Otherwise known as "fundamentally transforming" chickenshit into chicken salad:
With foreign policy and national security likely to be pivotal issues in the 2016 presidential race, Democrats are already posturing to shape their party, and their presumed nominee Hillary Clinton, as possessing a formidable and forward-thinking vision, according to Politico.
Oh, this ought to be good.
The Truman National Security Project — a [communist] Washington think tank — planned to release Tuesday a paper presenting a platform of ideas that range from "countering violent extremism to upgrading the U.S. energy grid," the website reports. The "deeply wonky and somewhat idealistic" document calls for "ambitious American leadership at a time of ‘blurring borders’ and ‘contested spaces,’" according to an advance copy obtained by Politico.
Even though Democrats are aiding and abetting "violent extremism," both at home and abroad, and are principally responsible for "blurring the border" for domestic political gain. And with a "presumptive" nominee that is one of the core architects of both deliberately engineered American decline and the chaotic world in flames we see burning all around us today.
And don't believe for one moment that Donk operatives don't know just how impossible a task they've undertaken:
Despite [Mrs.] Clinton having served as a secretary of state....
Or, rather, because of it.
....Democrats are acknowledging the GOP’s long-standing dominance on foreign policy issues. Huffington Post political writer Erin McPike this week took Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter to task for a recent appearance on NBC's Meet the Press during which Cutter acknowledged that national security is not in the Dems’ wheelhouse.
"Foreign policy is a Republican base issue, which is why you see Republicans coming out of the gate talking about it," Cutter said. "It's a Republican establishment issue, and it always has been."
Well now, that's an odd thing for a Democrat fixer to say. I thought GOP foreign policy prowess had waned after the Bush43 years. I thought his "warmongering" had gotten us into an "unwinnable" "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" that had "ruined our international standing," necessitating a more "humble" foreign policy that would "restore America's respect" in the "international community". I thought, in short, that Democrats were now dominant on foreign policy issues, that Barack Obama had "fixed" everything that Dubya had "broken". It is, after all, what got The One elected and re-elected, right?
But now there are no victory laps, no celebration of O's or Hillary's foreign policy "accomplishments". Just a shrug and a "Eh, the Republicans always own that issue".
That's the best the Dems can do.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen:
Cutter’s capitulation on behalf of her party is telling, according to McPike.
"One of the most prominent Democrat strategists in the country is ready to cede foreign policy to the Republicans about nine months before each party knows who its nominees will be," she writes. "And this idea — that foreign policy and national security are topics that simply fire up the Republican base — is a theory I've heard repeated by multiple Democratic operatives in the past week, meaning it's a line of spin some of the party is beginning to adopt."
It's more than spin; it's unconditional surrender. Barack Obama and the dynamic State duo of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have so completely FUBAR'd U.S. foreign policy and irretrievably locked the entire world on multi-tracked roads to global war that they are punting the issue to the GOP so that when the chickenshit hits the fan, they can blame us for the <ahem> "fallout".
Not unlike how Bill Clinton punted al Qaeda and 9/11 and the "War On Terror" to George W. Bush in the first place, actually.
Hey, that big picture strategy worked once, and fabulously; why not clear the decks for a reprise with Julian Castro in 2024?
No comments:
Post a Comment