November 27, 2007


Dems marching backward on foreign policy (James Kirchick, Nov 26, 2007, Politico)

Observers would be forgiven were they to mistake Clinton’s and Gore’s campaign speeches as part of the dreaded “neo-con” oeuvre.

The specific targets of Clinton and Gore were the Republican realists — a breed of the foreign policy establishment embodied by Bush, along with his secretary of state, James Baker, and national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.

In their talk of “coddling dictators from Beijing to Baghdad,” Clinton and Gore faulted the Bush administration for its feckless response to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and cooperation with Saddam Hussein.

How ironic, then, that in his column last week attacking Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, self-identified “progressive” and former Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont would hail Bush, Baker and Scowcroft — the latter described by Lamont as “Bush No. 1’s top foreign policy adviser” — as offering the prescription for the Democratic Party’s foreign policy woes.

The modern Democratic party, being secular and union-dominated, is naturally isolationist and protectionist, and when you add in how reactionary they are at a time when there's an Evangelical Republican in office, it's a wonder they don't nominate Pat Buchanan.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 27, 2007 5:24 PM
Comments for this post are closed.