Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Wesley Clark Being There
In Jerzy Kosinski's novel, Being There, vacuous statements made by a retarded gardener called Chauncey Gardiner get taken as profound insights by the rich and powerful around him. Is Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark the Chauncey Gardiner of 2004?
Consider this Chauncey Gardiner-like vacuity uttered by Clark at last week's debate among Democratic Presidential candidates: "I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I am pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort."
Ambiguous blather! As if anyone is pro-disease or anti-environment. What about the hard voter losing questions? What about parental notification of parents of minors seeking abortions? What about minority quotas in college admissions or company hiring? Does he favor oil exploration in Alaska? Does he want to socialize medical care in America? What does engaging with allies mean? Who's against engaging with allies anyway and who wants to use force as a first resort?
Clark utters meaningless bromides and gets a boost in his poll numbers. Why? Like Chauncey Gardiner, Clark is an empty vessel and as such Democrats can project any of their fantasies and hopes onto him. I am not saying that Clark is retarded; he is a very accomplished man. However, Clark evidently believes like almost all other professional politicians and their spinmeisters that the only way to get elected in 21st century America is to act like Chauncey Gardiner and make a lot of pretty noises, but say nothing. I fear that they could be right.
JSM|9.29.03 @ 1:06AM|#
What is really meant by "pro-health?"
If I like eating at McDonalds, vote against cigerette and latte
taxes and pro-pot initiatives, does that make me anti-health?
Is pro-health people support socialized medicine? What about the
loss in medical advancements when incentive is removed from the
equation, I don't see that being pro-health!
Maybe Clark is dropping the code word for his support of suing
tobacco and fast food, increasing taxes on the vices, and to
further wage the war on drugs a la Clinton. Look out Columbia, the
General is taking charge!
Concerned Citizen|9.29.03 @ 1:12AM|#
Billg, The problem is that instead of drawing a clever analogy and making his point, Bailey realizes we are in such a graceless, reactionary, PC age that he must include that caveat or the usual suspects will hound Reason's ass for insensitivity to the issues of the "mentally challenged." I'm frankly surprised he had the balls to write the word "retarded."
Kevin Carson|9.29.03 @ 1:12AM|#
Right on! We need fewer empty suits who stay on script at all
times and avoid any substantive comments.
"I'm a uniter not a divider. I'm a reformer with results. BEEP. I'm
a uniter not a divider. I'm a reformer with results. BEEP. I'm a
uniter not...."
I don't like John McCain, but at least in the primaries he actually
sounded like he was genuinely interested in issues and could make
produce extemporaraneous comments in response to pointed
questioning. With George, on the other hand, I got the impression
that Cheney and Rove carefully prepped him to stand in a certain
place, look toward the cameras, and avoid at all costs departing
from the script: "Your Daddy's connections with the GOP
establishment got you here, Junior; all you have to do to get the
nomination is show up on time, not blow your lines, and not get
photographed putting it to the dog. So for God's sake, don't do
anything to screw it up!"
When he slurred over that "uniter not a divider, reformer with
results" pap for the umpteen millionth time, he sounded just like a
first grader reeling off "forwhichitstans, wunnattionunnergod..."
every morning without engaging anything other than the vocal
organs. I believe Orwell called it "duckspeak."
Citizen|9.29.03 @ 1:18AM|#
billg, actually the "I'm not saying Clark is retarded" comment was a reference to the previous sentence (not the ones to follow) in which he compared Clark to a retarded gardner. Assuming your delicate ears were steady enough to traverse that harrowing experience, I'm quite sure you could manage the rest.
dude|9.29.03 @ 1:21AM|#
I can remember when it was clear that the Establishment had picked Bush to run in 2000. The moment when Limbaugh started making fun of McCain. My reaction was "why'd they pick this empty suit who can barely talk??" I thought McCain on the other hand could beat Gore. Maybe Dubs was meant to be a sacrificial lamb like Dukakis or Dole in 96 but it didn't quite work out that way. (Gore looked like a cinch at the time. . .)
Chance the Gardener|9.29.03 @ 1:21AM|#
Add lots of fertilizer to ensure future growth. Too much light can be damaging in the early stages. Future growth depends on a well-developed root system. Pest control is of primary importance.
|9.29.03 @ 1:24AM|#
There is the belief held by many in any organization of
sufficient size, that success is defined as living one's life so as
to avoid any possibility of incrimination or accountability.
Any advocacy position that is asserted in certain terms can later
be checked, and 'news' is largely the desperate attempt by those in
media to find a statement that is forceful enough to hang someone
with later.
The most irritating maifestation of such populist pandering is the
modern insistence that moderate = correct. References to Aristotle
are thrown about as though they were relevant, when any casual
student could see that the golden mean is meaningless when you are
talking about a middle position between two arbitrary points.
Aristotle referred to a moderation of quantity, and would certainly
dispute that the average of any two concepts yields truth. This is
the guy who gave us binary logic, after all.
That an effective leader must argue persuasively his convictions
would be obvious in any normal society. Democratic decisions should
be hashed out between representatives operating from consistent
ideological bases. Unfortunately, we are in a place where even
pointing out the obvious leaves one open to the charge of being an
evangelical. Consider the frequent insult hurled from the left that
so and so is an ideologue.
'Practical' does not mean 'ideologically neutral', and 'factual'
has less than nothing to do with 'popular'.
arthur|9.29.03 @ 1:25AM|#
Stupid argument. "Pro-choice" is a specific position on a
specific policy issue that many Americans disagree with. "Pro
affirmative action" is not only a specific position, it is an
unpopular one. The other two lines are less controversial, but the
idiot here isn't the candidate, it's the critic who assumes that
the candidate has nothing to say about issues that don't fit into
the first one second soundbite of the campaign. Elaboration is
already available from Clark, and more will follow.
The real Chauncey Gardner candidate is Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Chauncey Schwarzenegger|9.29.03 @ 1:33AM|#
Gray Davis has terminated growth in the garden. The flowers will be back. The garden is being destroyed by wimps. We cannot depend on girly-man losers for future growth. Gray Davis hasn't given us enough light and water in the garden.
mak_nas|9.29.03 @ 1:49AM|#
arthur, i agree about arnold, but that doesn't mean clark is
some paragon of clarity. "pro-choice" and pro-affirmative action"
are not positions but slightly-smaller ranges of possibilities.
(really, can any position be defined in two or three words?) he has
no public parliamentary record on which to base judgements because
he has utterly no experience in these areas -- which is by itself
an important weakness, given a reputation as being something of a
stubborn prima donna. such men are not well suited for (democratic)
government, and if he is such a man he will have a lot of rough
sledding.
i have to agree with bailey: in lacking definition, he is more a
mirror than a picture. many will swear by clark as their man for a
few more weeks or months, knowing little about him -- right up
until he is actually forced by design or cimcumstance to take a
strong position on something, whereupon many will find they simply
disagree with him.
|9.29.03 @ 1:54AM|#
If I understand correctly Wesley Clark is being denigrated here
for playing the shallow game of politics the way everyone else does
in America. Not for the substance of anything he has said, but for
the supposed lack thereof.
The vacuity of such a criticism is astounding. I mean, is this post
just an empty vessel for projecting anti-Democratic sentiment? I'm
not saying it's retarded, but...
Constantine|9.29.03 @ 2:00AM|#
Empty bromides and a general endorsement of estbalishment party
principles will get you further than anything else will. It worked
for Bush, and it seems to be working for Clark.
By contrast, the biggest complaint from Hoard Dean's detractors is
that he's "too angry" and "too negative," which is to say that he
picked very public disputes over policy with the (at the time)
Democratic frontrunners over their stances in Iraq and he argues
about specifics of his health care proposals and medicare policies
with other candidates. Also, look how Lieberman tanked when he
started doing the same thing to Dean.
Say what you want about Clark, but if Bush is any example, there's
something about vague, fuzzy, but overall appealing policy
statements that really resonates with the electorate.
|9.29.03 @ 2:00AM|#
Joe,
Respectfully, but if you've reached Clark's age and still don't
know what you think about certain issues, or, worse, if you need
your secretary to remind you, that's a pretty good indicator that
your proposed 10 volume set would be worth far less than
$19.95.
Or it could mean he has Alzheimer's. At least Reagan already had a
foot and a half out the door of his presidency before symptoms
showed, but this should not let us think we should vote someone in
because he's already exhibiting signs of senility.
ccwbass
D Lusional|9.29.03 @ 2:02AM|#
I mean, is this post just an empty vessel for projecting
anti-Democratic sentiment?
Yes it is. Do have a problem with that?
mak_nas|9.29.03 @ 2:06AM|#
not at all, gabriel -- i vote democratic more often than
republican. at this time, knowing what i can know, clark -- while
representing an attrative alternative -- is a mystery candidate. if
i had to vote today in a general election, it would likely be for
kerry.
i hope clark defines himself as kerry's superior -- i have doubts
kerry could beat W -- but so far i can't tell.
|9.29.03 @ 2:17AM|#
It is amazing how many of you don't read what was posted before
you respond to it. You immediately start whining that Clark is
being picked on despite the fact that the point of the article was
never that Clark is unique in issueing meaningless statements. Read
the last sentence:
"However, Clark evidently believes like almost all other
professional politicians and their spinmeisters that the only way
to get elected in 21st century America is to act like Chauncey
Gardiner and make a lot of pretty noises, but say nothing. I fear
that they could be right."
Nobody on this page has claimed that Arnold or Bush clearly issue
clearly defined policy announcements. But yet, it seems like the
only defense most people want to put out there is "Yeah but all the
other politicians are "retarded" too!". That is the point. And I am
afraid Ronald Bailey is right. Walter Mondale took a clear stand
about taxes would have to be raised and he was crushed in the
election for saying what everyone knew was correct. Bush Sr. said
"Read my lips, no new taxes!" and then when times changed and he
had to raise taxes he was run out of office. Do you blame
politicians for not taking a stand? It seems most Americans want to
be lied to. We as a group are not mature enough accept that
trade-offs have to be made and you can't have everything.
As an aside, that is part of why I truly admire politicians such as
the late Paul Wellstone. He was way more liberal than I am but at
least he took a side and let everyone know where he stood. You have
to admire such people even if you disagree with them.
joe|9.29.03 @ 2:22AM|#
ccwbass,
If Presidential Nominee Clark is still talking like that in 6
months, you'll have a point. But he's been in the race for 2 weeks,
and highlighting the fact that you hold Democratic positions, and
not Republican ones, that far into a Democratic primary campaign,
is a little shy of what the DSM needs for an alzheimer's
diagnosis.
Jough|9.29.03 @ 2:24AM|#
"Pro-choice" is a specific position on a specific policy issue
that many Americans disagree with. "Pro affirmative action" is not
only a specific position,"
Uh, I don't think so. I see no specificity. I would categorically
call myself "pro-choice" and "anti-affirmative action". This tells
you next to nothing about what I think of the complexity of these
issues. Based on my statement: Do I support parental notification
when a minor requests a medical procedure like abortion? You don't
know. Do I think abortion is murder? Again, you don't know. Do I
favor any restrictions on abortion? Again, you don't know. Do I
favor state funding of abortion for the underemployed? Again, same
answer. Do I think abortion is legally federaly, but able to be
regulated by the states? who knows. Do I support quotas of any
kind? Can't tell. Do I favor discriminating in any way for or
against a person based on their ethnicity or color of their skin?
Can't tell on that one either. Race as the tie breaker in a close
call? "pro affirmative-action" doesn't answer that one either.
|9.29.03 @ 2:26AM|#
The fact is, folks, it doesn't matter one bit what Clark says or
how he says it at this point. He has been annointed by the party
faithful for one reason and one reason only: To sideline Howard
Dean.
The Democrats are scared gay of a frank-talking, populist candidate
with strong positions contrary to the Bush administration who is so
far almost completely unbeholden to DNC power brokers. They resent
the fact that he is raising his own money and support without
cowtowing to Bill or Hillary, and they think a big time military
guy is the only one who can shoot him down.
They are afraid of Dean for two reasons: Because he might not win
against Bush, thus wasting the best opportunity for domestic regime
change they might have for a while; or, that he might indeed win
against Bush, effectively wresting control of the party away from
its current elite.
politica|9.29.03 @ 2:32AM|#
Come on. We all know Bush is flagrantly anti-environment. He even conceals and censors negative findings in his own administration's research.
politica|9.29.03 @ 2:35AM|#
...and besides, you're the great defender of the 'blather' king. No one is less coherent and deceitfully ambiguous than George W. Bush. So put your hypocrisy back in your pants and come up with something a tad more original.
|9.29.03 @ 2:35AM|#
Joe: Yes, he's only been in the race a couple of weeks, but he did spend months "agonizing" over whether to run, and during that time he should have been doing his homework. I'm not ready to throw him overboard for not having quick, pithy answers to every reporter's question, but the fact that he spent so long agonizing over whether to run, and his subsequent, apparent lack of preparation, gives a lot of legitimate ammo to his critics.
politica|9.29.03 @ 2:44AM|#
"Clark evidently believes like almost all other professional
politicians and their spinmeisters that the only way to get elected
in 21st century America is to act like Chauncey Gardiner and make a
lot of pretty noises, but say nothing. I fear that they could be
right. "
Puh-lease! Bush set the precedent. To even imply that Clark is
inferior intellectually (or in any other way) to the putrid
puss-bucket currently residing in the White House is laughable at
its absolute best.
It is amazing that someone can exist in a delusional world so far
removed from reality and still maintain the technical competence to
post to their daily blog. It's truly an inspiration to all the
chauncys and Bushes of the world.
Good job!
joe|9.29.03 @ 2:50AM|#
Curt, he's been declared for two weeks! Every time he's on TV is the first time millions of people have heard of him. Should their first impression be, "He's the boring one with the complicated answers who talks too long?"
Cheney Gardener|9.29.03 @ 2:51AM|#
Remove the weeds and allow the bush to grow. Prune the bush at the wrong time and you risk killing it. The bush must be transplanted to a larger garden to prevent it from becoming root-bound. Permit the bush to grow and expand its root system in the fertile soil of the river valley. Keep the roots hidden underground.
Emma|9.29.03 @ 2:57AM|#
Clark is a retired General who used his good old boy network
from West Point to access the Pentagon when he had no business
being there.
He "allegedly" spoke with "un-named" source who gave him
information about government policy for a series of "allegedly"
classifed military operations...and he wrote about them in a
book.
Add to this Gereal Shelton's distrust of Clarks' integrity and
Clark's flip flop on his stance of the war with Iraq and I have to
wonder if Clarks intelligence is the least of the problem.
Sandy|9.29.03 @ 2:59AM|#
polichica:
To even imply that Clark is inferior intellectually (or in any
other way) to the putrid puss-bucket currently residing in the
White House is laughable at its absolute best.
Yes. Please now cite where this comparison was made.
If you can't find it, please try taking your meds so the straw men
don't dance around your chair.
Though the fact that you can post to a form while being visited by
the straw faeries is "truly an inspiration to all the chauncys and
Bushes of the world."
Segretti|9.29.03 @ 2:59AM|#
I rather doubt Bush can beat Clark. Seniors love Clark's silver hair. Bush better pray it's Dean instead.
Emma|9.29.03 @ 3:00AM|#
Remind me to double check my spelling the next time I
post?
DOH!
it's General not Gereal!!!!
Wes Lee|9.29.03 @ 3:07AM|#
....and no one knew that little old presidential hopeful by day, Clark, is really the super hero Superman in red and blue tights, by night. Let it be known, from this day forward, that Superman is for choice. He will most certainly save the country from the menacing and racist Anti-Choice Board of Destruction.
joe|9.29.03 @ 3:08AM|#
Can't you just see a bunch of operatives or reporters discussing "keep the roots hidden underground?" It's like the sandle scene in The Meaning of Life!
Chauncey W. Bush|9.29.03 @ 3:20AM|#
The bush sheds its leaves in the fall, preparing for a long, cold winter, when the garden is dormant. Fall is not the time for growth, even in the desert.
|9.29.03 @ 3:20AM|#
Joe,
I was, of course, being a smart ass, but my outer Franken speaks
for the inner adult, who wonders how it is that General Clark, who
is supposed to be smart and an actual grown-up has somehow managed
to make it to his current age apparently without having a clue what
he actually believes on a number of important subjects, let alone
without figuring out how best to articulate his dearth of opinion
before throwing his hat in the ring. His whole campaign thus far
can be summed up as "I don't know what I think and/or have no
desire to state what I do think, if in fact I actually think,
however I do know what's best for America and hope you'll just
trust me on that!"
The mind boggles.
ccwbass
$.02 spender|9.29.03 @ 3:20AM|#
I think Dean would do better than Clark.
Why?
Clark's a general who's for peace. That's like a doctor who's for
death or a financial analyst who's for poverty. He spent 40 years
doing something he didn't like? WTF?
At least Dean comes across as believing his positions. I don;t
agree with all of them, but sincerity counts for a lot with the
electorate, especially after the last 12 years.
Citizen|9.29.03 @ 3:21AM|#
BTW, it is a fabulous movie. Seemingly timeless. Although the ending ... a little convoluted? At best.
|9.29.03 @ 3:23AM|#
Pro-environment has a very specific political meaning. It means
you are against drilling in Alaska, against rules changes that make
it possible to keep existing coal-fired power plants in operation,
against nuclear power even though nuclear power for coal power is
probably the best trade that one can make for cleaner air, and
generally against any compromise with positions taken by pressure
groups that style themselves as environmentalist, even if such
compromises could help the economy to free up money later on for
further environmental cleanup.
If you are for any of the above-mentioned things, you are indeed
anti-environment and you will be labelled as such in the New
Yorker. Every bit of industrial activity that makes things that
people want or consumes energy is contributing some waste stream to
the environment, and people in the environmental movement believe
that the environment is so hopelessly saturated with waste from
human activity that any compromise with the positions they advocate
is a step down the slippery slope where we will all be
poisoned.
joe|9.29.03 @ 3:28AM|#
ccwbass,
Politicians don't always say to the media or the public everything
that they think about a certain subject. Right now, Clark wants
personality and resume-driven coverage. I's attribute his
coyness/shallowness to strategery, not cluelessness.
|9.29.03 @ 3:41AM|#
Joe,
No. I'm sorry. "Mary, help!" is not strategy, or at least not
honorable strategy. Rather, "Mary, help" is a symptom of sheer
political cynicism; the cry of a man who doesn't want to say what
he believes until he has figured out which beliefs will put him in
office.
So maybe we actually agree on the notion that his coyness and
shallowness may be attributable to strategy.
It sure has been working for Gray Davis, so why not General
Clark?
ccwbass
|9.29.03 @ 4:04AM|#
Andrew Sullivan says Clark is a too-smart-for-school
striver.
Ronald Bailey says Clark is a virtual idiot.
Hahahah.
You conservatives and your fumbling ways. You do crack me up.
And BTW, guys, 2 opposite party lines are the political equivalent
of blood in the water.
And this is the second one (Clark the warmonger of Pristina vs.
Clark to Uber-Peacenik).
Don't think that no one see how scared you guys are of him. Oh, you
can laugh at him, sure.
But we're the ones who think it's funny.
|9.29.03 @ 4:35AM|#
Pro affirmative action" is not only a specific position, it
is an unpopular one.
Clark is currently running for the Democratic Party nomination.
Support for "affirmative action" is nearly
mandatory within the Democratic Party -- it
certainly couldn't be considered "unpopular" in the current
context.
It's unpopular with the country as a whole, sure. Expect Clark to
stop mentioning "affirmative action", and to start making neutral
grunting sounds about things like "diversity is good" and "of
course I don't support quotas" once he's actually campaigning
against Bush.
|9.29.03 @ 4:42AM|#
Andrew Sullivan says Clark is a too-smart-for-school
striver. Ronald Bailey says Clark is a virtual idiot.
No, he said that Chauncey Gardiner was an idiot. He says that Clark
is a using empty, Gardiner-like aphorisms out of a calculated
belief that that's what people want to hear. Judging from the way
the Democratic Party faithful have responded, I'd say he's
right.
And BTW, guys, 2 opposite party lines are the political
equivalent of blood in the water
You'd have to be on drugs to think Bailey and Sullivan are
spokesmen for the same party.
Gene Berkman|9.29.03 @ 4:43AM|#
I guess everyone else missed the paralel:Wes Clark says "I am
pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action," as his explanation for
why he is a Democrat.
When Colin Powell spoke to the Republican National Convention in
1996 (or 2000) he said he was a Republican, but "I am pro-choice, I
am pro-affirmative action..."
It seems like Colin Powell knew there was a shortage of Black
Generals in the Republican Party, so he can immediately get ahead.
Wes Clark knows the Republicans have plenty of White Generals, so
the Democratic Party offered the best opening.
Before he declared himself, people did not know Gen. Powell's
affiliation, and the same with Gen. Clark. But simple opportunism -
not necessarily a bad thing - explains alot.
Chance the Gardener|9.29.03 @ 4:44AM|#
The garden must remain balanced. Only with the proper water, nutrients, and light will we see the growth we desire. Too much or too little will damage the garden's symmetry. I like to watch.
Pat Curley|9.29.03 @ 5:58AM|#
Clark may still be leading in the polls, but it's a lead made of
straw and the flames are already licking at him. He can excuse his
comments about President Bush and his team with the "Who suspected
in May 2001 they would turn out to be fascists" dodge, but how does
he explain to the Democrat faithful his belief as of that time that
Ronald Reagan was a great leader?
As for his dodginess about getting pinned down on specifics, I
think it makes some sense. Remember all those polls that have shown
Bush running well when matched up with any of the specific
Democrats, but doing worse against a generic "Democrat"? Well,
that's what Clark is right now--a generic Democrat. He can't get
away with it for long, especially given the problems he's had
already, but it makes more sense than talking specifics and
potentially getting into another controversy.
|9.29.03 @ 6:12AM|#
Yes. Let's tear Clark to shreds, then re-elect a mediocre man with very little experience, poor speaking skills and a resume padded by his father's busy cronies. Here's a proposal: Force the GOP to nominate a serious, qualified candidate for the 2004 election, then you can come tell the Democrats how to run their affairs. Otherwise, every critique you could possibly toss at Clark can easily be countered by, "Yes, but your candidate is George W. Bush..."
|9.29.03 @ 6:13AM|#
Yes. Let's tear Clark to shreds, then re-elect a mediocre man with very little experience, poor speaking skills and a resume padded by his father's business cronies. Here's a proposal: Force the GOP to nominate a serious, qualified candidate for the 2004 election, then you can come tell the Democrats how to run their affairs. Otherwise, every critique you could possibly toss at Clark can easily be countered by, "Yes, but your candidate is George W. Bush..."
Emma|9.29.03 @ 6:31AM|#
No one needs to tear Clark to shreds, because if he lacks
integrity on the level of making public sensitive information he
"supposedly" received from the Pentagon and if other respected
Generals are leery about his integrity. Then I believe that the
Democratic party needs to look a little bit harder at their
potential candidate.
Because with Clark's evasion, reversal on positions and the
willingness to sacrifice government security to sell books. His
lack of integrity and inability to take a stand will destroy
him.
Clark will self destruct on his own and if the Democratic party
doesn't take a really hard look at Clark they just might be pulled
right down with him.
Irregardless of who the Republican candidate is.
Steve in CO|9.29.03 @ 6:54AM|#
Four words:
"Thousand points of light."
Three words:
"Stay the course."
Oversimplistic tripe is all we are ever going to get.
Two predictions:
The most common word to be used in the next Presidential campaign,
"security." I know, easy one. But it will be put on top of ice
cream as a condiment this time.
The other prediction, Kerry/Clark vs. Bush/Frist.
Should be ugly and a whole lotta fun... just hope Sean Hannity and
Rush have on air nervous breakdowns.
:-)
Benjamin Turnbull Rand|9.29.03 @ 7:17AM|#
Chauncey Gardner wasn't retarded in the conventional sense. He
just had the benefit of an unusual upbringing.
As a foundling child who had all of his needs met in a rich man's
mansion, all Gardner was expected to do was to tend the garden.
Since Gardner never had to cook a meal, never had to buy anything,
never had to meet outsiders, and never had to leave the damned
house, he didn't need to pollute his mind with useless abstractions
about the outside world.
Taken with a grain of salt, this is a great analogy for Clark, a
very intelligent man who has always had all of his needs met, and
his path defined, by the ultimate rich man in a mansion, Uncle Sam.
Given his background, it's no surprise he hasn't had to come up
with opinions on messy issues like drugs, abortion, gays in the
military, or affirmative action.
Indeed, in Clark's profession it's dangerous to have opinions, or
at least voice them, about many questions. If a career officer
bitches in public about affirmative action that'll be noted for the
file. If he criticizes the President in public, as some officers
who attacked Clinton found out, that's justifiably grounds for
discharge.
I agree with Emma that Clark will find what works for one type of
government employee doesn't work for the elected kind. The reason
Dean hasn't opened fire Clark is that he doesn't need to. Clark is
sowing the seeds of his own downfall every time he opens his
mouth.
|9.29.03 @ 7:35AM|#
It is clear that Clark is an intellecutually brilliant man who
has accomplished much in his life. That he is not willing to state
clearly his positions shows he is now a politician, like so many
others.
With the white hot lglare now focused on Clark, we will soon be
able to judge his mettle.
Kevin Carson|9.29.03 @ 8:24AM|#
dude,
I got my first inkling that Shrub was the Manchurian candidate in
1999, when I got a Buchanan mailing about the Bush family's machine
lobbying state legislatures to change primary rules. They wanted
them weighted more heavily in favor of the front-runner, instead of
proportionally, so it would be harder for anyone challenging the
establishment candidate to sustain momentum.
Jeff Clothier,
My first TV exposure to Dean was his Tim Russert interview, and I
wasn't impressed. He struck me as a disingenuous backpedaller with
a tendency to gush. And his facial expression and demeanor indicate
a stick up his ass the size of a giant redwood. And please believe
that I WANTED to like Dean--anybody who's anti-war and pro-gun
rights already has two points in his favor, as far as I'm
concerned.
But to be frank, I don't care whether it's Dean or Clark, so long
as they can beat Bush. I figure anybody the Dems put up will be a
scum-sucking pig. But it's kind of nice to have the Oval Office
rotate between Democratic and GOP pigs so nobody can pursue a
single, consistent porcine agenda from one administration to the
next.
|9.29.03 @ 11:07AM|#
I love this "Bush is an empty suit" stuff!
Keep on spewing it, and see what happens in Nov. 2004!
Bush has outmaneuvered the opposition at every turn.
Yeah, he's an idiot, except when compared to his competition.
s.m. koppelman|9.29.03 @ 11:18AM|#
Mr. Bailey! Do you really not know what general positions are
being laid out when someone says, in America in 2003, "I am
pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I am pro-environment,
pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies.
We should be a good player in the international community. And we
should use force only as a last resort"?
Strange that some of us here know exactly what he means and how
that generalized shorthand differentiates him from the Republicans
circa 2003. True, that 15-second rundown doesn't give an indication
of his feelings with regard to single-payer healthcare, what
tactical alliances he'd strike in the UN in order to achieve a
given foreign policy goal, whether he'd want to ratify Kyoto, or
what distinguishes him from Dean, Kerry and Gephardt, but it's not
meaningless.
Hey, I know you'd love to wrest the term "pro-environment" away
from "environmentalists" (funny: your contempt for the latter seems
to indicate you know what that means) and would like
"pro-choice" to mean favoring freedom of choice in footwear,
barbecue sauce and DVD rentals. Here and now, though, these things
are universally understood to mean, respectively, "favoring
effective, substantive reduction in pollution and the rate of
wildlife depletion even if it means laws have to be passed and
enforced" and "favoring a society in which abortion is available
without fear of being beaten, killed or jailed".
The post-Goldwater GOP doesn't seem to have a problem understanding
"liberal" in an American political context to mean "favoring social
and welfare policies more or less like those adopted under FDR and
LBJ". I'll bet Milton Friedman himself knows what someone means
when they say "Dennis Kucinich is a liberal".
I wouldn't have pegged you as the Derrida type, Ron, bubbie, but
here you are, draining words of their accumulated meaning like an
old French Leftist pro.
joe|9.29.03 @ 12:19PM|#
Yes, let's all pretend to know nothing about recent American
history or politics, forget the policies and philosophy of the
incumbant president, and ignore the controversial political
questions of the coming election. That way, we can pretend not to
understand what Clark's talking about. "Engage with our allies?"
Whatever could he be talking about?
Perhaps he should have kicked off his campaign by touting a seven
volume, leather bound set of works in 10 point type, laying out his
policy prescriptions department by department, for only $19.95.
billg|9.29.03 @ 12:54PM|#
As soon as you say "I am not saying that Clark is retarded..." it really doesn't matter what follows.
StMack|9.29.03 @ 12:57PM|#
I would have to assume that by engaging with our allies he means
either acting with the 20+ nations in the coallition supporting the
iraq war or kissing Chirac's ass and doing whatever the UN
says.
Based on everything else Clark has said, I'm betting his foreign
policy would amount to a permanent pucker.
HH|9.30.03 @ 1:57AM|#
In comments lately, I have seen Dean compared to Pat Buchanan by a supporter of his... now we see Clark compared to Bush 41. Wow.
|9.30.03 @ 2:41AM|#
Comment phoned in to Laura Ingraham's radio show last week by a
soldier now at Ft Hood who served with Clark in Vietnam: "We called
him the 'perfumed prince.'"
First in class at West Point. Rhodes Scholar. Career driven. Self
serving. Petty. Exactly the guy to lead men into battle....
Kevin Carson|9.30.03 @ 10:27AM|#
jpickens,
Substitute Karl Rove or Dick Cheney for "Bush," and that's quite
accurate.
He used the same savvy, street smarts, and rugged independence to
become President that he used to become a millionaire
(snort).
As Jon Stewart said in "George Bush: From Wealth to Riches":
"Starting out with only a C average, and his daddy's name, money,
and political connections...."
Rojas Pablo|9.10.04 @ 1:39AM|#
EMAIL: pamela_woodlake@yahoo.com
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://hardcore.sexmuch.com
DATE: 01/10/2004 02:45:44
Both dreams and people crash down.
Cesare/Bartnicki Nikki|9.10.04 @ 1:39AM|#
EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://make-penis-bigger.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/21/2003 01:47:41
Suits and religions rupture if you force them on.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245