Hawkish Hillary Solid On Israel
Tom Bevan, he of RealClearPolitics fame, notes the difference (or rather the surprising lack thereof) between Newt Gingrich and HRC on Israel:
At a rally in support of Israel in New York City on Monday afternoon, Sen. Hillary Clinton asked the crowd: “Imagine if extremist terrorists were launching rockets across the Mexican or Canadian borders. Would we stand by or defend ourselves against the extremists?”
Good question. Turns out it’s virtually identical to the one conservative firebrand Newt Gingrich posed on “Meet the Press” the day before: “Imagine we woke up this morning and 500 Americans were dead in Miami from missiles fired from Cuba. Do you think any American would say, ‘Now, we should have proportionate response. We shouldn’t overreact’? No. We would say, ‘Get rid of the missiles.’ “
Hillary and Newt on the same page with the war in the Middle East and the war on terror, you ask? Pretty darn close. Clinton didn’t go quite so far as Gingrich (who said on Sunday we are witnessing the “early stages” of World War III) but she did serve up an unabashedly hawkish defense of Israel, saying, “America will support Israel in her efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians — to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom — that we will not permit this to happen and we will take whatever steps are necessary.”
Now, it would be easy to say that is because of the large Jewish population of New York – and Bevans notes it well – but Tom also rightly draws out the position in terms of her evolution into a hawk in general since she has become Senator rather than First Lady.
Like Tom, I don’t know how much is pandering and how much is convinction – but I do know it’s a breath of fresh air when compared to the dovishness that characterizes so many in the Democratic party. If HRC were to become president, my message to my conservative friends would be:
Relax…we could have had it SO much worse…
on the heels of a Lowery endorsement-at first a small plug on the corner-then a full blown article
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTlhN2NlMmE4YWU3ZmRiYmNjZTY0NGVjNmMwODUzYWE=
and now Bevan.
Bevan’s is not so much an actual endorsement, but he is holding hrc up aginst newt, indicating that Bevan too sees newt as the standard bearer of ideas that the gop should have down pat.
Factor in a mtl endorsement of his message.
I’m 60-40 on newt. The 60 is supportive because he can articulate a conservative vision (disturbing that no one else can)-but the 40…
Newt has little charisma. He can be bitter and petty, and were he to hold the vp spot for the gop, I would warn the guy ahead of him to watch for a major backstabbing at the worst, and some major verbal gaffes at the least.
Primary today? He’s the only one I’d show up for.
I’m with you on this one, Mark. I have a suspicion that Hillary could have a lot of draw among independents who have been voting Republican only because the Democrats are so far out in the weeds on national security. A Democrat who talks like this is a whole new thing, and it’s fairly attractive.