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

It occurred before 9/11.

Remember, 9/11 changed everything!

 

I think that this was the question Clark addressed the best last night, and it pretty much backs up his position: He has never been partisan, he wasn't rushing to judge Bush, and he was giving his team the credit their qualifications deserved.

And he was let down. Lied to. Misled to war. Seen us become the global bully, and alienate our allies. And it is because of just that sense of betrayal that he has come forth to try and rectify things. That has been his message all along, and I, for one, find it more credible that he wasn't among those who were trashing Bush pre 9-11 just because he was Republican and they were Democrat. Of course I'm biased, because I was a Bush supporter who went through the exact same sense of disbeleief and dismay when I saw how Bush exploited 9-11 and completely pushed an agenda that was unwise and uneccessary. In that regard , as in others, Clark mirrors my view of things.

I think that this will actually help Clark's message to average Americans, and to moderates/non-partisans like myself. This might not play well with died in the woool Democrats, but I think that if they see him as the guy who can beat Bush they will care less if he has always bled Dem. The Republicans did that with Reagan.

But moreover the very fact that this might be viewed as a negative for Clark in my mind just underlines the weaknesses of the partisan two-party system. Why should he have to always have hated Republicans? Isn't it more credible that he has changed his opinion of them based on their performance?

 

I think Reagan was, in some ways, a great President. I don't see the problem with saying that. Clark thought Bush et al ( especially the first guy he named, the first guy I would have named, Powell) were the right people. So did I. I don't see the problem with that. I disagree with his comments on Europe, but many Americans would not. Again, though, all that this stuff tells me is not an automatic Democrat ( or Republican) with regards to his ability to evaluate, something I find worthy of praise, not condemnation.


Now if you want to argue whether we are so committed to the knee-jerk partisanship that so many Dems will see this as a negative that he won't get the support, I disagree, but it's definitely arguable. However, as Reagan and Churchill have showed in the past, when leaders who are needed come forth in times of trial, people and parties often find a way to look past that devotion to partisanship for the sake of their country. I honestly believe that now is one of those times, and everything I hear so far makes me think that Clark is that leader.

 

I always thought that there were many Democrats who would make you believe that Reagan was the anti-Christ, and now you have a Dem candidate who actually said that Reagan was, *gasp*, a good President?

Oh, oh! Spaghettios!

Trust me, this revelation is going to come back and haunt Clark down the line with some people who always vote Democratic.

 

if you can't energize your base, you can't win an election.

Ordinarily, I would agree... but Bush has the unique ability to energize the far-left of the Democratic Party just as Clinton had the the ability to do so with the far-right. There's so much hatred there that "the base" will come out just to vote against Bush rather than for Clark. If Clark gets the middle, and the far-left continues to despise Bush, he's OK in my opinion.

 

No way you get a guy like glynch to vote for this guy (no offense meant by that at all glynch).

Agreed , no way I vote for Clark in the primary.

Max,
could you vote forClark. You usually offer advice to the Demos because you see their candidate as not being pro "defense" enough or too liberal.

Got to vote for Clark over Bush in the general election if it get downs to it.

If for no other reason we got to go with a guy who thinks and acquries info for himself so he isn't just a pawn to the info fed to him by advisors.

 

Trust me, this revelation is going to come back and haunt Clark down the line with some people who always vote Democratic.

That coupled with the fact that it took him several months before he actually announced that he was joining the Democratic party.

The comparisons with Reagan's party switching and Clark's are false as well, as Reagan was established within the Republican party prior to running for President in 1980 and certainly didn't switch within 3 weeks of announcing his intention to seek Presidental Office.

Until more is known about Wesley Clark, where he stands on various issues and if he'll actually stand up and be a fighter for what he believes in as opposed to the spinless jellyfish style Dems, I doubt I'll support him..

Howard Dean embodies exactly what the Democratic party has been missing out on for the duration of the Bush Administration.

 

that didn't work against Clinton

I don't know that it didn't work... It certainly wasn't enough, but I think that was because Dole was such a terrible candidate. The theory here is that Dole was supposed to focus on the middle and then the right would have come out to support him for their hatred of Clinton. In that election, Clinton captured the middle instead of Dole so that didn't really work out. If Dole could have wooed the middle, I think he could have won.

 

They asked Clark about that last nigh, and like a true 'politician' he answered without explaining what he was doing praising Reagan and W. at that event. He listed a bunch of things he believes in which is good, but didn't in any way clarify why he was there praising the two worst presidents in my lifetime.

 

I think this proves that Gen. Clark , at that time, had no plans to run for president or the democratic nomination. But the far left (Kucinich , Nader lovers) arent going to like this.

 

In most elections I might share this concern, but this one's a 180... We have Bush and cronies to energize the base. Believe me, when Nov. gets here, the base will be there regardless of the nominee.

 

the concern among many dems here...and batman jones put it best...was that the dem party didn't have an identity because they were too spineless...here you have a candidate who lauds Reagan...who talks about Europe sitting back like fat cats while the US bails them out....who goes to freaking GOP Lincoln Day Dinners....whose own party identification tended to lean Republican until very recently...who sought out a position within the administration early on... that sounds a lot more like smelling political opportunity

Exactly.. General Clark from what I have seen thus far would make a wonderful Sec of Defense or VP or even Sec of State or Sec. of Homeland Security.. As of today, he has done nothing, nada.. zip.. zilch to prove any loyalty to the Democratic party.. He's come in late and generated some buzz.. We'll see how he handles himself after the newness wears off and and the canidates begin to really call him on the turf for some of these issues... Having a superior military record is great going into elections but, it doesn't always win.. Just ask Max Cleland of Georgia about that.. Military service has not been a key factor in elections for quite awhile, so I'm comfortable diminishing that aspect in relation to its overall value of Wesley Clark as a potential canidate.

 

from a May 20th, 2001 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

________________________

Pulaski County Committee Chairman Greg Racicot invited Wesley Clark as keynote speaker. Former supreme allied commander in Europe and leader of NATO during the recent Kosovo campaign, Clark now lives in Little Rock and works in high-technology venture capital at Stephens Inc. A hot-ticket guest speaker, Clark plans a similar appearance before the Democrats, his wife, Gert, confided.

__________________
US News' Washington Whispers...

Just when Arkansas political bigs figured that local-boy-done-good Wesley Clark was set to make a bid for public office, he's surprised them all by signing on as a military and current affairs analyst with CNN, Whispers learns. Clark, a retired Army general who was one of the U.S. military bosses in Bosnia, is expected to be a regular on the cable network as it scrambles to recover viewers who've switched to Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Since retiring, Clark has been a fixture on the Arkansas political trail, speaking at key events normally reserved for campaigning pols. That's led most state politicians to assume he's planning to run for Senate or governor. Clark, however, keeps them guessing. And not just about his future: folks don't even know if he's a Republican or Democrat.
_____________________

From Josh Marshall...

Now, one final point. There's this idea afoot that Clark got into the Democratic party out of some sort of opportunism, and that this happened after 9/11. Frankly, this makes no sense. Is there really any time over the last two years that getting into the Democratic party would have seemed like a good way to get into office or advance politically? Particularly in a state like Arkansas which has been trending Republican? I mean, sad to say, but I don't see it. At the moment, President Bush is looking weaker and weaker. But that's pretty recent. Clark is clearly new to the Democratic party on many levels. But as explanations go, this strikes me as an awfully weak one.

 

Madmax, the greatest force for unifying the Democratic party, glynch and all, is not who aspires to be in the white house, it's who's in the white house right now and the last four years.

Ask any one of the several million repentant nader voters out there.