Is general Clark our Eisenhower?

[shatoga]

when it looked like Republicans might be out in the cold for decades,
fielding a General won for them in a sweep.

Can we Democrats surround Clark with bright Liberal Democrats and support him for president?

I don't want another election close enough for the Bush family to FIX the results.

Opinions?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=270866&mesg_id=271156&page=

please post links to other Clark threads so we can cross reference.
OK?

[Clete]

1. Eisenhower wasn't that great.

The best thing he did was to end the Korean conflict. Then he did nothing, which is just as well. Who needs a Republican President who does something like the clown we have now. I'm not saying anything about Clark, but I am saying, don't compare him to Eisenhower for his own good.

[Julien Sorel]

4. Eisenhower was actually a pretty good president.

He signed the nation's first Civil Rights bill. He managed to manouver between extremists on both sides, and keep focused on the economy and the Cold War, without becoming too involved with either one. He ended the Korean War, and then kept the nation at peace -- contrast that with Kennedy/Johnson, for example. And his presidency was prosperous, much like Clinton's was. He tried to thaw the Cold War, but failed in that -- notice that Nixon, Ike's VP, was the one who accomplished it 10 years later.

On balance, I think he was about as effective as Clinton, perhaps a little more so, without the personal lapses. He had some set backs, and he wasn't the most enterprising of presidents, but I'd settle for another one of him any day. And of course, compared to what we have now...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I'm Tired Of Finding The Link And Posting It

but a panel of eminent historians, political science professors and law professors rated Eisenhower ninth out of fotrty three presidents...


That's not too shabby...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. compared to what we have now, Clark doesn't need to worry

He just needs to let us know which side he's on in this here class war. The correct answer wins the Presidency, Congress, and the next generation of judges.

[Clete]

13. I was alive and a teenager during the Eisenhower administration.

Yes, the economy was good, but he was following the economic policies laid down by the Democratic presidents before him. The anti-communist sentiment of the times led to the over the top McCarthy hearings, which Ike eventually had to involve himself because McCarthy went after the military.

http://www.findarticles.com/g1epc/tov/2419100060/p1/article.jhtml

He bungled on the U-2 Spy plane incident, which almost started WWIII because he wouldn't admit that we had spy planes over Russia.

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa061801a.htm

But, compared to those Republican presidents who came after him, he was a gem.

[King_Crimson]

20. IKE was also a decent man...

however I cannot think of ONE...NOT ONE...of the bastards in this administrationthat I would even say is "a nice guy"! If IKE were alive today I think he would dis-associate himself from the Repuke party!

[mike_c]

2. that, in a nutshell, is what scares me the most about Clark....

eom

[dolstein]

3. Sadly, no

For one thing, as bad as things are for the Democrats, the situation isn't quite as dire as it was for the Republicans. Before 1952, the Republicans lost FIVE consecutive presidential elections. And the Democrats enjoyed a huge registration advantage over Republicans in 1952.

Second, Eisenhower was actively courted by BOTH parties. Truman actually offered to run as Eisenhower's VP in 1948. While Clark could probably do well among independents, I wouldn't expect anywhere near the volume of crossover votes that Eisenhower got in 1952.

Third, Eisenhower was probably the most admired man in America in the late 40's/early 50's. Virtually everyone knew who he was, and nearly everyone liked him. Relatively few people know who General Clark is.

[Pepperbelly]

10. while what you said was quite true ...

I think that another major difference could well be that Clark might be a profoundly better President. Eisenhower had shit-loads of respect and love for his role in WWII and Wesley has nothing approaching the credit with the public that Ike had, but he has some things that Ike lacked, not so much in the electoral process as in the habits and skills necessary for actually governing.

Ike was, at best, lackadaisical in his study and work habits and if nothing else, Bill Clinton demonstrated that a commanding and intelligent figure who easily and habitually masters the details of the policies so that the appropriate decisions can be made is a very positive trait in a President. Bush has shown the results of the reverse, I believe. While Ike wasn't as lazy as Whistle-ass, neither was he a workaholic.

[Composed Thinker]

14. I essentially agree, but...

I think it makes sense to put Ike's fame in context. We haven't had anything like World War II since, well, World War II. I'd be willing to bet that less than 30% of those polled today could name Gen. Tommy Franks, yet he's been a successful military leader. Additionally, notice how people--and usually rightfully so--go wild when they hear the military mentioned. If Clark were to run for either spot on the ticket, the mere fact that he's so experienced and so successful would help override his lack of fame.

In other words, based on the context of the time, Clark's background could prove to be quite helpful.

[shatoga]

16. Clark's background could prove to be quite helpful.

I agree!
winning is the beginning
of repairing the deliberate destruction of Bush

[TheBigGuy]

5. conceptualy, yes, but Dolstein has outlined the differences.

Clark would be a way for the Democrats to shed their unpopular "liberal" image, similar to the way Ike helped the GOP shed its image as the "party of Hoover"...in both cases the candidate would be counter to the party image.

But Dolstein does higlight the big differeneces between Ike and Clark (Ike was the supreme Allied commander in one of the great wars in modern history, which Clark was not, and was very well known).

[Julien Sorel]

8. A different view.

Ike helped the GOP shed its image as the "party of Hoover"...in both cases the candidate would be counter to the party image.

The Repubs turned around and nominated Goldwater in '64 -- Ike didn't do too much to permanently impact the Republicans' traditional conservatism.

One huge advantage of a Clark presidency would be the opportunity to permanently erase the bullshit about 'soft on defense.' Democrats are smart on defense, not soft. We have to get that message out there, and Clark can do it.

[shatoga]

21. a Clark presidency

Democrats running the government....

Restoration of environmental laws.

Labor laws enforced.

All Americans served better by government instead of just wealthiest right wingers.

Clinton as a Clark advisor.

A return to prosperity and freedom of the individual.

[PATRICK]

9. Why that comparison isn't so hot

First Eisenhower by history was conferred with grerater heroic stature even thoough in every way Clark is possibly superior presidential timber- and he can speak without putting bricks to sleep. So in saying no to this Clark comes away with a plus with a catch.

The catch being that he has the military credentials for that secttor of the electorate but only as one facet of a candidacy. In being a real outsider non-politician he suffers another advantage/disadvantage. So all in all he is on a level playing field but behind the political scene eight ball. Take comfort. No one else is a shoo-in either, but that makes it an exciting choice among primary voters, REAL choice, which will eventiually cause some dismay and heartbreak on the campaign trail.

After that comes the philosophical debate about military brass as President, perceptions of authority and military agendas. Bush has gotten us into quite a mess. That could be a consuming tar baby for someone expepected to preside like a soldier as much as a need for someone like Clark. Personally I think we need someone with acute legal skills like Edwards for the internal mess, but all of our candidates are fit for the whole job.

Powell has been the Eisenhower route and even puppy dog adulation of the press infecting Foggy bottom itself couldn't break the real Savior of the Nation barrier. Forget Eisenhower. Clark is better than that. but no free ride will be forthcoming on the lack of real icon status.

[librechik]

11. if he is, is he here to destroy the military industrial complex?

or give it further protection and nourishment like all the presidents since Eisenhower? I can't tell--many have given lip service to how bad the MIC is, then given endless no bid contracts to war criminal corporations.

I don't know who to believe...

[Pepperbelly]

12. people who claim that he is ...

a puppet of the MIC do so out of paranoia rather than any objective evidence or reasoning.

[shatoga]

15. the best Hope for putting a Democrat in the white House

Close elections will go to the Republicans who FIX elections and skew the results.
We need a significant margin of victory.
A good General listens to his staff and chooses among their recommendations.
I want Gore because he formulated many of clinton's successful strategies.
i want Gore because he won the vote in 2000.
i will support Clark instead of putting dubya back in for the four years before Jeb Bush becomes appointed as successor.

We are fighting a machine, corrupt and relentless, with no regard for the actual vote count.
If Clark can give Democrats a margin of victory?

Any Democrat is better than Bush!

America desperately needs to be saved from the Bush family evil empire!

[ShaneGR]

17. Well, read an Eisenhower quote

about the military industrial complex and tell me I wouldn't be more than happy if Clark were the same kind of man. Eisenhower Republicanism DID NOT equal * Republicanism.

[mlawson]

18. Eisenhower's name was known to everyone in 1952.

Clark's is not. No comparison in name recognition.

[Terwilliger]

19. No

He's our Custer