SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4140)8/20/2003 12:44:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
How about Kerry as a VP for Clark ;-)

Nothing like 2 real war heroes taking on the Bush / Cheney NeoCONS. Now that would be Karl Rove's worst nightmare.



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4140)8/20/2003 12:49:18 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
The Weekly Unscientific The-Hamster.com Poll

the-hamster.com

If Clark runs for the Democratic nomination, how likely would you be to vote for Gen. Wesley Clark in the primaries?

Answers Votes Percent
1. Very likely 254 62%
2. Likely 68 17%
3. Neutral 25 6%
4. Unlikely 21 5%
5. Not Likely 24 6%
6. I'm not voting Democratic 4 1%
7. Undecided 15 4%



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4140)8/20/2003 1:24:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Excerpts from An Open Letter to General Wesley K. Clark:
Why you must run for President

santabarbaraforclark.com

(the full text is available at interrobanger.blog-city.com

[Bush] should remember that when he says "Bring 'em on!" he remains safely ensconced in well-appointed, well-defended, comfortably air-conditioned offices and limos; that he makes his proclamations from behind stately podiums on manicured lawns far from the violence he so blithely invites. Meanwhile the American and British men and women in Iraq swelter and suffer in an unforgiving desert, far from home and family among an enemy who would gladly see them dead. When the bullets and rockets are flying, they ultimately stand alone. For this they are worthy of our respect and admiration. They do what they do so we do not have to or, more likely, because we cannot. They fight, they die; they witness horrors the likes of which myself and President Bush cannot conceive in any immediate, personal way. I never joined up; he skipped out. "Bring 'em on!" is easy for people like Mr. Bush and myself. The difference is, I wouldn't dare. I acknowledge that I haven't earned the right.

You joined up, though, and you didn't skip out. You fought and you bled and you suffered. You were physically shattered by war, but never broken in any place that mattered. You not only walked again when lesser men would have contented themselves with a comfortable chair and sedentary life, you refuse to this day even to limp. You shame me, and had Mr. Bush a shred of humility you would shame him as well. Had he a shred of humility then as soon as you placed your name on the ballot he'd bow out gracefully and offer you his full support. If he is, as he desperately wants us to believe, a true patriot, and if he sincerely wants what is best for this country, he could do no less.

In his autobiography (My American Journey), Colin Powell wrote: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wrangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units." Ask Mr. Bush one day, General, where he was while you were teaching yourself to walk again. Ask Mr. Bush where he was and what he was doing while you bled into foreign soil for your country. Mr. Powell went on to write: "Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." Ask Mr. Bush what drugs for what reasons he was taking while you were pumped full of painkillers and antibiotics, while you endured endless hours of excruciating physical therapy. Ask him, General, where he was and what he was doing when you were out there fighting for his life and his freedom.

Ask him these questions and do not stop asking until he is forced to answer. Demand details and documentation. If he equivocates, as he is wont to do ("When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."), call him on the cop-out and ask again. Do this, General, and the Presidency is yours. Do this because the American people deserve a President who need not be asked such things. Failing that, the American people deserve a President who can face down tough questions without flinching and provide plain answers without blinking. The American people, when faced with imminent danger, deserve a President who can step forward proudly from a position of strength to show the world what the true face of a united America looks like; who can summon the moral authority to do what must be done.

I, like most people, am none of those things. My life and my choices would not survive such questions and scrutiny unscathed. There are few people fit and able to lead others and I accept that I am not among their number. Mr. Bush would have done this nation a great service had he been able long ago to acknowledge as much about himself rather than live as he does, apparently believing greatness rests not in who you are but in who you know and who you can fool.

You, General, are intimately acquainted with the demands and expectations of the real world. You know war and I'd wager it is no friend of yours. I cannot believe you would ever hunger for or wage war with anything like the smiling, confident, "I'm sleeping just fine, thanks" "Bring 'em on!" manner affected by Mr. Bush. I'd wager you'd never demean the contribution these men and women make for us by demanding their sacrifice based on self-serving lies, self-aggrandizing showmanship and easy, schoolboy tough-talk.

Would you, General, ever look out across troops under your command and for whom you are ultimately responsible, and invite -- dare! -- the enemy to do its worst? Would any responsible commander? His spin doctors claim he mis-spoke. He seems to do so with disheartening regularity. We could trust in the fact that you would be honor-bound to acknowledge the truth and, if need be, 'take your medicine' rather than work to spin and subvert it in order to save face. One doubts you rose to the rank of general or earned your battle scars and decorations by shirking responsibility or shunning accountability.

Our troops (and their British counterparts) are powerful, brave, and honorable. They deserve a commander who can truly appreciate what they represent. The contributions they make shame those of us sitting safely in front of our televisions at home. For us the war is dismissed with the wave of a remote control. For them it is constant and inescapable. They are few among a distrusting and hostile many. They are rapidly tiring and replacements are hard to come by. Mr. Bush would do well to remember that as he thumbs his nose at the world. Where are our allies? Why aren't they at our side this time out?

Had it been you who led us into this war, General, I believe our allies would stand with us this time, too. Had the case for removing Saddam been competently and honestly presented to the world, had the war plans consisted of more than empty promises and pipe dreams of smiling Iraqis and warm receptions, our troops and the people of Iraq would not be suffering as they are now.

Yet, in the present reality, Mr. Bush seems unaware anything is amiss. The man gives every appearance of laboring under the assumption that America, its interests, and the President himself are inviolable. He professes a great faith in the teachings of the Bible but seems not to remember what famous Proverbial transgression 'goeth before the fall.'

Do something to stop this insanity, sir. Bring our country back to us before it is turned into something we no longer recognize.

When a monster such as Saddam Hussein can release a tape from some dank hidey-hole naming as liars the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and I find myself forced to agree in however small a measure, something is wrong. When an action as just as removing Saddam from power is called into question and sullied before the world because our leaders felt the need to lie to us to get it done, something is wrong.

When a man speaks to the press not because he seeks the limelight -- quite the opposite! -- but because his conscience demands it of him, and he is villified for shining a light on the truth, something is wrong. When a reporter interviews our troops and shows us the sad, un-vetted truth of a group of young men pushed too hard for too long in intolerable conditions, only to have the White House itself make a pitifully transparent attempt to smear that reporter (not just gay, but Canadian, too!), something is wrong. When a dark-haired, bearded young college student is seen reading an article (the aptly titled "Weapons Of Mass Stupidity," largely a criticism of Fox News) and subsequently finds himself chatting with two "well-meaning" FBI agents about his choice of reading material, something is wrong. When my fingers hesitate on the keyboard owing to a legitimate fear that my words might invite a knock at the door from those same "well-meaning" visitors, something is wrong.

But the damage is not irreparable.

You have spent your life working to better this country. Take the next logical step. You owe it to the country you have sworn to serve and to yourself, so that all you have spent your life fighting for will have meant something. Rally the American people, General. Wake the sleeping giant to the necessity of its own defense before it is too late. Do not give Bush and his cabal another four disastrous years to have their way with this country.

Before I close, I'd just like to mention that before 9/11 I had not a political bone in my body. I'm not an activist, I'm just a regular guy: no fancy job, no formal education; no money, no power, no influence; no significance beyond these few words and whatever power they may have to sway your decision in a positive direction. As best I can recall, this is only the second letter I've ever written to a politician (though you technically aren't one -- yet).

Like many Americans, I always took the workings of the government for granted. I guess subconsciously I felt such things were beyond my ken. I was failing my country, though I did not know it. As Abbie Hoffman said, "Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles." What did it take to wake me up? I'll let President Lincoln answer for me: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." The words, spoken long ago and heard in the context of the present, ring with prescience. America deserves a President capable of handling both adversity and the awesome power and influence of the office with dignity and integrity.

Of all those with an eye toward the Democratic nomination you are the one who can make it happen. You are presented now with an opportunity to once again do a great service for your country. Please, General, do not let it pass you -- all of us -- by. Remember as you read these words that I write to you today not because writing things like this is just something I do, but because I care.



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4140)8/20/2003 2:04:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
A great new Esquire article on Wesley Clark

santabarbaraforclark.com



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4140)8/21/2003 2:55:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
How The Democrats Lost Their Warrior Image
_______________________

BY MILES BENSON
NATIONAL POLITICS: ANALYSIS
c.2003 Newhouse News Service
newhousenews.com

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Party has a problem in the post-Sept. 11 world, one that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., describes succinctly: Too many voters see it as a "conscientious objector in the battle to defend America."

Indeed, national security trumps everything else in the 2004 presidential race, and Republicans own the issue. Poll after poll shows voters far more confident in the GOP.

Democratic leaders say they outscore Republicans on other important matters -- the economy, education, health care and Social Security. But they recognize that they won't be heard on these issues or anything else if they can't pass the threshold test of defending the nation.

How did the Democrats -- who led America through World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam -- lose their warrior image and acquire such a wimpy reputation?

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, eyeing the Democratic presidential nomination himself, offers reasons starting with Vietnam.

"The country slid into war without facing lots of implications at home and abroad," said the much-decorated Clark, who blames Democrat Lyndon Johnson for bungling the conflict.

Even more significant, Clark said, were broader patterns in American politics as the Democrats captured and embraced "the energy of a wave of social change, and paid a price for the reaction against those changes." He lists "the sexual revolution, civil rights, individual empowerment, greater tolerance -- all of which were accompanied by a certain degree of economic change and posed a threat to much of middle-class America, or was perceived as a threat to middle-class American values."

In a time of "raging patriotism," Clark said, Republican strategists have skillfully exploited these insecurities.

Political scientists agree: The turning point for the Democratic Party was Vietnam.

The conflict gave Democrats the stigma of "war losers," said professor Theodore Lowi of Cornell University. Ever since, they have been battered by a superior Republican message machine that successfully demonizes liberals as "weak," Lowi said.

Michael Mandelbaum, director of American foreign policy studies at Johns Hopkins University, said Vietnam "changed the attitude of the Democratic Party's base toward the use of force."

Contributing to the image problem, Mandelbaum said, is the party's inclination to give priority to the domestic agenda and social programs, "which conflict in some sense with military programs." This was compounded by the departure from Congress over the years of influential pro-defense Democrats like Sens. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington, John Stennis of Mississippi and Sam Nunn of Georgia.

American University's James Thurber identified yet another factor: the leading role of the late Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, in exposing the excesses of U.S. intelligence agencies in the mid-1970s -- an effort perceived as an attack by the party on the defense and intelligence communities.

But none of that really explains today's lopsided voter preference for Republicans on the national security issue, said former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., an ex-Navy Seal who won the Medal of Honor in Vietnam and ran for president in 1992. Kerrey retired from politics to become president of the New School University in New York.

He attributes the GOP's edge to that party's aggressive comparisons of George W. Bush with Bill Clinton. "Republicans are making the argument very effectively: `We've got the greatest commander in chief and the previous one was horrible.' And they are putting out that message over and over," Kerrey said.

In order to blame the problem on history, "one has to presume Americans begin the evaluation with an active memory of things that happened 20 years ago, and I don't think they do," Kerrey said. "They evaluate current performance and listen to current arguments, and those favor Republicans."

To Clark, an American short-term memory problem may explain why Democrats get zero credit for helping to create the military capability that Bush deployed so "magnificently" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The equipment and uniformed leaders originated under Clinton, Clark said: "The Bush administration had nothing to do with it. Gen. Tommy Franks (who commanded the invasion of Iraq) was a Clinton appointee, as was most of the senior command. It was the Democrats who were pro-security and pro-defense in the 1990s, and the Republicans who were isolationist."

Complicating the perception problem for Democrats is Howard Dean, now a leading contender for the nomination, who is fiercely anti-war and is re-energizing the peace wing of the party. Republicans are jubilant over Dean's emergence.

"I knew that sooner or later President Bush would extend the war on terrorism to a point which would cause the majority of Democrats to blink," said Republican pollster William McInturff. "The modern Democratic Party is built on a foundation of opposition to the use of military force."

On national security, said profesor John Baker at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, "Democrats themselves have a crisis of belief and it's apparent to voters."

Indeed, the problem has rival Democrats sniping at each other.

The campaign of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., sees it as an opening to criticize not just Dean, but Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Dean's and Kerry's speeches seem "weak on defense and national security, reinforcing this false impression of the Democratic Party" said Jano Cabrera, a Lieberman spokesman. The Dean campaign declined to respond, but Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs fired back, "I think it is well beneath Joe Lieberman to question the national security credentials of the only decorated combat veteran in this field running for the presidency."

It's an awkward situation for Democrats.

"Critique of foreign policy is a legitimate and absolutely essential exercise in democracy," Clark said. "The trick is to not criticize the military. They are only doing their duty. That's a vital distinction."

McInturff, the Republican pollster, only laughs. "The public doesn't follow nuance," he said.

Bayh's prescription?

"We need to embrace national security as an important part of the Democratic message once again and, in doing so, rediscover our own roots," said the Indianan, who heads the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "There was a time when the defense of freedom and liberty was synonymous with being a member of the Democratic Party."

(Miles Benson can be contacted at miles.benson@newhouse.com)



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4140)8/22/2003 1:30:26 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
truthout.org