Wesley Clark is the Dark Horse
Submitted by Bernie Quigley on June 17, 2007 - 6:26pm.
Bernie Quigley
Haverhill, NH
Wesley Clark is the Dark Horse
Senator Clinton's negatives are now to 52% according to Gallup, the highest of any candidate in the human history of the Democratic Party. Up from 46% about nine months ago. The more money she spends the more her negatives go up. And with all due respect, John Edwards, who recently cited Paris Hilton as poster-child for his “two Americas” pitch is drifting into Triple A. A few of the other Democrats who want to be President are so forgettable that most can’t even remember their names.
In contrast, Mitt Romney is beginning to boom and will continue to do. Romney is smart as paint, is a masterful administrator and is very rich. Any of these Democratic contenders against Romney will fail. But this time we approach a catastrophic failure. It will be the Democrats fourth total failure since Eisenhower.
It is quite possible that the Democratic Party itself cannot survive such a failure. I’m sensing entrenched retreat: Nihilism, born of desperation, is beginning to poison the blogs like DKos and some of the major bloggers are dropping out. This will further sink the Democrats' chances.
Ships come and go in such an uncertain political environment – last week Ron Paul, this week Colin Powell and the week before, Al Gore. Then they pass on into the night and fog.
Wes Clark is still here. He says consistently that he has not ruled out a run in ’08. Wes Clark, as Dark Horse, can retrieve this and now he is quickly becoming the only hope for the Democrats.
We have been hearing from General Clark quite a bit, but you have to want to listen. He’s not on the Big Screen; he has no Hollywood poster child like Edwards and no mangled and misbegotten “quotes” from Lincoln of things never said (grabbed form the Internet) like Gore. He is right on the facts and accurate in his historical perspective. He is precise and perfect in presentation. And he’s been going on and on about Iran, like the Ancient Mariner, to anyone who will listen; in the Huffington Post, on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, and at the 92nd St. YMCA in New York City, on Fox news and now as a commentator on MSNBC. He’s at StopIranWar.com, alone among the Democrats to warn of impending neocon-inspired invasion of Iran.
Like those who denounced Churchill as crying wolf, Rove & Company have called Clark’s claim about a pending Iran invasion absurd, and most of the Democratic contenders hope this will pass them by as well, as they hoped Iraq would. But this weekend in the NYTs, we are told that Vice President Cheney and the incompetent war cabinet has been pushing for strikes against Iran all along. Joe Lieberman, who used to be a Democrat and sometimes thinks he still is, is openly pushing for strikes on Iran. The Republican right is calling for the “nuclear option” as it has been since the beginning of the Iraq conflict.
Only General Clark speaks up.
Condi Rice, the Administration's Incredible Shrinking Woman, is said to prefer conversation rather than bombing Iran, but the NYTs reports that “ . . . Mr. Cheney believed that Ms. Rice’s diplomatic strategy was failing, and that by next spring Mr. Bush might have to decide whether to take military action.”
Cheney is incapable of seeing warfare as anything beyond revenge and dominance. He is the Anti-Eisenhower; he has a mind which rebels from strategic thinking and planning. They still haven’t avenged the Ayatollah Khomeini and the taking of American hostages in 1979. It will be the administration’s last bit of business as they finally close the door that Ronald Reagan opened.
Only General Clark and a few others – Eric Massa, Andrew Horne of Tennessee and Jon Soltz; all Democrats and military officers – are speaking up. But they are building a new Democratic Party and General Clark was elementary in organizing and husbanding its awakening.
I was pleased to hear on NPR this week and again on NBC over the weekend, a tribute to Jim Webb, the new Senator from Virginia, for Father’s Day. He talked about fathers and sons and the tradition of military service which has gone back in his Virginia family to before the American Revolution.
How times have changed in the last two years.The rise of Jim Webb, Joe Sestak, Tammy Duckworth, Andrew Horne; the kind of solid-stock heartland politicians like New Hampshire's Carol Shea-Porter and Arkansas's Woody Anderson that we haven't seen since the day of JFK. Clark tirelessly supported these candidates throughout '06 political season. They are forming a new Democratic sensibility.
They bring a new and different attitude to the Democratic Party - a positive attitude.
This new Democratic sensibility is the best fit for our country at the beginning of the new century. My feeling is that it is unfortunately our own internal energy - the pseudo-Republicans of the DLC in particular and what Democratic strategist Mudcat Saunders recently called the Metropolitan Opera branch of the Democratic Party - that is sinking these efforts, striving to return to pre-9/11 conditions. Any of these new people: Tammy Duckworth, Jim Webb, Eric Massa, Joe Sestak, Wes Clark, would awaken American and beat the likes of Mitt Romney hands down. I'm hoping that Katrina Swett and/or Jay Buckey, who are both running against Senator John Sununu here in NH, can follow Shea-Porter’s lead and marshal this new Democratic sensibility in New England and bring it forward.
The Democrats have to get serious now or it will soon be too late: As said; Romney is smart as paint and he is a fantastic manager. But sending the country to such a detached manager as Romney, who was key to the progress of financial institutions like Bain & Company and Bain Capital, would be sending it into receivership.
The crisis which begins our century could well be at hand right now as Hamas takes the Gaza Strip. This victory by the radical force in Palestine will empower a new generation of revolutionary, anti-Western young people. As General Clark said, Gaza could now be a breeding ground for Al Queda connected radicals. It is the beginning of a new framework of discussion and diplomacy and it is possible now for warfare to spread and alliances to harden.
I hope General Clark continues to speak up. Although I appreciate the leadership in the House and the Senate, I'm afraid that Harry Reid is starting on the wrong note: This is not the time to go after General Petraeus with personal criticism. It encourages a negative mood for the Democrats. And it is wrong to criticize soldiers on the ground as “detached” and “incompetent” as Reid has recently done and shows an intrinsic misunderstanding of the matrix of power in our country.
I feel only General Clark can forcefully and effectively shape the issues now for the Democrats and prevent the temptation of this kind of "shadow" criticism - the thing which could drive the Democrats to nihilism and irrelevance, which at this point could lead our country to great disaster.
In the Wall Street Journal this week Reagan speech-writer Peggy Noonan all but called for a third party. David Broder of the Washington Post actually called for third party last week.
Mainstream conservatives like Noonan and Broder are getting the idea: There are always other options. One such attractive option is New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, who said he would start his own third party if the standing parties can’t come up with something original and dynamic. Bloomberg is nothing if not dynamic and he does speak to the heart of New York City as great mayors like Ed Koch and Fiorello LaGuardia did. But he is enigmatic as well and is said to have all but sponsored Lieberman’s mischief in third-party politics in Connecticut in ’06. Bloomberg could well bring the same Lieberman mischief to the national stage. Coincidentally, Mayor Mike is up here in New Hampshire this weekend. Just visiting, he says.
Bloomberg has bi-partisan support, and political venerables like Ham Jordan, former chief for Jimmy Carter and Angus King, former Independent Governor of Maine, have been calling for a third party all year.
It should be noted as well that "post partisanship" being advanced in California in particular by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is an ascending political trend in political journals like The Nation. These new directions would well coalesce in a new framework provided by Bloomberg and the half billion of his own cash that he is willing to put up for this new venture. If so, one of the two standing parties could get a one-way ticket to Palookaville, as the Whigs did in the mid1800s.
We need Wes Clark now: If we don’t come forth now with our best managers and strategists, we may find ourselves descending into a spiral of irrelevance and caught in a twist of fate which we can no longer find our way out of.
Wes can run AND win, and to think that Romney or Ghouliani could actually win the GOP primary and possibly the GE makes my head spin and stomach churn. One would think, after a decade of GOP rule, based on Gingrich's Contract ON America, pandering to the regressive religious right, deceptions of the highest order and outright lies all wrapped up in hypocracy, that the country has had it UP TO HERE with the GOP and NOT ONE of GOP candidates could even THINK they could win in 2008. Yet the Rahm Emmanuels and DLC'rs of the Dem party just yet may serve it up to them.
It's absolutely astonishing that the official Dem Party has put impeachment "off the table", enabling gwb & co to continue to run roughshod over our country and the rule of law. This certainly reflects in the 23% approval rating Congress now sports. Especially frightening is their silence on Iran, except to echo the administration's "all options are on the table" threats. The DLC leadership of the Dems are happy with the status quo and they certainly don't ruffle any of the Blue Dog Dems, many who won in 2006.
Lastly, you can add Bob Schiefer to your list, as he called for a third party this morning on Face the Nation.
Great piece, Bernie. I'm with you 100%. CLARK 2008!
I've been a Democrat all my life (a long, long, long time), but have been interested in politics only since and because of Wes Clark. I just cringe at the thought of any of the other candidates, either side, "leading" this country....it would be continued disaster.
Bernie, your post is a breath of fresh air....I just came from another post w/comments, and was very discouraged at their respective tones of conversation, because of Wes Clark's signing with MSNBC, and not being available for a POTUS candidacy. I think the new "gig" is a great move, and will be a more positive and diverse situation for his messages.
I, too, believe we need Wes Clark to really "lead" this country out of the depths of despair in which we find ourselves thanks to the neocons and the current administration. Clark has the ability and experience to be decisive with forethought but without arrogance. He's actually been in the politics of the military for over 30 years: in a war, wounded, training army troups, strategizing for and winning a war, while moving up the military ladder, legitimately and with distinction.
Wes Clark for President in '08!
Mildred, I hardly think a contract with msnbc
keeps Wes from running if he decides to, do you?
One of the press releases referred to Wes Clark as a possible candidate for president '08. That's actually got to be good for msnbc.
...altho I do admit it set me back a bit at first.
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
keep Wes from becomming a candidate...I meant that at another site the bloggers were thinking it would preclude him from running. I'm sure he negotiated a contract for any contingency to fit his decision, whatever that may be.
I didn't see the press release to which you referred, but I'm still with Wes until I hear a "No" decision. At the moment it appears some of the frontrunners aren't doin' so good.....that they're getting behinder and behinder.....there's still hope for the General.... :)
...there's hope for the country. Barring that, I'm pretty despondent, and also a wee bit anxiety ridden.
but you know 'bravado' when you see it, right?
Besides, you know Wes isn't gonna let Romney "take us there"
:/
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
Thank you mpolley. Churchill was a journalist too, before and after the time he was Prime Minister. He did whatever needed to be done to make his voice heard at a time when no one would listen. I've appreciated hearing General Clark's MSNBC commentary here on WesPAC (we don't get advanced cable up here I don't think)- it brings that voice to America and that is the voice we need to hear.
RomneyRhetoric is the scariest of all, Bernie, don't you think? He may be "smart as paint", but I think the man's certifiable.
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
This week Romney has jumped in New Hampshire where we don't care about religion. He jumped eight points ahead of his others. It is way dangerous because he is brilliamt but unable to distinguish origins and paradigms; he amplifies and manages existing paradimgs. He will take new modifying ideas which no one else will listen to, which is good, but he remains hard on original principles. In this case the original principle is the so-called Bush Doctrine. Following it further could bring us disaster like we have not yet seen. It is possible for the Russians to get into this and if it inflates again as much as it has in the last nine months, it is likely.
Headline in my morning paper today: "Romney Grabs Leads in Early Voting States" - says Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, "Mitt Romney is now positioned as the front-runner for the nomination. There's a long way to go, but to date he's running the most logical, thought-out, structured campaign. He's marching in the right cadence, he's raising the money, he's spending it wise and he seems to be on track."
During his speech to the audience at Washington and Lee in May, Wes was summarizing the Republican race and mentioned that Romney, he believed, was the front runner.
Even a month ago, Clark new them well enough to know Romney would still be a player.
My experience in Virginia and North Carolina where people are inherently religious is that most don't really care that much about Romney being a Mormon; only a few hard-core & entrenched which the media loves to dig out. They just want people to go to church. "Mormon" used to be anathema as Jewish and Catholic used to be in the South 50 years ago but so was Republican {Eisenhower won all but the conservative yellow-dog Democratic states). My Encyopedia of Suthern Culture tells of Southern agriculture in Jim Webb's hills - they learned to farm by themselves and for a 150 years they did it that way " . . . because that's the way daddy did it." It was in inherited condition & "heart-based" people like those of Virigia honor their traditions. In my town of Tobaccoville, NC, where I reared my kids in the '90s, 80% of my voting precinct changed from Democrat to Republican. They most all changed as well from the small Baptist and Evangelical churches which built the South, white and black, to the Big Top Assembly of God churches out of Texas - it was part and parcel of a cultural change. The South is ready and willing to accept change. We have seen Southern emergence and metamorphosis since the '60s; Light Face (Sam Ervin, Howard Baker, Jimmy Carter, Wesley Clark) and Dark Face (Jack-Legged Yankee interloper Boy George).
stone cold liar - no compunction - yep, he's the one who got the implant - mmm.... yeah, literally, I'm afraid.
giggles
but seriously- my blood ran cold when he said we should double the size of Guantanamo without missing a beat
this is - not incidentally - why I think all future Presidential debates ought to be conducted in Gitmo sized cells with Abu Grahib dogs under PATRIOT Act rules
just sayin'
...my certifiability-opinion had nothing whatsoever to do with Romney's religion. (Clearly in this age in America, a politican can't leave home without one.)
It had to do with not keeping his story straight, the changing face he presents to the public, his apparent relish to expand rather than close gitmo, and his "veto-glee-ad". Above all, Romney loves bush's war.
...and what you said
Romney is consistently inconsistent.
How stable is that?
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
This question is not intended to be dismissive of General Clark, nor inflammatory. It has haunted me since I commenced interest in Wes Clark as president or vice-president -- more than four years ago. The first person I told back then of my intentions to work for Wes's candidacy is a well-educated, mother, grandmother, head of a major hospital's social service department, and over-all concerned American. Her reaction: "We don't need a military general."
I called her yesterday and refreshed her memory of the statement. Here is what she said. "I'm tired of hearing about war. My friends are tired about hearing about war. My daughters are worried about war. Career military represent war. I'm not voting for anyone who represents war."
Bernie and Tom, my dear savants on all things Clark: If this woman represents a vast percentage of Americans (and I think her view does), HOW DOES GENERAL CLARK OVERCOME THIS? If your answer is educating her about Wes Clark, I've done that. She holds him in high esteem. Her recent statement is a viseral reaction to anything military.
she needs to be politely reminded that the endless war we are embroiled in now was launched and is being perpetuated by people who mostly had NO military service and don't understand the seriousness of ordering men and women into combat, nor the limits of military power to achieve political ends. They're playing with toy soldiers. Career military people know that soldiers are not toys.
(particularly after what civilians have DONE to them) get on my last nerve. And I'm not always polite.
While on my morning bike ride, I realized I didn't mean to exclude others from helping me answer the question.
It is not that my friend abhors the military and its purpose. The troubling part is that so many people just don't want to think about war...war...war.
The entire rationale for the Bush presidency since 9/11/ is war. As great as WKC looks in a business suit, he still represents the military. After all, Supreme Allied Commander stil invokes visions of Eisenhower and D-Day. Waves of men swarming the beaches.
that's comforting. However, most Generals I'm familiar with are more concerned with peace, peace, peace. I think it's time for people to actually think about this for once, instead of just gut reacting. NO one wants peace more than someone who may die as a direct result of war. Ask any former military person. "There are no atheists in foxholes."
Wes 08
Well tell them Gordon; don't be shy
Tired already how can that be; the wars have just begun;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprogressivedailybeacon%2Ecom%2Fmore%2Ephp%3Fpage%3Dopinion%26id%3D1574
Seven Countries Five Years
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
But I think the answer is not, "How does Wesley Clark overcome this," but ,"How does America overcome this?" My first article about Wesley Clark several years ago now was about how the country needed to change from the "high Victorianism" of the Clinton '90s when half the country was invested in stocks and expected the stock markets to go up to 35,000. It was lost in its own illusion (Galbraith's opinion, but Galbraith was ignored). I said that General Clark was the archetypal figure the country would eventually come to to find a new equalibrium; that is, the values which are Wes Clark would become the values of America if we were to successfully address the situation of 9/11 and the neocon influences on the Bush administration - just as the values of Eisenhower would become the values of the common American at one point, although ten years before, these values were rejected. All times do not need Generals; Generals are bad for some times. But the people need to meet the times: People don't make history, history makes people, as Emerson put it. If you look at the first few chapters of Robert K. Massie's "Dreadnought" it shows that it is in the animal nature of states to smell illusion and weakness; it is in Sun Tsu as well - an enemy's weakness is as good as one's own strength. As Massie points out, at Victoria's Diamond Julilee in 1897, the Brits were awash with illusions of invincibility. But the Germans knew they could build bigger and better ships. It came down to simple mathematics: The English had 10 million proletariat. The Germans had 50 million. The English had no chance.
It took almost 50 years for England to face the challenge: England needed a new attitude, but they remained in denial and in nostalgic glory. Until Churchill. Culture turns on archetypal people; when it needs to change it will reformulate around one single individual who is immune to hypnotism, delusion, self-glorification and nostalgia and keeps focused zen-like on the task at hand.
Wesley Clark was and is that person to face the times ahead. We are still in denial in my reading of the current crop of Democratic candidates for '08 - all want a theme from the recent past to come back again; it is public denial. Wesley Clark presents the sensibility which the country needs to focus around if it intends to successfully engage the times. Like Churchill, he was there at day one with the same voice, the same story.
That American's don't like military people is an inhereted condition from the past 30 years of relative peace - it is a way of saying we don't want to face the challenges ahead and the new day; we want to go back to the easy days of the Clinton Golden Jubilee. It takes a hard turning; Americans felt the same all through the 1930s, until Pearl Harbor, when the elastic snapped. It hasn't done so yet. 9/11 was not enough. But if we don't soon face the new centuries' issues we will be sent deeper into misguided adventurism.
that coincides with your above statement, Gordon. I noticed a poll, posted on here a few days ago, that had Wes on the list of Democrat candidates without Al Gore listed.
Wes was pretty much a flat-liner at around 2%. When I looked closer at the poll breakdown almost all of Wes's support (4%) was from men. I think their is a strong association of Wes Clark as General Wes Clark. I think their is a strong gender bias towards Wes Clark. I know many CCN posters are women but I think to the general public women will not be as favorable on Wes's skill set and military career as being transferable to political office.
I also noticed that without Gore in the lineup, very little of the undecided went to Wes. Wes was flat without Al Gore as a choice. I don't think the Al Gore support will transfer to Wes like I was hoping. It was only one poll but I didn't see any real good news for Wes in it.
I don't need to be convinced at all that Wes would be a terrific President. Now is a huge time of need for a man with leadership, integrity, international knowledge, and military background. Unfortunately, I don't think the average American voter thinks about those attributes. Something can happen and change this whole paradigm (like Dopey attacking Iran) but for now....because Wes hasn't entered the race and because he continues to work heavily on military issues (why wouldn't he) he is identified as a military man. We Clarkies know he is so much more than that but he hasn't broken out of the military mold to capture the hearts and minds of the average voter.
I think, and have thought for some time now, that he will end up on a ticket (probably Hillary). I am wondering if one of his big preconditions to enter on his own is if these neocons go into Iran. This may lead to a forum where he can easily outshine all comers but the result would be we are in Iran! Just when we thought these neocons couldn't get worse and then Wes would have some serious fixing up to do throughout the Middle East.
As much as I want Wes Clark for President, if it means that we will also be in Iran, than I would prefer Wes in another role and building up for a 2012 run. I think it is important to call Wes Clark....Wes Clark...not General Wes Clark. Wes Clark, entrepenuer, author, Rhodes Scholar, retired general, Nato supreme commander, and former VP has a nice ring to it for 2012.
My current two cents (worth...nothing)!
In the meantime can we start proceedings to Impeach Bush/Cheney/Gonzo?
We reap what we sow
is an intelligent and lovely person, Gordon, but my first thought when I read this was that her comment about being "tired of hearing about war" sounded much too much like the one Barbara Bush made about not wanting to pollute her "beautiful mind" with thoughts about body bags coming back from Iraq.
We can't run away from this problem or pretend it doesn't exist just because we are tired of dealing with it. And from my experience, your friend's point of view is not shared by the people I know. My well-educated, successful friends are very interested in hearing more about Wes Clark and do not dismiss him simply because he served his country for 34 years.
I mentioned this before, but I'll reiterate my observation about Wes's new book. He does not identify himself on the cover as "General Wesley Clark" and as you know, it's the first of his books that has no uniform or military visual references on the cover. Perhaps Wes is one step ahead of this possible concern about his career in the military.
I've been less and less sanguine about the possibility of a Clark run, so your optimism does me good. I already know he is the only possible Democratic winner. Romney is indeed formidable--so I think a Clark/Mark Warner ticket would be a strong counterfoil. Liberals may not like Warner, but I have a tremendous respect for him. I like his demeanor, and what he did for VA, my former state. He is no slouch at business, and has the caring heart of a true progressive.
I also think Fred Thompson may end up being the GOP candidate. Here again, Clark is the only one with the mojo to beat him. If WKC does not run, I really see myself going for Bloomberg, if he runs.
I heard something chilling on NPR the other day. Apparently Rahm Emanuel has suggested one-on-one discussions between Dem and Repug candidates before the primaries. Not a bad idea. But the panelist said the candidates would never go for it because to a person they did not care about electablility in the GE, only about winning the primary. And there's the rub.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
A poster at BuzzFlash picks it up..
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=15741
People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"
and started to write a reply, but it would have been pretty snarky. Since I didn't think it would do any good or change his mind and I didn't want to continue any kind of dialogue with the idiot.....I just deleted what I started to write.... There are more like him(?) out there, unfortunately...
well #1 you have taken the most extreme position in the war-peace paradigm; as the genocide escalated in Kosovo the ethnic cleasing decimated families and drove millions from their homes; US didn't stand by as they did with Rwanda; we acted under NATO to stop it; Gen (ret.) Wesley Clark was Supreme Allied Commander whose mission it was to bring the warring on European soil to an end; in his opportunities to speak to the public Wes Clark imparts his experience to describe what military leadership under civilian command is about; and his advise is 'go to war as a last resort' that war is brutal and inexact; please put up your military or leadership experience now to refute but if not and your reason to toss a reckless charge at him is because you or yours have been a victim of violent conflict I share a deep regret with you about the harsh cruelness of war;
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
Romney has been by far the least consistent candidate of the bunch, yet you don't hear as much about him not having principles as, say, Clinton (who seems to be one of the more consistent of the bunch, if you read her history in any fair manner).
There are no Republican candidates that Democrats should fear. Especially not Romney.
My comment about the current Democratic lineup sponsoring a third party I've been on for a year now. Today the cover of Time features Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mike Bloomberg with the headline, "Who needs Washington anyhow?" Warren Buffett here calls for a third party with Mike Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Time title lightheartedly suggests California secession, but the words are carefully chosen. Arnold and CA attorney Jerry Brown have defied the feds on environmental issues in ways not customary since 1865.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/06/16/2007-06-16_mike__ahnolds_time_has_come.html
. . . my point, which I forgot to make, is that a third party, as fully as I understand it, could well send the race to the House. And if no plausible front-runner is seen a brokered convention could result. As I understand it (and I don't really), delegates in a brokered convention simply try to find a plausible candidate and that could be anyone they find to be the best candidate (my full knowledge on this is hearing Obama on the Letterman show). That could well be Wesley Clark.
A brokered convention is the only thing I can see that could bring Al Gore into the race.
Delegates to the convention pledged to a candidate (which doesn't include the superdelegates) are only obligated to vote for their chosen candidate on the first ballot. After that it's open season. Almost anything can happen, but the objective is something close to consensus. It could be a "second-tier" candidate with low unfavorables. It could be someone not even in the race, again someone who, though not the first choice of the majority, is one most can live with.
"Second tier" candidates might withdraw and then either throw their support to someone else or stay out of it.
If Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson all survive the primaries and go to the convention, I don't see any of them getting over about 40%, and a brokered convention could easily happen.
Clark is more likely to emerge as the nominee from a brokered convention as a non-candidate than as a candidate with only a handful of delegates, I think. His stock would be high, unsullied by tawdriness and nastiness of a campaign. That would assume that Gore says, "Hell, no, I won't go."
No matter the scenario, Clark's odds are low but greater than zero.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
where Arnold is concerned? Did Buffet?
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
creating a mirror point ( let me explain briefly) if the Dems win 2008 and there is any disappointment with 2008 plus four - 2012 - they are keeping the Arnold GOP options on the table;
the collective unconscious on the most basic level ( broadstroke ) is controlled by;
pressure - relief
relief - pressure
the GOP knows the psychology of collective consciousness/ and /collective unconscious very well;
they are playing it as we speak;
the night before the election 2006 they knew they would lose big;
that night Karl Rove made public announcement the GOP would win big;
the night or morning after they lost Bush said 'they took a thumping'
and within hours they dismissed Rumsfled;
this was to re-capture the reactive collective unconsciousness
it is a tough job to talk about neuro-linguistic programming
it is based on the architecture of brain organization concerning
STORAGE OF EXPERIENCE & MEMORY
RECALL OF DECISIONS ( ACTIONS ) & MEMORY
the GOP purpose of writing and conducting unconscious psychological operations is to convert/subvert the individual or collective WILL
re-write or re-frame (convert) an individual or the collective unconscious
is done is stages
equivalency
ultra
mkultra
then finally triggering post hypnotic suggestion
these campaigns scripted for the UNconscious collective are done over long months not in one setting but in many settings;
---------------------------
all language creates images for storage
language is not stored as shorthand of words and sentences
storage of experience and memory is all image ( tied to sound and rest of the senses)
--------------------
we won 2006 - public wanted two things
get us out of Iraq
do something immediately about gov. corruption that is collapsing the democracy
BushCo image team understands 'expectations' in the collective consciousness
they immediately went to work to re-capture the focus and attention back on themselves with Rumsfeld replacement;
they re-captured the expectations of the public immediately while we were celebrating
and kept it up with GOP criticizing Pelosi ( somewhat effectively she is still liked but the Dem majority lost a lot of the public because the expectations of the public were not managed well )
GOP immediately calling Pelosi and Murtha corrupt and so forth
then our Dem majority didn't handle their image well ( regardless of the job they have done they haven't managed YET the perception campaign which is the baseline of the collective UNconscious and collective conscious public )
with the status quo presidential campaign ongoin
and the majority not getting credit for what constructive work they are doing;
the GOP stands a chance to win 2008
the Dems are getting better at this but can't be second to the GOP in this skill;
they have to work it better;
The Dems nearly own the Iraq war now ( what a dirty trick the mess is Bush's mess but the public may stick it on the Dems )
and they will do that by staying home and not voting like it was 2006;
that is the CONTEXT - they is what has to be worked constructively;
anyway
about the programmers agenda from GOP side: they are sketching in images of Arnold in case they lose 2008; so they can work that expectation as leverage any mismanagement of expectations in a Dem 2008 -2012 presidency;
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
um...you think 50 states will ratify an amendment to the Constitution in Arnold's lifetime?
I don't.
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
but perception is not about facts; the time magazine is bloomberg lends credibility and popularity expectations and likeablity to Arnold; and arnold lends the same to Bloomberg;
it is a PERCEPTION ONLY campaign; it is psychological not factual
momentum and populatrity and the 'it' factor are about
myth and legend and imagination
they are working the public's imagination
"Managing expectations" by promoting public discussion of issues prior to decision making.
google term: managing expectations
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
it's all just white-noise as far as I'm concerned
tomfoolery
What I don't understand is why Buffet is playing.
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
and he lent his credibility in a news conference before the recall election during the short campaign with
George Schultz, Warren Buffet, and Arnold and Buffet lip synched sort of left positions;
it is all slight of hand for the GOP; and ARNOLD; it may be noise to you cause you think but it seals the deal for the public who only looks at the pictures;
Buffet was also at moffet AFB is that the one all the CEO for the world trade towers was at and where Bush flew into on 9/11 sometimes I forget the names of the bases; and they were there for an elite invited rsvp meeting exactly the morning of 9/11
curious that was always curious and Buffet was the keynote speaker at the AFB meeting of people who would have otherwise been in the towers and died that day with their employees;
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
he publicly suggested that Ahnny raise property taxes
...if I recall correctly
C'mon General Clark...let's give them something to talk about!
IMHO;
need to think like Hollywood producers; movie trailers, money shots; marketing bobblehead dolls and action figures, photo-ops; access hollywood interviews; celebrity conditioned public
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
from the Bilderberg 2007 Partial List
George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA)
Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA)
Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA)
Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA)
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA)
Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA)
Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA)
William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA)
Frank McKenna, Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada)
Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA)
David Rockefeller (USA)
George Soros, CFR, Trilateral (Opens Society Institue) Soros Foundation, ( USA)
John Vinocur, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA)
James D. Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA)
Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA)
Klaus Zumwinkel, Chairman of the Board of management, Deutsche Post AG (USA)
Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist
I'd like to ask ms in la if the list typically includes so many media people. NOT a good thing if you ask me. Not that you did.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Every single year the major media attend, which has been one of the most curious of the conundrums of B-Berg. All the top media are there --Gigot, Graham and Vinocur and others have all been fixtures. And yet, the fascinating part is, they are sworn to secrecy and NONE can report a word of it. And their lips are sealed. These are the owners of the publications the entire world reads, who are privy to the wealthiest, most powerful people -- meeting to discuss policy affecting us all -- and they are cannot breathe a word of it....
If that in itself doesn't tell you something... you're not listening. How about the emptying out of the towns before the Bergers arrive and replacing all the employees of the hotel and all around the hotel with CIA, and other intel? The bomb sniffing dogs, patrol boats, helicopters, armed guards at all perimeter points, the arrests of anyone getting close...
The 2008 summer invite list will be the one to watch for. This year- for the first time- they realized that the bloggers have caught on to them... And for the first time they actually put out disinformation to throw them off their tracks. It worked. For about a day. They "leaked" another hotel in Turkey that was I think some 40 miles away from the actual hotel used (smart!) but those who follow BBerg picked it up right away and revised course. I'm surprised with all the Intel in their troupe they hadn't started doing this years ago.
So '08 will likely be the same. Disinformation to comb through to find them.
Even the cities selected are worth noting, witness Turkish troops going into Iraq the day after Bilderberg in Istanbul.
Pay attention to the Bergers and the Pipelines-- and you can amaze your friends with accurate predictions! Heh... : /
by a geopolitical astrologer:
Eustace Mullins has written expose books on the Federal Reserve, the oligarchic elite who control much of the money and power in the world, and the A. M. A. (American Medical Association). His book called The World Order describes the interlocking directorates which put the same, limited group of men in control of the big international businesses, the big foundations, the big universities, and government.
He says in the book that five men mostly run the world, so I wrote to ask him the names of the five. He wrote back that they were Lord Victor Rothschild of London, Baron Guy de Rothschild formerly of Paris and now of New York, Robert Roosa of Brown Brothers Harriman of New York, and Prince Tourn und Taxis of Regensburg. He said that the fifth had been Harriman but when he died, George Shultz replaced him.
Yes, I was astonished and skeptical about Shultz being on the really top rung. His mother was a Pratt which is one of the leading families along with the Rockefellers. Mullins has spent his whole life in libraries, gathering facts which are presented in his books. There is no firm evidence that these five men are really the most powerful.
Naturally, I immediately tried to get birth data for the four. We have already given Shultz’s birth date as December 13, 1920 in New York, but I have no time for him. I found a biography of the Rothschild family in the Hollywood library which included an extensive family tree. Victor was born on October 31, 1910, probably in London but I am not certain of that. Guy was born on May 21, 1909, probably in Paris but again I am not certain. Robert Roosa was listed in an International Who’s Who as born on June 21, 1918 but no place of birth was given. He is now in the New York area, but might have come from Michigan since his first college was there. Helen Clerf found the data for Prince Turn und Taxis; June 5, 1926 in Regensburg, Germany. I ran all the charts for noon in the presumed birth places, but did Roosa’s for his business in New York. David Rockefeller birth date on June 12, 1915 in New York.
Still An Option - Wes Clark ~ June 18 2007
in Ahnold's lifetime, I'm sure it would exclude him, or make some provision so that it would become effective at some future date.
Wed 25 Sep 2002 
Schwarzenegger flanked by Warren Buffet, left, and Lord Rothschild, at stately Waddesdon Manor. But has the actor set his sights on a house of a whiter hue? Picture: PA
Is Arnold the running man?
Stephen McGinty
Tough-guy Arnold Schwarzenegger is a man more familiar with the red carpets of a movie premiere than a white collar business seminar, so the sight of the Terminator escorting Warren Buffet, the second-richest man on the planet, to the European Economic Round Table conference on Monday was slightly strange. His pressed business suit, white shirt (attaboy Arnie) and sombre striped tie were a world away from the army fatigues or black leather jacket of his signature roles, triggering speculation that a career change may be just around the corner.
After a string of flops - remember Eraser, End of Days and Collateral Damage? Probably not - the actor needs next year’s Terminator 3 to hit paydirt. Should the film nosedive he plans to move into politics and run for the governorship of California, the platform from which Ronald Reagan propelled himself into the White House. A spokesman for NetJets, the corporate aircraft firm owned by Buffet - which sponsored the seminar - insisted Arnie was an ordinary delegate, as well as a customer, just there to listen. He was not there to talk nor paid to attend.
From the sidelines it seems a slick piece of synergy by the billionaire Buffet: organise a lavish conference at Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, the ancestral home of the Rothschild banking family, invite the world’s leading businessmen and financiers, and dazzle them with a major Hollywood star. Schwarzenegger, an astute businessman himself with a degree in business and economics from the University of Wisconsin, gains the wisdom and knowledge of guest speakers such as James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, Jorma Ollila, chief executive of Nokia and Roland Berger, a prominent consultant in global strategy. After two days of handshakes and drinks he’ll have boosted his credibility with the men who may one day bankroll his political ambitions. He might well also point out how happy he is with NetJets’ services. The company, whose other clients include Pete Sampras and Martina Hingis, sell an eighth or a 16th of a private jet to customers, entitling them to a certain number of flying hours without the expense of maintaining ground crews and hanger space.
A Republican - though one married to a Kennedy - Schwarzenegger signalled his support for Dubya Bush in his choice of footwear. While his follow guests shuffled around in their handmade Italian shoes, Arnie had the additional swagger bestowed by a pair of black cowboy boots with stainless steel tips.
What appeared to be a promotional stunt may instead be the actor’s next step towards joining the President’s political posse.
Related topic
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=869&id=1063282002
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest/markus112297.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/reviews
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/2007/jun/in-no-time
http://www.bilderberg.org/2007.htm#guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Rothschild
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14rothschild.html?_r=2&ref=worldbusiness&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14rothschild.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=worldbusiness&adxnnlx=1182206599-zLk0A4BRbFWHWkpdVOWN+A
Baron Guy de Rothschild, Leader of French Arm of Bank Dynasty, Dies at 98
Baron Guy de Rothschild. Right, in 1975 at Chantilly with his wife, Marie-Hélène, after their horse Crystal Palace won the race.
June 14, 2007
Baron Guy de Rothschild, the patriarch of the French branch of the famous banking dynasty who rebuilt and expanded its Paris bank after it was seized during World War II and then saw it survive another government takeover in the 1980s, died Tuesday in Paris. He was 98.
The Rothschild family announced the death, Agence France-Presse reported.
Lean and charming, the aristocratic Baron Guy was an heir to the House of Rothschild, whose several branches were financiers of kings and princes when Europe was a royal family affair.
Besides his financial acumen, he was celebrated in Paris, London, New York and elsewhere for the family wine, Château Lafite Rothschild, and for his thoroughbred racehorses. His enormous country home outside Paris, the Château de Ferrières, was regularly the scene of extravagant costume balls and dinners that set new standards for the Parisian high life.
After the fall of France in 1940, the pro-Nazi Vichy regime seized the family bank, which had been moved from Paris to the small southern town of La Bourboule in the Auvergne region. The next year, the baron slipped away to New York and then to London, where he joined General Charles de Gaulle’s Free French forces.
History repeated itself some 40 years later, when, in 1981, the newly elected Socialist-Communist coalition of President François Mitterrand nationalized the bank that the baron had reclaimed and built up again after World War II.
Although he had retired as chairman of the bank in 1979, Baron Guy was so disgusted by what France had done to his family for a second time that he again decamped to New York, where he helped run a small Rothschild business there.
But before leaving, he published a famous front page article in Le Monde accusing the Socialists of pandering to French anti-Semitism. It concluded: “A Jew under Pétain, a pariah under Mitterrand — for me that is enough.”
But fortune was to smile on the French Rothschilds again during the baron’s lifetime. In 1984, his eldest son, David, and a cousin, Eric de Rothschild, finally received permission from the Socialist government to found a new bank, which they had to call Paris Orléans Banque because they were banned from using the family name.
That restriction disappeared in 1986, however, after the Gaullist Jacques Chirac became prime minister. The bank was renamed Rothschild et Associes Banque and later Rothschild et Cie. Banque, reclaiming its old offices on the Rue Laffitte.
In his 198os autobiography, “The Whims of Fortune,” the baron wrote of the anguish of seeing his life’s work twice destroyed by government seizures. But the 1982 nationalization was particularly painful. Only three years earlier, he had merged the family’s holding company, Compagnie du Nord, with the bank. Thus, when the bank was taken over, the French state also acquired the family stake in many of the mining and industrial interests that he had built up.
“It is clear that the nationalization of banks does not have the Rothschilds as a specific target,” he said in an interview in The New York Times in 1982. “We have been caught up in it as if in a hunting accident, caused by the men whom the French people had the weakness to give the guns to for a time.”
Although Baron Guy was proud of his policy of investing heavily in industry, the bank was doing poorly before nationalization. Profits slumped in 1977, falling to less than half their 1976 level and remained disappointing until the state took the bank over.
And when the younger generation of Rothschilds recreated the bank in the mid-1980s, they did not follow Baron Guy’s path. Instead, they concentrated on traditional financial activities, like corporate finance, money management and advising on mergers and acquisitions. They also further developed the family’s Bordeaux wine interests, which included Château Lafite and Château Mouton Rothschild.
Guy Édouard Alphonse Paul de Rothschild was born in Paris on May 21, 1909, the son of Baron Édouard de Rothschild, who had headed the bank before Baron Guy, and the great-grandson of James, who founded the French branch of the Rothschild empire in 1812. Other branches are in London, Vienna and Naples.
After law studies, Baron Guy entered the Paris bank in 1931. He found it a sleepy place. Its main activity, he said in his memoirs, was “gently prolonging the nineteenth century.”
In 1937, he married Alix Schey de Koromla, a member of an old Jewish-Hungarian family and his third cousin once removed.
The 1930s were politically difficult years for the French Rothschilds. Their railway investments were nationalized by the Popular Front government, and they experienced anti-Semitic attacks as one of the so-called Two Hundred Families, who were said to control France.
Called up as a young cavalry officer in 1939, Baron Guy did well in the war’s disastrous first days, winning a Croix de Guerre in northern France before joining the British retreat from Dunkirk. He returned to France in time to be demobilized after his country’s defeat.
In 1941, he left France with his wife to join his parents in New York, where the couple’s son, David, was born the following year. Baron Guy then threw in his lot with the Free French and set sail for London. He narrowly escaped death when his ship was torpedoed and sunk. Rescued, he celebrated his safe arrival with an 1895 bottle of Château Lafite from the family vineyards.
After the war, though he feared Europe would take “an anticapitalist turn,” he took back control of Messieurs de Rothschild frères, the “drowsy bank” he had known between the wars, and set about making it a powerful financial force.
He recovered industrial properties confiscated under the Nazis and forced these companies to make more use of the family bank. He built up new interests in the oil and mining sectors.
At the same time, he expanded the bank into corporate finance and money management and began competing for public deposits, opening new branches in Paris and elsewhere in France.
These were also the years when Baron Guy brought Georges Pompidou into the bank and eventually made him his manager.
When political crisis over Algeria’s struggle for independence brought General de Gaulle back to power as president of the newly constituted Fifth Republic, Mr. Pompidou eventually became his second prime minister and, after de Gaulle’s death, president of France.
The British historian Niall Ferguson wrote in his 1998 history of the Rothschilds, “The World’s Banker,” that Mr. Pompidou’s links with Baron Guy “did much to sustain the myth of Rothschild power on both the left and the right.”
In 1962, Baron Guy began to build new ties with the powerful London banking house of NM Rothschild & Sons, becoming chairman of a new joint company, Rothschilds Continuation, which was intended to promote cooperation between them.
A number of other joint ventures followed, and in 1968 Baron Guy became a partner in NM Rothschild, while Evelyn de Rothschild, the London bank’s chairman, became a director of the Paris bank.
In 1976, the 150th anniversary of the Rothschilds’ arrival in Paris, Baron Guy announced a shake-up of the family’s business. The bank’s name was changed to Banque Rothschild, and the family’s holding company, Compagnie du Nord, gave it a major injection of new capital by buying a 70 percent stake.
At the same time, he unveiled plans to redevelop the bank’s offices on the Rue Laffitte. And he built up his father’s horse-breeding and racing interests, winning the French Derby once.
In 2003, after Evelyn de Rothschild retired as head of N.M. Rothschild in London, the English and French firms merged to become Group Rothschild. Ownership is now shared equally between the French and English branches of the family under the leadership of Baron David de Rothschild.
After divorcing his first wife, Baron Guy married Marie-Helene van Zuylen de Nyevelt de Haar in 1957. An American-educated Dutch noblewoman, she was, like his first wife, a distant cousin of his, though also a Roman Catholic. Because of her religion, he felt obliged to resign the presidency of the Jewish Consistory, the organization created in 1905 to represent French Jewry. A year later their son, Édouard, was born.
Marie-Hélène, Baron Guy wrote in his memoirs, “changed my life.” Under her influence, he acquired new prominence on the Paris social scene and became immersed in real estate. At her urging, he restored the Château de Ferrières, where he had been brought up. It was there that they gave a series of famous balls.
In 1971, some 800 guests, invited to the Proust Ball for the centennial of the writer’s birth, followed “the Guermantes way” through the chateau grounds to dine at tables with Proustian names like Swann, Odette, Charlus and Saint-Loup.
The following year, Salvador Dalí himself attended the Surrealist Ball, for which the invitations were in mirror-writing while the dinner menu and seating instructions were deliberately incomprehensible.
In 1975, when Baron Guy decided to close Ferrières and present the chateau to the University of Paris, Marie-Hélène persuaded him to buy, as a new family home, the magnificent Hôtel Lambert at the tip of the Île Saint-Louis with its famous Gallery of Hercules.
The Baroness Marie-Hélène died in 1996. Baron Guy’s survivors include his sons, David and Édouard, who remain active in the Rothschild enterprise.
“We are a family,” Baron Guy once said, “not an impersonal corporation.”
Still An Option - Wes Clark ~ June 18 2007
http://www.youtube.com/vprointernational
video: Israel Lobby US
Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold largely because of the invasion of Iraq.
....Pottinger gives damning specifics about Murdoch. How did the Journal letter writers who'd praised him in 2005 respond now that his warnings pointed back home? We've not heard from them, because the Journal's speculator-driven op-ed pages, which are panting for Murdoch, didn't publish Pottinger this time. Patriotism is fine on those pages as long as it's window dressing. Pottinger's true patriotism had to run in the Washington Post.
The republican freedoms Pottinger invoked aren't only American, of course; they're "the cause of all mankind," as Tom Paine put it. They depend not only on the right to dispose of capital as one wishes but on capitalists' obligation to keep public trust. We aren't just speculators and self-marketers. We're fellow citizens, or we are lost. Profit-seeking that bypasses the republican brain and habits of the heart on its way to the lower viscera, degrading our lives together in order to spur sales, is an enemy of our freedom.
Those who sparked and led a fight for that freedom in Paine's time pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" within and against what they'd recently believed was their own English realm and monarch. Now Matt Pottinger has pledged his life and fortune and sacred honor against enemies abroad, but also, apparently, at home. Can the Bancrofts pledge at least some of their fortune and honor to rebuff Murdoch? Rejecting his offer would be risky, but it might be an American shot for freedom heard round the liberal capitalist world.
People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"
Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
While I appreciate and admire the contributions of all who speak in support of Wes Clark on this network, Bernie Quigley speaks to me in a voice that resonates in a timbre of its own. I posted (as I rarely do) in response to his “Suddenly, A Southern General,” having no idea who he was. (And I still don’t, really, even after having “Googled” him. But I discovered he lives in the shadow of the White Mountains, and that provided an affinity, of sorts, owing to an 1858 landscape painting I have by Edmund Darch Lewis, the well-known American artist. But that’s an aside…)
I share Bernie’s concern about the Democratic Party, its disparate values, its seeming lack of focused direction, its apparent failure (so far) to capture the passion of countless Americans not to simply be against something (that’s easy) but to be for a precisely thought-out strategy for restoring what we have lost both in our sense of ourselves and in the opinions of who we are (were) by the world’s peoples. I don’t mean to speak against Hillary or Obama or John or Bill (Riehardson) – any of them would represent a grand opportunity for the seismic improvement in our nation’s well being. The question is, as Bernie asks, can they be elected? And, like him, I am apprehensive about the answer.
I have no such doubts about Wes Clark. Were he to win the Democratic nomination. he would be elected in a landslide. But that’s the problem – winning the nomination. Money, glitz, celebrity status, media attention – all the things Clark lacks. But is a third-party effort feasible? History suggests not. Nor would I wish it otherwise. For all its disadvantages and limitations, our two-party system has served us well, has defined our direction (for the most part, favorably), and has reflected the definitive will of a majority, not a plurality, at least of the Electoral College if not, always, the American people.
All of which is to say, simply, that yes, I agree with Bernie. We need Wes Clark now. We (both America and the Democratic Party) need what he represents – his values, his intellect, his passion, his devotion to what America has been and can be again, if… And I wish it weren’t such a big “if.”
Extremely kind comments. Thank you. I usually write and think about art and Buddhism and haven't written about politics in many, many years. I got back in because of the invasion of Iraq and the Bush mischief. I agree that third party is a bad idea; in the other things I think about I write about patterns in life; in generations, in personalities, in colors, in history. In a word, a healthy condition of a people is a binary one - a division essentially between head and heart. From the way I look at things, when a third party enters, it represents a disintegration beginning to occur in the general health and vitality of a people and something critical will follow; itis the beginning of an organic breakdown. Two years ago now I wrote of "third party emerging" - I considered it a danger ahead; a breaking of the psychological "consensus" of Americans. When that occurs, anything can happen. I did an e-radio interview last year when Peggy Noonan first called for a third party. I compared her to Ida Tarbell, a great journalist of the Progressive Era of whom S.S. McClure wrote that she was the touchstone of the people; " . . . When Miss Tarbell, had an idea, millions of Americans would have the same idea." So Peggy Noonan is likewise such a middle monitor and if the idea fits with her, it would fit with mainstream people who voted for Ronald Reagan. Now, last week, a year later, Broder has called for third party. There is the vast middle of the heartland. When that cue occurs, Time will bring it to its cover. They gave it a light-hearted title, both Arnold and Bloomberg laughing, but it is a most serious set of issues that they have now brought to the mainstream. One very important historical change is happening now that is going unnoticed; for 400 years we have been a North/South country (a binary concensus of head and heart). WE are becoming now an East/West country. East/West will be our destiny as trade continues across the Pacific. I've been talking to scholars and historians about third party now for several years. The Nation writes a good bit about this and it has been written about by Gar Alperovitz in the NYTs and a variety of journals. Third party was prelude to a complete loss of context in the Progressive Era. Third Party was prelude to Civil War in the 1840s when the Whigs discintegrated. It is always prelude to something devastating. In a recente NYT's op-ed Prof. Alperovitz has proposed that the major change ahead is California separation.
the FACT that we need one, that is, the disintegration has begun, and third party is an attempt to rescue something of what we the people have been/want to be?
'evidence' that disintegration has begun: look at 2 parties. they are actually four (at least), two or three each.
Ellen: I have been (and am) at the beach in NC with young 'uns and didn't notice your comment but you are exactly right. Both parties seem to be growing out of their old skins. The Republicans are ditching the Religious Right really as an old social party from the '50s and pre-war much like the Quebecois which fell apart in the last Canadian election was abandoned almost in the North. These "old school" political groupings are very like the old Irish Catholic Democrats who ran Boston - we were freed from it because of JFK & so was NY. Their time has passed. The Independent/Libertarian movement in the '80s which brought in interesting innovators like Angus King in Maine, Bill Weld in Boston and Jesse Ventura in Minnesota are morphing now into the Bloomberg/Arnold/Buffett party. I think that will replace the Republicans by 2012. Likewise, the new Democratic movement with Wes Clark/Mark Warner/Jim Webb/Carol Shea-Porter/Tammy Duckworth/Joe Sestak/Kathleen Sebelius/John Lynch and many others which took the new Congress in '06 is the avant garde of a new Democratic Party and an entirely new Democratic environment. I felt this took a set back when Nancy Pelosi was not allowed to take in John Murtha as her first Lt. There are some negatives with Murtha (I attended the Philly Abscam trials back when) but he did represent the new energy of the new movement and was a kind of "Gray Champion" - that is, the old soldier who left the "old school" and was able to awaken the new generation and bring it forward. With Steny Hoyer, she was forced to yield to the regressive wing of the party. In that regard, I've felt that Clinton/Obama and Edwards all represent old ideas and did not rise appropriately to the challenges of Bush after 9/11. The question now is who can drop the old skin first, Dems or Repubs? At the moment the Bloomberg/Arnold Republicans are winning, with the Time cover. Lugar and Voinovitch ditching the Republican ship yesterday is directly related to that. But the Democrats have a great and lasting team which they are keeping hidden. Two problems I see; the constant reference to "rock stars" and novelty candidates shows an immiturity in partisan press and rank and file among the Democrats and brings into question their ability to govern; worst of all, the liberal press and MSM keeps defaulting to NY and Northeast sensibilities and leaving the South, the Midwest and the Southwest behind. We cannot win without these regions and there is no reason why we should & it is poor and immoral to do so in a federation like ours.
Of the "new school" Democrats, Wes Clark is the only one who has not backed down. It is of elementary importance that he passively remain in the race as he has been doing. The three leading Dem candidates will continue to sink and a brokered convention has only General Clark available. Of course, they can chose anyone, but they are likely to look at the one who has remained available in the shadows. Wes Clark could beat Mitt Romney. The others can't. In a three-way race he could win as well, and if the race is thrown into the House, he could be appointed President by the Democratic majority without alienating 70% of America as the other candidates would do. I don't recall a time in our history that we have had a President elected with only 30% of the vote as a three-party race could well bring. It threatens the unity of the Republic. Even in the Clinton administration, enabled to a good degree by Ross Perot, two secession groups started; The League of the South and The New England Confederation. I have written lots about both of these groups and talked to their leaders. They were/are supported by a few of the best scholars, intellectuals and lawyers in the country (including the great ambassador George Kennan) and were/are very serious and sincere in their intentions.
I will always be a Wes Clark supporter!!
**Wes is the Mountain, the rest are just pebbles**
Clark2008