Too bad Bush’s fiscal recklessness is not annoying the “right” people. Notice that this didn’t get much play in the SOTU. Something about “earmarks” and a “line-item veto” - what about ANY veto on principle? It’s a topsy-turvy world when the Democrats have to play the fiscal responsibility line in the wake of GOP fiscal recklessness and pork. Tax-and-spend Democrats have given way to No-tax-and-spend-more Republicans.

I actually agree with you Jimmy, but I’m having trouble seeing the relevance of your comment to this post.

Don’t you have anything at all to say about Clinton siding with Islamists against the right of free speech? Anything?

But Jimmy, there is in fact a lot of agitation about President Bush’s free spending and earmarking. There’s a leadership fight going on right now among the Republican House delegation where this is a major issue.

I have also seen no evidence that the Democratic Party has abandoned its spending habits. Certainly Senator Kerry’s presidential campaign had no more hint of fiscal responsibility than Bush’s.

So Gen Clark is worried about kicking down doors and roughing up women, though he has no prooof of it. He had no problem with breaking and burning down buildings, killing 74 Americans in Waco. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Remember, Wesley Clark is probably going to make another run for Prez, so take his words as appealing to the Kos crowd. He also almost started WWIII with the Russians in Kosovo over the airport. Even Bill Clinton fired him!

What irks me is that Fox News has him on frequently as a “military analyst”. All he does is spout DNC talking points.

Fox also parades out Andrew Napolitano, a libertarian judge who actually really doesn’t know a whole lot about the law. For all the carping the libs spout about Fox being a right leaning news organization, they actually do make a concious effort to pay for commentary from leftists.

The relevance of my posting goes directly to your “Yes indeed” remark about NRO’s SOTU summary. The implication is that Bush, by getting on the nerves of Democrats, is somehow an admirable leader of Republican conservatism. But Bush gets on the nerves of true fiscal conservatives, too; though I dare say the folks at NRO would praise Bush for annoying all of these “right” people.

But on to Clinton, I’d have to agree with you that his “realpolitik” attitude towards Hamas does not make for a principled moral leadership. And being someone who embraces decision-making on the basis of moral absolutes, I think Clinton is not doing the cause of freedom and justice any favors by speaking as he does. But, I think it is fair to say that what roots Clinton’s thinking is the attitude of realist pragmatism that has characterized all of our Presidents and has led us to alliances with the likes of many unsavory and genocidal megalomaniacs. Not only did we forge an alliance with Stalin, but we continue today to turn a blind eye to Saudi support for groups such as Hamas (in fact, GW is fond of having terror-supporting Saudi royalty to his ranch in Crawford for barbeques), we give most favored nation trading status to China, and we continue to do next to nothing about the genocide in Darfur, we “open the door” to dialogue with the madman ruler of North Korea, and we barely complain about the Burmese military’s crushing repression of its own people. So, yeah, Clinton’s selling out the moral high ground in favor of believing that an open door to some kind of dialogue with Hamas might change their ways. And, just like you, I don’t like it one bit. But I don’t like a lot of other “pragmatic, realist” politics for much the same reasons.