A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
February 11, 2004Wes Clark and the Democratic nominationAs a member of the Draft-Clark movement and a financial and weblogging backer of Clark's candidacy, I am naturally disapointed that his campaign was not more successful. Fortunately, as his remarks today indicate, he's not intending to go home and be quiet. I welcome his continuing participation in our nation's public life. This campaign was a long-shot from the beginning. Few of us had any illusions about that. Having to rely on the judgments of others with experience in the political arena, raising significant money, learning to deal with the press and how not to utter the wrong sound-bite -- that's a lot even for a Rhodes scholar. With many others, I have to point to the decision to skip the Iowa caucuses as a real mistake, although I'm not sure that this is really obvious without the benefit of hindsight. The way it eventually played out, it fell to Iowa Democrats to fill the vacuum created by Howard Dean's plunging popularity. With Clark in play, I'd say there would have been an excellent chance that Clark would have been one of the top two coming out of Iowa. But I speculate. On a positive note, I am convinced that Clark's focus on patriotic dissent and his discussion of Bush's responsibility to protect American citizens -- both before 9-11 and since -- has allowed other candidates to speak out on a whole set of issues without being painted as un-American or disloyal. Thank you, Wes Clark! Whom do I support for the nominatiion now? Anybody-but-Bush? That's actally not far from the truth. I simply believe that George W. Bush is leading us in the wrong direction -- in both domestic and international affairs. I think the man is sincere, but I've concluded that his blind faith in ideology makes him singularly unfit to serve another term. My vote will be one of no-confidence in President George W. Bush. Given our political system, that means I will support the Democratic nominee. If this country's politics are ever to move back to the middle -- seeking solutions that balance competition with cooperation -- the first thing we must do is defeat the right wing of the GOP -- dominated as it is by the strange alliance of southern whites and religious fundamentalists fueled by corporate interests who have found willing partners in blatantly stacking the deck to favor themselves -- rather than seeking the common good. I can't help feeling a bit sorry for the fiscal conservatives in the GOP. (This excludes ideologues like Grover Norquist, et al.) They must really feel orphaned! Posted by Erasmus at February 11, 2004 08:39 PMComments
I saw Clark's withdrawal speech, and it was very dignified as always. The level of press scrutiny exceeded and was more hostile than when he dealt with the press during the Kosovo War. It's hard to learn in the spotlight. Yes, I agree that his participation was positive for the entire Democratic field, and Kerry's stature is raised by defeating him. Posted by: rickheller at February 11, 2004 09:28 PMI know a few of you worked hard on his campaign, and several others were for Clark as well. My first choice was Leiberman, but when he imploded(in terms of how his campaign went, he was even less electable than Dean), my next choice was Clark. Clark, I feel, would have had the best chance in the general election. His big weakness was political inexperience, and he was catching on quickly. He had a good combination of issues and leadership. Posted by: Jon Kay at February 12, 2004 01:03 AMI feel exactly the opposite way. I am 75% convinced I'll have to vote for Bush because replacing him with Kerry will be viewed by Europe as a victory for the old ineffective way of conducting foreign policy, endless talking and no genuine accountability. But my vote for Bush will be primarily a vote of no confidence in Kerry, if I even bother to cast it. If Kerry wins the nom, he's certain to carry my state, MA. But this raises what for me is an important point. Why not vote "no confidence," period? Why not demand tally such votes. Why not set a threshold of 15 or 20%, which if passed, would trigger a new election in which the rejected candidates could not run. Why not run a centrist candidacy based on being the "no confidence" candidate who promises not to rule if elected, but is running only to serve as a measurable proxy of dissatisfaction with the other candidates? Posted by: bk at February 12, 2004 09:18 AMI'd love to see an independent, centrist candidacy. But I think such an event has to break the cycle of all the quixotic candidacies of recent memory. Namely, we have to find someone who's a credible president. We have to ask people to vote for someone who could do the job ... and who is likely to do it well. We need to reinforce the sense that we're serious, pragmatic, sensible people -- the notion that we make choices based on real leadership qualities rather than the typical political game people are used to. I've sometimes felt that Angus King, the independent former governor of Maine, would be a good choice. He was wildly popular in Maine, and term limited out of his job there in 2002. So he is, presumably, available. The problem with his run would be a lack of foreign policy experience. But he has enough other experience -- enough executive experience -- to counterbalance that. That's the kind of thing we really ought to be thinking about -- who out there could run as an independent? And can we (or somebody) convince such a person to do it? Posted by: William Swann at February 12, 2004 09:56 AMIf we ran our candidate as the "no confidence" candidate, a vote for him or her would be a rejection of both candidates. And the goal would be to capture enough delegates to make neither candidate the winner, forcing a delegates convention to pick someone both sides could stomach. Someone like a King or a McCain could emerge. Just thinking outside the box. Posted by: bk at February 12, 2004 02:07 PMNice blog entry. I agree with it. Clark was always my second choice after Howard Dean... who was my second choice after Sen. Graham. Those three were the only choices that would have let me vote *for* a candidate rather than the lesser of two evils choice that it appears I will be faced with yet again. Rumor is he's gonna back Kerry, though. If true it will be a disappointment to me. Clark, along with Dean, was the antithesis of Kerry the insider. Kissing up to Kerry to get in good with "the establishment" will reduce him in my eyes to another panderer among many. Posted by: Kevin at February 12, 2004 08:07 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
