How often does a General come along that is a "natural" politician ?

[kentuck]

The last General that we had as President was Dwight D Eisenhower. He had been courted by Harry Truman and the Democrats and Truman was ready to step down if Ike would run as a Democrat. But he declined and four years later ran as a Republican. General Eisenhower was not a partisan. It appears that General Wesley Clark is cut from a similar cloth.

But it is not everyday that a General gets involved in the political affairs of this nation - at least not as a candidate. General Clark is getting a good reception at all the political events which he attends, at least as good a response as Governor Dean and Senator Kerry, the top echelon of the candidates running on the Democratic ticket.

The timing could not be better for the Democratic Party, some folks think. The Party needs someone that is strong on defense, in order to compete with the impression that the Repubs are the Party of a strong defense. This, coupled with the fact that it is now the Democrats that are considered strong on economic matters, and it gives the Democrats a strong challenger to the present regime in Washington.

[Rowdyboy]

1. There are so many ways that he strenghtens us electorally...

I have no illusions that he or any other candidate is perfect. However, considering his positions on the issues, his experience and education, his media savvy, and (especially) considering his "enemies", I think he's the strongest candidate to put up against the BFEE and their $250 million dollar juggernaut. If we want to stand a chance, realism is required.

[jody]

2. "General that is a natural politician ?" Not since Douglas MacArthur. eom

[soothsayer]

3. I think a ton of politickin and a$$kissing is needed to rise to general

Not that it's as hard as it used to be, but you totally have to be a political manueverer to make it to general.

[Rowdyboy]

5. Likewise, you have to be a major "manueverer" to reach the...

House, Senate or Governor's mansion in any of the 50 states. Do you think Gephart, Dean, Kerry, Edwards etc aren't into "politickin and a$$kissing"?

[soothsayer]

8. rightio, I'm saying that generals are just as politically savvy as pro's

yup yup yup

[ComerPerro]

4. Let me know when one shows up

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I don't really see Clark as a "natural politician".

But I am willing to give him a chance.

[Cocoa]

22. I agree, it's too early to tell

So far, he's started out with some blunders.

But like you, I'm watching to see how he does.

[roguevalley]

6. At least once that I can think of. :0)

*

[rasputin1952]

7. There are actually several possibilities...

as to how a General can be a "natural politician". We had Washington, poor General, not bad as president of a fledgling Republic. He set the standards.

Jackson, not a strategic genius, but he got the job done when it was handed to him, as a general; president, mediocre at best, not too may political inclinations as to compromise, and he viewed everyone who didn't agree with him as an enemy.

Grant, won the war by attrition, not the best of strategies. As a president, not very political, and a dud.

A couple of duds came after him, most generals by virtue of the standing in their states.

Then....We get a Colonel, (TR), that really was a politician and a pretty good soldier as well.

Eisenhower, not a strategic, nor a tactical genius. Eisenhower was an enabler; he was regarded by George Marshall, as one of the best people to put into realistic terms, and enact the various volatile personalities he had to deal with. As a president, pretty much non-partisan, but he didn't pay too much attention to details of running the country. However, he did get the Interstate Highways built, and he did a half-assed job on several other situations.

In today's military, individuals in the top ring of command have very good educations, (not much to do but learn while there are no hot wars to jump into), and are in postions because of those they knew, and what they knew about you. The most brilliant strategist may be in a foxhole with a HS education as a private, but without the proper credentials, theat foxhole is where he stays. It is all about who you come across during your career, and what kind of impression you make.
After all, Eisenhower was a Major under MacArthur; a kind of 'clerk' actually. And that position is what catapulted him into Supreme Commander Europe.

Sorry....I really didn't want to ramble on. Good question though.

:eyes: :hi:

[maha]

11. Grant was not a dud.

Lots of historians point out that his first term went pretty well.

Anyway, all about Generals as President here:

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.09.14_arch.html#1063725626338

If the link doesn't work, copy and paste it into your browser and try again.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. The 2 Grant Administrations are widely considered

the most corrupt in American history. (Until now, that is)

[rasputin1952]

27. But Grant was not implicated in the scandals...

for all of what was going on, he should have gotten a handle on things; but he failed in that respect.

Most of what I've read of Grant says that he was a decent honest man.
It was the corruption of the Cabinet and their underlings that ruined just about everything they touched.

I cannot say the same about this admin, I feel that bush keeps a pretty tight leash on everything, hence the secrecy. If there is something going on in this admin, you can be sure the idiot prince knows what it is. This admin's corruption is straight forward and in your face, they are good at disguising it though, (or at least trying to).

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Well, Colin Powell springs to mind

I was thinking today if he'd declared as a dem he'd be where Clark is right now. With the same number of army ants trailing behind him shouting huzzahs.

Instaed his prospects have been ( intentionally?) dimmed by complicity with the neocons.

[rasputin1952]

10. Interesting ...

I was thinking more of the elected politician, rather than appointed.

You make an excellent point with Powell, While Sec'y of State is certainly a political position. Powell is being reigned in and made the mouthpiece of this administration simultaneousaly, and if ever the art of politics is needeed, it is under those circumstances. bush/rove know that if Powell shows his true ability, they are cooked. But Powell has sold out and become a GOP shill rather than the person we all thought he was.

In the same vein, George Marshall stands out during and after WWII.
This man showed incredible intelligence and diplomacy regardless of the circumstances. Years of military and public service didn't change his values nor his dignity, and he remains an unsung hero for what America could have been if the tracks weren't shifted and the train went over the cliff.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Think It Depends On Your Definition Of Politician...

Definition 1 - A person with leadership skills who is able to bring together different groups and get things done...

Ike would fit this definition....


Definition 2- A charismatic leader who is able to win the affection of the masses or at least alot of folks...

Clinton, Reagan, JFK, would fit this definition....


Many generals fit defininition 1.... I can't see many who fit defintion 2...

[rasputin1952]

14. True...

that is why there are very few generals that make good politicians, in any country or society.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Sometimes Being A Statesman And Being A Good Politician

are mutually exclusive......

Also, most elected leaders aren't "natural politicians" just folks who have worked their way up the system...

In the past fifty years I can think of only a handful of great "natural politicians"- Reagan, Clinton, and JFK....

I think RFK had an aura but it was an aura built from biography and family ties....

[rasputin1952]

26. Good point...

but I wouldn't say Reagan was a 'natural politician'.

Reagan was a 'B' actor, and he could tease the cameras. It din't hurt that he could follow the script, and act like he was everyones best friend.

Reagan was an 'acting' president, and he got his training in Hollywood. He did not have the ability to come up with any type on plans for the nation as a whole, that would be beneficial to the nation.

To be honest with you, until he was shot, I thought that the greatest mistake ever made was having him as president, (up to that time). But I felt sympathetic to the asassination attempt, just like most of the rest of the country, and Reagan was ineffectual before and after that attempt; but he got the sympathy vote.

I think that TR was the quintessential progressive republican, and the likes of him may never be seen again.

[noiretextatique]

13. well...one of the problems is the impression that republicans

are strong on defense...the evidence suggests otherwise. not only did the coup make us more vulnerable, so has the bluster and bravado of bush, inc. "bring it on" is not exactly my idea of being strong on defense.

[loudsue]

16. And why shouldn't he "get a good reception"

He's got all the Military/Industrial complex money propping him up!

These guys know how to throw a "good reception".

:kick:

on edit: My brother, who was career military, said he only met one General in his 22 years in the service who wasn't a complete arrogant asshole. And he played golf with a whole shitload of Generals.

Many people who worked w/ Clark have characterized him as "arrogant".

[robbedvoter]

17. Ha!Ha! Look at me! I am Military/Industrial complex now!

I was amongst the people throwing Clark a good reception in NYC. I am one of the tens of thousands of activists (many of then DU-ers) working to draft Clark. And I am as sick and tired of being ignored by DU-ers as I am being ignored by wingnuts. Yous rpin is insulting to me personally. I put work in this just as the holly Kuchunich people did for him or the Dean supporters did. (more so, we started with a draft, remember?) Stop putting me down!

[rasputin1952]

30. I'm with you...

Clark may be "arrogant" at times, what the hell?

I would prefer Clark's arrogance, well over the arrogance displayed by the current admin!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. "Arrogant Politicians"..... "Arrogant Generals".........

Isn't that redundant....

[WillyBrandt]

19. Thanks a lot, buddy

A lot of us who've worked and donated for the Clark campaign aren't exactly getting checks cut to us from Raytheon.

It'd be nice if we had some military-industrial complex money to pay for posters and bumper stickers, but it's really all donations and leg work.

[noiretextatique]

21. thanx loudsue!!!

for injecting some reality in this MIC lovefest :hi:

[eileen_d]

23. So we have soccer moms, nascar dads

and now "brothers in the military who played golf with a shitload of generals"

[Eloriel]

24. It saddens me so

To see you as a Clark supporter.

Eloriel

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. I Suspect You're Going to Get a Lot Sadder, as the Campaign Wears On (eom)

DTH

[loudsue]

29. Me, too, Eloriel.

:scared: This whole Clark thing is very scarey. :scared:

Just another sign of the times.

:kick:

[kentuck]

34. Personally, I am a Dean supporter but...

I can understand how Clark has the support that he does...and if he is the nominee, I will probably vote for him. I would prefer to see him as the VP...

[Pastiche423]

25. "natural" politicians

put "UNK" on their FEC forms when they decide to run for a particular party?

In our two party system, that doesn't sound like a natural politician to me.

Furthermore, wouldn't you think a "natural" politician would have his stance on issues down pat and in writing before he decided to run?

That doesn't sound like a natural politician to me, either.

But then, this natural politician was, obviously, not prepared to run for the highest office in the land. Neither were his backers.

[loudsue]

31. Nor is he prepared to execute the highest office in the land

If he can't get his ducks in a row while declaring himself a candidate, how do you expect him to run this country???

:kick:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. Man, You Are One Unforgiving Person

Most people are going to give the brand-new campaign of a brand-new candidate a lot more slack than you are.

Are you this unforgiving with your family? "NO, YOU MADE A MISTAKE AND FORGOT SOMETHING! YOU ARE NO GOOD NOW!"

:crazy:

DTH

[Pastiche423]

33. Dunno

He's never governed before.

He does have some entities behind him that might help him, though...

NED
School of Americas
AEI
PNAC
Axciom
Stephens Group
Carlye Group
Reagan democrats (spit)
DLC (spit, spit)

to name a few...

[ozone_man]

35. We don't need a president who is strong on defense.

That is an idea that the Republicans and DLC Democrats have tried to push. Clark seems to have been brought in as an emergency Democrat/Republican in case Bush fails, and it appears that he will.

Bush and PNAC have tried to deflect attention to the failed economy by waging wars in the middle east, and by wrapping themselves in the flag, they have tried to convince people that a leader who is strong on the military is necessary. The DLC does not seem to be much different by entering Clark. Kerry as well.

What we really need is a someone qualified to run the governmant, balance the budget, stop the wars, not continue them, bring the troops home. We need jobs and health care. We don't need a general.

The economy will be coming quickly back into focus, as the Iraq quagmire takes back stage, and it's not getting better. It can only go down from here, since the consumer is tapped out, saddled by credit card debt, no more money from house refinancing (can't lower rates anymore), and the government is broke. We now have to start paying our bills, personally and as a country, and this will push us into a long deflationary period, maybe as bad as the Great Depression, lasting another 5 years or so.

I don't think the FED can prop the economy up another 12 months to save Bush, so it's going to look more and more like we need another FDR, not another Ike.