Posted on 05/28/2006 3:31:02 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Could the United States be better off with Democrat in the White House in 2009? Here are couple of reasons the answer might be yes, even if you're not a Democrat.
The Democrats need to take ownership of American foreign policy again, for their sake as well as the country's. Long stretches in opposition sometimes drive parties toward defeatism, utopianism, isolationism or permutations of all three. What starts off as legitimate attacks on inevitable errors of the party in power can veer off into wholesale rejection of the opposition party's own foreign policy principles. Republicans in 1990s, after supporting an expansive internationalism under Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, drifted toward quasi-isolationism against the Clinton administration's quasi-internationalism. During Woodrow Wilson's two terms, the internationalist party of Theodore Roosevelt began transforming itself into the isolationist party of William Borah. During the Nixon-Ford years, the party of John F. Kennedy became the party of George McGovern.
Eight years of Bill Clinton brought the Democrats mostly out of their post-Vietnam trauma and revived liberal interventionism. But the George W. Bush years have driven many back. Buffeted between the administration's failures and their party's left-wing critics, the Clintonites either disavowed what they once believed or kept their heads down. Lately they're starting to show signs of life and could still take the reins again if the right Democrat won in 2008. That wouldn't be such a bad thing. No one can claim any more that the old Clinton foreign policy team is less competent than the Republicans who succeeded it. But what happens to these Democrats if their standard-bearer loses in 2008?
The case for electing a Democrat is not only to save the party's soul, though that's a worthy task, but to pull the country together to face the difficult times ahead.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Which is why he left the presidency with a 23% approval rating.
But the George W. Bush years have driven many back.
And the communists are furious over it. They said Bush drove their agenda back decades. Good thing he won when he did, isn't it?
Next, we'll move on to a real conservative and bid the left wing communists goodbye for the last time.
Pat Buchanan in disguise?
The case for electing a Democrat is not only to save the party's soul, though that's a worthy task, but to pull the country together to face the difficult times ahead.
Yeah the repubs are pissing off the base (and a hell of a lot of others)to the point that they want someone else to vote for but the Dems are yeaterdays news. They CAN'T pull this country together because thay have no vision of the future to offer. All the Dems do now is rage and hate and undermine.
In the past this situation put the Dems in the win by default seat but I don't see that this time around. The time has never been so ripe for a dark horse.
The writer is really out of touch.Choice quote:"the Republicans could nominate someone capable of winning broad Democratic support...."The author doesn't drop any names,but the first person that came to my mind when i read that statement was John McCain(R)INO.
All these big words that are just broad handwaves without saying anything specific.
Typical subversive socialist claptrap from the liberals. They think anything that does not give our country away is bad, nasty, and evil.
One thing's for sure, all the conservatives who promptly went to sleep with GW was elected will suddenly wake up. Things were certainly poppin' around Free Republic a lot more back duing the days of the "Clinton Death List".
It brings to mind the old Chinese curse..."may you live in interesting times.".
"His next book, Dangerous Nation: America in the World, 1607-1898, will be published by Knopf in the fall of 2006."
Is this a parody? America did not become a nation until 1783.
"Which country? Red China? Cuba? Iran?"
Russia.
Using this guys logic we should have let the Communists win the Cold War.
He must be meaning colonial-era America. We often treat colonial and independent nation eras as distinct entities for US history, but for Canadian, Australian, and NZ history the colonial and post-colonial periods are treated under a unified approach.
"He must be meaning colonial-era America."
A threat to the world?
Too late. Their soul is already gone. After 40-50 years in power, the US voters turned them out and they are out for revenge on America by destroying the country.
Does he mean a threat to existing world order at the time? In general, the European powers' drive to incorporate new lands for new products and commerce heightened their tensions and it ended up in the Seven Years War in the mid 18th century (the French and Indian War was in fact the North American thretre of that particular war). So in a sense the existence of America drove the Western European nations more antagonistic.
where's the barf alert ?
Here is a reason why we would not be better off - socialized medicine. And it's almost here now...
BTTT
"Does he mean a threat to existing world order at the time? In general, the European powers' drive to incorporate new lands for new products and commerce heightened their tensions and it ended up in the Seven Years War in the mid 18th century (the French and Indian War was in fact the North American thretre of that particular war). So in a sense the existence of America drove the Western European nations more antagonistic."
You make excellent points, but if that's what he talking about, it's a strange title.
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.