Does Wesley Clark have what it takes?

[bmulligan]

Maybe. Ten Presidents in our history were genreals in the armed services:

Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower.

There's only been 43 presidents(well 42 really because G. Cleveland was elected twice non-consecutively)

10 out of 42 that's 24% -- thems pretty good odds of a general being president, regardless if he knows anything about politicts, issues, or anything else. Heck, I mimght just have to vote for him just to shut up all the other whiney, bitch and moan, democrat, crybaby bitches.

Aren't you guys tired of the Dems brow beating you with "bush sucks, vote for me" bullshit?

[Doug Erickson]

Well, that was nonsensical. If Larry King ever retires, I'll nominate you as his replacement.

[TimElhajj]

Well, that was nonsensical. If Larry King ever retires, I'll nominate you as his replacement.

He'll have to change his name, though. Larry King has a certian zip to it that bmulligan can't match.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3120/iminsane.html


There's a nice food restaurant on the corner of Belmont and Shanks.... Betrayal can bring about the coldest season of the human heart.... I disapprove of anyone who might cheat on a test.... Check out the rack on that Bernadette Peters.... Will someone help me get these curlers out of my hair?.... I am afraid of scary bats.... Hey, there's pears in this Jell-O!.... All the people who were ever important to me are dead.... Lord Jesus, how I wish I was Robert Wagner.... Always carry a hammer with you.... I forgot to refrigerate the butter.... The brown bananas taste very, very different.... Are you famous? If so, I love you!.... Where's my Bromo-Seltzer?.... There's nothing like breathable black dress socks on a sunny day.... Somehow I got all wet again.... If you look up marmosets in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of a small furry mammal.... Christ, my freakin' head is spinning!.... What was I talking about again? Oh yeah.... Charles Kuralt has worn some of the finest sweaters known to man....

[Daniel Morris]

Tell ya one thing --- Clark has already staked out the absolute best position on the war in Iraq.

"I supported the resolution for war, but am disgusted by the post-war aftermath."

[ydejin]

Tell ya one thing --- Clark has already staked out the absolute best position on the war in Iraq.

"I supported the resolution for war, but am disgusted by the post-war aftermath."

I thought Clark's position was that he didn't support going into Iraq before the war: that it was a mistake that took us away from the most important battle which was with Al Qaeda, and that the Bush administration's unilateralist approach was just plain wrong-headed. Perhaps triggercut or one of our other local Clark experts can clarify.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.draftclark2004.com/issues.asp


The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

Looks like "it was a bad idea to stiff-arm the UN" to me.

[Toddy]

Clark's also been quoted (this week's Time, I think, though it's been a nutty week and I don't remember where I saw the article) as saying that he thinks the order of enemies was wrong. He'd have taken on al Qaeda first, then North Korea, then Iran, then maybe Iraq. I haven't exactly been studying Clark's positions, though I don't think I've read anything about him offering such blanket support for the resolution to invade Iraq.

[triggercut]

Tell ya one thing --- Clark has already staked out the absolute best position on the war in Iraq.

"I supported the resolution for war, but am disgusted by the post-war aftermath."

I thought Clark's position was that he didn't support going into Iraq before the war: that it was a mistake that took us away from the most important battle which was with Al Qaeda, and that the Bush administration's unilateralist approach was just plain wrong-headed. Perhaps triggercut or one of our other local Clark experts can clarify.

Here's where Clark's handlers need to school the General, and quickly. He's a brilliant mind, a complete policy wonk not unlike President Clinton. One of the long-running Clinton criticisms during the 1980's was Mr. Clinton's inability to stay "on message". He had an active mind, and spoke as he thought process developed, and was all over the map (Witness his keynote speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention....just dreadful stuff, that). Finally he learned to shut up until he'd formed his thoughts completely, and became a brilliant and effective communicator by doing some self-editing.

Clark hasn't learned to do that just yet. His comments on "I guess I'd have supported" the resolution in Iraq are the product of him stating that, given the case that was given in September of 2002, now largely shot full of holes, for action in Iraq, he'd have supported us going back to the UN to get a resolution. That's what the vote was for. He's walking a very careful tightrope, in that he's been very supportive of the troops and military leadership in the invasion, while being very skeptical of whether there was any invocation of the Powell Doctrine in our actual decision to go to war.

Right now I think of General Clark in baseball terms. He's like a great-looking rookie with a tremendous swing you just called up from Triple A. His first couple of times at-bat haven't been terrific...but you can see flashes of brilliance. Time will tell if he's Albert Pujols or Hensley Meulens.
(Where have you gone, Bam-Bam? Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you....) :wink:

[Bub, Andrew]

and became a brilliant and effective communicator by doing some self-editing.


When did this happen? I like Clinton and all, and Bush makes him look like the best orator ever, but did he ever clock a State of the Union at under 2hours +? ;-)

[Qenan]

Bush appears to demonstrate that you can have brain damage and still be elected president.

[Dirt]

Bush appears to demonstrate that you can have brain damage and still be elected president.

Bush is proof that connections will get you farther than intelligence ever will.

[XPav]

http://prorev.com/bushcarlyle.htm


But when we were putting the board together, somebody [Fred Malek] came to me and said, look there is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. Needs a board position. Needs some board positions. Could you put him on the board? Pay him a salary and he'll be a good board member and be a loyal vote for the management and so forth.

I said well we're not usually in that business. But okay, let me meet the guy. I met the guy. I said I don't think he adds that much value. We'll put him on the board because - you know - we'll do a favor for this guy; he's done a favor for us.

We put him on the board and [he] spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years - you know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.

He said, well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.

And I said, thanks - didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush. He became President of the United States. So you know if you said to me, name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the United States, he wouldn't have been in that category. So you never know. Anyway, I haven't been invited to the White House for any things.

[ydejin]

Hey XPav, when I started reading your David Rubenstein quote, I thought the quote was about Wesley Clark (given the overall topic title of this thread), and I was thinking this is not sounding very good. Then I hit the last paragraph. Ouch, that is quite a story. Very sad, but I'm glad it wasn't about Clark, I'm starting to lean toward supporting him.

[XPav]

Sorry, I'm a Known Thread Derailer.

As for Clark, I want to see how rounded of a candidate he is. After all, I do reserve the right to change my vote for any candidate right up until, oh, the election.

[Jakub]

That's a hilarious quote.

Not so much for the Bush factor as for how board members get chosen.

[JeffL]

Well, here's why I'm spending less time in the politics section these days - there seems to be such a one-sided bias that it's kind of like tuning in to a liberal equivilant of Rush Limbaugh here. I'm frankly hoping that Clark turns out to be a strong, viable candidate. But am I the only one who's a little concerned by a guy who stands up one day and strongly declares "I would have voted in support of the Iraq war!" and then the next day stands up and says "Let me make this perfectly clear: I would have NEVER voted in support of this war!"? Is there no "Hmmmm...." going on in anyone's mind about his bizzare claims to Tim Russert that the White House called him on 9/11 and insisted that he must tie Sadaam to the attack, now proven to just be a blatant lie?

I'm sure people will jump down my throat for even wondering if these are signs of something that make me uneasy about Clark. I'd love for him to be great. I like what I hear about how brilliant he is, I'm a bit uneasy about some of those same people saying he is so competitive and hard-headed that he will come up with a bizarre solution to a problem and then insist on sticking with, ignoring any criticism.

(Oh - OK, just to save the inevitable: "Yeah, but Bush lies every morning before he wakes up! And it's got to be better than Rumsfeld the Nazi!". I'm more interested in trying to understand Clark than playing the partisan shit games.)

[triggercut]

Well, here's why I'm spending less time in the politics section these days - there seems to be such a one-sided bias that it's kind of like tuning in to a liberal equivilant of Rush Limbaugh here. I'm frankly hoping that Clark turns out to be a strong, viable candidate. But am I the only one who's a little concerned by a guy who stands up one day and strongly declares "I would have voted in support of the Iraq war!" and then the next day stands up and says "Let me make this perfectly clear: I would have NEVER voted in support of this war!"? Is there no "Hmmmm...." going on in anyone's mind about his bizzare claims to Tim Russert that the White House called him on 9/11 and insisted that he must tie Sadaam to the attack, now proven to just be a blatant lie?



Ummmm...no.

First off, his seeming contradictorary statements on how he'd have voted for the use of force in Iraq are unfortunate, and clearly show that running for president isn't easy. He gaffed. Pulled a rock. Utterly and completely, no doubt about it.

But let's talk about that "blatant lie" as you put it, regarding Clark's Meet The Press" assertions to Tim Russert. From Spinsanity.com, dated September 3:

The story of who called retired general Wesley Clark on September 11, 2001 won't seem to die, with pundits left and right continually getting their facts wrong. Clark's story, while ambiguously phrased at first, has actually been quite consistent.

In an interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" on June 15, Clark, who is widely believed to be considering a run for president as a Democrat, asserted that some in the White House tried to connect Iraq to the attacks of September 11 and also that he had received a call that day urging him to make that connection:

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein." I said, "But--I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
A careful reading shows Clark never said the White House had anything to do with the call he received. Instead, he describes the call in reference to his statement that pressure also came from "all over," which is why he mentions "Middle East think tanks and people like this." But because he referred to the two so closely together, some viewers reached a hasty conclusion that Clark said the White House made the call.

The first critic to pick up on Clark's statements was at the liberal media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). In a media advisory several days after his "Meet the Press" appearance, the group didn't say Clark's accusations against the Bush administration and the call were related, but failed to differentiate them either, making the lack of a connection even more hazy for readers: "Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence."

A week later, syndicated columnist Gene Lyons was the first to assert that Clark had said it was the White House that called to pressure him to connect Iraq to the terrorist attacks. Lyons explicitly referred to the unclear FAIR release while doing so. "Now in a rational world, the media watchdogs at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, this would be newsworthy," he wrote. "The former NATO Supreme Commander says the Bush White House pressured him to blame 9/11 on Iraq even as the World Trade Center Towers were still smoking. Perhaps because Clark's own political ambitions remain unclear, however, little has been made of the allegation."

Lyons helped his case by selectively quoting from Clark's "Meet the Press" appearance. In response to Russert's question "Who did that?" he quotes Clark as saying:

"Well, it came from the White House," Clark said. "It came from people around the White House. . . I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But-I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence. . . It was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection."
Notice how the quotes Lyons leaves in ellipses are the two that make it more clear Clark wasn't referring to the White House - the phrase "it came from all over" and the reference to "Middle East think tanks and people like this."

The reference to Middle East think tanks become more important in a July 1 appearance by Clark on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes." When co-host Sean Hannity asked him to specify who in the White House hyped the connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Clark refused to say whom but, in a non sequitur, replied that, "I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."

In a July 15 column in the New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman repeated Lyons' assertion, stating, "Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from 'people around the White House' urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein." Krugman misrepresented Clark's statement, alleging that the phrase in quotes referred to the call when it came before Clark even brought up the call. Clark actually mentioned "people around the White House" in response to Russert's question about who was attempting to connect Saddam Hussein to September 11.

Clark may not have seen Lyons' column, but he clearly saw Krugman's, as he wrote a letter (reprinted in its entirety here) to the Times correcting the columnist:

I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.
In other words, there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.
For unknown reasons, although Clark's letter was dated July 18, it wasn't published until August 13, nearly a month after Krugman's column. The month-long delay and the failure to correct the misquotation, which could easily have been checked in the Nexis news database, speaks very poorly for the paper.

In an item in its "Scrapbook" in the August 25 issue, the Weekly Standard quoted excerpts from these appearances and the letter, purporting to show that "Clark has now provided three versions of this story." But while Clark did add details about the Middle East think tank in Canada on "Hannity" and in the Times, none of these statements contradict any others, if one properly understands Clark's two separate statement about White House pressure and the phone call.

The Standard also says, "If you read version three [the letter to the Times] carefully, you will see that Clark has now exonerated the White House of his most serious accusation. Much as he wants to put a sinister spin on the matter, all Clark is saying is that the White House was more sensitive to the Iraqi threat after 9/11." But Clark's letter to the Times squares with his original accusation against the White House in the "Meet The Press" appearance - that the Bush administration tried to link Saddam Hussein to September 11.

In the next issue of the Standard, dated September 1, an article about Clark makes a new accusation - that he couldn't have received the call on September 11 as he describes it because, "There isn't really a 'Middle East think tank' in Canada" according to an expert who was interviewed. But as a post on the weblog The Clark Sphere noted, the Standard's accusation may not be accurate. It links to two think tanks with offices in Canada that study the Middle East: the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research. Clark continues to stand behind the charge, saying in an August 25 appearance on "Buchanan and Press" that the call came from, "A man from a -- of a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence and he follows Middle Eastern events very closely."

Finally, in an August 31 column in the Washington Post, George Will changed the order of Clark's quotes from the "Meet the Press" appearance to make it appear that he originally said the phone call came from the White House. Will then selectively quotes from Clark's "Hannity" and "Buchanan" appearances, along with the Times letter, to repeatedly conflate the phone call and accusations about the White House connecting 9/11 and Iraq, making it look like he contradicted his supposed original story:

As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him ("I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19," when he visits Iowa -- feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said on June 15 that on 9/11 "I got a call at my home" saying that when he was to appear on CNN, "You've got to say this is connected" to Iraq. "It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over." But who exactly called Clark?
July 1: "A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank." There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who "from the White House"? "I'm not going to go into those sources ... People told me things in confidence that I don't have any right to betray."
(Hannity was not asking who "from the White House" made the call, but who made an effort to connect Saddam Hussein to September 11.)

July 18: "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."
(Note that Will ignores Clark's mention of a call from "a Middle East think tank outside the country" in that same letter.)

Aug. 25: It came from "a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence... I haven't changed my position. There's no waffling on it. It's just as clear as could be."
The question of who called Wesley Clark continues to be a mystery. But pundits on both the left and right just won't stop spinning a clearly false story that he alleged that he received a phone call from the White House on September 11 asking him to connect Iraq and the terrorist attacks. They need to stop the distortions and do some basic fact checking.

Update 9/5 8:57 AM EST: In a column a week after the one discussed in this piece, Gene Lyons wrote that Clark had called him to correct the record:

Contrary to last week's column, Gen. Wesley Clark says the Bush White House did not urge him on 9/11 to blame the terrorist attacks upon Saddam Hussein. Clarifying his June 15 remarks on "Meet the Press," Clark phoned to emphasize that he'd gotten calls from persons he knew to be familiar with White House thinking, but no direct contact nor overt pressure. He remains firm, however, in his view that the administration has shown no persuasive evidence that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda ever existed.
We regret the omission of this detail.


Next...

[JeffL]

Hmm. That's interesting. I heard the actual interview, and I sure seemed to remember him at least strongly implying it was the White House who called him, as Russert was following up. I remember thinking, as the interview was occurring, "this is a guy who really wants people to know how important he is." I need to find the actual full transcript. And I remember him, at different times, kind of dancing around the issue. But that's just my memory. The guy who did make the call said he absolutely did not call him on 9/11, it was some time after. Clark did say that he believed there were still WMDs in Iraq.

He also publically claimed that the White House pressured CNN to fire him, which has apparently been discredited (and as if the White House and CNN have some clubby relationship. ;) )

I hope he is a strong candidate. I suppose it's dissapointing that he is clearly being "run" by his handlers, with flip flop comments such as where he stands on the Iraq war - it's clear he said one thing, and his handlers told him "wrong! You have to say this!" - down in Broward County he refused to give his opinions on most issues, saying he "needed to listen to the people" before he states his positions. Sigh. I'd just like to see a candidate come out and speak his strongly held positions and opinions, rather than have people in the back rooms form them for him. Perhaps we're at a point in politics where a candidate just can't do that. But I had hoped Clark would.

I still have hopes for Clark, and reservations.

[XPav]

Hey Jeff, I think every liberal here agrees with you on Clark. We really like the thought of a strong military guy running for president on a democratic ticket, but he is a blank slate on everything else, and he's never done this before. He's already made a few gaffes, but it is still early, so lets see how quickly he can get up to speed with the rest of the folks.

[theblackw0lf]

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html


The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

[Jason McCullough]

If he was run by his handlers he wouldn't talk like a normal person - making slightly contradictory statements occasionally. :D

[ydejin]

Clark's looking good so far. Here's the results (www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp?0cv=CB10) of a recent poll:


Retired Gen. Wesley Clark may have only entered the presidential race on Thursday, but he is already the Democratic frontrunner, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll.

CLARK WON SUPPORT from 14 percent registered Democrats and democratic leaners, outpacing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (12 percent), Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (12 percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (10 percent) and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt (8 percent).

Meanwhile, as Americans focus on the fiscal realities of creating a stable Iraq, President George W. Bush’s approval ratings continue to slide, the poll shows. The president’s approval rating now stands at 51 percent, down 1 point from last week’s poll and from 65 percent on May 1, when major hostilities in Iraq ended

[JeffL]

If he was run by his handlers he wouldn't talk like a normal person - making slightly contradictory statements occasionally. :D

They're shutting him up pretty well - his most common response on issue questions is "I want to hear what the people say before I express an opinion on that issue." Sigh. I'd probably be more likely to vote for someone who expressed some obviously heartfelt positions that I disagreed with than someone who expresses an opinion then flips on it when his handlers correct him or refuses to express an opinion.

I'd also like him to stick to one position opinion on the war, rather than this back and forth.

[DennyA]

What's really sad is that I keep hearing "which candidate can beat Bush?" rather than "Which candidate would make the best President?"

Sad on two fronts: That Bush is perceived as having done so much damage to our nation that getting him out of office has become so many people's top electoral priority, and that the Democratic choices are so weak that "he might be able to beat Bush" is the only thing they can really get excited about, rather than "wow, look what he could do for the country!"

[bmulligan]

Yes, and because they know the bulk of you are going to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, none of them need to detail a platform or plan of action to turn around the plethora of 'crises' running rampant. All they have to do is try to out whine each other on how many mistakes Bush makes.

They know the economy is showing signs of an upturn and will do anything they can to thwart it to fuel the campaign fire in the next 12 months. Watch as the job rate climbs, the stock market gradually returns(as it already has), the treasure revenue increases. The Dems will still claim we are going to hell in a handbasket because of Bush with no offer of a solution of any kind.

God help them if things start to turn around in Iraq in 6 months....they will loose any foothold on power in Washington for another 12 years instead of just 4.

[ydejin]

They know the economy is showing signs of an upturn and will do anything they can to thwart it to fuel the campaign fire in the next 12 months.

Well, frankly I think Bush did something similar before his term started. He was so busy talking about how bad the economy was after he had been elected and right before and after he was inagurated that he essentially either talked us into a recession or depened the recession we were heading into. His strategy was to place any blame for a bad economy on Clinton, but he did such a good job talking about how bad the economy and talking so frequently about how bad it was that he further dampened the economic mood of the nation.

Playing politics with the economy by either party is all-around pretty scummy.

I'm also wondering how much the Bush administration would be willing to play around with the war for political gain. Suppose for example they discovered where Osama or Saddam was. The "intelligent" political thing to do might be to wait until the opportune political moment to nab them (say right before the election).

Frankly I don't trust either party very much in this regard. As someone pointed out on another thread, lying and low ethics not a Republican trait or a Democrat trait. Unfortunately it seems to be a politician trait. I suppose there are some honest politicians out there, but I suspect there are more with rather questionable morals.

[Jason McCullough]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html#091903912pm

As Marshall says here, I don't think he's been contradictory in his statements on the war.

[JeffL]

What's really sad is that I keep hearing "which candidate can beat Bush?" rather than "Which candidate would make the best President?"


Sigh. Right on the nose, Denny. Politics are just so negative these days - convince people that the other guy sucks, seems to be the herald. I don't need to be a leader, I can just criticize.

I think the Democrats are making a MAJOR miscalculation with their bash-Bush exclusive focus. As much as people here and the more liberal media outlets refuse to admit it, people in America want to like Bush and they are going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll bet quite a bit that a year from now Bush will be able to hold Iraq up as a success that the American people will believe, the economy IS turning around and by then it will probably in a full healthy recovery, with a market back over 10,000 or more again, he'll be able to state that the U.S. has liberated over 65 million people from tyranical rule, over 60% of Al Queda leadership is either dead or hiding today, surely it will be more by then, Sadaam and Osama are hiding in holes in the mud somewhere, etc. No, l'm not asking for everyone to jump in with a liberal rebuttal - that's not the point. Americans WANT to like the president, they always have, and Bush will be able to make a good campaign. Good enough that if the Democratic theme remains standing on a stage with a partisan crowd calling Bush names, with nothing positive in terms of specific real vision to sell, they are going to have their ass handed to them. Dean is a joke - sorry, Dean supporters, but Dean will make Dukakis look like a winner (don't forget that after the Democratic convention, Dukakis had a very solid 14 point lead in the polls over Bush 1.) Clark has a chance to force the race, on both sides, to get into specifics of a vision. He should dump these handlers who are telling him "hey, you can't say you supported the war - that's not the Democratic line!" Dean should say what I'm guessing is his real gut feelings, based on some good reporting (the passage above was pretty good)and say what I heard Clark say when I heard him in person a short time ago - he thinks our military did a superb job, he was proud of the joint effort with GB, he thinks that with the information we had in hand it was a reasonable decision at the time, and the people of Iraq, like the people in Kosovo, are much better off rid of an evil maniac. But now he believes that the current administration is in over its head, they are absolutely wrong in not giving the American people and the people of the world a specific outline of the plan forward, that the fact that they don't is an indicator that they are winging it, and then lay out a specific outline of how he would handle it. In the speech I saw him give, he gave Bush credit where he felt it was due - in taking an action he thought was reasonable at the time - and then criticised him where he thought criticisim was due - Bush and his people don't seem to know what to do now and feel no obligation to the country to lay out the details of a plan. Speaking plainly like that, showing that you aren't just parroting a partisan line, gives your criticisms much more credibility. Its why I just turn off the criticisms of Bush by many like McCullough here - it's so clear that some people are so partisan that they couldn't see both sides if it meant the cure for cancer, so the criticisms are, to me, about as interesting as Limbaugh criticising liberals.

Then go after specifics of how you would do things differently in other areas . Also -if you haven't completely figured something out in detail, but you have a true vision, I think it's OK at this point to say something like "I truly believe that a country like America should have some type of universal health program. I know that there are downsides to this, and other nations have seen signicant problems when they incorporated such a plan. And I honestly don't know how to accomplish this at this time in a way that will avoid those problems, nor where to pay for it. But I commit to make the effort to get the best minds from the medical profession, from the insurance industry, from other countries who have seen what works and what doesn't, experts from every relevant area, and perhaps just some great thinkers, and put them together with a mission, a mission that we will make as urgent and critical as when we committed to put a man on the moon. When John Kennedy made that commitment, we had neither the technology nor the science nor the scarcest inkling of how to accomplish the task - but we had a vision, and a national commitment, and when this nation puts politics aside and joins together in a common vision and a common commitment, there is NOTHING that we cannot accomplish! And I promise that I will use the presidency to fight the partisan politics that derails every major effort such as this - I will find and point out to the nation when people on EITHER side of the aisle begin to obstruct the realization of this vision for personal political gain. This will not be a Democratic victory, nor a Republican victory. When we put a man on the moon, no one laid claim to that accomplishment for the gain of their party - and my vision is that when we accomplish this, when no one in this nation is without not just health care, but the same superior quality of health care that America is known for today, it will go down in history as one of the great accomplishments of our nation - and that no one will associate it with a single person or political party. " And mean it. Every word of it. Then lay out a vision, with real specifics (more than that) on other issues.

Show some positive, proactive leadership and vision - not how cute and clever you can be in putting down the other side. That's what the country wants, and deserves. A leader who says to his party "when I say I want bipartisanship, I MEAN it - do it or get the presidential seal kicked into your ass. We will get things done, we will find areas of compromise because this nation is not composed of the far left nor the far right who's agendas you are pushing."

Which is why I get my hopes up when a Clark enters the race, flaws and flip-flops and all. And then sigh in dissapointment when I see him give in to handlers and the rote party lines.

[Machfive]

We need fucking Bullworth.

Oh, and everything Lackey said is on the money. *golf clap*

Except we never landed on the moon.

TWAJS.

[theblackw0lf]

words of wisdom

That was beautiful

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, Jeff, if everyone likes him so much how come his re-elect numbers are down around 45%? All of the candidates have policy proposals; I'm not sure what you're criticizing.

[Desslock]

Sigh. Right on the nose, Denny. Politics are just so negative these days - convince people that the other guy sucks, seems to be the herald. I don't need to be a leader, I can just criticize.

Amazing - well said. American politics is so negative, and so partisan (on both sides) -- it's just so damn unconstructive, if not destructive. The world needs more leaders, not critics.

[Woolen Horde]

The Republicans are desperately trying to link Clark with the Clintons, which tells you how scared they are of Clark.

"He's a stalking horse for Hillary's '08 presidential bid."

Or

"He's a Clinton general."

Or

"He's got a lot of former Clinton aides working for him."

Or

"He's another good ol' boy Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas."

[Desslock]

"He's another good ol' boy Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas."

It is kinda funny that he's from Little Rock as well. Western countries criticize tinpot dictatorships for ruling like emperors and assuming power through military force...yet if you look at recent U.S. history, you have as Presidents:

...well, we had a film actor, and then the head of our secret police, and then after the next President the secret police guy's son took over, and then the general for the guy in between the father and son took over, and he happens to be from the same town as the President who presided when he was general...

[TimElhajj]

"He's another good ol' boy Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas."

It is kinda funny that he's from Little Rock as well. Western countries criticize tinpot dictatorships for ruling like emperors and assuming power through military force...yet if you look at recent U.S. history, you have as Presidents:

...well, we had a film actor, and then the head of our secret police, and then after the next President the secret police guy's son took over, and then the general for the guy in between the father and son took over, and he happens to be from the same town as the President who presided when he was general...

Maybe I'm just not up on current events, but which one of the recent US presidents ruled like an emperor and assumed power through military force?

A) Actor
B) Head of CIA
C) Son of head of CIA
D) Native of Little Rock

[Brad Grenz]

The CIA isn't the secret police, they have no mandate to operate domestically. When they want to disappear someone here, they've got to get the FBI on board! :)

[bmulligan]

Uh, Jeff, if everyone likes him so much how come his re-elect numbers are down around 45%? All of the candidates have policy proposals; I'm not sure what you're criticizing.
Bush's re-elect numbers are 45% when asked if people would vote for him against any of the democratic candidates. When the question is reformed to any specific democrat, his re-elect numbers rise about another 10 points. Funny, 55% hate bush, but when faced against an actual beathing candidate, he seems to be the lesser of 2 evils.

[XPav]

And that couldn't be because name recognition of the democratic candidates is less than 50%, because the campaign is still in its early stages. Nahhh....

[triggercut]

Uh, Jeff, if everyone likes him so much how come his re-elect numbers are down around 45%? All of the candidates have policy proposals; I'm not sure what you're criticizing.
Bush's re-elect numbers are 45% when asked if people would vote for him against any of the democratic candidates. When the question is reformed to any specific democrat, his re-elect numbers rise about another 10 points. Funny, 55% hate bush, but when faced against an actual beathing candidate, he seems to be the lesser of 2 evils.

Not according to the latest Newsweek/Princeton Research Associates poll. When Bush is put up against Clark, the numbers are 47% Bush, 43% Clark, with an error margin of +/- 4%.

The ABB sentiment is a growing phenomenon, especially among centrist Republicans who thought they were electing a fiscally conservative President who was fairly centrist in his social agenda. Instead, they got a tax-and-spend President with an ultra-right social outlook.

[XPav]

Instead, they got a tax-and-spend President with an ultra-right social outlook.

No, they got a cut-tax and spend President.

[JeffL]

Polls are pretty interesting, but don't mean a lot to me. They are so affected by how you ask the question , how you take the poll (an electronic poll gives VERY different numbers from when a person ask the questions), etc.

Like I said, Bush 1 trailed Dukakis by a large margin during that election, at one point being 14 points behind (I remember that one very well and specifically - I made $300 getting a 3 to 1 odds bet from a friend when Dukakis was up by that 14 points.) And the year before an election the numbers traditionally go down some on the sitting president. And at the moment people are frustrated with the situation in Iraq - it isn't nearly as clean as they would like it to be. But it isn't next year, the Democrats are in full campaigning swing, Bush isn't campaigning yet, etc. Which is why I said that I think that if the Democrats follow the current strategy they have, they will get their butts kicked and big. If anyone at all here would like to take Dean as the nominee and to beat Bush, let's make the bet publically right now. I'd almost take that bet with Clark right now, based on what I'm seeing - but I'll wait, since I'm hoping he'll kick these handlers in the teeth and go be his own man.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, Bush's polls are a little lower now than they were pre-9/11. That can't be a good sign, as I don't remember him being particularly loved back then.

[JeffL]

Well, like I said, polls this time of the election period don't mean a lot. I'd say the same whether Bush was at 60 or 40. And I'll reiterate, polls are SO dependent upon who asks the questions, what they ask, and how they ask it. About two weeks ago, my wife told me she got a phone call for an ABC/CNN poll (or whoever ABC is teamed with with on these) and one of the questions was "with Americans now being killed on a regular basis, do you think invading Iraq was a good idea?" She said she told him "Yes, I think Iraq is better off now than before and we did the right thing" and the person on the phone said "But, again, with Americans being killed every day, to clarify the question, do you think it was a good idea?". Of course, what the question showed up as when they published it was simply how many Americans agree with the war.

But I suspect most people here already know how manipulated and manipulatable polls are. And how unreliable they are as a result. The fact is, polls today mean diddley with regard to the 2004 elections. Just as most of them meant little in the 2000 election. Reagan had pretty low numbers at this point in his first term, and as I recall Clinton's numbers at this point in his first term were in the high 40s-low 50s. I think trying to attach any importance to such numbers right now is irrelevant - IMO. What is far more interesting is watching to see what Clark's going to be all about - nobody really has a clue right now - and watching Dean react. The latter is pretty interesting - Dean is NOT happy about how things are suddenly turning.

[bmulligan]

Clark doesn't even have a clue what he's all about. But that doesn't matter -- he's electable. And he's a GENERAL!!!

[Jason McCullough]

I know, I know polls suck, polls have wording issues, etc; but when every poll on pollingreport.com shows support dropping it's probably right.

[DennyA]

I don't know... Except for the token Republican couple we know (so we can say "oh, some of our best friends are those people") and my Mississippi friends (still living in a social 1953), there's such disgust for Bush amongst almost all our friends and acquaintances that the vast majority of them would vote for this candidate over Shrubya:
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/images3/potato.gif
"No, my name is not spelled with an e, Mr. Vice President."

[JeffL]

I don't know... Except for the token Republican couple we know (so we can say "oh, some of our best friends are those people") and my Mississippi friends (still living in a social 1953), there's such disgust for Bush amongst almost all our friends and acquaintances that the vast majority of them would vote for this candidate over Shrubya:


Here in the Midwest, what I see and hear is not disgust. I hear folks who think Bush is a good guy, but who may be over his head when things get complex. The country gets attacked, 9/11 style, his simple approach is good - he gives the order: go find and destroy the people who did this and make sure they never can do this again. We have people who are good at following those orders. And as a friend here at work said at dinner last night (and he's a pretty solid lifelong Democrat) "Well, the reason we've been so disrupting and kicking the terrorists collective asses is that Bush is simple-minded enough that his black and white approach probably worked a lot more effectively that had Gore been in office - he'd have been trying to figure out all of the polls, all of the international relationships, etc. Bush just said "They attacked, go find them and wipe them out." But that simple approach falls apart on a lot of other issues." I think that's probably a pretty good assessment.

I still think there are enough people in the country who want to like Bush that unless the Dems put up a campaign that is different from what they've been trying since Gore - "Those guys are evil and want to put senior citizens in forced labor camps and make babies die of phosgene air pollution and ... etc." - and put up a proactive, positive campaign of why you should vote FOR them, they will lose. The economy, from everything I can see and read and from what our company analysts are saying, will be pretty good around election time next year. And I wouldn't want to base my whole election campaign around hoping Iraq is a disatster a year from now.

Honestly, I keep looking, on both sides of the party lines, for someone I could get excited about leading the country for the next 8 years. Someone intelligent, someone with demonstrated integrity, someone with a real vision for the country, someone who would be focused on improving life in America as opposed to shoring up power for their party. What is really dissapointing is I haven't yet found anyone. I would love for someone here to point someone out. Is our nation really this bereft of true great men and leaders? Is this the result of our two party system degrading to this point?

[DennyA]

Here in the Midwest, what I see and hear is not disgust. I hear folks who think Bush is a good guy, but who may be over his head when things get complex.
Well, the midwest has the same "America's always right, and things are great so let's not change 'em!" attitude as is prevalent in the south. (Qualifier: Born in Ohio, spent most of my life in the south, so I'm stereotyping from experience. :-) )


The country gets attacked, 9/11 style, his simple approach is good - he gives the order: go find and destroy the people who did this and make sure they never can do this again.
And like all the Americans who think Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks, these people are too disinterested to wonder why we're taking down states (one of which the CIC has a very personal grudge against) rather than the actual terrorist network. (Which is still operating successfully.)

I don't think it's a simple approach, any more than I think he wants to drill in the Arctic wildlife refuges to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. It was an excuse to try to grab a foothold in the Middle East, with the bonus of taking down the man who tried to kill Dad. And trying to rework the sociopolitical system in the Middle East is not going to make America safer -- it's fueling the fires.


Democrats...put up a proactive, positive campaign of why you should vote FOR them, they will lose.
True that.


The economy, from everything I can see and read and from what our company analysts are saying, will be pretty good around election time next year.
Well, yes, but those who are paying attention know the President has precious little to do with the current economy. The only real effects of Bush's economic programs will come far down the road when we're dealing with his deficit. However, you're right, the average voter will credit or blame him either way.


Honestly, I keep looking, on both sides of the party lines, for someone I could get excited about leading the country for the next 8 years. Someone intelligent, someone with demonstrated integrity, someone with a real vision for the country, someone who would be focused on improving life in America as opposed to shoring up power for their party. What is really dissapointing is I haven't yet found anyone. I would love for someone here to point someone out. Is our nation really this bereft of true great men and leaders? Is this the result of our two party system degrading to this point?
I think true great men and leaders long ago lost interest in politics, or were run out of the political system. Saving the world and changing the status quo are not compatible with the current entrenched system.

[JeffL]

Denny, I agree with what you said (too lazy to quote it all.) Except for the Artic drilling - the locations I've seen for the proposed drilling are basically Artic deserts, filled with absolutely nothing. But that's probably another thread.

The big "swingers" in presidential elections always seem to be the economy and then, a far second, any other issues such as security, etc. And the president always gets more credit than he deserves when it's good, more blame than he deserves when it's bad. In this case it's probably going to be good.

Bottom line though: I'm afraid that you're right, the truly great men and leaders aren't the ones willing to slog through our current system, and they are disgusted with the people that run both parties. Which is scary and sad.

[XPav]

Clark's economic plan!

http://www.clark04.com/econ_white_01.php


Wes Clark proposes to create a Homeland and Economic Security Fund of $20 billion per year (or $40 billion total over the next two years). General Clark’s Homeland and Economic Security Fund would take the crucial immediate steps that America needs to secure our homeland. This Fund is a win-win strategy for both homeland security and job creation. By moving quickly to fill gaps in America’s homeland security, Wes Clark believes that we can help to protect our country and provide a jumpstart for job creation.
...
Wes Clark proposes to create a State and Local Tax Rebate Fund of $20 billion per year (or $40 billion total over the next two years) to create jobs and lessen the need for states and local governments to raise taxes (including property taxes), raise state college tuition rates, raise other fees, and/or cut critical expenditures (e.g., in health care).
...
Wes Clark proposes to provide $20 billion over the next two years in business tax incentives to create American jobs, including in the manufacturing sector.
...
Wes Clark’s Job Creation Plan Is Deficit Neutral. General Clark will pay for his $100 billion Job Creation Plan by making changes to the Bush Tax Plan as it benefits families making more than $200,000 a year. As a result, there would be no net effect on the budget deficit in 2004 or 2005 from Wes Clark’s Job Creation Plan – which would be more effective at creating jobs than the Bush tax breaks it would replace. Furthermore, General Clark’s long-term economic strategy will restore long-term fiscal discipline.

[Machfive]

XPav - I'd actually vote for that, providing his stance on pressing libertarian issues are decent.

Where's he on guns, abortion, gay rights, etc?

[XPav]

http://www.meetclark.com/faq/

Guns Control:

“I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them.”

Reproductive rights

"I am pro-choice"

Gay Rights, well, I found this (www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=5&record=1028)


On June 16, in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Clark told moderator Tim Russert that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy currently in force “absolutely” should be changed. “I don’t think it works,” he said. “Essentially, we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, we always have had, always will. And I think that … we should welcome people that want to serve.” He added that the military’s gay policy is “an issue that the leaders in the armed forces are going to have to work with and resolve.”

He still needs to flesh out his position more.

[Machfive]

I don't trust military types who think that only the military should have rifles.

That to me just smacks of someone who's either following party line or genuinely has no interest in protecting one of our most vital civil liberties.

At this point, I'd only vote for him if he's for gay marraige and at least some laxing of vice/drug laws.

[TimElhajj]

I don't trust military types who think that only the military should have rifles.

You mean assult weapons.

He clearly states he has a number of hunting weapons in his house; presumably that's not going to change.

[Machfive]

Any military type who even acknolwedges the validity of the "assault" category of rifles, again, is someone issuing rhetoric.

Don't make me begin the entire canned argument about why there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle.

It's bullshit, and it panders to the people who think guns themselves are the root of all evil. We don't need more Rosie O'Donnels and Al Gores.

[XPav]

I don't trust military types who think that only the military should have rifles.

That to me just smacks of someone who's either following party line or genuinely has no interest in protecting one of our most vital civil liberties.

At this point, I'd only vote for him if he's for gay marraige and at least some laxing of vice/drug laws.

He has hunting rifles. He's talking about assault weapons.

Did you know that Howard Dean recieved an 'A' rating from the NRA for his stance on gun control? Dean also is for gay rights, and wants to treat drugs as a healtcare problem, not a criminal problem.

Maybe you should vote for him.

[Rywill]

At this point, I'd only vote for him if he's for gay marraige and at least some laxing of vice/drug laws.
Shoot him an email and let him know the exact qualifications you're looking for.

Re: Jeff's comment about there not being any great leaders, I think a big part of the problem is (1) being a great leader in private industry is a lot more financially rewarding, which is important to a lot of people for the sake of their kids if nothing else; but more importantly (2) most people figure--rightly, I think--that a person like that has no shot of winning the presidency when running against folks who "play the game" and will do what it takes to win by hook or by crook...and in the process of losing, their personal life and that of their families is in jeopardy (mudslinging, etc.)

In short, I think those people are out there. I just don't think Americans want them as president.

[Rywill]

Any military type who even acknolwedges the validity of the "assault" category of rifles, again, is someone issuing rhetoric.

Don't make me begin the entire canned argument about why there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle.
I guess I've never seen that can opened. Can you summarize it for me? Don't you think there's a difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an M-16?

[Bub, Andrew]

Politics is the art of compromise (or as Evita puts it "The Art of the Possible") so any good leader is going to flip-flop and waffle here and there, etc.,. It's the only way to get things done. If Jeff's talking about wanting a leader who is strong, inspirational, and charismatic. I'd like that too.

[XPav]

I guess I've never seen that can opened. Can you summarize it for me? Don't you think there's a difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an M-16?

Apparently, while "Assault Rifle" is a common term to mean AK-47/M-16s, the term "Assault Weapons" is nebulous, and usually use in gun control debates to mean "all weapons that are used to break the law and are good at killing people."

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

You do have to realize that Clark is just starting out. It takes time for all the issues to be nailed down.

[TimElhajj]

Any military type who even acknolwedges the validity of the "assault" category of rifles, again, is someone issuing rhetoric.

Don't make me begin the entire canned argument about why there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle.


That's doesn't make any sense. Why would he say he has hunting guns at his house if he doens't belive there is a difference between assult weapons and rifles?

[bmulligan]

talk about not making sense..............

[XPav]

Yeah, after reading it again, I'm going to have to say that Mr Gillette doesn't seem to think that "assault rifle" is a proper term.

Googling the official US Army and US Marine Corp websites finds many links calling the M-16, the M-4, the AK-47, and the like, "Assault Rifles". That's not a term that anyone complains about (unlike Assault Weapons).

[Mark Asher]

I don't know what assault weapons are, but I don't want my neighbor to have any kind of weapon where he pulls the trigger and bullets keep spraying out. If he's gunning for me, he should at least have to keep pulling the trigger. Let's not make it too easy for him.

[bmulligan]

I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood.

Sounds like you need to build a bigger fence.

[Rywill]

I'm glad you don't, too.

[Lizard_King]

I guess I've never seen that can opened. Can you summarize it for me? Don't you think there's a difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an M-16?

To quote myself (www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=123629&highlight=#123629):


I have not seen one shred of evidence that removing assault weapons from law-abiding citizens will do any bit of good. In fact, removing them from criminals would still be of questionable value, since it is such a negligible percentage of crimes that are committed with assault weapons, and it is open to debate what functionality the "assault" adds to a gun that they could not find in other weapons.

Why? Well, let's talk about what assault classification means, in those few states that bother to define it at all. Does it mean automatic-fire? No, and besides automatic weapons are already only available by special permit to law abiding citizens. Does it mean the gun has a high capacity magazine? No, it's got nothing to do with it, and besides, Clinton already set the limit at 10 (which, again, has had no discernible effect on crime, and as far as I can tell has mainly had impacts like forcing my girlfriend to trade up to a higher caliber since she can no longer rely on more bullets to compensate for stopping power). Does it have anything to do with the particular lethality or effectivity of the weapon? Hell, no. In fact, true assault weapons (what most people think of, like the M16 or the AK47) are designed with wounding rather than killing in mind, on the principle that a casualty that has to be carried off the battlefield and treated is more of a burden on the enemy than a corpse.

No, in fact, all assault weapon means is that it has a visible magazine, and is thus "military style". So unless your legal principles decide which things should be banned based on how scary things look, that is not a category which is crying for elimination, especially when you factor in how rarely they are used in crimes (when you think about it, it makes sense, since concealability and effectivity are far more easily available in other types).


So, Clark's position on guns, while not facially objectionable like most of the other Dem candidates, is awfully vague. As Mach notes, we pro-gun people tend to be very suspicious of falsely premised "reasonable restrictions" like assault weapons. Also, as he put it, it's doubly bad coming from a military man. Join the army if you want your gun rights? Yeah, right.

[Jason McCullough]

Vague or not, he has no history of ever favoring gun restrictions.

Edit: excuse me


Thus, he would allow states to pass tougher laws but supports, as a minimum, the federal assault weapons ban, which is scheduled to expire in the middle of the general election fight. He also wants instant background checks, including at guns shows, and would ensure that current gun laws are enforced.

These positions would be news to most Vermont voters. Their former governor made little mention of gun control while serving in Vermont, where he earned an "A" rating from the pro-gun NRA.

The greatest firearm restriction imposed during Dean's five terms in office was a 1995 law forbidding guns on schools grounds — not exactly groundbreaking gun control.

While other governors targeted guns in response to school violence, Dean asserted that better enforcement and stronger families were the answer, not more laws. After the 1999 rampage at Columbine High School in a Denver suburb, Dean said, "The remedy is not simply in the law. It's mostly in the community and in the home."


http://www.naplesnews.com/03/09/perspective/d989166a.htm

That "no one seems to be happy with his split the middle approach" is probably a good sign.

[triggercut]

To get away from the "gun nuts making their argument on a logical fallacy" derailment ("Slippery slope! Slippery slope!") I wanted to return to Clark's jobs proposal.

It's very well conceived, I think. Instead of being all supply-side, or all demand-side, it's got both ends covered.

On the supply side, you have tax breaks for businesses willing to create new jobs, and you have help from states to pay for their health care.

The canniness here though is to realize that supply siding by itself here won't work. Take a ride through the Dulles Tech Corridor here in NoVa and you'll see why. Business greatly overbuilt, well beyond capacity, in the 1990's. Warehouses stand empty. Manufacturing plants run only one or two shifts--the ones that are still open, that is. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that currently there's only enough demand to support businesses running at 75% capacity, down from a peak of 91% in the late 1990's. No one wants to use that nasty "deflation" word, but the stark truth is that we're edging towards it: wages go down, demand goes down, prices go down, and then wages go down again, lather, rinse, repeat.

In other words: providing tax breaks and health care help to encourage job creation is nice, but if the jobs aren't needed such a plan will end up hurting the businesses it's trying to help. Thus, the demand-side element of Clark's plan: Investment in the infrastructure and training of those involved with homeland security is particularly clever. For one thing, rather than using the Department of Homeland Security to be a giant money pit that manages to come up with a color-code chart in two years of existence, he instead uses it instead to create jobs and improve the country and services. That just seems so obvious that someone else would have already proffered such a plan in this race--but this is pretty solid work from a rookie candidate...(okay, let's get real--Mickey Kantor, Wes Clark, and Leon Panetta probably had quite a few conference calls over the weekend...)

[bmulligan]

Thus, the demand-side element of Clark's plan: Investment in the infrastructure and training of those involved with homeland security is particularly clever. For one thing, rather than using the Department of Homeland Security to be a giant money pit that manages to come up with a color-code chart in two years of existence, he instead uses it instead to create jobs and improve the country and services.

Help me out here......how exactly does this create economic demand? Creating government jobs and services only sucks the teet harder and doesn't free up money for spending. This doesn't sound clever, it sounds like more senseless Democratic economics.

[TimElhajj]

This doesn't sound clever, it sounds like more senseless Democratic economics.

As if there were a fiscally responsible Republican economic plan.

[Midnight Son]

As if there were a fiscally responsible Republican economic plan.

Of course there is! Cut taxes to the wealthy so that they can spend more on luxuries, thus helping the economy. Also, cut all social services to the bone since the gummint has absolutely no role in making things better for its' own citizens (unless they have a rich lobbying group.) Etc etc etc...

[Anders Hallin]

Of course, that doesn't really have anything to do with if Clark's economical ideas are feasible or not.

[Kyle Wilson]

Don't you think there's a difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an M-16?

An M-16 is fully automatic. However, current laws aren't targeted at fully-automatic weapons. They're targeted at semi-auto replicas of the same, and specifically exclude "cool-looking" features like pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet lugs, etc.

Haven't we had this conversation before?

[Rywill]

You mean you and me? Not so far as I remember. I read the prior thread on this after LK linked to it, though. My apologies if I'm forcing you to restate something you said there.

I read LK's and others' arguments in that other thread and find them fairly convincing. I do have a question, though: even as a semi-auto, isn't an M-16 more damaging, powerful, whatever, than other rifles commercially available? I have next to no experience with any sort of rifles, so I don't know. I do know that I've worked several cases where people got shot with pistols and a few where people got shot with what I consider a non-assault rifle, and then I worked on one case where someone (a sheriff, actually) got shot with a round from an SKS. It seemed like the sheriff suffered a much, much worse injury from a single shot from an SKS than people who got shot with other weapons. I had always assumed that an SKS fires a somehow more damaging bullet (higher speed, heavier, whatever). Is that not true? It seems logical that the Army would be using the best, most powerful rifle that doesn't cost a real fortune, so I would expect an M-16 to be better (meaning more dangerous to the guy on the other end) than rifles that are commercially available. Am I mistaken in that assumption?

FWIW, I've always been against gun prohibitions because, whether I think the idea is good or not, I think the Second Amedment forbids it. However, the 2nd Am. does say "well-regulated," so it's always been my view that reasonable controls--licensing, background checks, etc.--are constitutionally permissible and also a good idea. The argument then comes down to what controls are "reasonable."

[Midnight Son]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now that seems like it has two parts: 1) The well-regulated militia and 2) the right to bear arms. This was in the day of black powder muzzle loaders and obviously hasn't been adjusted for modern weaponry. Does everyone really need to own an M16? Is that a good idea? Probably need a new amendment along the lines of:


You can't own an automatic rifle, submachine gun or anti-tank missile launcher even if your excuse is that you need to blow Bambi to bits.

Is that unreasonable?

[XPav]

You can't own an automatic rifle, submachine gun or anti-tank missile launcher even if your excuse is that you need to blow Bambi to bits.

Is that unreasonable?

But then how will the Free People of the United States overthrow Queen Hillary when she becomes President?

[Lizard_King]

Now that seems like it has two parts: 1) The well-regulated militia and 2) the right to bear arms. This was in the day of black powder muzzle loaders and obviously hasn't been adjusted for modern weaponry. Does everyone really need to own an M16? Is that a good idea? Probably need a new amendment along the lines of:


You can't own an automatic rifle, submachine gun or anti-tank missile launcher even if your excuse is that you need to blow Bambi to bits.

Is that unreasonable?

That's not the point. The point is that for the government to restrict a right, there must be a compelling, material reason to do it. "No one needs a _____" is not good enough; the burden of proof must be on the government to show why the ownership of such weapons is damaging. It sets a dangerous precedent to reverse that relationship; that turns our rights into privileges.

The numbers simply do not support an "assault weapons" ban, because very few crimes are committed with them, and none are made worse because all assault weapon means in a legal context is (as I explained) scary looking. Ergo, one can only conclude that there are other motives, no matter how much triggercut bitches and moans about slippery slopes, for advocating the ban, since real antigun advocates (as opposed to the amateurs) are fully aware of this.


I do have a question, though: even as a semi-auto, isn't an M-16 more damaging, powerful, whatever, than other rifles commercially available?

The short answer is no. True assault rifles were originally designed with bulk cost, weight of ammunition, and a host of such factors with maiming rather than killing in mind. Your average high caliber hunting rifle packs a hell of a lot more punch, not to mention your average shotgun at close range and some handguns.

The commercially available M-16 versions are already not automatic (since automatic weapons haven't been sold to civilians for some time without a special permit, rarely granted); as a sidenote, the m16-A2 (circa post vietnam) onwards have what is called selective fire rather than automatic, your choice is three round bursts or semiauto, no full auto setting. In any case, there is no question that there are a plethora of civilian guns that have far more killing power.



Vague or not, he has no history of ever favoring gun restrictions.
If you were referring to me, I was talking about Clark. If not, carry on.


As for Clark's economics positions thus far, they seem heavily Clintonesque, which bothers me less than most. It would be nice to have a plan for Homeland Security that sounded more like making it actually serve its purpose rather than turning it into sko New Deal.

[Midnight Son]

The govt. can do what both houses decide, the president signs, and the courts uphold. And guess what? Those people are no more rational than any others.

[Lizard_King]

The govt. can do what both houses decide, the president signs, and the courts uphold. And guess what? Those people are no more rational than any others.

Is that an argument? What the hell does that even mean? "The US can obliterate any country in the world 10x over"? Does that mean it should? Does that legitimize the action?

There are ways in which the constitution can be subverted, but they require more than a simple majority (I mean that literally), and should be sparingly used with extensive justification.

[Kyle Wilson]

You mean you and me?

Sorry, no, I just meant "us" on the Qt3 politics board.


I do have a question, though: even as a semi-auto, isn't an M-16 more damaging, powerful, whatever, than other rifles commercially available?

No. As Lizard posted, the M-16 rifle was designed to fire a light round (.223 Remington) because (a) soldiers can carry more rounds of that caliber than of something heavier and (b) it's more manageable when fired full-auto than, say, something in .308 would be.

Stephen Hunter, recreational shooter and writer for the Washington Post, writes that (www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14581-2002Oct11&notFound=true) "in most states the .223 -- or any .22 centerfire -- is illegal for deer hunting because it wounds without killing too frequently." The SKS whose handiwork you witnessed fires a larger, but slower, cartridge, with similar results. Shot for shot, any deer rifle will do a great deal more damage.

[Midnight Son]

Midnight Son wrote:
The govt. can do what both houses decide, the president signs, and the courts uphold. And guess what? Those people are no more rational than any others.


Is that an argument? What the hell does that even mean? "The US can obliterate any country in the world 10x over"? Does that mean it should? Does that legitimize the action?


No, dense one, it means if "They" want to outlaw your precious Weapons of Mass Militiahood, they will. Clear enough?

[Doug Erickson]

You can't own an automatic rifle, submachine gun or anti-tank missile launcher even if your excuse is that you need to blow Bambi to bits.


Is that unreasonable?

I agree with the sentiment, but what happens when PLASMA CANNONS get built, or maybe one of those Unreal Tournament-style frag blasters? Or what about lightsabers -- where do those fall? I don't think the authors of this country could have envisioned modern weapons technology at the time the 2nd Amendment was penned.

As I said in an earlier thread, I don't have a real problem with gun ownership, and I don't think guns themselves are the problem -- it's the anti-social paranoia possessed by many erstwhile gun owners and the media glamorization of weaponry that's much more disturbing to me. When I flip through the Letters section of Guns and Ammo or another gun mag and see all these letters illustrating "self-defense" fantasies and anti-government machismo, it's pretty obvious that if we took away the guns, these nuts would just write into "Knives and Meathooks" with the same crackpot sentiments.

I'm all for regulation, with stricter background checks and licensing required for more concealed and/or powerful weapons. Some people just LIKE guns, and if they really aren't going to be a threat to anyone, they should have no problem with registration, licensing, and a waiting period.

[Midnight Son]

Very reasonable, Doug and I agree with you. Heck, I'm a gun owner! I just don't see a need for private ownership of heavy duty military hardware.

[Jason McCullough]

First they came for artillery nukes.

Then they came for nanoblades.

Finally they came for cyborg exoskeletons and I had nothing to fend them off with.

[Lizard_King]

As I said in an earlier thread, I don't have a real problem with gun ownership, and I don't think guns themselves are the problem -- it's the anti-social paranoia possessed by many erstwhile gun owners and the media glamorization of weaponry that's much more disturbing to me. When I flip through the Letters section of Guns and Ammo or another gun mag and see all these letters illustrating "self-defense" fantasies and anti-government machismo, it's pretty obvious that if we took away the guns, these nuts would just write into "Knives and Meathooks" with the same crackpot sentiments.

I'm all for regulation, with stricter background checks and licensing required for more concealed and/or powerful weapons. Some people just LIKE guns, and if they really aren't going to be a threat to anyone, they should have no problem with registration, licensing, and a waiting period.

If you want to register unusual military hardware, fine. Plasma cannons et al, I can dig it, if only to put a small dent in international trade.

But gun ownership in general + registration has yet to demonstrate anything than a massive logistical and cost burden in any place where it has been implemented. It is impractical and useless, and in the wrong hands can lead to very unpleasant unintended consequences.

[Lizard_King]

As I said in an earlier thread, I don't have a real problem with gun ownership, and I don't think guns themselves are the problem -- it's the anti-social paranoia possessed by many erstwhile gun owners and the media glamorization of weaponry that's much more disturbing to me. When I flip through the Letters section of Guns and Ammo or another gun mag and see all these letters illustrating "self-defense" fantasies and anti-government machismo, it's pretty obvious that if we took away the guns, these nuts would just write into "Knives and Meathooks" with the same crackpot sentiments.

I'm all for regulation, with stricter background checks and licensing required for more concealed and/or powerful weapons. Some people just LIKE guns, and if they really aren't going to be a threat to anyone, they should have no problem with registration, licensing, and a waiting period.

If you want to register unusual military hardware, fine. Plasma cannons et al, I can dig it, if only to put a small dent in international trade.

But gun ownership in general + registration has yet to demonstrate anything than a massive logistical and cost burden in any place where it has been implemented. It is impractical and useless, and in the wrong hands can lead to very unpleasant unintended consequences.

[Kyle Wilson]

As I said in an earlier thread, I don't have a real problem with gun ownership, and I don't think guns themselves are the problem -- it's the anti-social paranoia possessed by many erstwhile gun owners and the media glamorization of weaponry that's much more disturbing to me.

First of all, you're misusing "erstwhile". Look it up.

Second, this is nonsense. To be sure, gun culture has its share of kooks. And sometimes I think they make up more than half of those who would consider themselves gun enthusiasts. But for all their armament and paranoia, almost all of these guys are basically harmless. Leave them alone and they won't do any more than rant and rave like little cammie-clad Jason McCulloughs.

The real problem isn't the "gun enthusiast" class, but the criminal class, the ones who don't care about guns except as a means to a predatory end. They're the ones who murder 18,000 Americans every year. If Congress would focus its attentions on disarming them and making sure the Guns & Ammo crowd can keep their toys, everyone would be a lot happier.

[Midnight Son]

So registering guns takes too much work. Well, damn, lets just say the hell with it! While we're at it, I understand it takes alot of work to screen luggage at airports.... so.... to hell with that too! :roll:

[Lizard_King]

As I said in an earlier thread, I don't have a real problem with gun ownership, and I don't think guns themselves are the problem -- it's the anti-social paranoia possessed by many erstwhile gun owners and the media glamorization of weaponry that's much more disturbing to me. When I flip through the Letters section of Guns and Ammo or another gun mag and see all these letters illustrating "self-defense" fantasies and anti-government machismo, it's pretty obvious that if we took away the guns, these nuts would just write into "Knives and Meathooks" with the same crackpot sentiments.

I'm all for regulation, with stricter background checks and licensing required for more concealed and/or powerful weapons. Some people just LIKE guns, and if they really aren't going to be a threat to anyone, they should have no problem with registration, licensing, and a waiting period.

If you want to register unusual military hardware, fine. Plasma cannons et al, I can dig it, if only to put a small dent in international trade.

But gun ownership in general + registration has yet to demonstrate anything than a massive logistical and cost burden in any place where it has been implemented. It is impractical and useless, and in the wrong hands can lead to very unpleasant unintended consequences.



So registering guns takes too much work. Well, damn, lets just say the hell with it! While we're at it, I understand it takes alot of work to screen luggage at airports.... so.... to hell with that too! icon_rolleyes.gif
As usual, you fail to understand principle at work. But you really are an embarrasment to hookers and crackheads everywhere. Even they have no problem understanding the difference between qualified, overspecified security checks and the criminalization of millions of Americans for no reason than they make elitist, illiberal fruitcakes surly because you have no control over them.

So drink another beer, and laugh at how you piss away basic human rights in the name of semantics.

[Jason McCullough]

Requiring people to register guns criminalizes them, but searches when they get on planes don't?

[Lizard_King]

Requiring people to register guns criminalizes them,
WITHOUT ANY COMPELLING, MATERIAL REASON, requiring people to register guns "criminalizes" them, yes. Since there are only emotional arguments for it, yes.


but searches when they get on planes don't?

That's right. Tons of compelling, material reasons for it, + a specificity of law that avoids making it a societal precedent.

[Midnight Son]

Lizard King on his Idaho mountain top, spewing his bullshit! Love ya too, man! :lol:

[Jason McCullough]

Requiring people to register guns criminalizes them,
WITHOUT ANY COMPELLING, MATERIAL REASON, requiring people to register guns "criminalizes" them, yes. Since there are only emotional arguments for it, yes.


but searches when they get on planes don't?

That's right. Tons of compelling, material reasons for it, + a specificity of law that avoids making it a societal precedent.

Uh, that was my point - I don't see how on earth you can say there's a good reason to search everyone who gets on a plane, but not a good reason to register everyone's guns. Not that I favor it, but the overall body count and per-owner/per-user incidence for guns is much, much larger than that for planes.

[Doug Erickson]

Other than some inconvenience to the new gun owner and some records in a government office, what, EXACTLY, is the -rational- objection to registration? Paying for some additional minor bureaucracy and a few extra jobs, not unlike what we now pay for extra air marshals and airport security checks?

[Rywill]

Are you reading his posts at all? It really looks like you're filtering them through your conception of our relationship to our government so that what you read is not at all what LK wrote.

LK's position is that he doesn't need a "rational objection" to gun registration laws. It's the government's burden to come forward with a rational reason to enact them. In other words, by default, the government doesn't get to do or regulate anything. If the government wants to step into your life, the government must first give a good reason for doing so.

Instead, you seem to have this perception that by default the government should be able to do or regulate anything, and it's the citizen's job to come up with a compelling case to stop the regulation. Although that would certainly be one way to do things (see the Soviet Union, as an example), in theory, at least, that's not how our government is set up.

All of your arguments about "it's not very intrusive" or "it's not very expensive" are meaningless without some good reason for the registration in the first place. It would be equally intrusive and expensive to make everyone register their shoes or wristwatches or computers. Obviously, we're not going to register everything we own with the government just because it's only a little inconvenient and expensive to do so.

[Midnight Son]

Now starting a separate "Gun Control" thread so the militia types can go hug each other in manly ways.

[Doug Erickson]

Nice straw man, Rywill. I think the reason for regulating guns is blatantly obvious: they can be, and are used frequently, to kill people.

In the future, I'll try to state the obvious in some sort of glossary or appendix to my posts. Maybe a foot note like:

We should regulate guns*.

* - because they, unlike wristwatches and shoes, can be effectively and efficiently used to kill folks, by design.

Would that help?

Look, if you don't think that a government should have a defacto stance on regulating clearly and consistently dangerous consumer goods, bully for you.

But don't suggest that my stance is "regulation first, citizens second", and that my remarks pertinent solely to gun ownership can be extrapolated to unrelated issues when the context doesn't even suggest that.

Consider your straw man duly set ablaze.

[Rywill]

I guess "straw man" has become the thinking man's "slippery slope": it's the perfect thing to say when you dislike the argument against your position but can't really refute it. LK's argument, which I would yet again urge you to read before replying to it for a third or fourth time, is that the government's regulations make no sense. "Guns kill people" is not enough to justify a specific regulation of guns like "no assault weapons" or "register all guns," if those regulations do not help the government prevent killings or punish killers. I guess I'll append obvious truisms like that as glossy little appendices to my posts, or maybe I'll just PM them to you since you're the only guy who doesn't seem to get it.

Put bluntly: LK argues that the government must make a compelling case for the need for a regulation (actually, the Constitution says that too). LK argues that the current regulation has no practical useful effect. Therefore, the regulation is wrong. Rather than trying to undermine either of his premises, you respond by saying "Well, what is your objection to it?" Read his post: his objection is that the regulation isn't well-founded and, therefore, should be repealed. He doesn't need to demonstrate that the regulation is too difficult or expensive to comply with, unless you can show that either A) the regulation is beneficial; or B) the government does not bear the burden of justifying its regulations.

[bmulligan]

Nice straw man, Rywill. I think the reason for regulating guns is blatantly obvious: they can be, and are used frequently, to kill people.

but it's the unregulated guns we need to worry about that are used in the majority of crimes and deaths. No one is ever going to register these. And why stop at guns. Let's just ban them and regulate hunting knives, boxcutters and baseball bats.

[Kyle Wilson]

So does Clark have what it takes?

[Midnight Son]

Does he? The jury's still out. Right now the dems are worried Dean will get the nomination so they are being nice to Clark. That could change.

[Kyle Wilson]

I think Clark's actually in the unenviable spot that Arnold Schwarzenegger is in, and that George W. was in when he was running: By virtue of his character and circumstance, he's the recipient of broad but vague public goodwill. Anything he says can only weaken that broad support, as more and more people realize that he doesn't agree with them on specifics after all. So his best bet is to avoid debates, mumble fuzzy platitudes, and hope that he can keep that up until election time.

[Lizard_King]

I think Clark's actually in the unenviable spot that Arnold Schwarzenegger is in, and that George W. was in when he was running: By virtue of his character and circumstance, he's the recipient of broad but vague public goodwill. Anything he says can only weaken that broad support, as more and more people realize that he doesn't agree with them on specifics after all. So his best bet is to avoid debates, mumble fuzzy platitudes, and hope that he can keep that up until election time.

I think you're on to something, with one caveat: the military thing. It's a real ace in the hole if he can use it in its proper place (rather than just as a convenient source of metaphors), and in a time of war can make a lot of other issues seem less important. If I were in his shoes, I'd buck the Schwarzenegger/Bush mo and go for a principled, strong display of ideas. So far, I am pretty sure that Dean will make him look like an Orange County Republican by comparison to anyone who considers that a favourable distinction on everything but gun rights.

[Rywill]

I think Clark's actually in the unenviable spot that Arnold Schwarzenegger is in, and that George W. was in when he was running: By virtue of his character and circumstance, he's the recipient of broad but vague public goodwill. Anything he says can only weaken that broad support, as more and more people realize that he doesn't agree with them on specifics after all. So his best bet is to avoid debates, mumble fuzzy platitudes, and hope that he can keep that up until election time.
That's an excellent (and according to polls, winning) strategy for Arnie, but I can't imagine it working for Clark. Arnie has the benefit of an incredibly short run-up to the election, so he can kind of skate by with saying "I'm going to go to Sacramento and clean house" or "I'm going to create a favorable business climate in California" and turning a deaf ear to everyone asking for specifics. In a yearlong presidential campaign, though, I just can't see that working. Too hard to duck and weave for that long.

[JeffL]

I'll be curious how Clark handles the Demo primaries. They seem pretty tilted to the more extreme side of the party (which likes Dean a lot), the Ed Asners of the party (Asner said in an interview he basically sees Daschle and other prominent Democrats as "Republicans" because they were so far right of his opinions. Just a fwiw.)

[XPav]

Clark Interview up.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

[Tyjenks]

At least he is taking a stand on the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb issue. :roll:

For someone who has a major strong point (in my book at least) of not being a career politician, he certainly is quick to start with the pandering.

[Jason McCullough]

How on earth is that pandering?

[bmulligan]

in a society where you've got a lot of people that are struggling to pay the electricity bill and the telephone bill and you've got a few people who don't care what the electricity and telephone bill is, that the few people who don't care about these things ought to pay a higher proportion of their income to help the rest of the country than the people who are struggling with the necessities in life.

This is called communism folks. There is no other way to describe it unless your a democrat, then it's called "fair".


They (the adnministration)promote the ideology through sloganeering, through labeling, name-calling,

Well, he's getting the politician thing down cold. This is from chapter 1 of the Democratic manifesto - accuse the opposition of using your own tactics.


you'd say this administration (Bush 43) was doctrinaire. You'd say that it didn't have a real vision in foreign policy. It was reactive. Hobbled by its right-wing constituency from using the full tools that are available -- the full kit-bag of tools that's available to help Americans be in there and protect their interests in the world.

Clinton administration: broad minded, visionary, lots of engagement. Did a lot of work. Had difficulty with two houses in congress that [it] didn't control. And in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy


This is known as doublespeak. Bush is using his 'full-kit bag' of tools to produce his vision of protecting americans from the anti-american terrorist threats. Clinton was of course, tricked into hating Iraq. Umm hmm, He didn't really mean the things he said about Saddam in 1998.
Clinton even extracted the remaining soviet forces from Latvia. I'll bet that makes the history books 20 years from now.

He's really learned to talk the talk after only a few short weeks. He's shaping up to be a real, honest Manchurian candidate. I only wonder when Hillary will pull out the queen of diamonds.

[triggercut]

You have no idea how happy I am to hear that you disagree with much of what Clark says. I was worried that maybe I had gotten dumber with age, but now you've set those worries to rest.

Thanks again, bm!

[Jason McCullough]

Resurrecting this:

http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=9&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2003%2F030801_mf e_clark.html&x=48&y=16


In August 1995, the general—three stars, working as J-5 for the Joint Chiefs—went to Bosnia as part of the negotiating team Ambassador Richard Holbrooke had put together to end the civil war that had resulted in the massacre of as many as eight thousand Muslim men and boys at the town of Srebrenica the month before. In Belgrade, Clark had met for the first time Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, who was sponsoring the Bosnian Serbs. Now the team had to travel to Sarajevo. Told that the airport in Sarajevo was too dangerous to fly into, the team decided to drive and asked Milosevic to guarantee its safety on a road held by Bosnian Serbs. Milosevic did not, and so the team wound up taking a fortified Humvee and an armored personnel carrier on a pitched, narrow, winding mountain road notoriously vulnerable to Serb machine-gun fire. Clark and Holbrooke went in the Humvee, the rest in the APC. In his book, the general describes what happened this way: "At the end of the first week we had a tragic accident on Mount Igman, near Sarajevo. [Three members of the team] were killed when the French armored personnel carrier in which they were riding broke through the shoulder of the road and tumbled several hundred meters down a steep hillside."

It is not until one reads Holbrooke's book, To End a War, that one finds out that after the APC went off the road, Clark grabbed a rope, anchored it to a tree stump, and rappelled down the mountainside after it, despite the gunfire that the explosion of the APC set off, despite the warnings that the mountainside was heavily mined, despite the rain and the mud, and despite Holbrooke yelling that he couldn't go. It is not until one brings the incident up to the general that one finds out that the burning APC had turned into a kiln, and that Clark stayed with it and aided in the extraction of the bodies; it is not until one meets Wesley Clark that one understands the degree to which he held Milosevic accountable.

Well.

[XPav]

Yeah, but Bush has a doll of himself in a flight suit!