Repubican faces should turn serious with this news from the Des Moines Register:
The guy is intelligent, has charisma, is articulate and television-savvy. He would also give the Dems instant and sorely lacking credibility on issues such as Iraq and national security.
I don’t think he is untouchable on war issues. Some hay could be made about the way the war in Bosnia was conducted, with soldiers on the ground having their hands tied as diplomats and lawyers seemed to debate the dropping of each and every bomb.
But a president who did what Bush did during Vietnam would be hard-pressed to paint a general as soft on military and national security issues. (And this is coming from a Bush supporter.)
And I already provided links in this other recent GD thread showing how important Americans see issues such as Iraq and national security at the moment.
Clark also seems reasonably knowledgeable on economic issues, and hasn’t hesitated to be critical of Bush on them.
I don’t see a candidate out there on the Democratic side who could give the Republicans more trouble than Gen. Clark.
Knowing the Democrats’ track record (with the noted exception of Clinton), I expect them to instead pick some charisma-free, uninspiring geek and get trounced. Richard Gephardt, anyone?
Point of order - Gephardt isn’t a geek; he’s a weasel.
The dems traditionally have not nominated weasels. Gephardt doesn’t have a chance in hell, and the fact that he doesn’t know that demonstrates that he ain’t a geek (IMO geeks are smart).
I’m not terribly impressed with General Clark, but that’s irrelevant. CAN he win? Sure, under the right circumstances. But so can a host of other contenders- again, given the right circumstances.
Back in 1992, when George Bush the First had 90% approval ratings, none of the supposed “big guns” of the Democratic Party (Cuomo, Bradley, Gephardt, Gore, Bentsen, Nunn) had the guts to make a run. The Republicans were mighty pleased when the Democrats had to choose among lightweights like Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, and… oh yeah, some guy named Clinton.
A LOT of Democrats can beat Bush in 2004, depending what’s going on in the world. If the economy is still in the doldrums, if the war on terrorism is going badly (or, conversely, if it goes too WELL!), Bush could be quite vulnerable.
Wesley Clark certainly does look interesting but his political instincts are yet to be tested especially in a tough campaign.
I personally think that either of the two Johns would also be strong candidates.Among other things Kerry is a military hero and Edwards will presumably be able to carry his Southern state and maybe a couple of others.
The ideal ticket might be one of the two Johns and Clark as VP. A Kerry/Clark ticket would , for instance, would nicely balance any GOP advantage on military issues. Don’t know if Clark would agree to be no.2 though.
I like Clark, but he’s got no chance whatsoever at the nomination. And being that he is neither Dwight Eisenhower nor Ulysses S. Grant, he will never, ever become president. Being a general is no longer a stepping-stone to political office.
On the other hand, if he acquits himself well during the two or three primaries/caucuses in which he will compete before getting buried by the voters, he could be a very interesting VP pick.
Ah, how soon the Republicans forget that they lost the last three elections . . .
I am interested in hearing more from Clark, but there are any number of candidates who can win. Why construct the question as if Bush were unbeatable? Yes, he more or less won the electoral college. But for a messed up ballot, that would not be the case. There seems to be a growing fiction of unbeatable republicans and an untouchable president. I am more than happy to let the republicans coast with these sugarplums dancing in their heads, but the fact of the matter is that there has been no mandate given, nor any landslide taken. Basically, they went through a mid-term election without losing seats, except in the statehouses - kind of unusual given past history, but far different than opposing a sitting president with a 90% approval rating on the heels of 8 years of a very popular republican president.
I’ll jump on the “Clark seems like a good enough guy, but will never win the nomination” bandwagon. In politics, seniority and connections are just as important as merit. The dems will go with someone who has “paid his dues”, so to speak - someone like Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt (snicker), etc.
Ideally, the democrats need to find someone who actually has a clear plan, rather than the current democratic tradition of opposing all things republican, but not proposing any alternatives. Someone who’s not viewed as a whiner, but rather a doer.
Jeff
**
It is quite obvious that, however Dubya got there, his approval has shot up to high levels. Record-high levels for a president after his first year in office.
minty:
**
It’s a matter of opinion, obviously, but I would disagree. Given the importance the public now places on issues such as Iraq, terrorism and national security, which in poll after poll equal or even exceed economic issues.
And Colin Powell would defeat any opponent he ran against, for anything. Due in no small part to how he impressed people in the first Gulf War and as chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
I also didn’t mean to imply Bush was unbeatable. Bush the First is a classic example of how high popularity can turn.
What I DID mean to imply is that all known Democratic candidates in the field now, or speculated to be in the field, have serious flaws that will make them have a difficult row to hoe against a popular president.
Even John Kerry, who I think is the strongest of the known field now, could have difficulties in the south if he’s painted as a “Masschusetts liberal.”
I don’t know enough about Clark, but what I do know I like.
I think he would have a better chance than any other Democrat of taking some Southern states out of Bush’s column. (And I firmly believe that a Democratic candidate must take at least one Southern state to win.)
From a “Southern strategy” perspective, Edwards is also good, but I’m not sure that he has enough gravitas to win. May need a bit more “seasoning.” Seems to me he also might be vulnerable on foreign policy inexperience.
Of course, depending on how the war and the economy go, anything could happen. Things get bad enough, any alternative to Bush might look good.
Oops, you’re right about Colin Powell. For some reason, he slipped my mind. Hell, I’d happily vote for Powell, who is precisely the sort of moderate, inclusive person who needs to lead the Republican Party if it ever really wants to become a majority party.
(See, this “move to the center” stuff works for you guys too. )
Milo afore you get too far out on that limb of “record high level approval rates”, let me suggest a scenario.
The US took a serious hit on 9/11. it in some sense unified the country, people started thinking of themselves as “Americans” first (All IMHO).
as long as whoever was Pres didn’t do anything acutely stupid right after 9/11, we’d collectively have supported him. My understanding is that since then, approval ratings have dipped pretty steadily (well after the ‘war’ ended in Afghanistan anyhow). do you have data on Bush approval ratings through his presidency that show ‘steadily’ high ratings?
Colin Powell, and McCain are as close to a threat to the status quo that the Republican Party offers, and I wouldn’t mind at all either of these gentlemen being installed as my Fearless Leader… And being the hopeless Democrat that I am at this time, I would be hard pressed not to swing my vote their way (having little choice but a bunch of but pseudo Republicans anyway)…What I find unfortunate is that Ralph Nader has been regailed to the outer fringes of the Greens, and the Independents, and without much hope of raising any serious groundswell… I truly believe the guy would be the best thing for 90% of the population since FDR…well, at least until he’s shot dead by a lone gunman.
Rand…a sitting on the porch swing with Mr.Trent… cause he don’t cotton none to rocking hisself.
Jeff - your cite shows what I’m suggesting - that post 9/11 astronomic, and a fairly steady decline afterward. 90% down to low 60s at this point. While low 60’s aren’t bad at all, roughly 50% (though distinctly less than 50… heh heh heh) would be expected to approve of him, they voted for him.
the additional 10%, I’d think can be attributed to “wanting to support the Pres in times of war” attitude.
However. We specifically have not had a protracted war effort that involved susbtantial American casualties since Nam. I would expect to see that approval rating continue to slide if the following continue:
economic problems.
corporate scandals
protracted war effort, American casualties.
I remember Nam. We’d hear on the news numbers of casualties, but only local folks would get written up in the news. We’ve had decades of “an American soldier, PFC John Wilkins, was seriously injured today in fighting in fill in the blank”
Clinton had an approval rating in the low 60’s while he was being impeached, and Bush can’t do any better than that? Those numbers don’t have any staying power - ask Poppy about his 91%.
Is Clark becoming the Republicans’ favorite Democrat (except when they’re pretending Al Sharpton actually matters the way Trent Lott does), the way McCain is the Democrats’ favorite Republican? Gotta be careful about generalizing one’s own views, ya know.
The problem with Clark is that no one know who he is. Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards all have much higher name recognition and that helps alot since the primaries are very compact. In order to raise his name recognition he is going to have to raise a whole lot of money in the next year and with the new regulations that might not be so easy. Also he says in the article that he has not decided to run yet. If he waits much longer that will put him even further behind in fundraising and he may never catch up. His opponents won’t need to raise as much since Kerry has his wife’s money, Edwards has trial lawyer money. and Lieberman has great name recognition from 2000.
All of the previous generals who have made the leap directly to the presidency were very famous and very admired. 80% of americans probably could not pick Clark out of a line up. Hero of the Dayton accords is not going to rally to many americans to his banner.
He is a very long, longshot. If he does run it will probably be for a shot at the VP slot for this time and with 2008 the real target.
This bleeding heart liberal would vote for Powell tomorrow, if he ran, but not because he was a general. It’s the fact that he seems to have more integrity in his little pinkie than all of the other candidates combined. Further evidence of it not being related to his military service, is that I would rather have GWB in the white house than Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, and Norman could be a democrat, for all I know.
)