Posted on 05/11/2007 12:17:24 PM PDT by LantzALot
Brown may loosen U.K. ties to Bush
As Blair sets departure, finance chief is in line
By Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post Via MSNBC
LONDON - Gordon Brown, who is set to become prime minister of Britain on June 27, was sitting in the White House one day last month chatting with national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley when, as Brown later put it, "President Bush happened to drop in for a meeting."
Two of the world's most powerful politicians, in their first substantial conversation, chatted for 45 minutes about Iraq, Afghanistan and world trade. White House officials said the meeting was hardly happenstance but planned in advance.
…
But analysts here say the British public's toxic feelings toward Bush and the Iraq war -- and Blair's unyielding support for both -- mean that Prime Minister Brown will have to maintain a certain distance from the White House, at least until next year's presidential election.
…
Full article HERE
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I have to hand it to Blair. Throughout his tenure he has surprised me by his willingness, for a Labour politician, to push ideas that fly in the face of the narrow prejudices of Labour’s traditional base and to be rather successful at it, although he should never be confused with a real conservative on domestic issues.
The ability to work together with a conservative American president (who the left has successfully eviscerated and caricatured in the mind of the British public) on the fight against Islamofascism truly places Blair above the category of politician and into that of statesman.
Brown, on the other hand, has always struck me as more of the New Labour managerial type, although of the more intelligent sort. Absent Blair’s example, I would have thought it highly unlikely that someone like Brown would ever take the kind of political risks Blair has taken as a matter of principle and integrity over expediency.
Hopefully, with Blair’s example in front of him, Brown will see his national interest from the same perspective as Blair has. I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it, however.
I suspect, too, that the narrow prejudices of Labour are, like the liberals in this country, the prejudices of Party leaders who look for every opportunity to pick up a few votes. In the voting booth, at least some of the people who may register as Labour (or Democrats, here) will show a little more sense.
‘I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it, however.’
I wouldn’t bet a bottle of ranch dressing on him ever winning a general election as PM. . . . .
His unelected crowning as PM is the best thing that could’ve happened to the Conservatives.
My bet is that no matter who succeeds Blair the ones in power will be against the US. Read the responses by British posters on this site: I think a lot of them have prepared in advance an excuse for this position by saying that “you are confusing support or against Bush with America. I support the US, just that I don’t support Bush!”. And these are from their conservatives.
Doesn’t it ring too similar to the usual talk by the “Euros” a while back: “I don’t like with America’s national policies, not that I don’t like Americans!”?
No surprise here.
They’re only conservatives in name these days.
As for him being un elected, so was major and some how he managed to win an election.
They’re only conservatives in name these days.
As for him being un elected, so was major and some how he managed to win an election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.