Will Saleton rips into Wesley Clark for his weakness on the war in Iraq comparing what Clark said in 1999 about Slobodon Milosevic to what he’s saying now.
Clark’s campaign is failing, and based on his inability to even have a coherent position on Iraq it’s hardly difficult to guess why. The Democrats wanted an empty uniform, and that’s exactly what they got.
At least give us some credit: the Democratic Party wanted Eisenhower, but a lot of people still think that an empty uniform would do a better job that the current empty helmet.
Actually, Jay, this leads me to an interesting exchange I had with a conservative recently. I’d kind of like to hear your take on this, as a political observer more than as a conservative.
I was griping about the Administration (as liberals like myself are wont to do) when a conservative opined that Bush is not as bad a President as I think because he surrounded himself with great advisers. I’ve heard this claim before, from both sides of the aisle: it’s not the candidate so much as the candidate’s future administration that counts, so we should vote for someone who will delegate well. I understand that the vast nature of a Presidential Administration necessitates the ability to delegate authority in many instances, but are we not selecting a person to do the jobs that are requisite with the office?
Jay, I’m a little sickened by this claim, no matter who makes it, that elected officials should be encouraged to take a more hands-off approach to governing and let appointees handle the grunt work. I’ve always felt that someone running for office should be doing so out of a sense of duty–an idea that they are in fact the best person to handle the rigors of the position and can best serve the public.
Putting aside all partisan squabbles for just a moment, do you think it’s healthy for voters in a representative government to be choosing a candidate based on that candidate’s willingness to have someone else (elected or not) handle aspects of the job?