Although I don't really like digging through left-wing blogs to glean useful information, from time to time I do, and courtesy of Kevin Drum, I found a very-well written statement that sums up, at least on a topical level, much of my misgivings about General W.K. Clark and his campaign. It's a response provided by a guy going by the nom de cyber of Joe Schmoe¹, and it's reproduced here in full, without prior permission or editorial alteration:

Don't assume that simply becuase Clark is a general, he is certain to win any debate on national security policy. Neither Bush nor Cheney, nor any other Republican candidate, is recoil in horror before Clark's stars.

Let's say that Bush debates Clark on national security. First, he is going to be very well prepared for the debate. I realize that Bush is not an outstanding debater, but he'll bone up for this one like crazy. He'll have the finest political minds coaching him for months in advance. Moreover, Bush has been dealing with national security issues every single day for the past four years. He's fully conversant with the issues. Given all of this, it's extremly unlikely that Clark will wipe the floor with Bush. If he's debating Cheney, or Rice, his job will be even harder.

Second, and this is by far the most important point, Clark's theories on national security can be defeated on their merits. Not everyone is going to agree with them. For example, I have heard Clark speak on national security, and I am not impressed. He seems to be mired in a pre-9/11 mindset, as he has advocated approaching terrorism as a law enforcement problem. I also think that he is placing far too confidence in international institutions. This frightens me and, more importantly, makes me mistrustful of Clark. The man obviously knows that our allies have limited capabilities, and an even more limited inclanation to help us, yet he seems to be suggesting that they will shower us with money and troops if only we use a little more diplomatic finnesse. This seems so improbable that it makes me question his veracity.

Third, people might not like Clark. I don't like him. He seems to be a power-hungry, narcissitic government bureaurecrat who is willing to say whatever he has to say to sit behind the big desk in the Oval Office. He reminds me of the vice president of some insurance company who is always kissing up to his superiors, fawning over them at the country club and taking up golf just becuase the boss likes to play, and riding roughshod over his subordinates, always threatening to fire them and holding their performance reviews over their heads like a club. This is not a favorable impression.

Lastly, don't assume that the American public will value the fact that Clark is more articulate than, and may be smarter than, Bush. Intelligence is valued in leaders, but not if it is condescending and mean-spirited. If Clark comes accross as a smirking prick, he'll suffer for it. If his supporters keep saying things like "it's time to put the adults back in charge," he'll suffer for this as well. This kind of personality poltiics won't matter as much in 2004 as it might have in past elections, because the issues facing our nation are serious. However, they will still matter.
Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 11, 2003 04:08 PM

That, especially the national security issue, is why I don't like Wesley Clark. He places far too much trust in multilateral bodies and consensus politics to be trusted. He's far more willing to trade away our precious national sovereignty in order to bring externals on board, like the French or the Germans. In an age of declining national sovereignty, a President Clark would be too eager to exchange hard-won (with the blood of our soldiers and the treasure of our people) sovereignty for favorable reviews from the French and German governments, along with the similarly-constituted apparat of the European Union and tbe Brussels apparatchiki.

There may be considerable merit to Wesley Clark's politico-military ideas and viewpoints on the primacy of diplomacy, but I neither endorse nor recognize these merits at this point in time. Regardless of any objective measure of satisfactions that I have with President Bush, when a subjective scale is applied, he far outdistances every single Democratic candidate. Only Senator Lieberman is even able to remain in the rear view mirror in terms of national security.¹

On a more personal and less noble note, the thing about Clark being a corporate VP who takes up golf because the president likes it is another reason to viscerally dislike the guy. I've seen plenty of people like that in my law school, and I'd prefer to stop those people wherever possible. Bloody sycophants and grovelers; can't stand them.

Go figure. Re-elect the President.

1 Click the "Continue Reading..." link to see another one of Joe's posts that paints him as a Democrat disgusted with the tenor of their side's campaign so far.

2 I've never been fond of the term "homeland security"---I would have preferred that the topic be addressed as "national security". Oh well.

Tip of the pristine USS Wisconsin captain's baseball cap to Matthew Stinson for pointing this out. If Dean or Clark gets the nomination, I will vote for Bush. I will donate money to Bush's campaign and volunteer for it.

If, however, Gephardt or Edwards gets the nomination, I will vote for either one. Not sure about Lieberman.

Unlike many here, I do not believe that the Bush presidency has been a catastrophe. I am sick and tired of the hysteria and constant stream of invective coming from the Democratic party. When the Republicans did it during Clinton's presidency, I felt alienated. Now that "my side" is doing it, I feel just as alienated.

These constant attacks on Bush are undignified and immature. If only one of the Democrats would run an issues-oriented campaign, it would be really nice. Unfortuantley, the leftist primary voters want nothing to do with that, so we get the nauseating and emotional refrain of "Bush lied," "the Republicans want to repeal the New Deal," and "that incompetent chimp and his crew of crony capitalists are miserable failures."
Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 11, 2003 03:38 PM

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1072 words, total size 7 kb.