Robert Kuttner has a column in the LA Times lauding Wesley Clark as a General that Liberals can get behind.
Four-Star Rating for a Wesley Clark Campaign
Actually from what I’ve heard, from admittedly lower level sources in the military than Mr Kuttner associates with, that General Clark is what Col Hackworth refers to as a “perfumed prince”. That is, a pretty boy, that worries more about his image than his troops and spends most of his time working toward political advancement rather than taking care of his people.
[A]mong mud soldiers, he’s known as a guy who never paid his dues with the troops in the trenches and doesn’t understand the nitty- gritty of war or what motivates warriors down at the bayonet level. He’s like a doctor who’s brilliant at theory but dangerous with a scalpel because he hasn’t been there and done that long enough to learn the skills of the trade. In 33 years of service, Clark spent only seven and one- half years in command with troops from platoon to division level– barely enough time to learn what makes a tank platoon tick. The rest of his service was as a staff weenie, an aide, a student, at the White House or at some fat cat headquarters.
Now that is someone that the Democrats can love.
He has been a tough critic of the Bush foreign policy, including the Iraq war. His domestic positions are not as fully fashioned, but he would repeal President Bush’s tax cuts and revisit the so-called Patriot Act.
He has been intent on kissing Democratic ass and promises to keep the money flowing to the bureaucrats. He would immediately take steps to make the country safe for Muslim terrorists. Better a thousand civilians die rather than 10 Muslims be inconvenienced. Smart reading of the political winds for General Clark. But he has had plenty of practice.
[M]any of Clark’s progressive views on domestic issues come by way of his military background. Though it is very much a hierarchy, the military is also the most egalitarian island in this unequal society. Top executives — four-star generals — make about nine times the pay of buck privates. In corporate life, the ratio of many chief executives’ compensation to worker bees’ is more like 900 times.
Apparently one of the biggest problems facing the United States today is that of some people making too much money. Presumably Mr. Kuttner is looking forward to the day that his salary is capped at nine times that of a newspaper carrier. Really?
He has high hopes for the day that President-Elect Clark holds a mandatory formation for all business executives on the White House lawn, informs them that he has seized their companies and lets them know that heretofore their pay will be set by a GS-9 clerk in the White House basement.
Kind of gives you an idea of what Democrats think about private property, free association and those other inconvenient things in the Constitution.
The military also has the most comprehensive child-care system in the United States. And, as Clark likes to point out, everyone has health care. Clark is also pro-affirmative action and pro-choice.
Rather than hearing from Liberal columnists and Generals about how great it is having “free health care” in the military, why don’t you take a survey of current and former military and find out what they think of the whole “free health care” thing? I’ll give you a hint; most think it was worth every penny.
My favorite Clark riposte is on guns. He grew up hunting, in a family that had more than a dozen hunting rifles. But he’s pro-gun control. “If you want to fire an assault weapon,” he has said, “join the Army.” The National Rifle Assn. can put that in its AK-47 and smoke it.
That’s right. General Clark will grant you the Constitutional Rights that he thinks you need. If you knew anything, you’d be President. Now shut the fuck up, unless you want to be walking a guard post at a motor pool in Bumfuck, Egypt.
Clark is the soldier as citizen. Even better, he’s the soldier as tough liberal. Just imagine Clark, with his real and distinguished military record, up against our draft-dodger president who likes to play Top Gun dress-up. Imagine the Rhodes scholar against the leader who can’t ad-lib. Oh, and he’s from Arkansas.
That’s funny, in 1992 when a draft-dodger Clinton ran against war hero George H.W. Bush, there was none of this talk about military records.
The Liberals are consistent on some things, they would rather the whole country go down the tubes rather than see George W. Bush reelected, and they would like to have a Democrat in power that would fulfill their dreams of a society where everyone is equal (except Democrats, who would be more equal.)
A society where there was no “hate speech” (any speech that did not conform to a set of rules formulated by a panel of “experts” under the guidance of a Democratic Party loyalist.) Where no one is despised for their race or sexuality (unless they’re white conservative heterosexual males) Where all property belongs to the people. (mostly people designated by the party. What? you thought that meant people in general? How naive.)
A society where President-General Clark could walk down the street and lock the heels of the lowest worker and chew him out for not cheering his passing.
Sounds a lot like Cuba to me, but the Democrats are prevented from nominating Fidel, however much they would like to.
I’m sure General Courtney Masseng…er Clark will do just fine.