Posted on 09/23/2003 6:11:24 PM PDT by swilhelm73
--THE CYNICISM BEHIND CLARK:
I bumped into a few of my many lefty friends this weekend, who were almost all enthusiastic about Wesley Clark. I was particularly amused by the far-left counter-cultural National Gay Lesbian Task Force getting solidly behind a general who almost started World War III with the Russians. None of them cared much about Clark's actual positions, however. All they cared about is his perceived ability to win. One explained that the white-hot rage at Bush had now tippled over into a cold determination to beat him, by whatever means necessary. I have to say I respect this kind of political argument. But it also strikes me that the left really cannot criticize Bush as a cipher for other forces aligned behind him, when they are doing exactly the same with a general they view as a purely Potemkin figure. "Look, if it means we get Gene Sperling and Robert Rubin running the country again, I don't much care who they put up as a front-man," one partisan gleefully explained. All of this reminds me of Bill Kristol's flirtation with Colin Powell as a Republican candidate a few years back. Why the Powell boomlet? He was black and could win. Er, that was it. Powell was a cipher to innoculate the Republicans from seeming too white-bread. Similarly, Clark is a perceived winner and a cipher to innoculate the Democrats from seeming ... what, exactly? Unpatriotic? Weak on defense? Out of the cultural mainstream? Who knows? It all smacks of phoniness and opportunism to me. And it's a clear sign that those who control big Democratic money are worried (I'm with Safire on that). If I were a Dem, it would make me want to vote for Dean even more. After all, what would be healthiest for the future of the Democrats - a party still run by principle-free sleazeballs like McAuliffe and the Clintons or one built up from the grass roots by people with passion and ideas?
CORRECTION: The person whom I quoted from memory above says he never used the term "front-man" to describe Wesley Clark. He says a more accurate rendition of his blind quote would be: ""If it means getting Robert Rubin and Gene Sperling back into power, who cares who gets them there?" He also denies he's partisan. No, it wasn't Sid Blumenthal.
--THE HATRED SWELLS:
"Please tell me, Andrew: why are you keeping track of Bush hatred? Are you on the administration’s payroll? Do you report those who are critical, make sure they don’t work in this town (America) ever again? There's nothing lower than a lapdog anyway, but a lapdog for the moral cretins that are the Bushies is a gutter-level low. Disgusting and pathetic. Yes, many of us "hate" Bush and company, and for precisely the reasons Susan Lenfesty mentions. We are on a metaphorical flight into a metaphorical building – and yes, somebody besides Bush can analogize 9/11 (although Bush doesn’t analogize 9/11, he explicitly cites it, and for political gain). It's absolutely repulsive the way people like you lay curled at the feet of this wanna-be dictator (his own words, bespeaking dreams) and bark at the ones who question him and his policies. Don't even begin to think that American casualties in Iraq keep any of them up at night. For these monsters, it's a harvest of souls...or, monster food."
--WINNING SLOWLY IN IRAQ:
Hats off to Glenn for helping bring critical mass to the obvious truth that the reports coming out of Iraq are too one-sided, too patently political, and far too gloomy. Others are catching on. It's impossible to know for sure from this distance, but the emails I've printed from soldiers, as well as despatches from some pro-war journalists, like Hitch in the current Vanity Fair, have kept me from panic. That's not to say we shouldn't hear the bad news. It's just that it needs perspective. Tom Friedman has been splendid, I think, in getting exactly the right mix of optimism and concern. I noticed this aside in Danielle Pletka's op-ed in the NYT today: [T]he number of engagements in Iraq have declined from roughly 25 a day in July to about 15 a day today — and each lasts for an average of two or three minutes. Finally some perspective on those almost daily troop deaths which every media outlet plasters on the front-page. Things are slowly improving! All the more reason to keep a steady course, perhaps move more quickly to devolve power in some areas, and remind Iraqis of the critical fact that we are not going to abandon them again. Not this time. And the French? Ignore them.
Keep in mind he is a very moderate Republican (in the real sense, not the Jumpin Jim sense) who often criticizes the president as he is being called a Bush lapdog...
They are mentioned in the first few words of the first sentence of the article.
Does it really take the queer vote to win? Are there really that many? Are they really that powerful?
What?
What an odd set of accusations, each one really projecting the accuser's internal world, each one so obviously of the mark:
Bush is not using 911 for political gain - he is trying to rouse and align a lazy nation. The people of this nation have 911 foremost in their mind. It would be irresponsible of Bush to ignore their concerns. It is the left that has seized on it for political gain, and the war and the nation be damned.
Bush has been quite gracious towards his critics. This notion of Bush curbing dissent, along the memes about Ashcroft somehow "destroyng the constitution," is such a strange complaint - almost an hallucination. Bush has never tried to quash criticism.
Bush obviously deeply suffers from the loss of our men and women fallen in this conflict. The left could care less about them and it is they who use them for political purposes, otherwise they have nothing but contempt for them. The troops obviously know that he feels for them. Clinton, on the other hand, seems incapable of an real, genuine emotions of any worth at all.
How strange the internal world of these people.
A Clark presidency would soon find us in many wars all over the globe! The only difference being the mainstream press would support Clark in his asinine wars.
1. Created by The Clinton's to get their own mouthpiece into the race. Clark will parrot the Clinton agenda. No other current Dem candidate is beholding to Bubba and HRC...and they don't like that.
2. Injected by The Clinton's to create a logjam in time for the convention next year...just in case something happens and GWB appears beatable...in jumps HRC.
3. And if GWB remains strong in polls, etc, Clark insures Dems lose and Dean does not get control of party apparatus and eject McAuliffe...HRC's insurance policy for 2008.
That's all folks.
None of them cared much about Clark'sSchwarzenegger's actual positions, however. All they cared about is his perceived ability to win. One explained that the white-hot rage at Bush Davis had now tippled over into a cold determination to beat him, by whatever means necessary.
Eerie.
...and melt in the spot light.
He is definitely not ready for prime-time. The only purpose he serves is to tick off Dean and Kerry and knock them off the front pages.
Eerie.
Poor comparison.
Schwarzenegger's politics doen't come anywhere near the level of Clark's repeated lying and flip-flops.
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.