Star One Smart Blog's

Bipartisanship. Just what we need; just what the leftist Democrats don't want to hear. Barack Obama is rapidly moving to center on Middle East issues. Just to get elected, I suppose.

How will the defeatist leftists react to this?

IN THE HEAT of the Democratic primary campaign, some on the left were inspired to believe that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) offered a far-reaching transformation of U.S. foreign policy, "the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades," as one particularly breathless article in the American Prospect put it. Yet, when Mr. Obama opened his general election campaign this week with a major speech on Middle East policy, the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration -- or that of Republican Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That's not a bad thing; rather, it's a demonstration that there is a strong bipartisan consensus about America's vital interests in the Middle East and that the sensible options for defending them are relatively limited.

Specifically, on Israel, Barack Obama backed strong U.S. support for Israel and promised an "undivided" Jerusalem--a statement he backtracked on almost immediately, when Hamas complained...but still, any support for Israel is welcome, given the sneering hostility of the NeoLiberal narrative.

On Iran, BHO backed away from his earlier promises to sit and dine with Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket. Yes, now he says he would meet with "the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States"

and this...

Mr. Obama fully embraced the Bush administration's view that "the danger from Iran is grave." He said "we will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran," and he pledged, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."

Is this just BHO posturing towards the center, as every politician does before an election? If so, then John McCain will seem more attractive to those important 'center' voters, given his years of experience and his more-correct views on Iraq.

BHO will have to visit Iraq before the General Election, at which point he will be forced to outline some clear policy; the 'cut and run' positioning offered by the farthest left amongst the Democrats will no longer stand up to the actualities on the ground...that we are, finally, succeeding in helping to establish the first-ever Arab Democracy.

"AT WHAT COST!!!" scream the broken-record BDS Sufferers. You can smell their boilerplate hostility and anger to any successes reported from Iraq. That is the yellow smell of fear...fear that we might have success. Because these BDS sufferers bought into failure and retreatism, and now, with the strong possibility that we will win in Iraq, that we will help establish that first-ever Arab Democracy that will reverberate throughout the region, means that their hateful, scornful policies of defeat and BDS were ill-informed and did nothing but provide succor to the enemy.

But to hear these NeoLiberals, these authoritarian, fascist New Democrats, you realize that they would rather just install their own newly-radicalized Democratic Party with no further political choice. The typical far-left pissed-off Democrat, with his or her extreme, radical leftist narrative for our country’s ideological framework (including their recently demonstrated (in their race-and-gender laden nomination process) identity-based politics; Marxist economics; and their anti-morality religion-bashing) thinks they are so correct on the mere face of it that they should be allowed to take over our political system with all dissenting discussion revoked. All opposition should quieten, and we who disagree with their anti-American values should simply move aside so they can coronate this radical BHO, who is closer to Wright and Farrakhan than their revered John F. Kennedy.

What country do they think this is? Certainly not the America based on a constitutionally-proportioned representative republic. Because without the element of choice, with at least two disparate parties, you’ll have a single-party system that’s exactly more like that of historic, fascist Italy.

And these Democrat leaders also imagine a country without any opposition...From Hillary's speech on Friday...

"Just think how much more progress we could have made over the past 40 years if we’d had a Democratic president. Think about the lost opportunities of these past seven years on the environment and the economy, on health care and civil rights, on education, foreign policy and the Supreme Court.

"Imagine how far we could have come, how much we could have achieved if we had just had a Democrat in the White House."

Liberal Fascism.

Scratch a lefty, there’s Mussolini staring back at you.

---