A couple points:
LZFR
31
- “Reasonable Conservatives”. You seem to be reading too much into this. If there are no reasonable ones, then you are saying the entire party is dangerous. While I do not agree with most current GOP policies, if a “Reasonable Conservative” became POTUS, my life would live on about the same as any Democratic POTUS. That’s not to say that there is a viable one. But maybe we’re thinking differently as to what is “Reasonable”
- Clinton seeking Kissinger’s endorsement. No doubt not a great move by Clinton. She thinks getting his endorsement will swing those fence sitting Republicans. I’ll agree with you that it’s not worth it. But as I noted, there are no perfect candidates. If you think this makes her farther right than “Center”, then maybe you are the type who thinks both major parties are either Center or right of Center. I don’t believe that, though I’m not saying the Democrats are as Left as they should be or once were.
- I don’t see that as a problem. the issue is that none of them will ever admit her foreign policy is in line with theirs. It would amount to career suicide. Let’s put it this way, if McCain or Romney were POTUS and did what Obama has done foreign policy wise, the GOP would not be as critical. Sure, certain things would not have occurred, like probably the Iran deal, but likely Syria would be in a very similar place. There is no way a third “war” could be fought, especially since a GOP POTUS might not have reduced forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, the actions of Reagan, GHW Bush, B Clinton, & GW Bush, have dictated how Obama has had to deal with foreign policy as will Obama’s work dictating the next POTUS. H Clinton’s advantage would be that she was part of that for 4 years as Sec of State. Back to your point, I’m sure some agree with her policies. They will just never admit it in public. It’s better and actually wise to say Trump will be a disaster to foreign policy, because he might very well be.
