Posted on 01/18/2004 7:39:35 AM PST by quidnunc
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.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Wesley K. Clark is at it again, sounding like the goofball we hope he isn’t. We have a theory that the general’s recent surge in New Hampshire is directly related to his not saying anything silly or conspiratorial or head-scratching. For several days now. Absent the cloak-and-dagger stuff about all those secret plans he heard about at the Pentagon, Wes Clark comes off looking a lot like a guy we used to know. Name of Wes Clark. He may still sound confused about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, but he doesn’t come across as just another bloviating talk-show host.
But then the candidate-general was asked how he would pay for some federal programs he favors, and he played economist. Uh oh. Here’s what he said: "The problem with America is that there is plenty of money out there. It’s just not in the right places." Like where, the people’s pockets? Or in Washington’s coffers?
"What we’ve got to do in this country," the general continued, "is ask those people who have more money to be patriotic and give some of it back to help everybody else."
Back? Like it belonged to the government in the first place, and all the rest of us did was borrow it, instead of earn it?
Tell us the general was talking about giving to nonprofits and favorite charities — not the U.S. Treasury. Or tell us he was just taking a poorly worded swipe at the president’s tax cuts. Because we’re starting to wonder if this guy went to the Marxist School of Governmental Economics — and, if so, which one, Karl or Groucho?
(The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial, January 18, 2004)
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Editorial.php?storyid=53482
As for Clark, should he somehow get the nomination, there will be hundreds of current and former military coming out full force against him. He is a nutcase.
There is a reason that no one is saying anything about Clark until we know whether or not he gets the nod; There is so much dirt on Clark, that once it is out, he is a dead duck. No need to do it now, we can wait until he is the candidate. No need to destroy the guy if he loses to Dean in the primaries.
Besides that, the Clintons will probably release the dirt on Clark before the Republicans get a chance to do it themselves. That would open things up for Hillary if Bush looks beatable in November. Trust me, Wes Clark aint gonna be President.
For a moment, anyway. "It's funny," the reporter says eventually, under her breath. "I can't believe [Clark's] doing so well all of a sudden."
"Why is that?" I ask.
"Because he's so damn crazy."
Matt Drudge dug up some very embarassing Weasel Clark testimony (the full transcript is even more embarassing): Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.
"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.
"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."
Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."
Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat." And, from the full transcript, here's a paragraph that Drudge left out:
Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.
Ann Coulter on Weasel Clark:
Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans.
Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' -- stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours -- 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day.
Does anyone know the date Clark was removed from command???
As usual, Steyn hits the sweet spot on the Driver.
Dean will implode. Gephardt will be finished early. Whiney Joe will never show, right along with Ambulance Edwards. Kerry (who pretends to be an honest veteran) will tank to Clark (who is a dishonest veteran). Clark will be carried off in a straight-jacket (or, more likely, a hearse) prior to the Convention.
Next, Hillary will graciously "accept" the adrift Party's unanimous draft nomination for President at the Convention - just in time to lock out a determined grass-roots campaign against her because of the Campaign Finance Law's "60-day Rule". She will coast to November with a swooning, sychophantic Media (as in her NY campaign) and the Kool-Aid Drinkers Of America following in full tow. She will set the political stage on fire, with hardly a grudging mention by the media of that other candidate (you don't see much of him now, either, except as a b&w picture with a Democrat voice-over).
This entire process is a clinton set-up, and it's working beautifully! Hillary gets the Oval Office and bill gets the hidden study off the Oval Office, where he can continue on right where he left off when he was so rudely interrupted by the bogus impeachment "trial" in the Senate.
Maybe you didn't hear it first here, but you did hear it here!
Another great line -- could almost have come from one of Shakespeare's comedy characters.
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.
How does Steyn come up with these great turns-of-phrase?
Perfect.
True. This has a certain "G.K. Chesterton quality" to it.
I agree. It is easy enough to have the debate formats bogged down in "irreconcilible differences" and not even take place, or maybe have only one very controlled one.
A lot of people on this forum thinks she would be a push over. I think they are nuts. They just aren't paying attention to what is going on out there and assume Bush will coast to victory on the War theme. This is nonsense, especially against Hillary. She is Liberalism's Last, Great Hope and they will pull out ALL the stops!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.