Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (458952)	9/15/2003 2:02:59 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 769667

Following my scenario of the rise of the protector president here is a little bit from CNN. cnn.com Last night I saw Clark on Bill Maher’s “Real Time”. He got the best response I have seen of any guest. The panel both liberal and conservative respect Clark. The introduction was one of the Head of NATO during the war on Kosovo. There is no one making negative comments on the execution and outcome on Kosovo. The resonance of the introduction is important, it goes to mood. Maher had a doll of Bush in a flight suit. Clark responded that many brave men have worn that suit and given their lives for their country walking the narrow line of criticizing the President without ridicule of his actions or the office. As I have written in the past of Clinton’s polices they look better and better as time goes on. Clinton had an overview allowing him to act in a fashion consistent with the future. It is the deeper understanding of the dynamics of a situation that allows actions to be tempered for the better outcomes. Clark benefits from all of the good of the Clinton Administration – a balanced budget, the successful execution of the war in Kosovo and the cooperation with the rest of the world’s governments – without the taint of a blue dress. (Remember we got Milosevic and he is on trial not running around the countryside taking shots at US soldiers.) Where is Hussein and bin Laden? Bush may get them before the election and get a boost, but the damage is already done. Dean asking Clark to join him is humorous and much like the tail wagging the dog. As Dean gets public exposure he makes more and more of a fool of himself. The weakness of the Democratic field plays into the hands of a strong late comer. Dean may be tough to beat in New Hampshire. When it comes to California the story is a bit different. What are the characteristics that support Clark? History is more a result of the times than the man. Clark – a strong military influence – would have failed miserably in Jimmy Carter’s time. Conditions following Nixon and Vietnam dictated a peace candidate without connection to the existing power base. Carter a dark horse with integrity was the perfect choice for the time. Back in August 1998 when I wrote my position paper on Presidents it did not appear that a General would have an appeal. The world was at peace and all seemed secure. If anything the US was enjoying the height of security, military superiority and prosperity. Even as late as the fall 2000 debate between Gore and Bush when Bush was attempting to beat up the Democrats for having a weak military the issue did not fly. Gore proudly said we had the best military in history and everyone agreed deflating the issue. kondratyev.com Reaction from the WTC attack creates insecurity, an insecurity that has yet to be put aside. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq or the new Homeland Security do little to make us safe from yet another attack. Our military is spread thin around the world taking some of our most productive and patriotic people with it. GW obviously never read the “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”.. If anything, wars make a populous more insecure, even when winning. The cost of war is an economic hit to society. This may not be the case in the aftermath rebuilding under the Marshall Plan or when booty is retrieved as the Spanish did in conquering the New World. However, so far the rebuilding is defensive and there is no oil flowing our way. Had the follow up in Iraq been a smashing success with cheap oil flowing to the gas pump and the Iraqi citizens showering our soldiers with flowers at their feet, Bush would have gained from his actions. Our allies would have been patting us on the back and attempting to credit for our success. Foreign relations have been disrupted and damaged by Bush pushing into Iraq without full cooperation of our allies. It is one thing to snub our old enemy Russia, but we should not alienate our friends. The EU has grown to a major economic force, one we cannot easily ignore. Europeans have long memories and take personally social slights. It will take a new man in office to mend these wounds. To now go back and ask just the people he snubbed for help weakens US foreign policy and puts our military at risk. A lot of military presence is perception. Never show the enemy you are weak. Weakness is perceived as opportunity. The value an Ike or Teddy Roosevelt had over their predecessors was the fact they were who they were. Both had reputations preceding their actions. When Ike said he would do something our enemies took note. When Teddy sailed our fleet around the world it settled who was who in the world. The position of strength aided the US economy by providing a stable foundation from which to grow. GW is at the disadvantage of being the one attacked and immediately has to fall back to a defensive posture. He did not act dramatically in making a statement to the world. Even the liberal on Bill Maher’s show said if there were a time a president could have used Motherfucker that was the time. Bush called our attackers folks. Without the heat of battle tempering a leader it becomes difficult to have this level of credibility and force. Today in the backlash we are paying the price. Dean has very little hope to win against Bush. It will just be a liberal against a conservative. Dean does not bring as much experience as Bush did when Bush was Governor of Texas. Vermont is a very small state mostly made up of farmers and outcast hippies. It is too early in the cycle for a shift to the liberal ala Kennedy. Gephardt has the taint of being with the old Democratic insiders. He will make a great attack dog and could be a good compromise choice for VP. The rest are out in left field. To win the Democrats have to hit on an area where Bush is vulnerable. To counter Clark, Bush will have to change VPs in mid stream and bring in a General as a running mate. Will his ego allow him to do this? If the flight suit is any indication I would guess not. Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not standing beside GW or landing on the same deck. GW could take Powell making him look like a progressive by choosing a Black running mate blaming the move on Cheney’s bad health. However, as logical a choice as Powell would be, Powell is tainted by the failure in Iraq and the debate would then shift totally to support Clark’s strengths. Here again Bush would be admitting failure – following along the lines of a repentant sinner. (sorry I could not resist) Besides many Republicans would stay home before voting for Powell. Economics and events drives politics. The key events facing the US today are: 1. A perceived economic recession with increased deficits caused by the cost of war 2. Danger from Terrorism that has not diminished with control of Iraq. 3. Nuclear bombs created by North Korea 4. Trade 5. Foreign Relations with Europe. These are quite different from just three years ago. A single big military failure or another unexpected attack on US soil and the public is going to be looking to hang GW from the nearest yardarm. There is a harmonic here with the Long Wave and the slaughter British Troops in Afghanistan. The British public will have very little tolerance for a single high causality count or even on going attrition. In that environment if the public cannot find a General – they will make one. Looking at the predictable change in events from 1998 should make any doubter of the validity and timing of the Long Wave a believer. Nothing could be more textbook like than what we have seen over the past five to seven years. Clark also has an advantage coming from the Democratic side. The Boxer liberals who will never vote for war can tolerate a Clark as a Democrat because he is a liberal on social issues. He will not invade people’s bedrooms or start a Islamic purge as part of Homeland Security. The same support would not be given to Clark if he were running on a Republican ticket. The conservatives from the right who would never vote for a Democrat will tolerate a Clark because of what he has done. Many of the same conservatives are unhappy with GW already, but are trapped ideologically from shifting their votes to the Democrats – Clark makes the shift tolerable. The middle of the road will be swayed by the either the desire for stability or the desire for safety. The next election unlike the last will not be a close one. The winner will have a landslide in his favor just as Ike did. Eric Von Baranov - CEO The Kondratyev Theory Letters