Jonah Goldberg has a perceptive column on the motivation for the rise of Wesley Clark:
One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons shows two dogs in business suits sitting at a martini bar. One dog says to the other, "You know it’s really not enough that dogs succeed. Cats must also fail."
This summarizes the attitude of so many Democrats today. Yes, yes they want to win. But even more than that, they want George Bush to lose. And the latest thinking is that a military man with an impressive national security resume, good hair and better posture is the perfect recipe to beat George W. Bush. If next week the computers at the DNC churn out a political analysis that says a mean-spirited sweaty socialist will win, then the party will go nuts for Michael Moore.
Goldberg is right on this one. In true liberal fashion, it’s not what Wesley Clark thinks, it’s what Wesley Clark is. The left thinks that if they find someone who wore a uniform it will lend them instant credibility for the election.
The problem with Wesley Clark is that his policy positions are non-existant. In the first 24 hours of his campaign he managed to either dodge or waffle on every major issue. He was for the war, he was against the war. The only thing that’s assured about Wesley Clark from his speeches and positions is that his name is Wesley Clark and he really doesn’t like President Bush.
Clark has the same problem that the rest of the Democratic field also has: the sum total of their campaign is that they hate Bush.
So what?
What’s the big Democratic alternative? What would a Democrat do about Iraq? Would they pull out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi people to the Ba’athists again? Would they let the UN run it, even though the UN will quickly find that they cannot do anything without US help in stabilizing the country? How would they fight the war on terror? If they think the Saudis are so terrible (and that’s one of the few sensible positions they have), how would they deal with the Saudis? What would they do to stabilize Afghanistan that Bush isn’t doing? If the answer is more money, why are the Democrats opposing more money for Iraq which is in a worse situation?
Don’t expect any answers on those issues. It’s much easier to simply repeat "Bush is dumb. Dumb and evil" over and over again in place of any real thought or initiative.
However, in times like these, we need a Commander-in-Chief, not a Critic-in-Chief. We need a President who is willing to act in key issues, not blame all our problems on Bush. If Bush were out of power, exactly what would the Democrats do?
Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.
Everyone here, regardless of party affiliation, knows that you take on an incumbent first and foremost with criticism. The Democrats may be short on inspiration, but they have the good fortune of competing against a guy with one of the worst first-term resumes in American presidential history. To an extent, the rabid anti-Bush hatred you elude to does exist, but criticism of an incumbent in the early stages of a campaign transcends party lines and dates back to the earliest campaigns in this democratic society and others.
The GOP’s breathless spin about foaming-at-the-mouth Bush hatred will certainly work on some, but it’s a strategy any candidate would use against an opponent whose poll numbers have plunged 25 points in five months. Given the policies of this administration, there’s an outrage deficit that’s just being tapped into, and the Dems would be foolish not to exploit it.
I’ve always agreed with you that the Democrats need to provide a clear alternative to the Bush doctrine to be effective challengers, but there’s more than a year to iron out just what that alternative should be. In the meantime, name one Democrat whose uttered the words “Bush is dumb. Dumb and evil” once, let alone repeated it. You called me a liar last week. Looks like I get to return the favor this week.
See here.
I inspected your site. I found alot of inflammatory rhetoric about Republicans, but never saw the words “Bush is dumb. Dumb and evil” muttered anywhere. Perhaps I missed it. It was a large site with plenty of material, but it was definitely not visible to the casual observer.
Considering this website wasn’t even able to produce the line “Bush is dumb. Dumb and evil,” I seriously doubt that the 10 Democratic candidates who suggest repeat this mantra daily ever said it either.
Then you missed the very large graphic asking if Bush was a "madman or a moron"…
I guess I did miss that….and continued to miss it when I logged onto the site a second time. Ultimately, the fact that a website not affiliated with any of the 10 Democratic presidential contenders uses a quote in one of its banners that has exactly zero words in common with the line you quoted the candidates themselves as saying is just the latest exhibition of shabby spin on your part. Tsk, tsk, tsk Pinocchio.