And that's a table in which I will consciously never find myself seated.
Posted on 09/18/2004 6:07:04 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
I'm not a Buchanan follower; in fact, I was unfamiliar with him until a few years ago. I disagree vastly with his view on Isreal; agree with some of his assertions about trade & immigration.
That said, Reagan (a conservative) would most likely NEVER have made that statement had he seen today's crop of "Republicans", who are really comparable to the moderate Democrats of the 80's. The Democrats of today are simply socialists. We have a good number of conservatives in the House, some in the Senate, and few in this administration.
Yeah, but the Times' bashing of neocons has been indistinguishable from Buchanan's, and just as nasty and ridiculous.
And that's a table in which I will consciously never find myself seated.
No problem. That's your choice, and I respect that.
IMO, defending Buchanan is akin to defending Hitler.
Finally, an honest statement...And that, fellow Republicans, is the crux of the isue...
You've got to love it.
Yeowza!
Thus, Jefferson was mostly concerned with domestic political struggles. The next generation or two occupied itself with territorial expansion, and didn't take well to major changes at home. A century later, William Jennings Bryan sought to keep America neutral and an idealistic model for other countries. But intervention proved too strong a temptation for the liberal idealist Woodrow Wilson to resist. Not only Wilson, but also FDR/Truman and Kennedy/Johnson turned overseas to fulfill their vision of social improvement. Sometimes they didn't have a choice, but sought or compelled, the focus on international relations soaked up the energies and passions that had earlier gone into reform at home.
And today in the Bush era, conservatives and evangelicals feel the same pressure to fight a cultural war overseas, rather than at home. Historically, the turn to foreign affairs has marked the highwater mark of reform movements. One can't simply change directions and apply the same energy to domestic questions as one once did. Thus Harding and Coolidge followed Wilson, Eisenhower's Fifties followed twenty years of FDR and Truman, and Republican control of the White House followed the Sixties of Kennedy and Johnson. Turning from domestic policy to solving foreign or international problems is a way of applying one's beliefs, but also signals a reconciliation with the status quo at home, and the decline of reformist impulses.
So it's unlikely that Pat's prescription will work. Eventually, the country will look inward again, but it won't be with the same energy or desire to change things that we once had. If the past is any indication, Iraq may be an indication that we have entered a new era of domestic politics, and older slogans and strategies may be less successful in the future.
I thought as much.
You seem paranoid. If you start seeing nazis under your bed, you may want to do something about that. Sheesh.
"IMO, defending Buchanan is akin to defending Hitler"
I'll assume you're joking; otherwise that's quite absurd and insulting.
I disagree with Buchanan about Israel. I think the Palestinians are clearly to blame for the troubles there. Their institutional hatred of Israel and their refusal to accept reasonable compromise and insistence on getting all they want and of giving up nothing are probably the biggest problems.
I also think that Buchanan could criticize the neoconservatives w/o making assertions about them allegedly putting Israeli interests ahead of American ones.
But his criticism of Israel does not automatically equal some sort of animous or bigotry towards Jews. It is possible to not hold ill will towards the Jewish people and the Jewish state and still find fault with their policies. Again, I happen to think Israel is mostly in the right, so I disagree with Buchanan, but I'm not going to cast evil aspersions on him.
It is a tactic of the left to do such things.
I'm not a big fan of Buchannan, but I must say that your debating skills on this thread have been atrocious.
''In 2003, the United States invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have.''
True or false?
Grace & Peace, Brigadier
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.
