At Least They're Consistent...
Much has been made of the support by certain Democrats of the resolution blessing Bush's action in Iraq, and Ho-D's vigorous opposition to it. Based on the positions summarized on the Post's website, general trends emerge:Supported unilateral military action in Iraq: Team Bush, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry
Supported only multilateral action in Iraq: Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich
Wishy-washy: Clark
Supports unilateral negotiation with North Korea: Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Dean, Clark
Supports only multilateral negotiation with North Korea: Team Bush, Sharpton
Wishy-washy: Kucinich
Now, I'm a multilateralist. Clearly, of all the candidates, including the President, that leaves me with just one choice: the Reverend Al! Three of the Dems - including the leader - are gung-ho unilateralists, willing to criticize the President at every juncture, but ultimately supportive of American action outside the rubrik of an international movement. A Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman (especially Lieberman!) presidency would be reminiscent of Clinton, except without Bill's exceptional diplomatic skills. Imagine Bush's (flawed) administration without the balance provided by Colin Powell and others. America under a left-of-center Democrat would fail to create consistent international policy, fall further apart from our Asian and European allies on trade issues (because labor is nearsightedly protectionist). In short, all the negatives of the Bush administration without the positives - values, balance, etc.
Not to say that I like Bush - his "fuzzy math" budget, the Laffer Curve, and federal intrusion into education, municipal funding, etc, make this presidency a lot like Reagan's except without the small-government philosophy. Reagan's excuse was that the Congress was Democratic. Bush's excuse is that his father was too busy running the country to teach little Georgie the fundamental tenets of Republicanism. Laura needs to make a tape of someone saying "Small government is beautiful" and play it while he sleeps every night. Maybe he'd get the message: this isn't a company, and it's not supposed to grow for growth's sake.
<< Home