Generals and the presidency

i know there are a lot of clark supporters out there who say that his being a former general makes him a lock to beat bush. while i will still vote for former general clark if he is nominated, here is how some other past generals did in the general election

george washington ran unopposed
Andrew Jackson won 2 terms
Franklin Pierce served one term was not renominated
winfield scott, ran as a whig but lost, returned to his post as general in chief.
Andrew Johnson, became president upon lincolns death, failed to win term of own, later returned to senate in 1875
winfield scott hancock lost to another former general in james garfield.

lewis cass in 1848 ran as a democrat and lost
George McClennan "little napoleon" served as general under lincoln then ran against him in 1864 and lost.

US Grant, Rutherford b Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, Dwight Eisenhower all ran as republicans and won at least one term

James Garfield was briefly quatermaster general,(dont know if that counts)
William Henry Harrison and Zackary taylor ran as whigs and won the presidency

Sam Houston ran on a minor party and lost.

i got this info from this link
http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20030928generals0928p5.asp

it is a bit dated but it gets the point across. the generals that won election for the most part were huge war heros (taylor, William Harrison, Ike, Grant, washington)

just being a former general doesnt make you a lock to win.

just my two cents

peace
david
:hippie:

Had distinguished war service, but was not in the caliber of Grant, Washington etc. Winfield Hancock was nearly on a par with some of the others, certainly a cut above Hayes and Garfield, but ran as a Democrat when Democrats were not winning (post war). Lost a very close election though.

No matter what people around here hope and wish. All we can do is put forward the candidate most likely to appeal to the greatest number of voters out there.

If it was Joe Lieberman, I'd support Joe Lieberman.

The nation has to come above the party, and the nation needs an end to the Bush disaster.

From my point of view, Clark has the wit, charm and appearance to be attractive to the large numbers of undecided voters out there, and has the credentials to give Republicans the ability to vote for him without feeling they are betraying their country.

I don't see any of the other candidates being able to give a broad range of voters a reason to vote FOR him rather than AGAINST Bush.

It's just a practical matter of political reality.

even ONE post on this board by a Clark supporter that suggests that Clark is a "lock to win"? I haven't seen any.

You will see a lot of posts that suggest that Clark has a better chance to beat Bush than some other candidates do, in part because of his background as an Army officer, in part because he is a southerner, in part because of his personality, and in part because of his stated positions on protecting the environment, defending civil liberties, engaging with our allies as equal partners, preserving Social Security and Medicare, rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and balancing the federal budget. To leave out any of those elements is to over-simplify the reasons that a lot of people think Clark can win in '04.

lost to Dewey in the Republican Convention in 1948, I believe

was in Japan in 1948. He did not return to the U.S. until he was fired by Truman in 1951. He never announced he was a candidate for the 1948 nomination, although he certainly would have accepted it if the convention had nominated him. There were Republicans who would have liked MacArthur to announce he was a candidate, but he did not.

he filed papers...rasied money in japan...and then decided agaisnt it...he then retracted his candidacy

I never did trust MacArthur!

The winner of many a well-fought bottle!

Gen. Clark is the man for the job because his military service gives him a huge centrist appeal. I know many people that voted for Bush and are rather conservative that would vote for Clark because of his military record, along with his many other decorations.

Certainly, he's not as liberal as I'd like, but I really do stand behind the guy. And hell.. anybody's better than Bush. Give me a candidate that can win.

are liberal. He is strongly in favor of protecting the environment. He says Bush should not have dumped the Kyoto Treaty, and says in 100 years this generation will be judged on what it did to protect our national forests, wetlands, and wilderness areas. He is pro-choice and in favor of civil unions. He is strongly in favor of affirmative action, and filed a friend of the court brief in favor of the U. of Michigan with the Supreme Court, citing the Army's success in promoting minorities. He has said he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 per year. He is against privatizing Social Security and says that we must provide health care for all Americans.

If those are not liberal positions, what are they?!