“We all vote for whomever in the primaries, than we rally behind the party’s nominee.”
You will remember that the topic of presidential endorsements came up in the 2004 US Senate race from Oklahoma between Tom Coburn and Brad Carson. Tom Coburn was repeatedly asked, particularly outside of Oklahoma, about his 2000 endorsement for Alan Keyes. Tom Coburn was oblivious to any implication of what endorsing Alan Keyes says about the endorser of Alan Keyes — which is to say he never seemed aware that he was being insulted — and Coburn gave a spiel about how Republicans endorse different candidates, and rally behind the eventual nominee. As it turned out, Oklahoma wanted a white Alan Keyes over a Democrat who’d skew as close to the “Center” as possible, and thus… Coburn won by a larger margin than the generally thought-to-be-non-race in Pennsylvania: greater than 12%.
Flash forward to 2006, and there’s a special election being held to round out the Kentucky state Senate. And here’s the Democrat:
Mr. Clark, on the other hand, has made himself a marginal figure by following his libertarian beliefs all the way out to the fringe. For example, in the name of liberty, he was one of only three House members to vote in favor of allowing 14-year-old girls to marry. He was the featured speaker for a militia group a few years ago. He has been an outspoken supporter of the perennial and controversial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
Libertarians hate it when anyone connects Lyndon LaRouche to their cause, and frankly they have every right to be aggrieved: LaRouche is a statist, like it or not. But I have to wonder about Clark’s political judgement:
Clark, a Democrat, said he’s not a political eccentric as a Peden advertisement suggests, although he acknowledges he is a supporter of fringe presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, who once reportedly claimed that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by “some kind of rogue operation inside the security screen of the United States.” Clark acknowledges that some of his votes may seem “oddball” at first blush. But he added, “When you really think about them, they really aren’t too far out of the mainstream.”
How does Clark explain himself? Thusly:
Clark endorsed LaRouche in 2004 for his economic policies and position on extracting U.S. troops from Iraq “quickly.”
While I suppose one can sympathize with the plight of where to throw your vote if you want to high-tail us out of Iraq (remember that Dean held the position that we need to stay), I have to wonder which economic policies he was championing. But maybe I haven’t really read the pamphlets too deeply — something about FDR and Truman being a right-wing idiot. Actually, there was this semi-famous incident in the 2004 Democratic primary where at a Kerry townhouse meeting, someone said to Kerry that he was “deciding between Kerry and LaRouche” and went on about what “new economic framework” Kerry would create… not being up to snuff with the “new economic framework” LaRouche was all set to create. Kerry’s answer was a verbal rolling of the eyes.
As for Clark, it is interesting to note that he isn’t running his campaign with this pattern in mind:
When a LaRouche follower runs for office…their ads often follow this formula:
(1) LaRouche follower introduces his/herself
(2) LaRouche follower says “I agree with Lyndon LaRouche who says…”
(3) tape of Lyndon Larouche speaking is played
I’ve heard this many times..it’s so weird that they don’t speak for themselves.
So I guess he’s not wrapped up totally in the cult of LaRouche. At any rate, I guess I’ll bring you up to date on who wins this pivotal Kentucky state Senate race. I know you’re on the edge of your seat, since the balance of the nation is at stake with this election.