Did you even bother to read Baker's comments today? He was anything but loyal to Bush 43 with his criticism of how the "prewar" situation was handled (not "diplomatically" enough), and that the U.N. "must administer and lead" all postwar reconstruction and political efforts. I was deeply involved in both the 1992 and 2000 Bush campaigns and let me tell you my opinion is shared by many others who saw Baker (the then so-called Campaign Manager) fail Bush 41 in '92. Dubya himself always blamed Baker for his father's defeat and only reluctantly agreed to have him represent the campaign in Florida 2000.
It was Baker who forced the the Madrid and Oslo "peace" disasters upon Israel, which brought Arafat out of exile and elevated this mass-murderer into a global statesman. He was good friends with the late Syrian butcher Assad, whom he visited more than any other foreign leader during his tenure as SoS (compare with Clinton's similar coddling of Arafat). He has been a stooge for the Saudis on many occaisions, including interceding personally in matters which I am not at liberty to discuss.
I stand by my statements about James Baker. Whether there are democrats who are worse is irrelevant. You ought to educate yourself about his history a bit more before lecturing me and attempting to censor my opinions.