Neocons Supporting Hillary?

[Brainster]

Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous but it did get a column in the NY Times.

Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.

To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons — Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle — are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would “be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.”

But others appear to envisage a different direction — one that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.

The notion of real neoconservatives (as compared to the neocons of Jacob Heilbrunn's fantasy world) supporting Hillary is actually pretty ridiculous. But of course this article really has nothing to do with the neocons. It's a shot across Hillary's bow from the portside, intended to peel away hardcore liberals from her base heading into the primaries. I have little doubt that there are plenty of "progressives" dismayed at the notion that Hillary is the heir apparent; if this story is to be believed, even Obama is working against her coronation.

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

What's that? My avatar? It's meant to be ironic; I find it Hillaryous myself.

 

[Unabogie]

Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous but it did get a column in the NY Times.



The notion of real neoconservatives (as compared to the neocons of Jacob Heilbrunn's fantasy world) supporting Hillary is actually pretty ridiculous. But of course this article really has nothing to do with the neocons. It's a shot across Hillary's bow from the portside, intended to peel away hardcore liberals from her base heading into the primaries. I have little doubt that there are plenty of "progressives" dismayed at the notion that Hillary is the heir apparent; if this story is to be believed, even Obama is working against her coronation.



What's that? My avatar? It's meant to be ironic; I find it Hillaryous myself.

Don't quote Ed Klein. That's embarrassing. By the way, Klein has sure changed his tune about Hillary.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2014/07/dont-believe-what-ed-klein-writes-says.html

 

[Puppycow]

Suppose that Rand Paul is the nominee. Wouldn't Neocons support Hillary then?

Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.

 

[hgc]

Suppose that Rand Paul is the nominee. Wouldn't Neocons support Hillary then?

Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.

There's certainly a neocon strain in the Democratic party -- call it the Lieberman Wing.

As for Ed Klein's blather about Obama supporting Warren over Clinton, that information is worth the snot rag that the Post is printed on.

 

[ravdin]

Suppose that Rand Paul is the nominee. Wouldn't Neocons support Hillary then?

Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.

I think you're right that the neocons would support Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul. I'd also bet that if Rand Paul was in the White House, he'd quickly change his tune about putting limits on presidential power.

 

[hgc]

I think you're right that the neocons would support Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul. I'd also bet that if Rand Paul was in the White House, he'd quickly change his tune about putting limits on presidential power.

Interesting thing about Rand Paul -- He emerged from inside an ideological bubble when he ran for Senate, as evidenced by his disastrous interview on Rachel Maddow (when he found out that his opposition to Title II of the Civil Rights Act is not at all acceptable outside Libertarian fever swamps). But he has shown a fair amount of political adroitness. I think he'll further adjust his rhetoric when he finds out what sells and doesn't sell in a Republican presidential primary season.

 

[MaGZ]

Neocons are concerned with one thing only: the US support of Israel and destroying her enemies. There are plenty of Jews in the Democrat Party who will back Hillary to do just that.

 

[Puppycow]

Interesting thing about Rand Paul -- He emerged from inside an ideological bubble when he ran for Senate, as evidenced by his disastrous interview on Rachel Maddow (when he found out that his opposition to Title II of the Civil Rights Act is not at all acceptable outside Libertarian fever swamps). But he has shown a fair amount of political adroitness. I think he'll further adjust his rhetoric when he finds out what sells and doesn't sell in a Republican presidential primary season.

Another position he has publicly taken is to end all foreign aid. All.

This sort of thing might poll well with the masses who don't think about it much, but it's a pretty radical idea really. Imagine the backlash if he tried to keep that promise. Not just to obvious ones like ending support for Israel, but the US would be all alone in being the only developed country to offer no foreign assistance at all. And could we really stand by and do nothing the next time there is a natural disaster somewhere like Haiti? How would that scenario play out on the evening news?

 

[ravdin]

Another position he has publicly taken is to end all foreign aid. All.

This sort of thing might poll well with the masses who don't think about it much, but it's a pretty radical idea really. Imagine the backlash if he tried to keep that promise. Not just to obvious ones like ending support for Israel, but the US would be all alone in being the only developed country to offer no foreign assistance at all. And could we really stand by and do nothing the next time there is a natural disaster somewhere like Haiti? How would that scenario play out on the evening news?

It would be nice if we knew that foreign aid went to humanitarian relief for disasters- and I see no reason for changing the policy. I'm also in favor of sending food to North Korea, even though the government claims that what little they dole out to the masses is tribute from a terrified Uncle Sam.

Unfortunately, a lot of foreign aid is in the form of a blank check to autocrats, which they use to line their own pockets and those of their cronies. Or even worse, weapons that dictators use against their own people. I'm very much in favor of calling these policies into question.