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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (26493)8/26/2003 6:00:02 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Wesley Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare

dailygusto.com

<<...Let's start with domestic issues. On health care and education, Clark waxes rhapsodic that in the U.S. military, "everyone [gets] healthcare, and the army care[s] about the education of everyone's family members." Does this mean Clark would support some form of national health care and expanded educational opportunities for all? Sure sounds like it.

On two hot-button social issues, Clark's views are eclectic, and that's not necessarily a bad thing politically. On abortion, Clark is pro-choice, although he hasn't spoken much on this issue (strategically the less said, the better?). And on guns, Clark believes -- like Howard Dean, incidentally -- that gun ownership is mainly a local issue. In fact, Clark is a hunter, which may endear him to many in rural America.

On economic policy, Clark is a strong opponent of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they "weren't fair." More broadly, Clark appears philosophically to be strongly in tune with the "Teddy Roosevelt Progressive" tradition, championing the principle that "the more [money] you make, the more you give" in both absolute and relative terms. But before anyone concludes that Wesley Clark is a "tax and spend liberal," it is important to note that Clark is a fiscal moderate who questions whether running long-term deficits is "wise, long-run policy."

On the environment, Clark has opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and has even articulated the visionary concept that "100 years out, the only things we leave behind that will matter are the environment and constitutional legitimacy." Imagine George W. Bush saying something like that? How about any U.S. president? Well, Teddy Roosevelt, whose face happens to be on Mount Rushmore, not only made statements like that, he acted on them.

In stark contrast to George W. Bush on foreign policy, Clark is a firm believer in the importance of cooperating with allies, having actually done so as Commander of NATO forces in Europe. Not surprisingly, then, Clark has criticized the Bush administration strongly for its bullheaded unilateralism and utter ineptitude in working with U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere. In September 2002, for instance, Clark wrote in "Washington Monthly" that Bush's failure to work with our allies, NATO in particular, means that "we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back."

On homeland security, Clark is certainly a patriot who believes in protecting our country, having taken a few bullets himself, but he also, unlike Bush, is wise enough to treasure the values upon which this country was founded. Clark is skeptical and suspicious, therefore, of shortsighted, Orwellian measures enacted in the name of national security, like the Patriot Act. Specifically Clark worries that we're "giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law."

So, there you have it: Wesley Clark is a political moderate, a war hero, a smart-as-hell, telegenic, electable Southerner with "General" for a first name and a vision for America. Another way of looking at Clark is that he's potentially Bill Clinton in all the good ways (smart, centrist, and charismatic), but without Clinton's problems (wine, women, and bad sax playing). And the four stars on each of Clark's shoulders stand in stark contrast to George W. Bush, who went AWOL from his National Guard duty. Can we start the Presidential debates right now?

One problem, though: although Clark has hinted broadly at his interest in running, he has not yet declared formally that he is running for President. How to rectify this situation? Enter the large, energetic, and vocal "Draft Clark" movement that has sprung up across the country in just the past few months. As John Hlinko, founder of DraftWesleyClark.com and one of the top leaders in the nationwide effort to "draft the General," puts it, "[General Clark] is the kind of guy who we were promised, as kids, could be a president. And now, with our nudging, he might be."

Overstatement? Maybe, but without even having entered the race, Clark has attracted a loyal group of supporters. At the July 7 Draft Clark "Meetup" held in Washington DC, just one of the many cities hosting these meetings, dozens of Clark supporters expressed their strong desire to replace George W. Bush, while describing Clark as "intellectually gifted," with a "plan and a vision," who "knows how to work with -- not alienate -- our allies," while "not preying on people's fears." They also believe he "can cut through the whole 'Red America/Blue America' divide," and -- last but not least -- beat Bush.

If Clark does decide to run, we can just imagine the thoughts that might go through White House political guru Karl Rove's brain as he tries to sleep, tossing and turning: "No, not a 2004 match-up of a war hero, four-star General from the South against my guy -- AWOL "pilot" George Dubya! My God, I can see Clark pounding Bush relentlessly in the final presidential debate on what were supposed to be George's strong points-foreign policy and homeland security! Uh oh, now we're onto economic issues, and Bush is floundering, sinking fast. And now it's election night, and Clark is winning all the "blue" states that Al Gore won in 2000, plus some "red" states too-including his home state of Arkansas. And, horror of horrors, Fox News just called Florida, and the election, for Clark by a landslide, with no chads or recounts this time. As Rove wakes up in a cold sweat, and as we leave his brain forever, we hear him muttering, "What a nightmare! what was that about?"

Well, Karl, it's about the threat General Wesley Clark poses to your candidate's reelection chances. It's also about the potential for a veritable epidemic of cold-sweat syndrome breaking out amongst Republican politicians and political consultants all over America. To put it bluntly, Clark could kick George W. Bush's butt in 2004. Regarding a Bush-Clark matchup in 2004, and paraphrasing the immortal words of that "straight shootin' Texan," George W. Bush himself: "Bring It On!"...>>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: Sully- who wrote (26493)8/26/2003 6:07:03 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
You and Mr. Goldberg may want to review this new article carefully...pay close attention to the last few paragraphs...

Message 19246054

<<...But the campaign undertaken by Hannity, Sullivan, Horowitz, and other conservatives to arraign Clinton for September 11 has a more sinister, explicitly political aim. Their rhetoric is redolent of the old stab-in-the-back theories once used to discredit FDR and JFK. And of course they are attempting to deflect blame from Bush (whose vow to get bin Laden, "dead or alive," has been consigned to the same White House memory hole as the balanced budget).

Does George W. Bush deserve responsibility for the failures that led to September 11? The independent commission that the President so reluctantly approved in late 2002 is likely to provide complex and nuanced answers to that question. Perhaps the commission will explain why members of the bin Laden family were spirited out of the United States on orders from the White House before they could be questioned by the FBI. Perhaps the commission will explore why FBI terror expert John O'Neill, who died in the World Trade Center conflagration, believed that the Bush administration was soft on Saudi cooperation with al-Qaida.

What is clear already from the public record is that the Bush administration received ample warning from Clinton's national security officials -- and from CIA Director George Tenet, a Clinton holdover -- that al-Qaida posed the most significant, immediate threat to American security.

Departing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the National Security Council's counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, who was held over by Bush, gave Condoleezza Rice a series of urgent briefings on terrorism during the presidential transition in January 2001. "You're going to spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and al-Qaida specifically than any issue," Berger told his successor. Clarke delivered similar emphatic briefings to Vice President Cheney and to Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy. But the supposedly competent national security managers in the new administration, including Rice, Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were too preoccupied with other matters (such as national missile defense) to pay heed to the most serious threat since the end of the Cold War.

The failure of Bush's national security team to recognize the threat of al-Qaida, even after they were clearly warned, will rank among the most serious mistakes ever made by U.S. government officials. They had billed themselves as "the grown-ups," condescending to the Democrats they replaced and asserting that their experience would return steady guidance to American policy. Instead, these veterans of previous Republican administrations fumbled and fooled around with ancillary issues while an elusive new enemy prepared to strike. They weren't prepared. They had no plan. They hadn't seen what was coming. They had ignored the warnings. Their judgment was as deluded as their self-image...>>