Posted on 09/18/2003 9:29:18 AM PDT by bedolido
All around Washington last week -- and before and after on the phone -- I've been busy asking people about Wesley Clark. I talked with people who worked with him, some of them very closely, asking over and over again a variation of the same question: Is Wesley Clark too weird for prime time?
Let me first tell you why I asked the question: It's because Clark in effect got fired from the Pentagon. Not to put too fine a point on it, then-Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, joined by many of Clark's colleagues, came to just plain dislike him.
Some of this had to do with policy -- the Kosovo campaign -- and some with their suspicion that Clark went over their heads to the White House. But some of it was deeply personal. Clark is sometimes compared to Eisenhower, another general who went into politics. But Ike was beloved. That's a word that never comes up when Clark is discussed.
Something about Clark makes people bristle. He is undoubtedly brilliant -- a Rhodes scholar and first in his class at West Point. He is a fine athlete and a Vietnam combat veteran who was decorated for bravery. He won the respect, even the awe, of his colleagues, but too much of the time he did not win their friendship.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Neither Nixon or Humphrey was very likeable. But Nixon was more likeable than HHH.
Think about Happy Warrior.. what does that mean... Does he laughs as he kills his enemies? "Ha HA HA Take that!" as he blows his enemies to bloody red bits? Is that the HHH version of Happy Warrior?
Or was HHH the Happy Warrior who laughs delightedly as he strikes near his enemies with a soggy wet noodle... saying in a polite tone, "Bad Bad enemy..... don't you dare do that again or I will perhaps get ever so slightly angry with you."
Hubert humpry lost in 1968 because anyone with a pair knew that HHH did not have a pair and We were at war.
Actually polls at the time showed that people did like Nixon a bit better than HHH.
HHH's big problem was people felt he as too girlish. Let us just say that HHH on TV was more girlish than Ann Coulter. He had a quite girlish giggle.. which broke out on all occasions.
I campaigned against HHH in 1968 by asking "Would you let HHH take your 11 year old son to Church camp?" "Would you let Dick Nixon take your 11 year old son to Church camp?" The answer to those two questions will tell you how to vote. They voted for Nixon.
The thing to watch will be the money he raises. Most of the big RAT monies are still on the sidelines waiting to be spent. If,all of a sudden, he raises HUGE amounts of cash in a short period of time, read that as though Billary gave the high sign to the RAT FAT CAT's to start pumping the funds into their candidate,washing away the hopes of The Breck Girl, Joe Whinerman, KetchupBoy and the rest.
If all of this turns out to be true,which I think it will, these RAT'S will have no one to blame but themselves. They have painted themselves into a corner by standing by the Xlinton's. They had the chance to dump both of them overboard during impeachment but, instead, decided that they would put party and money over country,principles and morals. They deserve being screwed by the Xlinton's and McAwful. Best of all, W will kick their asses and the RAT'S will be out of alot of money and excuses.
In fact Nixon on the day he resigned had a higher approval rating with the public than did Harry Truman did on the day he defeated Thomas Dewey. HHH was a Wimp. Wimps are not politically likable. It tells me a lot about you when you think wimps are politcally likable. It was the terrible experience with HHH, the girlish wimp, that caused the Democrat to try to paint Bush Sr. as a wimp. Wimps are not likable.
George Wallace Likeable? Only to Racists! Racists are always likable to some people. I'll bet for people like you every time George wallace talked about the Nigras getting uppity it just made you feel sooooo gooood. That is and was a big turn off for rational people.
You may hate Nixon but Nixon holds the all time record for a presidential victory. Nixon won 49 states in 1972 which Reagan tied in 1984. But Nixon in 72 won 62 percent of the vote compared to Reagan's 58 percent in 1984.
You argue that Nixon was unlikable becuase you did not like him. Some argue that Clinton was unlikable becuase they don't like him.
You really reveal your ignorance by going back to 1912. You argue from complete ignorance. To like someone or dislike someone depends being able to get to know them. Being able to see and hear that person speak and interact with others is the minimum requirement. In 1912 there was no radio, there was no tv there were no movies. . Less than .005 percent of the voters ever heard or saw any of the men you mention for 1912. The only way you could tell if you liked someone back then, was by what the media printed about them. Their were Democratic papers and Republican papers. The Republican papers described Republicans as very likable and Democrats as hateful. The Democratic papers described Democrats as very likable and Republicans as hateful. The Democratic papers used the best pictures of Democrats and the worst of Republicans and vice versa.
The magazine media (quite powerful in 1912) said Teddy was a wonderful but impetuous man. The media said Wilson was a brilliant College Professor who would make brilliant decisions. The media said Taft was big fat rich man who was in the hip pocket of big business. Taft is the reason Republicans have the reputation of being the party of the Rich. Taft was the poster boy Rich man who got fat off the poor.
It was not until the 30's with talkies and radio, that any significant number of voters even knew how candidates sounded or looked. It was only in the media era that actual likability became a factor. Today it is a factor in every race. FDR's fire side chats on radio were the first efforts to control public opinion with likability. In the media age we get to know candidates. Prior to the modern media era, black and white pictures and newspaper cartoons were the only source.
Sort of like Bob Dole HUH?? Why don't you ask how likable Bob Dole is? .....
Lets take it from the top. There has never been no time in modern history where one party has been dominate. The political spectrum has always been in three parts. The left, the right and the center. Today the left is about 35 percent the right 35 percent and the independents are 30 percent.
To win the major party must hold its base and win more than half the independents. The bases both vote on ideology. Republicans will vote for a Republican they don't like and Democrats will vote for a Democrat they don't like. Likability is not in the equation for the bases in a general election.
Getting the votes of over half the independents is the key to victory. And independents are not swayed by ideology.
Interview independents and they all say about the same thing.
The only thing that matters in Presidential elections is the electoral college. I claim that Ronald Reagan, not Nixon, holds the all time record for Presidential election victories. You are comparing popular vote and # of states, which are meaningless.
Regards.
NIXON won 49 States electoral votes in 1972 and Reagan won 49 states electoral votes 1984. Nixon got a greater percentage of the popular vote than Reagan did in 1984. Nixon lost one state, Mass, in 1972, Reagan lost one state, Minnesota, in 1984. Since Mass. has 5 more delegates to the electoral collage that does Minnesota, Reagan had 5 more electoral votes than Nixon. Reagan had 525 to Nixon's 520.
Nixon lost the peoples republic of Mass in 1972, but carried his opponent's (McGovern's) home state. That is an accomplish. Reagan lost his opponents home state in 1984 which is less of an accomplishment.
In 1984 we were at peace with prosperity. In 1972 we were in the 8th year of a very unpopular war. Every Hillary and Bill were demonstrating and rioting against Tricky Dick Nixon. I was in the media in in both 72 and 84 and it was a pretty neutral media in 1984. Most people in the media liked Reagan. Most people in the media hated Dick Nixon over the war. 1972 was the most hostile media ever faced by any president. It was in some respects worse than the media faced by Lincoln.
When Nixon won anyway they had to find a way to take him down and they did.
But to claim that Reagan's accomplishment in 1984 was anything like the accomplishment of Nixon in 1972 ignores reality.
Winning a huge re-election victory while in a quagmire unpopular war with a sluggish economy, is not easy. Winning re-election in an economic boom, while at peace is a piece of cake... Ask Bill Clinton and Bob Dole how that works.
I was in the media in in both 72 and 84 and it was a pretty neutral media in 1984. Most people in the media liked Reagan. Most people in the media hated Dick Nixon over the war. 1972 was the most hostile media ever faced by any president. It was in some respects worse than the media faced by Lincoln.
You raise a good point here. How do you think today's media compares to the one faced by Nixon in '72? Equally or more hostile? What was the total viewership of the big 3 News networks in '72?
Sorry, but that's idiotic. It simply doesn't require that much thinking to figure this one out. If you had to pick a way to die, what all's going to be on the bottom of the list? I mean, burning to death is going to be real near the bottom of most people's lists, and the fact that not a single person ran out of that building to avoid burning to death is a collosal violation of the law of averages UNLESS they had reason to think they'd be shot if they did run out.
And all of that to impress some congressional budget committee as opposed to simply nabbing the one guy they were interested in on one of his frequent trips to local stores.
I'm sorry, but the BS isn't ever going to fly on this one.
Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rush today, mentioned a comment which retired General Henry Shelton made on a talk show recently to the effect that Clark was retired early for "character and integrity issues", and that Clark would not have his (Shelton's) vote.
Other than that, taxpayers have a right to expect that a general officer in the US armed forces should be more than just a yuppie with a gun. An officer and a gentleman would resign his commission before obeying an order to bomb an innocent Christian nation into the stone age for the benefit of narco-terrorists, white trash, and savages. Clark obeyed the order with considerable glee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.