Oh, no. I’m not leery of voting for a man who served. I respect and admire those, and feel that it greatly shapes their career, especially as a leader of men. When people slam Poppy Bush, I point out his WWII career. I don’t even like Poppy, but he was head of the CIA, ambassador to the UN, and a fighter pilot.
What bothers me about Clark is his lack of experience in the civillian government. Things do work differently outside of the military. Even as a political general, there’s a heck of a lot of adaptation to do.
Maybe if he was a governor or congressman for a term first. But President right off? I don’t think that’s the best idea.
Gundy, military service is not automatically a strike against a candidate in my book, but career military makes me think twice about them. I am a firm believer in civilian control of the military. INHO, that particular great American tradition has kept the Republic intact for as long as it has. I am afraid that generals expect to be obeyed, and that’s not how democracies should work. I also fear that a general would be like a man with a hammer who sees everything as a nail. Conversely, I also believe that once the civilian leadership decides to use the military, they need to set the goal and the paramters (i.e. “Defend us from the invading Senegalese, but don’t use nuclear weapons”) and then let the experts take over. Micromanaging military operations is a recepie for disaster.
Upon further reflection after my comments of yesterday, I admit that generals have made some good presidents. Washington, and Ike, for example. But then there’s Grant, who was a shitty, corrupt president. So I guess the best policy is to evaluate each individual on the basis of his or her merits and flaws. Go figure.
One day into the campaign and Clark has already made remarks that I don’t like. The New York Times reported this morning that he told a group of reporters on his plane yesterday that he would have voted for the resolution granting Bush unfettered power to make war on Iraq because it gave us greater leverage in the UN debate. The resolution was unconstitutional and the proper course of action would have been for the Congress to vote down the resolution and ask for a proper declaration of war as demanded by the constitution. I don’t want another president in office who doesn’t understand or chooses to ignore the Constitution. On the other hand, in the same interview, he said that he saw no reason why every American shouldn’t have health insurance, which is a step in the right direction.
So, my primary vote is still up for grabs, but I continue to lean Dean.
Neither is true. An idiot tried to claim that no Republican had won the “general election” since 1992. I end-ran the inevitable “popular vote” rubbish (anybody notice how, according to Democrats, Kennedy won by a “landslide”–where’s their idolization of the “popular vote” there?) and cut right to the quick.
As of right now, you have 2128 posts to your name. Hmmm. You’d think by now you would know better than to directly insult a fellow SDMBer in Great Debates. But there it is, you calling minty green an idiot.
In case you’re even thinking about it, please don’t try to claim that since you didn’t say the name, it doesn’t count. Everybody who has seen the thread knows who it is since you refer directly to what minty had previously said.
Who do you know who has ever said Kennedy won by a landslide?
Another way to say what Minty did is that no Republican candidate for President has been the choice of the plurality of We the People since 1988. More flatly: They’ve lost every time against any Democrat stronger than Dukakis.
Gee, isn’t spin fun? Isn’t having your swallowing of spin pointed out to you not so fun?
Clark, maybe, dunno about him yet. I’m convinceable at this stage.
Interesting that, in addition to calling people idiots in an inappropriate forum, Dogface is now claiming to actually understand what it means to win the popular vote. Yet not so very long ago he was claiming that Bush won not only the electoral college in 2000, but the popular vote also.
He didn’t say, of course, “which count” he used to arrive at such a conclusion. But then, that would involve more than simple invective.
For those interested in evaluating Dogface’s accusations of idiocy against other Dopers in the context of his own posting history, you might want to check out the Pit thread thoughtfully started by cheddarsnax.
Ok, so Clark has said that he’s pro-choice. But is he going to make a promise to defend Roe v. Wade with his Supreme Court nominations? Because I can’t see him winning the primaries without that.
I’m intrigued by Clark as well. What I would need right now to switch over from Dean would be specifics about his domestic agenda. Saying you want a balanced budget is all fine and good, but does he have specific departments where he intends to trim the fat?
The following inquiry is submitted in the spirit of friendly discourse, not some chest-thumping challenge. My own preferred candidates have certain positions I disagree with and I’m curious how others reconcile such intellectual conflicts.
To those, such as vibrotronica, who “lean Dean” but have a negative view of support for the Iraq war resolution:
Is your objection to the war one of process (e.g., unilateral vs. multilateral, executive dictum vs. Congressional declaration), or motivation (e.g., lack of urgency)?
What do you feel Dean’s objections are?
Are you aware of statements such as the following that Dean made, prior to the war:
October 2002 - “It’s conceivable we would have to act unilaterally.” (Des Moines Register, 3/02/03)
February 20, 2003 – His position is further explicated: “If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn’t, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.” (Salon.com)
February 25, 2003 – “If [Saddam] were [an immediate threat], I would advocate unilateral action.” (PBS News Hour)
If “electability” were not an issue, do candidates such as Kucinich and Graham, who voted “no” on the resolution, hold any appeal for you?
Is Clark’s support for the Iraq resolution, however conditional or contextual, a dealbreaker for your primary election vote?
So let’s see… The deficit is 500 billion. Bush’s tax cuts, ALL of them, account for about 100 billion of that. But Clark has said he was not in favor of rolling back the cuts to the middle class. So maybe he can reclaim 40 or 50 billion of that tax cut. That gets you down to 450 billion.
He wants to cut the military? At a time when many in Congress are saying they think the military is under-funded for the roles it has to do? With a possible war looming with North Korea? Okay… Let’s say he cuts the military by 100 billion, or almost 25%. Not bloody likely, but let’s say he does. Now the deficit is 350 billion.
But wait! He wants universal health care for everyone! That’s worth at least 200 billion a year. So now you’ve got a higher deficit than Bush does, but taxes are higher and the military is weaker.
Sounds like a perfect plan. Weaker, poorer, and with a greater degree of socialism.
With less chest beating here
It also depends who is “wealthy”. Are we using a politically accepted definition, or mine which is people who make more than I do?
I was an adult when Kennedy was President. It was very well-known that the election was extremely close. If just one voter in each precinct had changed her or his vote from Kennedy to Nixon, Kennedy would have lost. There was never any question that it was definitely not a landslide.
It was so close that the counting of the votes continued through the night while Kennedy slept. Finally, in the early morning hours, young Caroline Kennedy was allowed to wake her father with the words, “Good morning, Mr. President.”
It lowers the standards of Great Debates when accusations are tossed out without any foundation whatsoever.
Maybe you are confusing that with the Johnson-Goldwater Presidential race of 1964. Goldwater carried only the state of Arizona. That was a landslide. [/hijack]
I think that Gen. Wesley Clark is so well-qualified for the position of President that only one issue voters, the close-minded, the very young and some of the very wealthy will support Bush.
In a job interview for President of a company, which one would you hire?
