Didn't Clarke say he was supporting McCain?

That squares with the primary

Am I the only one who noticed that there was no way Clarke could have voted to appease the smear-masters?

If he had instead voted for George Bush then they could say "Clarke obviously had no confidence how the Clinton administration ran the war of terror back then, now he says the opposite!"

If anything, voting to preserve an administration that had acted consistently as one who takes the issue of terrorism as a highest priority is imminently reasonable for a conservative bureaucrat who considers that the most important issue.

Oh and Kaus is a fuckin' hack.

Right on, Kaus! And then there was that part where Clarke said, under oath, that he would never serve in a Kerry administration--that was, like, totally "a clear willingness to mislead"!

Fucking Kaus. Fuck him, and fuck anyone who takes him seriously anymore.

Didn't you get the memo? If you were one of the 50 million people who voted for Al Gore, you can't possibly care about America, and therefore you can't criticize Bush.

Goddamn I hate Kaus.

Heh, I'm feelin' all the Kaus hatred expressed simultaneously here, that's good. There really are very, very few pundits whom I hate more than him, and that includes almost all notable conservatives, since there's usually no smokescreen with them about where they're really coming from.

Wow, that's special. After all, it's totally impossible that someone could prefer McCain to Gore, and Gore to Bush.

And speaking of dense, what's so hard to understand about Mickey's point?

Clarke implied that he was a Republican, at least when he had to "declare" a partisanship...yet it now seems apparent that he voted in the GOP primary to vote against Bush, and then did so again in November.

Those votes, along with his donations to Dems, sure make him look like a Dem. His partisanship is fine--it's his choice, and is neither proof of malfeasance nor virtue.

So why couldn't he say as much in front of the commission?

BTW, the 'Clarke is a conservative/Republican' balloon just went poof.

You mean there are still people who even bother with reading Kaus anymore?

Hahahahahaha...Joe, be quiet.

Clarke is a Republican. Clarke's been a Republican his whole life. Clarke registered to vote in the Republican primary, and voted for a Republican. However, since the Republican wasn't George Bush, he's not really a Republican, according to you.

There's nothing hard to understand about it, which is why it's such a bad point. Where are his donations to Democrats? And the man is a Republican - is it possible that a Republican exists who *doesn't* like Bush?

Impossible, I say! IMPOSSIBLE!

Clarke's not a conservative? Voting for Gore had to make you a liberal, huh?

Guess votes are all that counts, and since we all know Gore was a really, really liberal guy...oh, wait...

Based on Clarke's statements, it's clear that he's not a "liberal". If anything, he's more pro-military, pro-intervention than Bush.

And I don't think Clarke has ever claimed to be a Republican or a Democrat -- as his statements to the 9/11 commission made very, very plain (Kaus's feelings of betrayal notwithstanding).

The guy was appointed by Reagan. Bush kept him on. Sounds to me like his conservative creds are still pretty much intact.

I'd like to thank Brownshirt J for providing a taste of what Unka Karl's boilerroom will be dishing out today.

It's not that I don't understand what Joe's saying: basically, some liberal democrats crossed over in Virginia and voted for McCain in the 2000 Republican primary, in an effort to trip up Bush.

Now, I don't think we know that was the case. It could very well be that Clarke is a pretty centrist guy who honestly supported McCain, and failing that, gore.

But more importantly, Clarke's record on activist responses to terrorism, plus his service under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II clearly indicates that he comes down on the conservative side of things.

Not wanting Bush in the White House doesn't make you a liberal. It does mean you probably have a triple-digit IQ, though.

When I voted in the general election in 2000, I was not asked to declare party loyalty.

Quoth Jesse: Does opposing Dick Clarke immediately make you dumb, or is it the other way around?

Actually, I think it may be that Repuglicans aren't getting laid often enough that's causing the problem.

Jesse -- yes.

dstein -- Clarke asked for a Republican ballot in the Virginia primary election. 8th grade civics, which you apparently missed.

In Virginia there is no party registration. No one "registers" as anything. Also, in many years there is no primary - the parties make their decisions by caucuses in those years, by primaries in others. In 2000 there were primaries...so Clarke had to "declare" himself in order to vote (but only for that election).
For many years the Republicans did not hold primaries but went the caucus route. So, frankly, there is not enough evidence to paint him either as a closet Democrat "crossing over", or as a longtime Republican simply voting in the Republican primary.

To clarify:

Can Republicans dislike Bush, etc.? Why yes, of course.

Is Richard Clarke a Republican? Perhaps. If so, he's one who donates to Democrats, voted for Gore, and was cagey on the matter in front of the commission. (He was more truthful with Joe Conason--maybe something about a friendly audience ;-)

Reread Kaus and looky at Ombudsgod. Clarke is not a registered Republican, but uses clever answers to get people to think that. Maybe he's had a lot of practice at that.

"Clarke asked for a Republican ballot in the Virginia primary election. 8th grade civics, which you apparently missed."

Exactly, which is why there is no contradiction. When he was asked formally, he responded republican, and we assume he voted for McCain. However, in the general election, he wasn't asked to declare party loyalty, and voted for Gore.

And maybe you're throwing around a hell of a lot of conjecture...wait, there's no maybe there. ;)

He said the exact same thing to Conason that he said to the commission, only with the added benefit of adding in that he voted for McCain.

By the way, does it strike anyone else that this battle has no relevance whatsoever except in the Kausian sense anything he can find to attack someone he doesn't like (regardless of its validity) is emblematic of how awful they are on everything. Joe, Mickey Kaus hasn't made a serious argument in years.

When he was asked formally, he responded republican, and we assume he voted for McCain.

He said he voted for McCain, actually. To Joe Conason.

>>and was cagey on the matter in front of the commission.

What exactly is "cagey", Joe?

>>LEHMAN: "...I'd hate to see you become totally shoved to one side during a presidential campaign as an active partisan selling a book.

>>CLARKE: Thank you, John. (LAUGHTER) Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot."

What EXACTLY is "cagey" about that, Joe?

He was cagey on his partisanship, not on his future job possibilities (of which he doesn't really need, now that he's a writer).

When asked about partisanship, he didn't quickly acknowledge donating to Democrats and voting for Gore.

Whereas claptrap about voting in the Republican primary implies: voting for Bush, being a Republican, and being a registered Republican.

Wha? He implied nothing of the sort?

Note how many newspaper articles noted that he was a "registered Republican" after his testimony in front of the commission.

Actually, voting in the Republican primaries implies voting for a Republican. Unless McCain doesn't count as a Republican.

I am at a loss to understand how Clarke saying he voted in the GOP primary, and him VOTING IN THE GOP PRIMARY, is claptrap. Similarly, I can tell you all I had breakfast this morning, AND I HAD BREAKFAST THIS MORNING. If I have to accept that my having breakfast is in fact claptrap, it will change my whole way of life.
Jesse: "Does opposing Dick Clarke immediately make you dumb, or is it the other way around?"
Hmm. You raise a valid question, as we can all plainly see.

So long as we're on the subject -- is Kaus still pretending to be a Democrat?

>>When asked about partisanship, he didn't quickly acknowledge donating to Democrats and voting for Gore.

So what makes "parisanship" - because Ken Lay also gave to Democrats as well as Republicans does that make him a Democrat as well as a Republican - what exactly does donating anything make one a "partisan" - as opposed to actively joining a party or working on a campaign in an official capacity - which to me is what defines partisan - and that's exactly how Clarke answered it - nothing "cagey" about it- seems to me he was quite direct.

>>Whereas claptrap about voting in the Republican primary implies: voting for Bush, being a Republican, and being a registered Republican.

Joe- why don't you eductate yourself rather than smearing Clarke with your ignorance - in Virginia, one does not "register" as any party affiliation whatsoever. The only time one ever declares for a party is if one wishes to vote in the primary. If you wish to vote in the Republican primary, you ask for the Republican ballot - if you wish to vote in the Democratic primary, you ask for the Democratic ballot. There's nothing "implied" or sneaky about anything. Go back to what the man said - it is a plain honest description of what happened because one doesn't "register" in Virginia. If anyone is being "cagey" here it is you who are determined to read things into Clarke's testimony that isn't there.

I wonder whether Rice, Frist and so on have any credentials as Democrats, or can we dismiss their lame attacks on Clarke, and their tepid defense of the presidents failed anti-terror policies to be merely partisan rhetoric in an election year?

Several thoughts:

1. You know, Clarke must have known his admission of voting for Gore would do damage to his claim of non-partisanship, but he admitted he voted for Gore anyway. Why? Who he voted for was absolutely unverifiable, correct? Therefore, he said it because he's honest. He could have lied, you know, and we'd have no way of fact-checking. He could have said he voted for Bush and then lost faith in him and came out with the book yada yada yada.

2. My guess is he was a registered Republican until he was exposed to the shenanigans of BushCo. He had high praise for Bush I over the weekend. But whether he's a Republican or a Democrat doesn't matter -- clearly he is more hawk than anything else. But his political beliefs don't matter. The facts he can share with the commission and how he could offer suggestions for improvement in national security are what matter. I really wish we could back to this.

3. Kaus is mentally ill. Clearly. He is obsessed with bringing Kerry down. Anyone remember his cute little campaign he had going before Iowa of suggestions on how Kerry should give it up and bow out gracefully because he so obviously was going to lose?

Clarke did the right thing. He was asked a partisan question and gave a partisan answer. He did not want this nonsense to overshadow his message. BUT, like the partisan hacks in the white house he cleared the issue up within a short time. Or when directly asked. One thing is clear. His lifelong party affiliation is Republican. Most open-minded democrats or republicans never rule out voting for a decent moderate in the opposite party. THE 2000 VOTE IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH HIS ENTIRE MESSAGE. THAT THE SITTING PARTY WOULD MORE EASILY TRANSITION THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE COUNTRY WOULD BE SAFER. This is probably what he believed at the time. This man is rock solid.

John,

I could've arranged it so I voted in the recent Democratic Presidential Preference Election here in AZ. Would that have made me a Democrat?

Andy,

How many Republicans voted for Bush's opponent in the VA primary, voted for Gore in Nov. '00, and have donated to Democratic congressional candidates? That sure would be a small wing of the party.

Now we're left wondering which Richard Clarke to believe...the one who thinks Bush is a joke, or the one who was on the record about the five-fold increases in counterterrorism under Bush...the one who 'chose Republican', or the one who votes for and supports Democrats.

For these confusions, we have to place blame at the feet of...Richard Clarke.

And if you think that I'm easily confused, I'd again point you to the number of newspapers who believed RC was a "registered Republican."

How many Republicans voted for Bush's opponent in the VA primary

The idiocy continues.

How many Democrats did Reagan appoint? How many Dems worked for Nixon?

I'm not sure how Joe Baby is able to trust Bush, or Rice, or Rumsfeld, or Cheney, or any of these guys. When Bush attacks Kerry, why does Joe Baby give him any credibility? After all, Bush has a clear conflict of interest with Kerry. Do you think the Republicans attack Kerry because it's in their interests? Doesn't that discredit their entire party? What about the attacks of Clarke? Of course the administration will attack him -- their necks are on the line. That's why you can't trust a word they say.

Is there any limit to stupidity?

Oh dear. Another one.

Joe Baby, you seem to be of pretty high caliber for an evident conservative troll. Neither spelling nor grammar, nor even paragraphing, elude you (Seriously. You should see some of the troll posts. Weirdly... charming, almost, how they choose to exhibit their deficiencies so defiantly, like obese nudists strolling down Main Street at lunchtime clutching aqua plastic purses, drooling on themselves when they pass a bakery and shrieking insults at the health clubs.) You are reasonably capable of constructing arguments, and (most impressive to me) equable when people whack at you. If you're a hater, you hide it well; but I really don't think you are. Hate leaks out fast.

I'm guessing your motives are pretty much straight-up, and you're arguing because you really do believe what you're saying, and strongly feel that the Bush Administration should be protected from the calumny they so routinely endure in Left Blogotopia.

OKOK. I do have a point here.

If you are, in fact, more or less as I've speculated, there's a question nagging. In the ranks of Republican-leaning amateur pundits, you're something of the cream of the crop. A step down -- two at the most -- from guys like Instapundit.

What does it say that you can't come up with anything more compelling than an incredibly lame and indirect indictment of Clarke's character, which in turn has nothing to do with the objective accuracy of his testimony?

Believing, as I do, that you're probably a straight shooter, I can only guess that it must suck to be you, these days.

Hang in there. And keep using your brain. You may surprise us all. You may surprise yourself.

Jesse:Yes, opposing Clarke is only making them look beyond silly. It's making them look clueless and dangerous.

Is Clarke a "hawk"? I'm not so sure on that. It seems to me he's aggressive on terrorism, but not necessarly a hawk. At least, it's a more nuanced position that is part-hawkish and part dovish.

(As a side note, I saw him on MtP, and was shocked with how much his anti-terrorism world view was right in line with mine.)

Anybody really surprised that he was a McCain supporter? Doesn't shock me one bit.

Joe Baby--

"How many Republicans voted for Bush's opponent in the VA primary voted for Gore in Nov. '00, and have donated to Democratic congressional candidates? "

The answer to the first question is About 47%, actually. It was fairly close.
See: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCC/VA-R.html

As for the rest, I don't know. But it seems somewhat beside the point anyway. Either Clarke's criticism is true or it isn't. I'm not sure why being a Bush supporter would make it more credible. In fact, if he believes the administration is as clueless as he says it is, it wouldn't really make sense for him to support Bush.

will the real republicans please stand up?

are the real republicans john mccain and richard clarke and ronald reagan?

or george w bush, tom delay and their crowd?

please consider your answer carefully, republicans. the future of your party depends on it.

FYI, I'm disappointed that the issue of RC has degraded from what I think is a very fair question, and indeed what the '04 election should be about (in terms of foreign policy):

Did liberating Iraq harm the overall war on terror?

I really have little to complain about when Clarke addresses this issue. However, I do place much of the blame on him for degrading the issue, for now we are faced with determining:

. did Clinton really kick ass, and Bush really suck heaps in handling counterterrorism?

. is James Woolsey truly a 'cabalist'?

. when exactly did Condi Rice realize there was an 'al Qaeda', and how did she realize it?

. considering many of his previous statements were laudatory of the Bush Admin, upon what date did Clarke begin telling the truth, and is this a temporary condition?

But back to the matter at hand...this post asked, essentially, HOW CAN MICKEY KAUS BE THE DUMBEST MAN ON THE PLANET?

Kaus argued that Clarke fudged on his partisanship, and I've pointed out that he's certainly not a bona fide Republican, and that many journalists mistakenly thought he was.

I can see how this line of defense would seem petty considering the larger matters, but RC opened up many lines of attack, and Dems are fortifying several of them. If one of those is "even Clarke, a Republican, thinks Bush sniffs paint for breakfast," then I'll be objecting and seconding Mickey's point.

Heck, this entire post may be correct...Kaus may be a farkin hack, yet still be on the money that RC danced too much on the partisanship question.

And I might still be a hater, a drooler, or an obese nudist (as if there were any other kind).

That sure would be a small wing of the party.

Small, sure, but does it mean they're not really Republicans?

And I'm baffled why Joe would think voting for a Republican in the Republican primary would indicate a proclivity for Democrats.

Given the fact that he voted for McCain in combination with the fact that he voted for Gore, I'd say Clarke was a Republican who was voting specifically against Dubya. I sure as hell was voting specifically against Dubya. He knew them, and I'm sure knew a few things about Dubya. He seems to have had good instincts about counter-terrorism, and voting for Gore was just one more indicator of his good judgment.

ok. let me see if i understand this argument.

we can imagine a scenario where clarke voted in the republican primary in '00 even if he were really a democrat.

since we can imagine that scenario, we should assume that it is a fact.

clarke was not asked whether or not this is true.

he did not deny it

he did not confirm it.

therefore clarke is a lying son of a bitch.

hmmmm. needs work.

Perhaps Clarke is one of those Republicans who don't like the fact that their party has been hijacked by a bunch of bible-thumping radicals. I know people like this. And Salon had an article about moderate Republicans over the weekend.

Clarke's a better republican than Mickster is a Dem. And Kaus proclaims his alleged Dem allegiance a lot more often and loudly than Clake has his GOP leanings.

So, Clarke voted for McCain in the primary, and given a choice between Bush and Gore, voted for Gore? I really don't see anything shocking there.

Clarke is a counter-terrorism zealot. Bush's stated policy in the 2000 election was 'no nation-building', etc. He didn't enter the election with the appearance of being good on foreign policy. His national security brief, Condi Rice, was on record (the 2000 Foreign Affairs piece) as being more interested in old-school state-based politics (a reinvention of Cold War methodology) than non-state terrorism. Given that choice, it's not that big a leap to see Clarke voting for the devil he knew in Gore, who, after all, had chaired a commission on airline security.

And Clarke stayed on to try and add some counter-terrorism savvy to the non-savvy Bush team.

No. Brainer. Clarke's a McCain Republican. And if you look at McCain's public statements as of late, it's clear, that in spite of working for Bush, he's no Bush Republican.

this post asked, essentially, HOW CAN MICKEY KAUS BE THE DUMBEST MAN ON THE PLANET?

Easy: by continuing to write. If he were to stop now, he'd be commended, at least, for making the smart decision not to spread any more of his dumbness around.

Joe Baby: "I could've arranged it so I voted in the recent Democratic Presidential Preference Election here in AZ. Would that have made me a Democrat?"
No it wouldn't! And if you'd said you were, you'd evidently have been lying. But now, I'm afraid, comes another of those awkward moments where you get asked to use your brain. Otherwise it just weighs down your neck to no-one's benefit. So:
1. Clarke didn't say he was a Republican. Bzzt.
2. Your evidence that Clarke is a Democrat is painfully limited (one vote). Bzzt.
I know, I know, I have just required LOGIC of you. But I think you're up to it. Take a deep breath if you like.

No, Clarke didn't say he was a Republican (although numerous reporters and news outlets did). He said this:

CLARKE: Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot.

Notice, he didn't say, "last time I voted in an election", or "last time I voted for President", or even, "last time I gave money to a candidate."

(BTW, with evasion like that, is it a wonder his reports were ignored?)

And as for limited evidence, that's been exactly my point. Indeed, there's more evidence (Gore, Demo donations) that he's actually a Dem.

Does one vote for Zell Miller make someone a Democrat?

Does one vote for Zell Miller make someone a Democrat?

It depends 1) on the opposition, and 2) when you cast that vote, I think.

What's a bona fide Republican, though, JB? And we're not even talking about the RINO/DINO thing here.

Number one: Clarke isn't an elected official.

Number two: even if Clarke were an elected politician, this isn't Britain, where voting against the party line can get you chucked out of the caucus.

And in Britain, you'll find plenty of die-hard grassroots Labor supporters who now won't vote for the party of Tony Blair.

I really don't see any 'willingness to mislead' here at all. If anything, Clarke elaborates the fact that in the American system, you vote for candidates and not parties, and the only time (and then, only in certain states) that you explicitly declare party loyalty is during the primary.

Is that really a surprise to some people? Perhaps to Kaus Hackula, who has adopted the strange position of touting his being a 'Democrat' who doesn't support any Democrats, as if the next ballot he sees will have an elephant and a donkey without any names next to them.

of course also, the last time he had to declare his party loyalty was at a primary election, which is a perfectly appropriate time and place for that question. it was in no way relevant to his testimony and shouldn't have been asked. oh, and by the way joe, "partisan" is not just another word for "democrat". anyone who votes for any candidate represented by a political party is partisan by definition.

shorter joe: clark didn't say he's a republican, so he's a democrat, and he didn't say he's a democrat, so he's a liar. smoke 'em if you got 'em joe.

What is interesting is that the WhiteWash House continues to lie, terribly *and* poorly (No planes as missiles; out of the loop; meeting didn't take place; we took terrorism seriously; etc.). [Does anyone debate this?]

Not One Thing Clarke has said has been shown to be false. Yet ...

Try reading this (first few pieces) and this, too.