Clark Gave Speech in Support of Bush Administration 2 Years Ago!!!

I know several moderate Republicans and Independents, not to mention conservative Democrats (yes, there are some... I'm not one of them, but there are plenty) who voted for (gasp) Reagan, who voted for G. W. Bush and they feel betrayed by Bush.

They think he is far to the right of where they expected. They are uncomfortable with the pandering to religion by the White House. They think that Ashcroft and many aspects of the Patriot Act are a danger to the country.

They don't like the obvious "open house" for big business in this administration. The budget deficit freaks them out. Bush ran on having a balanced budget and cutting taxes. They don't understand tremendous deficits and the endless rounds of tax cuts during a war that doesn't seem to give them any relief.

They keep saying, "If the Democrats nominate someone who's moderate on social issues and strong on defense, they have my vote. Otherwise, I may sit this one out. I can't vote for Bush."

So, yes... I can see Clark getting their votes and I can see him winning the election. I also know that anything he's said or done in his life...anything... will be dug up and used against him. I also think that moderate, mainstream Democrats want to win this time. Democrats on the left want to win this time. Hell, most of the people I talk to are angry with Bush and want a Democrat who can win. As long as he has core Democratic beliefs, they don't care if he doesn't fit their "perfect profile". They want to beat Bush.

We'll see how this plays out. If Kerry or Dean end up getting the nomination, I hope it's because of an overwhelming perception that they will beat Bush and are moderates. That is what the majority of the party wants, and that is what will pull in moderate Republicans and Independents that are needed to beat this clown and his $200 million dollar plus bucket full of money.

 

Super!!! Great!!! Gotcha!!!

C'mon MM you can do better than this---!!!

 

Uh, who?

 

Deckard - Excellent post.

 

glynch said he would, murdock said until more was known, he doubts he would.

Neither said they wouldn't. This won't be a problem for Clark, if anything, it would be a positive. It proves that he's not partisan like everyone else in Washington.

 

Agree with Deck entirely.

If glynch votes for our ticket, we have problems anyway. (sorry, g, j/k)

But seriously, we don't win by appealing to Naderites, which is what I was telling Naderites during the last election that they ruined in Florida. If we can get the more centrist Republicans and the independents to see a reasonable, humane, strong, budget-balancing candidate, I think Bush can be crushed. I really do.

On second thought, if the dollar collapses as the IMF predicts, the democrats can run porky pig and mike tyson and win the next election.

 

I think Drudge is getting a bit cute here... apparently Clark was talking about Bush I and how he handled the First Gulf War.

 

Max, please fix your backslash/question mark key immediately.

 

But I don't think that there was anything like the groundswell against Gore that there is against Bush.

The usual voters voted last time, and by and large the 'usual' are highly comprised of the more partisan voters. This time many, like myself, who aren't normally partisan, and who are much less likely to vote for one of the top parties are so worried by what Bush is doing that they're simply looking for the cnadidate who A) Can get us back to safe ground, and B) can beat Bush.


In an ordinary election year I agree that this might hurt more than help Clark in that the more hard-core Dems will worry about issues like 'loyalty to the party' over who's the best candidate for President, but I think this year many voters will look beyond that, and many more likely to do so will vote than in a normal election.

I think that his could very well be the most important US election in the past 50 years, and I think others are thinking likewise, whereas the last election was probably the most apathetically followed, with many thinking that both candidates sucked, so picking which one sucked less wasn't that much of a barn-burner.

And on top of that I think that Clark is an unusual candidate, like Powell. Eminently qualified, incredibly able, extremely experienced, and, as this, his service record, and his character show, a man driven more by a sense of duty than self-propmotion, and I think that most believe, even his critics, that he is in this race because of that sense of duty at a time of trouble more than anything else.

This from a usual political sceptic.

 

Hypothetically speaking (as usual);


Say you (and by you I mean YOU) were a member of a group of politicians with an agenda that required some member of your group to hold office for two consecutive terms.

Now, say that the member of your group who was currently in office was in serious danger of losing that position in the next election because of public backlash (for whatever reason) - and that, in fact, it was likely he could lose against more than one of the candidates set to be running against him because of the increasing public trend of dissatisfaction with the current (your group's) administration.

What would be a surefire way to keep the aims of your group's agenda, even if your current officeholder was to lose the election to the opposite party?

Not to start any conspiracy theories - but where exactly did Wesley Clark come from?

 

There is a search engine called Google.
Type in Wesley Clark and you will find out.

He's not the least bit mysterious. Unless being a patriot fits the bill. That, and being ambitious. And wanting to further serve a country he's spent his life protecting by defeating what he's come to realize is an Administration that is a danger to that country.

Stuff like that.