Karl Rove's Nightmare

[Bullypulpit]

By Richard Cohen

Thursday, January 15, 2004; Page A21

DALLAS --<i> Karl Rove had a bad moment here the other night. It came as Wesley Clark was speaking to a packed hotel ballroom, when the retired general derided the president of the United States for what was supposed to be his supreme, cinematic moment: landing on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. "I don't think it's patriotic to dress up in a flight suit and prance around," Clark bellowed. The men had been separated from the boys.</i>

When it comes to military and patriotic credentials, Wes Clark makes Bush look like the sniveling little mediocrity he actually is.

Clark: Wounded and decorated during his service in Vietnam.
Bush: A sinecure in the Texas Air Focre during the Vietnam war, AWOL during the last two years of his term.

Clark: Head of NATO
Bush: Head of one failed corporate venture after aniother.

Clark: Commander of NATO forces in Bosnia
Bush: Governor of Texas, playing Steppin Fetchit for his political backers.

Who would you rather have as Commander in Chief?

For the full text, goto:

<center>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18406-2004Jan14?language=printer</center>

 

[jimnyc]

Clark: Wounded and decorated during his service in Vietnam.
Bush: A sinecure in the Texas Air Focre during the Vietnam war, AWOL during the last two years of his term.

I'll grant you the fact that Clark was a much better asset to the military, but so was General Schwarzkopf, should he be our next President?

Clark: Head of NATO
Bush: Head of one failed corporate venture after aniother.

And currently running the United States of America. His success in business ventures clearly outweigh the failures.

Clark: Commander of NATO forces in Bosnia
Bush: Governor of Texas, playing Steppin Fetchit for his political backers.

Nice spin! His political career encompasses a bit more than that though. He's also currently Commander in Chief of the worlds most powerful military.

Who would you rather have as Commander in Chief?

Without question, George Bush.

 

[eric]

Wes Clark

Oh, you are talking about Clinton's private little bitch who can't make up his mind whether he was for or again the war in Iraq. Give me a break, this guy needs to tell his grandkids war stories, not run a country. He may have military skills, but he lacks in the political arena !

 

[5stringJeff]

One other thing about Clark: I have yet to hear anyone in uniform (or retired from the military) say anything positive about Clark's candidacy. In fact, GEN Shelton, former Chairman of the JCS, questioned Clark's integrity - something that would be a huge insult to any other West Point graduate. But Clark seems to have sold his soul to Bill and Hillary Clinton (and Terry McAuliffe), and doesn't seem to care about Army values like integrity any more.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Clark wears frilly dresses in private.

 

[Bullypulpit]

...I supportd Clark, and I don't. He's simply a better choice than Howdy-Doody.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'll grant you the fact that Clark was a much better asset to the military, but so was General Schwarzkopf, should he be our next President?

Don't see why not. At least he knows that Sun Tzu wasn't the sound of someone sneezing.

 

[ANYONE-BUT-BUSH]

bush is a corperate WHORE

 

[nbdysfu]

Nope.

This is Karl Rove's Nightmare

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
Nope.

This is Karl Rove's Nightmare

ROFLMAO

 

[RightyRightOn]

Clark was fired as the NATO commander.

He is all over the map in regards to Iraq. He supported it, now he doesn't.

In the unlikely event he is nominated, he will be torn apart with his contradictions.

 

[Annie]

He is all over the map in regards to Iraq. He supported it, now he doesn't.

by RightyRightOn

The above quote is the understatement of the century. Neither the right nor the left can figure Clark out. Makes sense to me that Clinton would back him, he out slicks the slickest:


http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013581.php

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Kathianne
by RightyRightOn

The above quote is the understatement of the century. Neither the right nor the left can figure Clark out. Makes sense to me that Clinton would back him, he out slicks the slickest:


http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013581.php

It is sometimes difficult to understand Clark's position, but it has been very solid if you understand the man. As a decorated combat vet from Vietnam, Clark understands the madness and suffering of war. There he learned to only use violent force when absolutely required. I can link dozens of passages from Clark before the war where he advises against using force unless every other possibility has been exhausted. How he warned that anthing perceived as "preemptive" was a bad idea.

Now, what I think confuses people is Clark's keen understanding of support for our troops after the decision was made to go to war (which he has said was precipitous). Clark would never speak a word to lower the morale of troops that are fighting. Clark has praised the men and the professional way they carried out their mission. He never has said that Bush did the right thing by going in.

Kind of confusing I know, but very consistent with the man's code of honor and character. That's the way I have perceived it anyway.

-Bam

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by bamthin
It is sometimes difficult to understand Clark's position, but it has been very solid if you understand the man. As a decorated combat vet from Vietnam, Clark understands the madness and suffering of war. There he learned to only use violent force when absolutely required. I can link dozens of passages from Clark before the war where he advises against using force unless every other possibility has been exhausted. How he warned that anthing perceived as "preemptive" was a bad idea.

Now, what I think confuses people is Clark's keen understanding of support for our troops after the decision was made to go to war (which he has said was precipitous). Clark would never speak a word to lower the morale of troops that are fighting. Clark has praised the men and the professional way they carried out their mission. He never has said that Bush did the right thing by going in.

Kind of confusing I know, but very consistent with the man's code of honor and character. That's the way I have perceived it anyway.

-Bam

He said the right thing to do was invade Iraq, even without U.N. support if need be. That's what he said, to Congress.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Clark understands the madness and suffering of war. There he learned to only use violent force when absolutely required.

Uhhh... Clark's version of "only use violent force when absolutely required" was also the cause of hundreds of civilian deaths under his command.

 

[Annie]

Clark is out for Clark, appears he always has been and always will be.

 

[Annie]

Speaking of Clark:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn18.html


Dems don't want this general in command

January 18, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Where are we going to find the un-Dean? That was the cry of Democratic power brokers as Howard Dean rose unstoppably through last year, and the wise old birds fretted that he was unelectable. Judging from the polls, New Hampshire Democrats seem to have found their un-Dean. It's Wesley Clark.

So now the Dem big shots can all start looking for the un-Clark.

If they aren't already, they ought to be. Dean might be bad for the health of the party, but that's no reason to go from bad to Wes. If the rap against Dean is that he's gaffe-prone, shoots from the hip, says loopy stuff, that goes tenfold for Clark. Let me say, by the way, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that I don't believe Howard Dean is nuts. From my perch in New Hampshire, I watched him across the river governing Vermont for a decade, and although he was certainly mean and arrogant, the chief characteristic of his political persona was its blandness. But this is no time for a Democratic candidate who feels your pain. Democratic activists want someone who feels their anger, and Mad How the mad cow was pretty much invented by the somnolent Governor Dean to fit that bill.

So I'd say Howard Dean is a sane man pretending to be crazy. Whereas General Clark gives every indication of a crazy man pretending to be sane.

Now I'm not talking about things like this screwy response to a question from MSNBC's Chris Matthews. The general had indicated he wished Osama bin Laden to be tried at the Hague and sentenced to life in prison. "But," asked Matthews, "doesn't life in Holland beat life in a cave?"

"Not in a Dutch prison, Chris," said Clark. "They're under water, they're damp, they're cold. They're really miserable."

Dutch prisons are under water? Good thing Clark's not as dumb as Bush or Quayle, eh?

Nor am I talking about his flip-flops on Iraq. That's just an extreme version of standard-issue political opportunism: If you're a CNN military analyst who gets schmoozed into running as the standard bearer of the anti-war movement, there's bound to be a few not entirely convincing lurches in continuity.

Nor do I mean his creepy statements on abortion, in which he's taking "pro-choice" to levels undreamt of even in NARAL's wildest dreams. Clark's position is no restrictions on nuthin'. Third trimester? Partial-birth abortion? Bring it on, baby. "Life begins with the mother's decision," says Clark. You got a 9-month-old healthy fetus, you're in tip-top shape, you've started contractions and the little feller's about to emerge, and you suddenly change your mind and decide you want a last-minute partial-birth abortion. Hey, life begins with the mother's decision and if you say, ''Let there not be life,'' then there won't be. That's not crazy so much as a sign of the general's general laziness on this and most other domestic issues. He simply appears to have given no thought to the question.

But what shifts him from unprincipled and thoughtless to the out-of-his-tree category is stuff like this:

''If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time.''

And:

''I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents. I think the two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years are: You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen.''

Normal presidential candidates just don't say things like this. By ''normal,'' I mean candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Let's not set the bar too high. Granted, George W. Bush was not the most articulate candidate in the world. But what matters is what a candidate reveals when he stumbles. Take this allegedly disastrous ''Bushism'':

''I know how hard it is to put food on your family.''

The anti-Bush types who buy all those lame-o filler books of the ''Bush Dyslexicon'' love that one. I'm amazed how often I get it quoted back at me as evidence of what a moron Bush is. Well, I guess there's two possibilities:

a. He meant to say ''food on your table.''

b. He was referring to an amusing game he and Jeb like to play at Kennebunkport cookouts when Dad and Mom aren't looking.

Either way, what's the difference? Bush's goofs never hurt him because they don't contradict his public persona; indeed, they reinforce it. What do Clark's goofs reveal? For example, the bizarre claim he made after 9/11 that ''people around the White House'' had called him on the day to tell him to go on TV and connect the attack to Saddam Hussein. As the weeks went by, he modified the story, until it emerged that it wasn't ''people,'' just one fellow; and he didn't call on 9/11, but afterward, and he wasn't from the White House at all but from some think tank in Montreal, which from the look of the map isn't even in the District of Columbia. And the fellow from Montreal said true -- he had called General Clark -- but they hadn't talked about Saddam at all.

Clark was sold to the Democratic Party as a military man of peaceful manner: Generals are from Mars, but this one's from Venus. But there's a common theme to every glimpse of the real Clark, whether it's his own private fantasies about the White House calling him on 9/11 or memories of those who served with him, like the British general who refused an order by Clark to launch an insane attack on Russian forces in Kosovo: At best, he's a thin-skinned, vain, insecure man with a need to insert himself at the center of every story; at worst, he's a paranoid megalomaniac narcissist.

The defense is that he got in the game late and he's not a blow-dried pol with all the life focus-grouped out of him. Very true. He's so new a New Democrat he barely knew any Democrats. But I'm with the Clinton administration on this one: If he didn't have the temperament to be NATO commander in the dozy '90s, he certainly doesn't have the temperament to be president at a time of war. ''I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents.'' He is the incident, waiting to happen. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[Annie]

I had seen these figures awhile ago, but couldn't find a source. Glad USN&WR has them:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040126/opinion/26glo.htm

Nation & World 1/26/04
By Gloria Borger
While Democrats fiddle. . .

It's the latest political cliche: this is a divided country. Or this is a polarized country. Or this, if you prefer, is a nation that has been split since the 2000 election between the heartland "red states" that supported George W. Bush and the Northeast and western "blues" (map, below) that went for Al Gore. Ipso facto, 2004 is going to be a really close election.

But wait. While the political cognoscenti have been frantically trying to handicap the Democrats--first in Iowa, and now busily recalibrating their prognostications for the New Hampshire primary--something quantifiable has actually been happening among voters. They're divided all right, but while Democrats have been openly attacking one another, Republicans have been making steady subterranean progress on Democratic turf--in statehouses, on the issues, among swing voters--all while solidifying their party. Combine that with the GOP's dominance in Congress and the national split starts teetering--toward Republicans. "Yes, the country is evenly divided," presidential pollster Matthew Dowd told me. "But there's a possession arrow in our direction."

How so? An extensive Gallup survey shows that 45.2 percent of voters lean toward the Democrats and 45.5 percent lean toward the Republicans. But the numbers don't tell the whole story. First, there's the extraordinary unity among Republicans when it comes to George W. Bush: They don't just like him; they love him. By some accounts, more than 90 percent of Republicans approve of the way President Bush is doing his job. When Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996, his approval rating among Democrats was 79 percent.

Yet the GOP advantage is more subtle. It's about cultivating the undecided. Republicans, by and large, agree with Bush on Iraq, fighting terrorism, and tax cuts. But recent GOP efforts to woo seniors with a prescription drug plan and Latinos with an immigration plan are truly base broadening. The Democrats, meanwhile, are deeply divided. According to a CBS News survey, a majority opposed the Iraq war, but 43 percent supported it. They're also split about the civil liberties issues involved in fighting the war against terror. With the Democratic presidential hopefuls spending so much time fighting over whether to repeal all or some of President Bush's tax cuts, is it any wonder their voters are divided on that, too?

Substantial inroads. All of which leads to the question: Are Republicans poaching on the Democratic base? Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman notes that the GOP has registered 500,000 more Republicans since the last election. Bush pollster Dowd argues that Republicans have made substantial inroads with Latinos and with white union voters who were once Democrats. Even Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg--who has a new book out called The Two Americas--admits that Democrats have lost their southern stronghold. But the fight isn't over. Who wins in a country evenly divided between married and unmarried voters (who vote differently)? Who wins in a country where a quarter of the voting population is minority? It's a new world out there, with one slight GOP advantage: While the Republicans are challenging the Democrats for their base, the Democrats have had no such success with Republicans. Married white men, evangelicals, and the wealthy are still happily Republican. "We are competing for their base," says Dowd, "but they're not competing for ours."

So it's no surprise that the Republicans are making some headway in Al Gore's blue states. When Newt Gingrich took over the House in 1994, he bragged about an imminent national Republican realignment. Didn't happen. Now Republicans are whispering about what a key strategist calls a "rolling alignment." The evidence: In 1992, 59 percent of state legislators were Democrats. Today, it's 49 percent. "The red states are getting redder," Mehlman is fond of saying, "and the blue states are turning purple." And what about Congress? No one is predicting a Democratic takeover anytime soon. "The Democrats' best hope is for divided government," Dowd says. "We'd like a unified one."

They're working on it.