt they'd "get it."
Since there is often someone who thinks these "all in good fun" polls are being stuffed, I suggest everyone who votes also post. Even if you just state your choice with n/t - then it would be clear that it's one person, one vote... unlike national elections.
LOL!! In Buddhism, the realization of emptiness equates to the experience of nirvana and therefore the cessation of suffering.
While I don't imagine you meant it this way it was an interesting choice of words.
If you're interested, I could provide you with some reading material that would blow you away with Clark's intelligence and you would see he is working by example to bring our country to the point where we are all working for the common good.
I'm so happy you're going to be on the Brad Show tomorrow night! I'm a regular listener and it's a great show!
People like you, Brad, Kos, etc are directly responsible for allowing the mostly ignored majority to have a voice and you're changing the direction of media in this country, which as we all know is essential for anything else to change.
Thank you Chris, and can't wait to hear you tomorrow night!