Something's occurred to me while reading Generally Speaking:

W.K. Clark may have increasing amounts of trouble as he advances through the field. Is this due to the Machiavellian doings of Karl Rove? No, at least not yet. (Muahahaha.) It is because one of the prime movers in the Democrat nominatklatura (there's you some made-up Russian) are the people who are reflexively opposed to any use of force by the United States of America.

These are the people who beat on bongo drums and consider themselves deeply intellectual for skimming Noam Chomsky and leafing through The Nation and who consider The New Republic a bunch of war-mongering Yankee imperialist dogs. The only time they like military force is when it's deployed against Americans, be they civilian or military.

You see, Wesley K. Clark used military force against Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic never fired a shot against Americans up until we started bombing him. If memory serves, Chomsky the Great deemed Operation ALLIED FORCE some sort of imperialist venture (schyeah, who would want Yugoslavia?) Ergo, Wesley K. Clark, in the fever swamp minds of these people, will probably take on the odium of George W. Bush.

One wonders what their response to Adolf Hitler would have been. I suspect that they would've hollered about how Hitler posed no imminent threat and how we had no right to go in with the British. After we found out that Hitler was turning lots of innocent people in Europe into landfill or fly ash, these very same anti-military types would probably want to know why it was that America didn't act. Or maybe not; they've never been good at accepting responsibility for their actions. Ask the dead of unified Vietnam or Khmer Rouge-era Cambodia about that.

Anyhow, General Clark's only recourse if he chooses to engage these people is to either read them out of the party as William F. Buckley did to the John Birch Society for my side of the aisle, or drown the crazies in votes, by bringing in previously "non-Democratic" constituencies to overwhelm the bongo-drum bong smoke defenses. It might be better for the country if he does the former, but I'm not sure anyone in the Democratic party is positioned to do such a thing.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

And now we turn to one of the reasons I really wanted to put a blog together, namely the candidacy of General Wesley K. Clark, U.S. Army (retired). Mind you, I've no intention of voting for him. My vote was locked up late in November 2000 when Governor George W. Bush became President-elect George W. Bush. At the same time, if the President goes down in defeat, I reckon the country could do worse (read Kucininch or Dean) than Clark. If the country was destined to have one of the current crop as President, I'd rather have Lieberman at the helm than any other of the opposition candidates.

That being said, here's a little something from the gang at clark04.com:

Clarktoberfest

Bring some spice to your Halloween parties. Host a Clarktober Fest at your home. Give your guests a treat after three years of being tricked by the spooky Bush administration.

Here are some fun ideas for your Clarktober Fest gathering:

Carve a Clark-o-lantern. Show your friends and neighbors whose plans have the teeth to change America.

This is followed by patterns to carve that Clark-o-lantern. That's right, a Clark-o-lantern. I've seen a lot of things in my life, and for crying out loud, that's ...I don't know. It's kinda stupid, but honestly, it's about time that someone had some whimsicality in politics. I'm not going to sneer at it, but I certainly won't be wasting a pumpkin on Wes.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.