Soros says "Matter of Life and Death." But, Who Beats Bush is Issue!

WiseMen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-12-04 06:29 PM
Original message

Soros says "Matter of Life and Death." But, Who Beats Bush is Issue!

Edited on Mon Jan-12-04 07:09 PM by WiseMen

George Soros has decided that it is "a matter of life and death" to get rid of Bush in 2004. A lot of us here on DU agree. Soros has already given 10 million dollars in August to 'America Coming Together' a get-out-the-vote 527 organization, and 2.5 million dollars to MoveOn.org. Soros says he supports Dean, Clark or Kerry equally. The issue is getting rid of Bush. And Soros is not alone.

So, with 527 orgs able of raise a ton of money to defeat Bush, Dean having a a lot of money or Dean and Kerry “opting out” of campaign finance should not be a relevant issue except as it affects the primaries. The real issue is back to WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE to go against the Republicans.

We at DU represent the “thinking” class of the Democratic Party. It is time for tough-minded decisions free of sentimental attachments to any given candidate.

I think the weight of the evidence to date indicates that Dean will be relatively weak on the test of Credibility as Commander-In-Chief in this post 9/11 environment, and is less likely win against G.W. Bush.

With that assumption we really have to choose between Senator John Kerry and General Wesley Clark. It is really our responsibility to steer the debate to a choice between these two candidates. If we don’t want one, we have to choose the other.

THAT, SADLY, HAS NOT BEEN THE FOCUS OF MEDIA ATTENTION NOR POPULAR BOARD SUCH AS DU.

So here I try to begin an analysis of how they stack up!

Policy Record

Kerry has a 2 decade senate record of speeches and legislation covering a wide array of domestic and foreign policy issues.

Clark has a strong record in speeches and action in military and foreign policy but no significant record relative to domestic policy issues (health care, taxation, jobs etc)

The breath of Kerry public record makes him a better candidate on that score in that he can run on a record on a wider variety of issues

Sumary: Kerry trumps Clark

Foreign Policy

Clark and Kerry are very similar and both worked in the 90’s for a foreign policy that Kerry calls “progressive internationalism” and argue for proactive humanitarian military intervention in the Balkan.

Both can be assumed to be very strong in both theory and practice. Kerry’s policy strength derives principally from 18 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his stint as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. At the same time he has a long history of hands-on involvement in military affairs starting with his two tours (6 years) in Vietnam.

Clark, as a General, could be thought to be shallow in foreign policy theory, but his major posts as Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command and then as Nato Supreme Allied Commander were essentially senior diplomatic positions negotiating and implementing U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Summary Kerry=Clark

Progressive Domestic Issues

John Kerry has the highest scores among almost all democratic leaders for his environmental record and for issues affecting the working poor. For thirty years Kerry has fought for labor rights, women’s rights and campaign finance reform. Kerry’s record is solid on education and social security. Despite significant political cost, Kerry has opposed capital punishment, the NRA and all the fat-cat special interest lobby groups camped out in Washington.

Few senators have maintained a record so widely regarded as above reproach. John Kerry’s legendary indifference to special interest initiatives has been widely slammed as arrogance, aloofness and neglect of his “constituents.”

Wesley Clark’s record and views on social issues can only be gleaned from his actions and statements regarding education, health-care and social relations in the military service. Appear to be moderate-liberal.

Clark’s stints at Washington assignments (White House Fellow and as Special Assistant at OMB) should provide him with some grasp of domestic policy issues. Unfortunately, his lack of policy positions prior to entry into the race makes it difficult to conclude what his strong commitments are on most of these issues.

Summary: Kerry trumps Clark

Military Experience

Kerry has a storied military record with noted acts of battlefield sacrifice and bravery. His 6 years of duty included some of the most dangerous missions in the war. Kerry received the Bronze Star, Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts for his Vietnam service.

Kerry, however, became very critical of U.S. tactics in the execution of the war even while he was in the battlefield and, after the end of his 2nd Tour, threw all efforts into ending the conflict. Some have questioned Kerry ability to make tough military decisions given his vehement opposition to the military establishment in the 70’s.

Clark served in a brief (1yr) tour in Vietman and left the battlefield severely wounded. Clark received the Silver Star. Since, Clark has serve in varied desk and senior command positions in the military, and retired from the military, after winning the brief war in Kosovo, as 4 Star Nato Supreme Allied Commander.

Clark’s record of command appears to be stellar. His post-Vietnam awards include numerous medals and commendations including honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments, commander of the French Legion of Honor. In August 2000, President Clinton awarded General Clark with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

Kerry’s military experience probably left him a legacy of dreadful battlefield memories and a consciousness of the human cost of war. Clark’s life of military service likely provides supreme confidence of command.

Summary: Clark trumps Kerry

. . . . . . . . . . ..

Comments please. BE WISE!