Chameleon.

Rides the horse of the day.

This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy. And it isn't likely to work in today's world.

But even after the debacle in Iraq, the neocons, and the stooges influenced by them, refuse to accept this fact.

[strike]Communism[/strike] Neoconservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

"This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy. And it isn't likely to work in today's world."

Ya don't say? For one thing, the US can't blow its nose w/o China's permission right now. We owe them a trillion and are asking them for another couple of trillion, w/o which the nation falls into the abyss.
The very idea of dictating anything to anyone from such a weak position (economically, morally, ideologically)is ludicrous. And our main economic rival has veto power. Great job, W!

"He seems far more progressive now, not because Zakaria's worldview has changed . . . "

A think there are a lot of us who suddenly find ourselves redefined as progressives or leftists just because the right has moved so far right.

Who'd have thought that common sense and realism were "progressive" notions?

Fineman is akin to Chris Matthews - Must check the wind before speaking or writing.

But, to go off in misguided directions. To follow up on Gregory's neo-con comment, so sad that followers of Scoop Jackson, such as Perle and Gaffney became zealots of the worst kind. Jackson did believe in a strong military, but, he, also, believed in helpings others in our nation. He was responsible for the development of the largest shelter in the US for men over 50. St Martins de Porres in Seattle would not exist, but, for Jackson. Gaffney and Perle have smeared the name of being a Scoop Jackson Democrat by joining with the other Neo-Cons.

Some see F. Zakaria as a semi-neocon and he's not highly popular among progressives, however he seems to be honest and insightful and I like his work. I think Obama should pick him for a top office.

Who'd have thought that common sense and realism were "progressive" notions?

I've always thought that. Rightist ideas were well defined by W.F. Buckley more than 50 years ago. His very first article in the National Review said that, "Conservatism is the philosophy of standing athwart history shouting, 'STOP!'" I might be paraphrasing that a bit, but that is what he wrote.

Now, take a good look at that. Mr. Buckley's "philosophy" isn't a philosophy at all; it is a childish temper tantrum. It is a sneering attempt to stop the unstoppable. Social change is like the tides; no matter what breakwater you put up, it will eventually be washed away.

And conservatives are still at it. They don't have any ideas at all, beyond obstructing change and hoping to profit politically from it. And given the situation we're in right now, the flaws of this approach are suddenly obvious: change is a necessary thing, and stopping it means having a fossilized society that is doomed to be left behind by the rest of the world.

And that is the real danger we are faced with now. The GOP is, perhaps unknowingly but none the less, working to destroy America by preventing us from doing what needs to be done. They may actually succeed, and if they do, America will fall.

"Fineman is akin to Chris Matthews" and probably a kin to Tweety.

Howard has made a career of being consistently wrong. Probably why he gets airtime on the Tweety show on a regular basis.

The one consistency to the Tweety show is the regular reappearances of the same bloviators to continuously regurgitate whatever is the current 'Inside the Beltway Common Knowledge'.

SadOldVet, Matthews is Tweety.

Okay, I get what you said. My bad. I'm in the Pacific time zone and am only still taking the first sips of the morning coffee. I should disable the keyboard this early.

Carry on. I'll eventually wake up.

Mmmmmm. Coffee. Good.

I loved that Zakaria piece, and this past week's GPS showed him getting a little irritated on this topic with his guests, too.

One thing he didn't touch on that is also true is this: saying the President is doing something right is very boring. Unlike Zakaria, who I think has certain views purely out of principle (and his show is secondary to that), a lot of people on T.V. have certain views for a living. They're going to find something to nitpick and complain about no matter what. They're shallow, self-important, and they've got a lot of screen time to fill.

One of the things I like about Zakaria is how he is one of the very few journalists who consistenly goes outside the beltway box to get interviews. On his show he routinely brings in analysts, journalists, leaders etc from foreign counties.

Unlike most of the press who get their 'analysis' and interviews from the same rotating cast of administration officials, think tank drones and congress, Zakaria seems to make a concious effort to listen to multiple voices.

He actually lives outside of the damn box. It is a refreshing change.

Zakaria always picks up whatever the conventional truth of the moment is and presents it as some sort of profound insight. He was "center-right" when that is where the *serious* people were, he is "center left" now that this is clearly where the *serious* people are...he will change again...

One of the things I like about Zakaria is how he is one of the very few journalists who consistenly goes outside the beltway box to get interviews. - thorin-1

Bingo. And his interviews aren't limited to supporting or trashing the daily talking points. While I don't always agree with him, I do think his is the best Sunday talk show, and his interviews are much more open than most, allowing differing opinions and facts to be introduced.

Some see F. Zakaria as a semi-neocon and he's not highly popular among progressives, however he seems to be honest and insightful and I like his work. I think Obama should pick him for a top office.

Anyone who's read The Future of Freedom and thinks Zakaria is a semi-neocon is crazy. It pretty much single-handedly demolishes the case for the unrestricted spread of democracy as a cure for all ills that every neo-con lives by.

meh, can't agree. Zakaria used to be much, much more full of wingnuttery than he is now. he just seems to have the ability to actually learn from mistakes. in 2002, 2003 - he was indeed in pretty much full neocon mode. he's tried to make up for it since then, so credit where its due. but not where its not.

I like Zacharia. I might not always agree with him, but he's always well informed, intelligent and intellectually honest. That's all I really ask of someone in his position.

What is the "establishment" and how is it in any way legitimate?

It sounds like a royal court or something that a South American "democracy" might have. A bunch of unelected fogies bent on undermining elected officials and forcing those elected officials to cowtow to their personal, undemocratic whims.