The fondness of the liberal blogosphere for Darcy Burner, and vice versa, is well documented. As the Seattle Times recently exposed, however, that symbiotic meld may not be paying off so well. But please, don't let reality stop a good time.

Evergreen Politics shares the news that Joe Wilson graced Seattle with his presence last weekend for a Darcy Burner fundraiser (anyone surprised Jim McDermott was there too?).

That would be the same Joe Wilson whose dishonesty earned him a tart rebuke from the Washington Post: "Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson...It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously." Ouch.

Even columnist David Broder, no friend of Republicans in recent months, publicly called for an apology to Karl Rove after the truth of "Plamegate" was revealed. [Those interested in delving into Mr. Wilson's role in this tale can read the delightful savaging provided by Christopher Hitchens, a self-admitted former Trotskyite, in 2004, and in 2006.]

Yet, here we have the same Joe Wilson, trotted out as some lion of the liberal cause - well, at least to the conspiracy theorists on the left - to boost the efforts of Darcy Burner. Note the recounting of Wilson's remarks explains how "Wilson spoke for a while at how this brand of Republicans is threatening the Constitution." Ah, would that be this threat to the Constitution about which Burner is so incorrectly "ashamed"?

The mere fact that Burner's campaign would use such a laughably unserious person as Joe Wilson to headline a fundraiser speaks much to her system of beliefs. Beyond her recent statements regarding policy toward terrorist detainees, conservatives may have also seen with disdain her comments about North Korea:

North Korea's test of a nuclear weapon is another indication that George Bush's policies have made us less secure. North Korea has been a dangerous threat throughout the Bush administration and yet Bush has not succeeded in stopping them. Bush's plan has failed.
It's time for a new approach.

...

We also need to conduct strong diplomacy with countries in the region, particularly China. North Korea depends on China for food and fuel shipments, as well as trade; we should ask China to step up and apply pressure on North Korea.

Well, Mrs. Burner, let's see. You'd like a "new approach." Ok. In the '90's we tried talking to North Korea directly, and here's what happened:

The Clinton administration dealt directly with the North, producing the Agreed Framework, a sham that the North Koreans began cheating on, in the words of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, "as the ink was drying."

That doesn't sound so chummy, so perhaps we should try enlisting interested countries in the region to help, such as China as Burner suggests?

Recent events seem to indicate, however, that China's influence didn't quite bear the fruit Burner hopes. It seems China has its own interests, which clearly don't include applying the same pressure on North Korea we might desire of them.

Which brings us to a culminating point about Burner's apparent view of the world, and the stereotype of her liberal supporters: they believe in negotiating for the sake of negotiating, even when one side (say, North Korea) transparently has no interest in doing so in good faith. Jonah Goldberg explains:

Americans tend to think -- and Europeans consider it gospel -- that all differences can be negotiated. The truth is that only problems that are negotiable can be negotiated.

In contrast, Jim Hoagland details how squeezing an enemy uninterested in negotiating can have the desired impact. Though as Hoagland explains, that necessitates the willingness to play hardball. Not exactly a forte of recent liberal thought in foreign affairs.

That last statement forces one to consider the root cause of such weakness. Speaking of Mr. Goldberg, his sentiments from 2002 on leftist thinking related to international issues still hits the mark with splendid accuracy. Such positions are taken,

...because those people are blind to what really motivates us. If you don't believe in freedom and democracy and free markets; if you think the only use for power is its utility for furthering your own ambitions then American foreign policy is going to look bizarre. And, if like so many Europeans, you believe that power and force are no longer necessary, that everything in the international arena can be settled by democratic debate or, better, intelligent conversation in the lobby of a four-star hotel, then American foreign policy will look pretty darned weird to you, too.

This perhaps explains much about Burner's confusion regarding getting serious on matters of national security and America's role in the world. Contrary to those that are overly fond of negotiating with undeniably twisted regimes, the United States of America has no interest in building an empire, but we're not shy about using the strength we're blessed with in an attempt to keep the world safer from madmen. No doubt Joe Wilson got that all cleared up for her.