Tuesday, January 20, 2004

The Clark Message

The Republican National Committee already has their message lined up if Clark is the nominee.

"Forget that only three years ago here in Little Rock, the General praised Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and former President George Bush's foreign policy-at a Republican fundraiser! Forget that he voted for Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Just remember that in January 2002, he told Newsweek Magazine that he would have been a Republican “if Karl Rove had only returned my phone calls." You know, some people run for president because they hear a call. Apparently, Wesley Clark is running because he didn’t."


Now, I don't know about you, but when the opponent can so easily turn off so many Democratic voters by simply quoting the candidate, I think that's a problem. It is not at all a substantive message, but it is a message of despair to demobilize Democratic voters and make them despair of change being possible. The hook is this: even your candidate wants to be a Republican, what chance do you have of making a difference?

Personally, I think these remarks are taken out of context and are unfair, but I also don't think that it matters much. They are too widely known, and too well acknowledged by the candidate to deny. Their meaning will be a matter of interpretation and the loudest voice generally gets that privilege; and we all know who will shout louder in 2004.

For me at least, gaffes like these, made before Clark's announcement, have put the nails in the General's electoral coffin. Nominating this man would make fools out of the whole party and ensure defeat in 2004.

Despite Clark's excellent personal qualities, which are undeniably impressive, his flirtations with the GOP and non-partisan background, far from being attractive qualities in a candidate, would be his achilles heel. The GOP will strike that spot over and over until it looked like there was no real choice in the race. If the GOP is able to demobilize Dems, they've won. They are spending madly on the their own GOTV efforts and if we hand them an issue to suppress turnout in the very history of our candidate, we're sunk.

I was an early supporter of Clark, and had hoped that he would be on the ticket, preferably as VP due to his lack of political experience, or as President if that was what the people wanted. But have I decided that it would be better for the party if the General were to play a less political role in the next Democratic Administration as a political appointee. He could skillfully handle the role of Secretary of Defense or even Secretary of State (though I have reservations about military men serving as chief Ambassador -- it is time to put the foriegn service culture back in charge of State), or some other high level executive position in the Defense bureaucracy, but he should not be on the Democratic ticket for 2004. He would be a liability, not an asset.




0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home




Feeds:
RSS/Atom Feed Site Meter
Powered by Blogger