"Whose Got the Chops?" Ventura endorses Clark -- and Kerry

[villager]

From Michael Ventura's latest "Letters at 3 a.m.:"

<snip>
Which Democrat? As jazz musicians would say, "Who's got the chops?" Who has the skills, the experience, to best do the job? Our federal government is the largest, most powerful organization in the world. Skills required for its leadership are hard to come by. Good intentions won't cut it. Jimmy Carter had some, but, though he had a Democratic Congress to work with, his initiatives went nowhere. Bill Clinton made a mess of his first two years: Not only did he fail in his push for universal health care, but his ineptitude handed Congress to the Republicans in 1994. This so-called "master politician" couldn't get Congress back, with devastating results for our liberties, our environment, and our economy. Carter and Clinton didn't have the chops.

How do you get those chops? Look for the answer in our most effective modern presidents. (By "effective" I mean presidents who set goals and achieved them; whether I agree with their goals is not the point at the moment.)

<snip>


Howard Dean was governor of New Hampshire, population roughly 1.2 million – the equivalent to being mayor of San Diego. No Washington experience. No international experience. No experience managing a large, diverse polity. In spite of his meltdown in Iowa he's a man to respect; his good intentions are genuine; but if he suddenly found himself chief executive of the largest outfit in the world, facing a Republican Congress? He might protect the Bill of Rights, but as far as initiating anything useful ... history says he'd be road-kill.

John Edwards is a man to watch. Eloquent and genuinely devoted to economic justice. But he's a one-term senator and former trial lawyer, has no military or international experience, and he's never held a major executive position. A term or two as vice-president, or a few more terms in the Senate, and he'd be ready; but he's not ready now; all the golden gab in the world can't make up for that. As for Joe Lieberman: His policies define the liberal wing of the Republican Party (when there was such a thing), but why would Democrats elect him?

Sen. John Kerry knows the military, knows Washington, has executive experience as a lieutenant governor, and has served for 18 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (so he doesn't need a primer on international affairs). It's unlikely he'd be a great president; to be great, history teaches, you need either more significant executive experience or the spiritual dimensions of an Abraham Lincoln. But Kerry might be a good president, which is more than we've had in quite a while.

Wesley Clark has had both combat and (as a general) major executive experience; NATO commander during the Bosnian affair, he's had significant international experience. He'd need a vice-president who knows Washington (Kerry) and/or who has a gift for gab (Edwards), but he and Kerry are better qualified for the nuts-and-bolts of the job than any Democratic nominee in decades. Kerry-Clark or Kerry-Edwards would be a tough and able ticket; so would Clark-Kerry or Clark-Edwards. They'd have a chance to win, and the chops to govern. And they'd protect the Bill of Rights. In these dangerous times, that's worth a vote.

<snip>


More at:


http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-02-06/cols_ventura.html

[lastknowngood]

1. I guess it's one way to get his name back in print

n/t

[villager]

2. ?????

Whose name?

[kalashnikov]

3. "Howard Dean was governor of New Hampshire"?

I belive Dean was gov. of Vermont. And Vermont only has 600,000 people.

Otherwise, I agree with Ventura.

[Taeger]

4. Gift of Gab ????

<i>He'd need a vice-president who knows Washington (Kerry) and/or who has a gift for gab (Edwards) </i>

This guy obviously has NEVER heard Clark speak. He's AMAZING.

Clark would TEAR BUSH APART in a debate.

[villager]

5. well, the article is pretty supportive of Clark...

...you might not want to take it to task too much...