Is Clark Any LESS Qualified Than Eisenhower Was?

[arwalden]

If not... does the RW criticism of Clark seem a little hollow?

-- Allen

[greyl]

1. He voted for Reagan.

I think the Clark deal is "molish".
I'm on the left.

Bush can be beaten on many more issues than authentic military service.

I'll stay somewhat open till I see Clark at a debate - I hope he shows up at the next one.

[sangh0]

2. SO let me see if I've got this straight

The answer to the question "Is Clark Any LESS Qualified Than Eisenhower Was?" is "Clark is 'molish'"?

What's his enthicity have to do with anything?

[alonso_quijano]

3. The question is....

Is he more or less qualified than a sociopathic failed businessman with a drinking problem?

And we all know the answer to that one.

[Bombtrack]

4. less qualified, Eisenhower commanded millions

in a world war. he was a household name and a national hero.

[uptohere]

11. and a success at all of it

insted of getting fired for his ability.

Lets not disrespect Ike in this way.

[knight_of_the_star]

39. Clark was taken out due to military politics

If there ever was such a horrible contradiction, but that was why he was fired after winning the Kosovo war and driving out Milosevic. He used tactics that were not the standard yet until Afghanistan and because he WANTED to do everything he could to push Milosevic out. I think that is what is more commonly referred to as being punished because you threaten the establishment, not screwing up.

[meegbear]

5. No ...

Clark is a Rhodes Scholar, West Point graduate and taught economics.

Asking a question like that is more of an insult to Ike, IMHO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. They Are Equally Qualified...

[uptohere]

12. hardly

Clark hasn't a fraction of the qualifications Ike had.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. My Bad....

He's No More Qualified than Gomer Pyle....

[Clete]

23. Gomer Pyle had empathy for the ordinary American.

He would be more qualified than Shrub, who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. ROTFLMFAO

NT

[knight_of_the_star]

38. That is due to what is referred to as accident of birth

Clark doesn't have the qualification of having beat the Nazis because, well, HE WASN'T BORN IN TIME TO DO THAT!!! You can't hold that against him. If you ignore that issue, which is really something that can't be helped and shouldn't even be relevant, then he is at least equally qualified.

[uptohere]

42. he got fired for his ham handed work in Kosovo

Ike excelled at his military role. How is this equal ?

Clark was a pretty good polititian at the Pentegon but a poor field general. Ike was a pretty good polititian at the Pentagon and among European leaders and a good field general. He went administrative as he was best suited among the crew.

Give up on this comparison, it can't be made.

[caledesi]

7. The freeps loathe Clark mainly because he's associated w/ Clinton.

And they think that if Clark gets in, the Clintons will be a mainstay and that Hillary will be really running the show. <you know how obsessed they are with the Clintons>

I was trolling on freeperville and they positively abhor this great man. Call him the "perfumed prince"...commie...lousy general...traitor...liar <yeah, the usual stuff...just name-calling>

They are freaking out about Clark running and it is SO much fun to watch. Some freeps are telling everyone there to donate to the Dean campaign....ha ha ha


edit: forgot stuff

[leetrisck]

8. Aren't the only qualifications

to be president - citizenship and age requirement.

[Mairead]

9. "his successes resulted from his skill at diplomacy & strategic planning"

But Eisenhower's military service -- unlike the service of his predecessor Generals Who Became Presidents -- was not strictly military in the traditional sense. As Commander of the Allied Forces, he was dealing on a regular basis with President FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, Britain's Churchill, and France's de Gaulle; as NATO Commander, he dealt with Germany's Adenauer. As such, he had the opportunity to develop international skills that helped him prepare for the job in a way that his predecessors had not. Perhaps more importantly, though he was renowned for his successes in the European theater, it was not as a battlefield commander; rather, his successes resulted from his skill at diplomacy and strategic planning -- two skills that served him well when he decided to "allow" himself to be "drafted" for the GOP nomination in 1952.

...

But that's not to say he {Clark} moves to frontrunner -- or even top-tier -- status. He comes to the race very late, he's untested as a candidate (as AP bigfoot Ron Fournier pointed out, Clark's never run for anything in his entire life, not even student body president), his views on critical domestic issues are still unformed/ unknown, he's at least $15 million behind front-runner Dean in the money game, many of the most important endorsements in the critical early primary states are already gone, and Kosovo ain't Normandy. (In a poll conducted for the Washington Post/ABC News a week ago, Dean {sic} pulled just 6 percent of the Democratic primary vote, running in fifth place among the ten candidates; he wasn't even given the courtesy of a head-to-head ballot test match-up against President BUSH by the pollsters. By contrast, as early as March 1951, Eisenhower was walloping Truman by a 64-27 percent margin, according to the Gallup Poll of 14 March 1951. Hence the subtitle of today's column.)


http://www.politicsus.com/PoliticsUS%20Publius.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Ike Wasn't A Battlefield Tactician Like Patton, Sherman, MacArthur,Etc.

He was a "political general" like Wes Clark and Colin Powell...

There's no shame in that

[CMT]

13. Actually Ike led Allied forces during WWII

and had vast administrative experience in Washington as a chief aid to George Marshall and Douglas MacArthur. Clark heading NATO forces against a third rate military power in 1999 doesn't quite compare with what Ike did during the second world war.

This is not mean that Clark isn't a man of stature and ability, it is just a statement of fact. You can't compare What Eisenhower did during WW2 with What Clark did in 1999.

[no name no slogan]

14. Good General <> Good President

I'm not so sure it's a good idea to compare a prospective Clark presidency to the Eisenhower presidency.

Eisenhower's presidency doesn't get good ranking among most historians. The economy was okay, but not nearly as good as it was under Kennedy/Johnson. He presided over at least one bad recession in the mid-50s, and the economy didn't do as well as most people would lead you to believe-- especially compared to 1961-1969.

In 1953, he allowed the CIA overthrow a Iran's democratically elected socialist government led by Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh (TIME mag's "Man of the Year" in 1951), after Truman spent the last part of his term blocking it. He also allowed the CIA to overthrow the Arbenz government in Guatemala (1954) and replace it with a brutal dictatorship, leading to over four decades of bloody civil war and genocide.

Don't forget, he's also the one who brought that sack of pus Richard Nixon onto the national stage.

Ike was a great statesman, but his record as a president leaves much to be desired.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Ike Is Rated #9

That's Not Too Shady...


http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Here's The Methodology

They purposely picked scholars from the left and right....

One name pops out immediately

Anybody remotely interested in the law knows Akhil Reed Amar leans left...

the link....


http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/math/math1.html#_ftn7

[Brian Sweat]

35. It's still the Federalist Society and Opinion Journal.

I don't care what they claim their methodology is. If they claimed that water was wet, I would not take their word on it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I Sure As Hell Don't Like The Federalist Society or WSJ Either

but they are the only folks who have conducted this kind of poll...

And it does seem they made their methodology transparent....


I'd like to see Arthur Schlessinger's poll but I can't find it via google...

It would be a nice service to the board if somebody could....

Ike was certainly the second best Republican president of the twentieth century.....

[Brian Sweat]

41. The fact that they made the only poll doesn't make it a good one.

The truth is that the subject is so subjective that no poll can be considered reliable.

[arwalden]

17. Maybe I Should Have Been More Specific...

Perhaps I should have asked if CANDIDATE Clark is less qualified that CANDIDATE Eisenhower was (at or around the same point prior to the nomination or general election.)

And... just imagine how nice it would be to have an INTELLIGENT person in the White House.

Remember the RW chant about "adults are in charge again"... I'd be chanting that the "intellectuals are in charge again" and "those who know how to read and pronounce words and who have an extensive vocabulary are in charge again".

But that's just me.

[dfong63]

18. yes, Clark is less qualified than Ike

... both as a general and as a presidential candidate. if military command experience counts toward being a president, then Ike had more of it. or if it doesn't count, then Clark is plain unqualified to be president.

And... just imagine how nice it would be to have an INTELLIGENT person in the White House.

hmm, if Clark is so intelligent, then why did he have trouble "remembering" whether he'd voted for Reagan? first in his class at west point, a rhodes scholar, supreme allied commander, and can't remember who he voted for. even though as recently as 2 years ago, he was giving a fundraising speech for the repubs, in which he highly praised Reagan. he couldn't remember whether he'd voted for the man? give me a break.

[arwalden]

21. LOL!

Pretty funny, eh?

-- Allen

P.S. I voted for Reagan too. Not something that I'm particularly proud of... but hey, it happened, I did it, and I'm sorry I did. But I did.

Oh well. It's a new day. A Brand New Day. I've changed.

[edward]

31. So the Democrats need to run a Republican?

Is this your point? We need to go back to the 50's?

[0rganism]

19. Clark's skeletons vs. Eisenhower's skeletons

The comparison you raise is a good one, as that's the natural jumping off point for apple-orange arguments.

Of course, the GOP would love to compare the worst of Clark's command record to the best of Eisenhower's. That's how they operate. However, they will overlook how Eisenhower himself did unsavory things during his military career. The spinmeisters will cover up for Eisenhower's participation in the armed attack on the bonus marchers (veterans and their families) in 1932, and dwell heavily upon the more disturbing details of the Kosovo intervention.

[kang]

22. Actually, Ike wasn't responsible for the Bonus Army fiasco

MacArthur was the Joint Chief at the time and he personally directed the whole thing. He claimed it wasn't his fault though. Ike was just following orders as his subordinate. It should be noted that one of the incidents that led to the horrible event was that the D.C. chief of police (a veteran himself) was shot and killed by some Bonus Army settlers.

My bone to pick with Ike was his "do nothing" approach to segregation.

[0rganism]

26. Responsible? Hell yes he was

MacArthur's aides Eisenhower and Patton both had the responsibility to decline to obey an unlawful order, in this case a violation of the Posse Comitatus act of 1878.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. He Sent Troops To Little Rock To Segregate Little Rock High

Even my heroes , JFK and RFK needed a good push....

There is always tension between idealism and pragmatism...

[Brian Sweat]

32. Ike sent troops to Segregate Little Rock High?

That bastard!

[0rganism]

33. You mean "integrate" or DEsegregate, right?

Let's not reverse one of Eisenhower's major accomplishments on him, eh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Meant Integrate

NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I Thought It Was MacArthur

who was responsible for the attack on the Bonus Marchers..

[0rganism]

28. Eisenhower was one of MacArthur's top aides at the time

He participated in leading forces that demolished the camps.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. TY

NT

[Upfront]

20. I know About Ike.

He sucked. If you had a good job under Ike, good for you. If you were just getting out of high school, you could not even join the Army if you were married. They were not takeing married men. The army was full. It is much better under Bush*, the Army needs men, again because there are no jobs, he wins. Good kids join the service because they have no choice. They are now dying for what? Anybody that loves Ike is a Rethug. or dumber then a flat rock. Again, good American kids are dying, for what?

[Pepperbelly]

40. I see the usual suspects ...

and must say ... SSDD.

:eyes:

[dsc]

43. Hard to say

Ike definately had risen higher and was better known in 52 than Clark is now. Ike was given a huge amount of credit for our successful campaign in Europe and for the defeat of Germany. He also was thought of as a generally decent guy. He also was not very bright which pretty much everyone knew.

Clark is utterly brilliant as well as evidently pretty charming. He is accomplished (Kosovo was not chopped liver) and thus shouldn't be underestimated.

I would say Ike was a better candidate in 52 than Clark is now but Clark has potential to be a better President than Ike ended up being.