McBush? No, McWorse

While it is gratifying to see the speakers at the Democratic National Convention finally begin to get after John McCain's policy proposals in aggressive and specific terms, their continual reference to "four more years of Bush" if he is elected doesn't quite get it. To be fair, the Bush administration, particularly under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has begun to implement saner foreign policies (e.g. negotiating with Iran, the coming SOFA with Iraq including a timeline for withdrawal).

My concern is that McCain's foreign policy would be a return to the belligerent, militaristic style of Bush's first term despite the undeniable fact that it fell flat on its face. Andrew Sullivan:

John McCain is making it quite clear what his foreign policy will be like: tilting sharply away from the greater realism of Bush's second term toward the abstract moralism, fear-mongering and aggression of the first. Not just four more years - but four more years like Bush's first term. If the Democrats cannot adequately warn Americans of the dangers of a hotheaded temperament and uber-neo-con mindset in the White House for another four years, they deserve to lose. If Americans decide they want a president who will be more aggressive and less diplomatic than the current one, then they should at least brace for the consequences - for their economy and their security. In my view, the fear card has only one truly compelling target in this election: McCain.

Josh Marshall:

This danger has actually got me to thinking that should McCain win in November, the likely strong Democratic majorities in Congress will need to begin making a concerted effort to rein in the war powers of the president to keep the country safe between 2009 and 2013 -- far more than most of us might normally be comfortable with. I know that sounds hyperbolic. It's not. And people need to understand this. For better or worse, the reality of the danger for the security of the country that is posed by a McCain presidency is not coming through. So the Democratic Congress would likely be the only bulwark against the gambit of his advisors and his own instability. What McCain is pushing for is much more stark than most Democrats, let alone independents and moderate Republicans understand. Hopefully, we won't need to face these choices.

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria compares the two candidates:

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology—temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.

--Ballard Burgher