Kos calls a party foul on General Clark. Why? Clark proclaimed that he is “the only candidate positioned to actually win the election” because he is “the candidate best able to stand up to George W. Bush and win the debate about who will best be able to make our country secure over the next four years.” Dean cannot.
The thing is, Clark is probably right. No special insight is required to see that Dean has not positioned himself well in the debate over security. Indeed, Dean has said so many stupid things on security issues that no mere “Sister Souljah” rebuke can save him — for how one give a Sister Souljah rebuke to oneself?
If the general election turns on security, as it most likely will, Dean becomes the darkest of dark horses. Democrats need to face up to that — and cast their primary votes accordingly.*
*And give me someone to vote for, dammit. I distrust and dislike President Bush, but I will not stake the security of the United States on the judgment of an unproven firebrand from one of the smallest states in the nation — particularly when said firebrand says all the silly things one expects of the type.
but I will not stake the security of the United States on the judgment of an unproven firebrand from one of the smallest states in the nation — particularly when said firebrand says all the silly things one expects of the type.
But WHY Von?
As Ken points out on Tacitus, there are no Heroes…”People are confronted by events and either act or do not.”
So if Bush is strong on defense, only because, when confronted by events he acted, what evidence do you have that Dean would not also act?
More than that, what evidence was there at all before 9/11 that Bush would have acted?
The issue is not whether Dean would act or not, but what action he would take. He favors going after AQ…so do I…so does Clark for that matter.
So if Bush is strong on defense, only because, when confronted by events he acted, what evidence do you have that Dean would not also act?
We’ll never know, Edward, how President Dean would have reacted to 9-11. We don’t know if he would have improved on Bush’s performance, done about the same, or not been up to the task. Indeed, we can’t yet (and may never be able to) accurately judge Bush‘s reaction, because we’re not sure how this war is going to turn out.
Dean may be more than capable of leading this nation. But I haven’t yet seen that capability in him — indeed, as I remarked, Dean has said things (all excused by his partisans as purportedly “off-the-cuff” and not really what he means) that suggest he doesn’t have the capability to lead this nation.
Maybe I’m wrong (heck, I was wrong a couple times w/r/t George Bush). But, if so, it’s not at all evident why.
“So if Bush is strong on defense, only because, when confronted by events he acted, what evidence do you have that Dean would not also act?”
We don’t need to stage guessing games too much. Dean has made his whole campaign on saying that he wouldn’t react the same way Bush would have. Many of his supporters love the fact that he wouldn’t act in a way that I would characterize as ‘strong on defense’. He intentionally plays into that.
He has publically stated that he is willing to give France and Germany far more weight in the decisions. Since France and Germany have already determined that they don’t want the Middle East to be reshaped, that means no serious action in my opinion. You can’t hide behind France and Germany and be taken seriously. If Dean tells us what he would do even if Germany and France resisted, and how it is different from what Bush did, he might have a chance. Right now he is merely dodging the question.
Reality is slowly setting in on Dean and his followers, and Dean’s ‘take the party powers down with me’ self-destructive reaction is but one more example of how unpresidential he is.
Dean has said things (all excused by his partisans as purportedly “off-the-cuff” and not really what he means) that suggest he doesn’t have the capability to lead this nation.
Jesus, if that were the standard by which people were raised to the office of the Presidency, would we have Bush in there?
Which is pretty much the case with Clark as well as Dean with the exception being that Dean has been consistently wrong on the Iraqi phase of the war while Clark has waffled repeatedly on the issue first with the “yes I would have voted for it” to “no, I would have voted against it” when he first announced to criticizing the lack of lack of resources being used in Iraq while then opposing the supplemental appropriations.
The only Democratic contender who has consistently been good on foreign policy is Joseph Lieberman. While some have mistakenly thrown their support behind Clark because they believe he is just as good or better on national security but more electable, it seems to me to becoming increasingly clear that Clark actually started out pretty low and is actually getting worse on national security the more that he waffles and dissembles.
He might be marginally better than Dean on foreign policy because he served in the military, but his views as a candidate (whichever they are this week) make him considerably weak in the area of foreign policy. He’s more protectionist on trade than Bush and in the area of national defense seems to be suffering from the international equivalent of battered women’s syndrome when it comes to courting the favor of governments who were never going to help the United States regardless of what did or did not do.
But hey, he wears a general’s uniform, so he must therefore be a “centrist” and “electable” and that’s really the only thing motivating his supporters.
“Reality is slowly setting in on Dean and his followers, and Dean’s ‘take the party powers down with me’ self-destructive reaction is but one more example of how unpresidential he is.”
Keep working it, pop. Only a few more weeks to go. Drive them cattle.
Only a few more weeks to go.
More like six months until July.
“More like six months until July.”
Depends on which horse you’re riding.
Oh, c’mon. Do you really think you’ll have it wrapped in three weeks?
Me? I’m above the fray. I’ll be happy with Dean or Clark. Not so much Gep, though I’ll still give him money.
Gep worries me some. It’s not that much of a stretch to see him winning Iowa and South Carolina. I haven’t thought through just what that would mean, however. But it can’t bode well for Dean or Clark if it happens.