Iowa is a state that has had a significant Mexican invasion. The Democrats, led by the now-former governor, couldn’t have been more welcoming, so Clark is just spouting the party line.

People should not be too surprised by Clark’s liberalism. Today’s armed forces are politically correct to a fault. Those who rise to four-star rank are the best politicians in a very PC system. HRS

I just saw Wesley Clark for the first time as a presidential candidate, speaking and answering questions before a group of voters in New Hampshire. To speak frankly, he’s impressively intelligent, and well-spoken on a variety of issues. He seems remarkably at-ease and competent as a candidate for someone who’s never run for public office. He strikes all the usual liberal Democratic themes (he favors national health insurance, for example), but without the alienation and hostility—and sheer nuttiness—that characterizes most of the other Democrats. So it occurs to me that a Bush loss in ‘04—which I favor as the only way to re-awaken some conservative resistance in this country—would not necessarily mean turning America over to some anti-American like Dean or Kerry or Hillary.

I personally have a hard time deciding where Clark actually stands on a lot of issues. Right now he is having to work hard to prove his credentials as a Democrat. He is listening to his managers so that he can win. Where he will wind up by the end of the campaign is anybody’s guess. But as I have said before, he is the candidate most likely to force Bush to run as a conservative. A genuinely conservative Presidential campaign may have some real effect on the conservative movement. It would be great if Clark made immigration an issue and Bush was forced to shoot him down on it. But that is wishful thinking.

Judging by Clark’s amazing reversals on the war and other issues, I think we can conclude that he is not a man of set convictions but changes his views according to circumstances. This actually makes him less dangerous. On the basis of some things he said in 1999, I had thought of him as some kind of utopian ideologue (especially with those staring eyes of his, which made him look a little like an alien). Now I’m thinking he’s an intelligent opportunist, but not demonically crazed or evil. Incidents in his past still make his judgment and character questionable. But I find him the least vicious of any of the Democrats running.

I keep hearing accounts of Gen. Clark’s involvement in the standoff with the Branch Davidians that makes me a little uneasy. I recognize that it’s hard to separate fact from speculation in that disastrous episode, of course. But it’s still something to consider.

General Clark is a flake. His behavior is beyond the pale. But this does not mean the Clintons can’t put him in the White House.

I thought he was a flake too. But his performance I saw Friday evening on C-SPAN was not that of a flake.

Mr. Auster wrote,

“So it occurs to me that a Bush loss in ‘04 — which I favor […]”

Whenever I see that sentiment expressed now by Mr. Auster, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Murgos, and the other good people who’ve expressed it — the open expression of a desire for Bush-Rove to lose the election — I’m filled with SUCH a sense of RELIEF!

It’s JOY, almost! It means we CAN protest, we CAN refuse, we CAN push back, we CAN make our presence felt in a way however small, we’re NOT insignificant and powerless the way Bush-Rove want us to be, we’re NOT helpless before the Spanish-speaking and massive third-world onslaught of peoples who shouldn’t be here in massive numbers but are being brought into our country nevertheless in their teeming, incompatible millions deliberately by this administration against our traditional identity — deliberate, coldly-calculated, dishonest and offensive work by certain Republican individuals.

And knowing we can favor the defeat of these individuals at the polls means we’re NOT helpless against all this — or helpless, either, before the big push by these same individuals to permanently liberalize conservatism in general, beyond all recognition.

It means we DON’T have to sit here and take it; there’s a way we CAN strike back. It’s only a little way, granted. But to us it involves a precious thing, more precious than silver and gold: our sacred vote.

No, Messrs. Bush and Rove, some of us will NOT be casting our sacred votes for you. Yes, we CAN withhold the gift of our endorsement from you who’ve not earned it — from you who’ve despised us; spat on us; missed no opportunity to kick us in the teeth and go away laughing. We’re forced to swallow what you dish out, but we’re under no obligation to endorse it — under no obligation by means of the ballot box to endorse our own destruction! No!

Each time I think of that, I feel sooooooo GREAT! It’s like breathing OXYGEN to read what Mr. Auster, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Murgos, and the others have written — like a breath of fresh air! I read that and the sense of total despair goes away, and I can BREATHE again!

I’ll sleep well tonight just THINKING of it! I’ll sleep like a baby!

I agree with Unadorned that it’s a small—very small—declaration of independence. But if enough people “sign” it, it would send the Republican party a less they won’t soon forget.

It’s a declaration of independence because we’re saying, “We know that Democratic rule of the country could be very harmful right now. But we’re not going to let you go on using that fear to control us.”

Of course, there’s always the danger that they would interpret a loss as meaning that they’re not liberal enough. But if enough _conservatives_ decline to vote Republican, that fact will surely come out in the exit polling.

Mr. Auster, don’t forget the issues of character and integrity concerning Clark. The man appears to be a serial confabulator, similar to Gore and Clinton, a red flag for serious psychological problems. While President Bush falls far short of what I would like to see in a president, I think it is unrealistic to expect much better given the character of the electorate. And in the present international circumstances, I would be scared to death to have a democrat replace Bush. Think of the message this would send to our enemies overseas. Nope, I don’t think that any good conservative can subscribe to Lenin’s “worse is better” approach to revolution.

I don’t feel that I’m subscribing to the Leninist idea of worse is better. I’ve always opposed that. I’m not saying conservatives should vote for the Democratic candidate. I will vote for a candidate whose principles I believe in, probably Howard Phillips or whoever runs for the Constitution Party, as I did in 1996 (I voted for Buchanan in 2000, to my regret).

The difference (as far as my own thinking is concerned) is that in 2000, though I didn’t vote for Bush, I still preferred for him to win. Now I hope for him to lose. I understand your criticism of my position, that it’s irresponsible given the dangers of the international situation. But the Republicans keep using that factor as a cover to keep moving left, and to silence any criticism of their leftward course. I refuse to go along with that.

As for the nuttiness of the Democrats, I’m reminded of the Jeffersonians in the 1790s, who were literally out of their minds in paranoid hatred of the Federalists. When Jefferson won the presidency in 1800 he saw it as a revolution as important as 1776, overthrowing “monarchy” which he absurdly attributed to Adams. But once in office, Jefferson became much more moderate. The federalists were also relieved by Jefferson’s softer tone, as they had expected a Jacobin administration to be taking over the country.

The significance of Clark to my mind since I saw him on tv last night is that he seems to offer the possibility of a Democratic replacement for Bush who (while evidently flaky and unreliable in some ways), does not seem to be nearly as out of touch with reality as some of the other Democrats, and not driven by rebellion and alienation against America, as Kerry and Dean and much of the Democratic party is. For example, Clark’s disagreements with Bush’s war policy, though I disagree with them, were made in a reasonable way, not a lunatic way. With Clark as the possible Democratic candidate, hoping for a Bush loss seems less dangerous and irresponsible than it might otherwise appear.

For the strategy of revitalizing the Right through a Bush defeat that opens the door for an openly Leftist Democrat administration, one whose shenanigans might wake up dormant conservatives, we need the most out-there Democrat possible. The most lightning-rod Democrat around, hence best for our purpose, is Sen. Clinton. On a ticket with Gen. Clark (whose record is frankly odd), she could win. I will never say I want to see Hillary Clinton elected president, to get the benefit from breaking the Bush/Rove Republicans we need the worst-tasting medicine. She is it. HRS

The difference between the Leninist position and mine is that the Leninist actively wants things to get worse. I don’t want things to get worse. I dread the things that would happen under a Democratic administration. Rather, my position is that I am not going to let the fear of things getting worse get in the way of my determination that Bush, because he is destroying any conservative resistance to liberalism, must be stopped and discredited. Also, that he simply deserves to lose for his numerous outrages such as endorsing the Grutter decision.

There’s an interesting parallel between Bush 41 and Bush 43. I turned decisively against the elder Bush when he abandoned his previous opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (he had called it a “quota” bill) and signed it. In the same way, I felt the younger Bush lost any claim to conservative support when, after saying he opposed racial discrimination against whites in university admissions, turned around and supported it. This was so ironic, as Bush 43 supposedly wanted to avoid the fatal mistakes of his pa. But that genetic Bush compulsion to toady to liberalism won out.

I have a better suggestion to voice displeasure over Bush - take cyanide pills and leave a note.

When I listen to Michael Savage, and he supports all of the issues I support, but somehow, when election time comes, he comes up with something unexpected: ‘Why should I care, Bush is screwing up’ (translation - Republicans stay home); ‘I endorse Tom McClintock’ (let’s split the vote).

I try to rationalize my fears: ‘He’s an irrational egotist’, but I keep coming back to thinking he’s really a wolf in sheeps’ clothing.

You guys are now sounding as kooky.

What is kooky is for conservatives to keep supporting Republicans like the Bushes pere et fils, in the hope that this time, maybe this time, they won’t sell us out. After a while, letting hope triumph over experience in the voting booth becomes simply stupid. The Bush record in office (George I, George II and Jeb) is clear enough - I don’t believe any true conservative can endorse it. That said, we should not support them but should look for alternative candidates who would govern in accordance with our principles. We should not let fear of Democrats lead us to support such frauds as GWB and his “compassionate conservatism.” HRS

“Alternative candidates” - Bravo, Howard, Bravo!
Let’s talk somebody into running right now.
The Bush/Rove/PC/CountryClubbers think that middle-class conservative voters have nowhere else to go. Let’s show them they’re wrong. It’s worth having the GOP lose an election, if somehow, from the ashes, a phoenix can emerge.

4-12 more years of Clintonism via Wesley Clark/Hillary would surely seal our fate and resign us to the World Socialist Governing Body.

Bush/Cheney deserve high marks for:

The war on terror. Mr. Auster’s theory about Iraq as a ‘remote battle theater’ is almost certainly true. Guantanamo as a ‘spy trap’, maybe.

Sure, Bushs’ ‘reaching out’ style requires that he give lip service to Michigan affirmative action, but he didn’t exactly appoint the justices. (And Reagan had a firmly-entrenched Democrat congress - think Bork)

Standing tall against the U.N. (recall “irrelevant”)

Also, without so much as a whisper, it seems to be getting harder for illegals to get/stay in this country. Little reports - nothing finite. Could this ‘stupid’ president be preparing another master stroke?

Popular Support wrote,

“Also, without so much as a whisper, it seems to be getting harder for illegals to get/stay in this country. Little reports - nothing definite. Could this ‘stupid’ president be preparing another master stroke?”

“Master stroke”? You mean like the one he and Clinton pulled that changed California from white to Mexican in fewer years than anyone dared think possible? Yeah, that was quite a master stroke, wasn’t it! A few more “master strokes” like that and we’ll all be better off moving to Rhodesia.

Popular, you’ve simply GOT to be kidding with your “it seems to be getting harder for illegals to get/stay in this country.” Are you joking? I mean, this administration is still preparing an illegals amnesty measure, after, what — four or five defeats of that idea already, with people around the country repeatedly saying they “don’t want it” and “It’s a very bad idea”?

And have you seen this article in this morning’s edition of Vdare.com, by an immigration-reform activist named D. A. King?

http://www.vdare.com/misc/king_citizen_takes_up_arms.htm

It’s entitled, “Reporting Illegal Aliens: A Citizen Takes Up Arms For His Country,” and documents how agents and supervisors in a large local office of the federal agency of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) were one hundred percent disinclined to investigate newspaper accounts of illegals *in the very same city*! It was painfully obvious that these agents were deliberately keeping themselves totally clueless about the issue, a phenomenon that could only reflect the presence of official directives handed down from higher-ups in D.C. to local directors saying, “lay off Mexican illegals — this administration has no interest in deporting them and will refuse to take any action against them.” The local director receives such a notice from Ashcroft’s Justice Dept. or from somewhere else in the Bush Administration and of course does what he’s told, with the result that illegals have free run of the place — something which in turn only attracts more of them.

Appropriate acronym: the Bush Administration has “iced” immigration enforcement, all right!

The only improvement on the illegal alien front has been with regard to Muslims. That is something to praise Bush for. As for the rest, I think Unadorned is correct.

I agree with Popular Support (I like that pseudonym by the way) that Clark/Hillary would attempt to advance globalist agenda. But that’s one issue that conservatives are alert to (much more than they are to immigration) and would forcefully oppose.