HIP HIP HOORAY ANOTHER TOPIC....

[NJCubScouter]

The conservative talk-radio apoplexy over General Clark continues. They are really petrified at the prospect of President Bush having to face this guy in an election. As I said last week, they are continuing to do their best to try to tie him to former President Clinton. They say Clinton is behind him, but then almost in the next breath, they say Clinton is trying to get his wife to run. Come on guys, pick a story.

[OldGreyEagle]

What I like best so far with Clark running is some comments I have heard from friends, or rather acquaintance's amd echoed a bit here. After years of taunting the Democrats, or leftists even to put up a "real man" who ever that is, or a patriot or someone who loves our country, the Democrats finally have one and now he is being decried as not being military enough, or to much of a politician.

 

As I remember history, and guys, and you know who you are tell me where I am wrong, but as I understand it, Eisenhower was not as much a brillian military strategist but rather as Supreme ALlied Comander his greatest challenges was keeping Patton away from Montgomery's throat and Vice Versa and keeping the various countries and branches of the military at bay as well.

 

I am not belittling Eisenhower, I am just pointing out a military commander could have a wealth of political experience we dont know about. So rather than attack a mans record, lets see what he has in mind. What are his plans, his stance on issues. if you dont like his stand on an issue, blast it, if he in consistent from one issue to another cream him, but can we talk issues and not past personal history?

 

BTW, when past personal history is an issue (see clinton, either one) then there isnt anything left to do but talk about it, but does Clark have a Clintonesque past? If not, lets talk issues. please

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

NJ,

 

Bill Safire was on Meet the Press this weekend. He sees the Clinton/Clark thing as a very complex Machavellian scheme by the Clintons. He thinks they are in the background pulling all the strings. They want Clark to knock out all the other Dems, lose to Bush and set the stage for Hillary to run in 2008 against a non-incumbant Republican so she can keep her promise not to give up her Senate seat. The Clinton's are very intelligent, but I think the pundits are giving them too much credit to be able to pull something like this off and make it work.

 

As much as the conservative pundits like to rail against Hillary and dismiss her, I think she does make them shake in their boots at the prospect of her running against Bush. Keep in mind that the vote in 2000 was split virtually 50/50. They know that there are just as many "liberals" out there as "conservatives" and nothing is a lock.

[NJCubScouter]

Kwc, that's an interesting theory. Although I disagree with William Safire on many issues, I do have respect for him as an honest commentator, and I'm willing to assume that if he says something like that, at least he believes it, whereas if it were someone like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow or most of the other Fox News Channel folks, I would think it was just part of their "spin campaign" to help President Bush. However, I don't think think his theory is correct. Leaving aside the issue of whether the Clintons would be able to pull it off, I thinking it is doubtful that this is what they are trying to do -- not because I don't think Senator Clinton wants to be president, but because the strategy itself does not seem to make much sense. What Safire seems to be saying (and I have not seen or heard this myself) is that the Clintons are hoping that Bush wins re-election, branding all of the existing field of Democrats as "losers," and then the senator can ride in on a white horse in 2008. Where I this fails is that the existing Democratic field seemed quite capable of producing a candidate who would most likely lose to President Bush, all on its own. Why would they bring in a candidate (Clark) who would be stronger against President Bush than any of the existing candidates? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, I agree with your assessment of Eisenhower. I think the fact that he was able to parlay his military experience into the presidency had little to do with how much actual experience or "brilliance" or anything else, that he had or didn't have in any particular aspect of military command. He was a viable candidate because he was perceived as having been primarily responsible for defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. How much of that was real and how much of that was personal "style," ability to get rival commanders to work together or at least not derail the overall effort through their bickering, and all the rest, is beside the point.

 

General Clark could have single-handedly defeated the Serbian military in Kosovo and it would not invite any comparisons to Eisenhower, because Kosovo was a "small war" that never really caught the attention of most Americans. It does not qualify or disqualify himself to be president one way or the other. Not to be too cynical, but if you've got some "hook" that will get you the most votes, you're qualified (and, not to be too-too cynical, sometimes you don't even need the most votes, not to mention any names.)

 

I agree with you that people should not be attacking Clark's record (unless there is something to really attack, which does not seem to be the case.) I think one of the posts that did so, was basically parrotting the talk-show punditry that I was discussing earlier. The fact that a talk-show-colonel such as David Hackworth doesn't like Clark, cuts no ice with me. My point about Clark was that we don't really know what his capabilities are at this point, and I haven't seen them yet. Maybe that seemed like criticism, but I usually leave no doubt about whether I am criticizing someone.

 

I also think that by the time he announced, he should have been a bit more conversant with some of the major issues than he apparently was. He spent the first few days stumbling around on what his position on the war in Iraq was, which should be his biggest and clearest issue. But I am willing to give him a chance. Right now he stands an equal chance of getting my vote with four or five other people, though since the New Jersey primary is still in June and the schedule has been front-loaded this time to produce a winner by mid-March, I don't think there's going to be a race still going on by the time I get to actually vote.

[NJCubScouter]

I was just out driving for about 15 minutes in the middle of the day and took the occasion to turn on Rush Limbaugh. Sure enough, he was talking about General Clark the whole time. I suspect I could have picked any 15 minutes today, or this week, and Rush would have been talking about the same thing. Part of what he did was to make fun of the general for being named "Wesley." Very insightful political commentary.

[dsteele]

I only vote for who I believe is the best person for the job. It's only coincidence that it's always a Republican.

 

DS

[Wallace]

Anyone seen a list of current Dem. candidates and their (if any) Scouting background?

[OutdoorThinker]

In the most recent poll released by CNN-USA Today- Gallup pitting George W. Bush head to head with Wesley Clark, Clark had 49% and Bush only 46%. In the same poll, Bush tied with both Kerry and Lieberman.

 

The Gallup also reported Bush's lowest approval rating of his presidency at 50%.

 

The numbers are looking like we could see a new president in the White House.

[LovetoCamp]

Saddam won't be running for President this year, he's just running.....

[OutdoorThinker]

With risking beating an already dead hores, I am bringing back OGE thread about the presidency. Now that we are in December (shudder) we are nearing the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa Caucus. What do you think about Bush's chances? Who are you favoring in the Democratic race?

[eisely]

My money is still on Bush. Let's see now...

 

It's the Economy Stupid! Oh...things are picking up real fast.

 

Let's not support our troops and bring them home...

 

Boy that ought to be a big help in the current difficulties.

 

I find the Democratic field utterly lacking in credibility and seriousness.

[Proud Eagle]

I would like to make a quite possibly incorrect prediction.

 

Howard Dean will be nominated do to his being most in tune with the true liberals. Those are the individuals most likely to vote in a Democratic primary, it seems. Those same liberals will form a very dedicated core of supporters in the general election. Most of the other Democrats will also support Dean. However, Dean's positions will decrease his chances of gaining widespread support from the moderates, centrists, and undecided crouds. That and an improving economy and continued (though pricey) progress on the military front will favor George W. Bush. Though any number of factors could upset this. Major scandal or other disruption within the aminstration, Dean shifting to a centrist position, military setbacks, more terrorism, economic trouble, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, and many other factors could all throw off the current trends for the nomination of Dean and the election of Bush.

[OutdoorThinker]

What about Gephardt, Edwards or Kerry? If not a chance for the presidential nomination, how about the VP?

[scoutingagain]

I think over the last few elections standard strategy has been to initially appeal to those voters that will get you your party's nomination and then project a more moderate spin to appeal to the general electorate. Both Bush and Gore did this in the last election. I think you'll see Dean's message become more moderate as he becomes more confident of getting the nomination. In fact such spin is already comming out of his campaign with comments about appealing to less affluent whites and talk of how fiscally conservative he was as Governor of Vermont. His biggest liability as far as I can see in a general election is his lack of military service. Terrorism is still very much on everyone's mind and I don't think a candidate without some military credentials would get elected President. Signing the Civil Union law in Vermont is not likely to help him nationally either.

 

I think Gephardt is too tied to the traditional Democratic Party, i.e. Big Labor, Big Government to get elected.

 

Kerry...It has to be driving him nuts to be losing to Dean so much in NH. But ever since Dukakis, being a Democrat from Mass is like the kiss of death on the national stage.

 

The real question is just how vulnerable is the current President? I agree, none of the Democratic Candidates is particularly strong, but as noted earlier, in recent polls almost anybody against Bush comes up with respectable numbers. That can't be too comforting to a sitting President.

 

Time will tell, but again I agree, if the economy continues to gradually improve and the situation in Iraq seems to get better, Bush should win a second term, but that seems less certain than it did 6 months ago. In fact I fear elements in Iraq might go for a high impact terrorist event or attack just to try and influence the election. I hope I'm wrong on that one.

 

SA