Mainstreaming the Fringe
Michael Totten has an interesting post up concerning a marked trend among Democratic presidential candidates: pandering to the left. As a conservative and relatively staunch Republican, I have been dismayed at the complete lack of potential in the Dem candidates. Dennis Miller said a while back that he hadn't seen a starting nine like this since the '62 Mets. (Interestingly, according to this statistical analysis, the '62 Mets are only the fifth worst team in history. Surprisingly, the Indians do not appear in the bottom 30. Surprisingly, the '54 and '95 Indians are ranked 8th and 9th even though they lost the World Series, and the '48 Indians who did win the series are only ranked 25th. Go Tribe!)
Wesley Clark is a non candidate in every respect save one - he is actually running for president. He made the incredibly bold statement that if he were president, we'd all be safe from terrorism. His focus on internationalism will deter Muslim fundamentalists from attacking us. This must make the French feel better, at least someone thinks that listening to them will actually enhance security.
A good friend of mine in the military told me that Clark is not highly regarded by those in uniform. They give him good marks for bravery back in Vietnam, and apparently he is a good planner. But as for leadership and character, he is held in very low esteem indeed. It is significant that not one retired admiral or general has endorsed him, and many have launched some rather nasty broadsides. (Still serving officers are not allowed to endorse candidates.)
Clark has no real agenda that I can detect, aside from wanting to be president. This is why it is very easy for him to listen to his minders and spinners, and take the leftward steps to try to get momentum in the early running. However, nothing that he is saying now gives us any clue as to what he thinks, and all of it will assuredly be held against him by Rove should he actually get the nomination.
Lieberman is the only Democrat that has a chance in the election - considering that polls indicate that national security is still very important to the public, and that the public supports by a wide margin the invasion and occupation of Iraq. No Democrat has any serious credibility on national security, least of all Dean; but Lieberman has absolutely no chance of getting the presidential nomination. Barring catastrophe, Bush will win by a large margin come November.
[wik]I worry that the Democrats are imploding, and imploding in a significantly more serious way than parties do from time to time. All of the rhetoric that we are hearing, with the partial exception of Lieberman, is aimed at the left half of the democratic party. Like Totten says, this is going to scare the middle toward the right. And Bush is doing nothing to alienate the middle - and although this irritates the conservative core, very few (like spoons) are going to withhold their votes from Bush come November. This is a recipe for a blowout.
However, the problem for me as a conservative is that without a healthy Democratic party that takes things like national defense and the opinion of the middle of the country seriously, there is nothing to keep the Republicans on their toes. They have not been called the stupid party for nothing - only lately the Democrats have been even more stupid. A weak opposition leads to prescription drug benefits and many other things that piss me off, and decided spoons to look for someone else to vote for. (No word yet on who he's chosen, though.)
on
| § 5
§ 5 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Exactly what does today's GOP
Exactly what does today's GOP have to do with Conservatism?
Nothing.
I continue to be amazed that you identify with them.
Having recently read "Boyd", a biography of John Boyd, one of the most influential thinkers in the military, I've gleaned significant insight into exactly _how_ the military brass expect to be treated. Generally, they prefer bootlicking demi-god worship. Occasional full godhead worship is not too terribly decadent.
These people have egos a mile wide. Clark _pissed off_ a lot of higher ups. He did what he thought was right, bucked the system, and suffered the backlash.
This man does have a high level of confidence in his own abilities. He could maybe hide that a little better. Why are so many in the GOP and military intimidated by this attitude?
I contrast Clark's well-understood effectiveness and intellectual firepower with Bush's...ten years of sitting around on his ass?
And on "Fringe": Fiscal
And on "Fringe": Fiscal policies designed to bankrupt the economy in the pointless pursuit of extreme ideology...this is something dangerous and new. GOP administrations in the past dealt with _reality_, even raising taxes when necessary.
The only rational explanation for the piss-poor state of the Presidency is that Bush just _doesn't get it_. I didn't really want to believe it, but more and more points to it. He can't handle the job.
O'Neill's been a high-level member of THREE Presidents' staffs, including two GOP administrations. O'Neill makes it clear that when the complex business of the economy was discussed with Bush, his eyes pretty much glazed over. He'd just sit there. At the end, he'd say nothing. O'Neill describes what happened with all the other presidents - they'd argue, question, put forth theories of their own. They'd _engage_. Bush just isn't interested, or doesn't get it.
The typical GOP defense of Bush is that he's a "leader". He delegates. Bullshit. I'd like to see ONE shred of evidence (like, say something Bush has written himself) that shows ANY evidence of analytical ability. Just one. For that matter, I'd like to see any evidence of ANY success in his life that came from his abilities and not his name.
It freaks me out.
Bush Sr. was a really smart guy, worked his way up through the ranks, and clearly earned the respect of those in the opposite party, due to his _clearly demonstrated_ capabilities. He was just damn good at things.
Why is it so frickin' hard for the Right in this country to understand that the Left wants to see Bush put up or shut up? We think he's a fake. It's not a matter of "Bush-hate". I really don't care about the man himself. Every single piece of evidence out there right now screams that he's a fake. His administration has been dead wrong on virtually every major policy effort and predicted result they've made (500,000 new jobs in 2003, anyone? deficit gone by 2006? Nuclear weapons in Iraq? a "uniter", not a "divider"?)
Three years into Bush's "Presidency", the country has gone to shit, financially and morally. The political process has gone dark, and is barely functional.
It's called shitty, ineffective leadership. It happens when someone who has no clue is handed the reigns, and acts in a random manner.
Monkeys and dartboards come to mind.
Rant mode off? :)
The name John Boyd doesn't
The name John Boyd doesn't ring a bell. Your view of the officer corps of the armed services differs significantly from that of the people I know who serve or have served there. I don't have a problem with people being confident in their own abilities. Neither do people in the military that I know. But they are uniformly not intimidated by Clark. They think he's a joke, more on the lines of a Gen. McClellan at best. His flip flops on Iraq policy indicate that whatever principles he might have had he has sacrificed in the name of Democratic political expediency. Clark was not a driving force behind any great rebellion against hidebound pentagon staffers and bureaucrats, he was an institutional man who worked his way to the top.
As to the relationship between the GOP and conservatives - well, you should talk to spoons, who mostly doesn't associate with the GOP anymore. But the GOP is a damn sight closer to my unique, shoot from the hip style, farseeing and optimistic, run and gun conservativism than is the slowly expiring giant mutan sloth that is the Democratic party. It amazes me that anyone at all would associate themselves with a party that allows Al Sharpton to be one of its candidates for president.
I will go take a sedative now.
In response to your second
In response to your second comment, Ross - the first two "Republican " administrations were, IIRC, Nixon and Ford. The era of price controls and more than a little political shenanigans.
If every thing that we believe about genetics is true, then Bush Jr. would have inherited at least something from his dear ol' dad, and more from his librarian mother. Read Bob Woodward's account of the weeks following 9/11 for evidence that Bush is capable of exercising leadership.
The administration has not been dead wrong on everything - and I certainly haven't seen any of the doomsayers of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns apologizing for their rather more drastic errors. As you know, I have taken issue with several of Bush's policy endeavors - most recently the prescription drug benefit. But, I can't for the life of me see how you can claim that the country has gone down the shitter - I mean, Jesus, we just went through a relatively mild cyclical recession, one that started before Bush got into office. Of all the things he could have done that might have stalled the recovery, lowering taxes is most definitely not one of them. THe worst thing you can do in a recession is raise them. We had over 8% growth last quarter, which is a twenty year high. While some people are still out of work, and that certainly sucks, we never have full employment, and even in the worst throws of the recession, such as it was, our numbers never even approached what you see in countries that have adopted the policies you advocate, such as France and Germany.
As for morals, taking action to rid the world of a reprehensible and murderous tyrant is a net good in my book, even if lives were lost (and continue to be lost) in the process. We must be willing to sacrifice to spread freedom, liberty, and all the good things that we enjoy here - for our own good and for the good of others. Someone who can look at Muslim fundamentalism and terrorists and say, "That's evil" while making constant pleas for toleration of the muslims who live opeacefully in this country can't have a moral compass that is that out of whack.
And if you say Haliburton, I will hop in my car, drive eight miles north, and kick your ass.
Okay, now I really need a sedative, and while I'm talking to you, we're having a superbowl party on the day before Groundhog Day. (The most important of the minor holidays.) (In fact, any bloggers or readers in the DC area who read this are more than welcome to email me for an invite.)
BTW, the last two comments
BTW, the last two comments are from me, your old pal buckethead. Forgot to log off as the mighty Ministry. Oop. (Only one oop, it wasn't that big a deal.)