“The truth few wish to utter is that the GOP has abandoned many conservatives, who mostly nurse their angst in private,” wrote columnist Kathleen Parker about Christopher Buckley’s decision to endorse Barack Obama and resign from National Review, the publication that his father, William F. Buckley, founded. “Years of pandering to the extreme wing – the ‘kooks’ the senior Buckley tried to separate from the right – have created a party no longer attentive to its principles.”
Though many conservatives have treated Buckley as a traitor, Parker contends that he is demonstrating his father’s swashbuckling, defiant spirit in reminding Republicans of how far they have strayed off course.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BobChi on Moran correct about Cuba
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
80 Comments
I always love how someone tries to argue that an endorsement of Obama is a reminder to the GOP how far they have strayed off course.
That is like saying because someone is veering off course you should turn around and go the complete opposite way.
So, because the GOP is not attentive to it’s principles, you abandon them all together and jump ship to the complete opposite?
Absurd.
They say the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Well maybe so, but it can sure roll a long what down the hill and that’s what’s happened to Christopher Buckley’s.
He is nothing like his father, intellectually and in about every other positive way.
Who care what he thinks or who he endorses.
Good that Buckley will have Colin Powell for company beneath the bus where BigotBox has thrown them.
The likelihood of Republican election-stealing aside, there’s going to be a major Republican Party blowup come November 5. One senses that the shotgun marriage between the Money Boys and the Nutjobs is beyond saving.
If you have not read Buckley’s article on Obama, it is really well thought and a good point of view.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama
IF the GOP has strayed, what has it strayed to?
To the Big goverment, socialistic vision embodied by the Democratic party which has failed in every nation that has tried it so far.
Voting for Democrats because a few GOPers are no different then Democrats comes close to insanity.
The only valid reason I can think of to vote democrat is a simple three step process which requires a great deal of patience.
1. Force an overwhelming defeat of the current GOP party to purge the GOP of all the RINOS (Republicans in name only).
2. Then let the Democrats do what they and the RINOS have been doing best. Let them continue to Tear down laize-fair capitalism and ruining the economic vitality by taxing the life out of a once great free nation.
3. Sit back, wait for 4-8-12 years for the backlash.
No thanks, I will vote for less government and more economic freedom right now.
BTW, I can sympathize with Buckley…I used to be a Republican.
But as he wrote (paraphrasing Reagan) “I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.”
“RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm | Permalink
…No thanks, I will vote for less government and more economic freedom right now.”
So I take it you are writing in Ron Paul?
brian,
I never got that post of yours where you listed the examples of leadership and good judgement by Barack Obama. I listed a few in support of McCain and you said that you would do the same.
Are you a man of your word?
“So I take it you are writing in Ron Paul?”
No I am voting for McCain.
brian,
You claim that the republican party left you.
Simple task:
List the platform of the Democratic party ticket that used to be a part of the past Republican party ticket.
They’ve been consistent on one thing since Reagan.
Every time the GOP controls the White House at least one house of Congress, we’ve had unrestrained and unprecedented amounts of government borrowing. Genuine fiscal conservatives should have been screaming in the 80s (and they were, but they of course blamed the Democrats rather than the bad actor who signed every budget into law).
That argument didn’t work so well when they controlled all 3 branches of government.
“and” at least one house.. ..
“RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
brian,
You claim that the republican party left you.
Simple task:
List the platform of the Democratic party ticket that used to be a part of the past Republican party ticket.”
Why do you assume I am a Democrat?
I am a staunch independant thank you very much.
Parties have as much use to me as unions.
political parties that is…i love other kinds of parties
P.S. You hate “big government”? Look at the size of the military-industrial complex under Reagan, and the huge, wasteful spending by defense contractors. Ah, who could forgot the $1600 toilet seats and $454 hammer–uhm, er, “multi-directional impact generator”s!
If conservatives ever believed in small government, it is self-evident that their chosen leaders have not believed in it for the better part of 30 years. Part of it may have been appeasing the Big-Brother government of the NutJobs but it was mainly just unconcealed greed.
“RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
brian,
I never got that post of yours where you listed the examples of leadership and good judgement by Barack Obama. I listed a few in support of McCain and you said that you would do the same.
Are you a man of your word?”
Thanks for reminding me, I got busy on other things yesterday afternoon. I will compile a list and post it (and I will leave out the inane comparisons you had to make to justify each of the items you posted.
The Neo-Conservatives who have hijacked our beloved party have ruined the GOP for a long time. It will be up Ron Paul Republicans to rebuild the party and make it theirs again.
I still cannot figure out why Ron Paul Republicans were ignored by the GOP. We had more enthusiasm and fight in us than McCain and Obama combined.
Yet they rejected us. They pandered to war lovers and the brainwashed FOX news crowd. As their numbers decline, ours grow. This will not happen overnight, but you will see the two party system crumble and truly representative government prevail.
You will see the Republicans get back to their Robert Taft roots because after having seen Socialism fail us just like every other country, there will be no other choice.
Americans will become more educated and all truths will be revealed and out there for open discussion. This will not be forced, but willfully taken on by each new generation. They will learn from history and try to never repeat the same mistakes that even our fore father warned us about.
The new GOP will rise again and take back what our constitution promised us. The tyranny will fall from coast to coast and a new era will reign again.
Brian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“brian_nuevo
Posted October 22, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
BTW, I can sympathize with Buckley…I used to be a Republican.”
OMG, I think I died a little inside when I read that!
At least you see the light now….
“Austrian_Economist
Posted October 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
…I still cannot figure out why Ron Paul Republicans were ignored by the GOP. We had more enthusiasm and fight in us than McCain and Obama combined….”
My take is because of Social Conservatives vs Fiscal Conservatives. The Republican party is now the party of Social Conservativism only.
The Ron Paul’s are Fiscal Conservatives and generally want government (at least at the Federal level) out of social issues.
That does not sit well with many Social Conservatives who think the government should pass laws regarding their key hotbutton issues.
A_E,
Oh. You mean Taft’s support for Social Security and Public Housing, his opposition to America’s entrance into W.W.I.I., and his condemnation of the Nuremburg Trials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft
As American political fantasies go, Libertarianism is one of the more perennial and quixotic ones. Too bad it’s as impractable as state communism.
“Boxlock” contributes this word salad –
“They say the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Well maybe so, but it can sure roll a long what down the hill and that’s what’s happened…
Be afraid, “Boxlock.” Be very afraid.
If the intellectuals take over the Analogy Police will be on your sorry ass.
I read Buckleys reasons for not voting for McCain, and his reasons behind voting for Obama.
I found that I agreed with most of this reasons for not voting for McCain, which I will not do. I did not find his reasons for Obama compelling at at all. It seems to me more, I can;t vote for McCain, I will support his opponent. The reasoning seemed to follow the decision, but that is just my take.
In any case, I believe Obama will win. For lots of reasons. I hope it is by a comfortable margin, or there will be hell to pay, from both sides with accusations and counter accusations and on and on and on. I will support him as President of the United States, but will oppose his policies whenever they run counter to by beliefs. If his policies work for the best long term interests of the country, I will applaud him for them. If not, I will castigate him for his policies. However, I will not mount a drive to name a portajohn, or an entire sewer system after him. I will hold him to the same standards that Bush is being held to, and failed. May God save the United States of Amereica.
I read Buckleys reasons for not voting for McCain, and his reasons behind voting for Obama.
I found that I agreed with most of this reasons for not voting for McCain, which I will not do. I did not find his reasons for Obama compelling at at all. It seems to me more, I can;t vote for McCain, I will support his opponent. The reasoning seemed to follow the decision, but that is just my take.
In any case, I believe Obama will win. For lots of reasons. I hope it is by a comfortable margin, or there will be hell to pay, from both sides with accusations and counter accusations and on and on and on. I will support him as President of the United States, but will oppose his policies whenever they run counter to by beliefs. If his policies work for the best long term interests of the country, I will applaud him for them. If not, I will castigate him for his policies. However, I will not mount a drive to name a portajohn, or an entire sewer system after him. I will hold him to the same standards that Bush is being held to, and failed. May God save the United States of America.
Buckley’s endorsement was actually a backhanded slap at liberals.
Essentially, he claimed he is supporting Obama because he thinks Obama is intelligent and reasoned enough to change his ways once he’s in office.
CF2K
Posted October 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
A_E,
Oh. You mean Taft’s support for Social Security and Public Housing, his opposition to America’s entrance into W.W.I.I., and his condemnation of the Nuremburg Trials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft
As American political fantasies go, Libertarianism is one of the more perennial and quixotic ones. Too bad it’s as impractable as state communism.
________________________________________________
Yes, that same Robert Taft. This is when Social Security was something you paid in and got every red cent you put in. Not the ponzi scheme it has turned into today.
Do you know why he was opposed to entrance into war? Because FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen. He knew that the reason we got into a European war could have been prevented if FDR wasn’t so dead set on entering the war.
The Nuremberg trials were handled by a world government organization. Any reason why a world government had to try them?
You seem to throw out talking points that are assumed to be viable. I happen to read a lot and actually understand what really happened. Do you even know how Hitler came to power? The German people were repressed by a World Government treaty that completely ignored German sovereignty. A treaty that America spearheaded with that madman Woodrow Wilson and his insane view of the world.
You are probably too old and set in your ways to take in conflicting ideology so I won’t try to convince you anymore.
We do live in a free country and you are free to believe what you want. Good luck to you.
What I find interesting is the fact that a high-profile Conservative has joined a high-profile Republican in supporting the ‘other side’. I doubt that Buckley will sway many people; however I think Powell will.
Austrian_Economist,
Seriously, the people of these United States Rejected Ron Paul. If Ron Paul were leading this ticket, I doubt the polls would be any different.
The left would promptly assassinate his character.
Robert Taft did lean a little left with social programs. Social Security and Public Housing are evidence, but even they were noble causes.
Where Taft was brilliant was in foreign policy.
He opposed NATO and wanted a George Washignton Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.
You seem to look at the negatives, but you would have to agree that the positives far out weigh the negatives.
No one is going to be perfect and you seem to not want a radical left and right. Taft was more left and his social policies and conservative with foreign policy. Seems to be middle of the road to me.
To each his own.
Or is it just that intelligent republicans are jumping off of the sinking bush party ship like rats?
“bth” –
I think what’s significant about Buckley is the reactionaries at the National Review and how they dealt with an essay that had nothing to do whatsoever with his work at the NR.
Mostly, Buckley’s NR essays were thoughtful analysis of what it means to be “conservative.” He’s rarely been overtly partisan with regard to political affiliation. He’s been open to the Libertarians’ objections to Neo-CON policy. He’s pointed out that the truly conservative approach to most social issues is to advocate getting the government to butt out of individuals’ lives.
His essay on The Daily Beast was simply another free-lance assignment for Buckley. But he had the audacity to express an opinion — a political opinion with partisan overtones quite unlike his National Review pieces — that the process which led to the Moose-Dresser’s nomination might not have been the best choice for the future of the Republic Party.
And the National Review threw a hissy fit and fired him.
Talk about the Thought Police.
Look at the video of Powell on Meet the Press. You could see that he regretted having to come to the realization that John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) didn’t live up to his previous “principled” positions of personal integrity. (Somehow I think Colin Powell knows about that one and anguishes over the lessons he’s learned.)
Some CONs dismiss Powell’s endorsement as a triumph of Hope over Experience. But a man with Powell’s experience is significant. He was burned by Shrub/Cheney; betrayed and taken advantage of because he expected others in the George WMD Bush Administration to embody the same integrity Powell has tried to live his life by.
RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
Austrian_Economist,
Seriously, the people of these United States Rejected Ron Paul. If Ron Paul were leading this ticket, I doubt the polls would be any different.
The left would promptly assassinate his character.
________________________________________________
And the people of America will get exactly the government the deserve for rejecting the only conservative on the Republican side. I have no problem with that. It is a democratic country.
I’m not shocked that any party would attack the other. Are you saying that the left attacking Paul would be warranted?
The man never swayed from his beliefs and principles. You don’t even know what McCain and Obama would do. They have changed so much that it is mind-numbing.
Like I said, when people keep losing their freedoms, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Right on Monkeyhawk. Turning this into a partisan issue is the last thing that should be done here.
Buckley tried to teach people what being and individual meant. What being a Conservative was all about.
He spent more time educating than playing party politics. He made great contributions to growing the minds of Americans.
His dissatisfaction with the neo-conservatives is not shocking to any educated American in the least.
Socialism does not work. It has been tried again and again throughout civilization. When are human beings going to learn from the past and quit repeating the exact same mistakes?
Obama is preaching an ideology that has failed for centuries. It is not new.
McCain is preaching a different form of the same flawed ideology.
It cannot work folks. Ultimately it is up to the individual to improve his course in life. A government cannot do this. Those who think they can need to be educated. Not indoctrinated with the same garbage ideas that never work.
Austrian_Economist,
“He [Taft] knew that the reason we got into a European war could have been prevented if FDR wasn’t so dead set on entering the war.”
What does this mean, precisely, that “the reason we got into a European war could have been prevented?” Are you saying that WE could have kept Nazi armies from dominating Europe, or that non-intervention in a Europe dominated by German armies was a viable course of action? I am having a hard time teasing out your meaning as to this point.
“The German people were repressed by a World Government treaty that completely ignored German sovereignty. A treaty that America spearheaded with that madman Woodrow Wilson and his insane view of the world.”
There is no question that the Treaty of Versailles created the onerous conditions that produced resurgent German nationalism. But your attack on Wilson misses its mark on this point, since the final treaty did, in fact, depart significantly from Wilson’s original 14 Points. Given his willingness to compromise on issues of oceanic passage and reparations in order to secure agreement on the League of Nations, Wilson should be criticized for NOT spearheading the effort strongly ENOUGH, rather than for doing so too strongly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points
As is usually the case with Libertarians, your real target is, of course, “World Government.” Suffice it to say that you and I will not agree as to this point, so I will not discuss it further.
But it is question-begging, at best, Austrian-Economist, to say that “I happen to read a lot and actually understand what really happened.” Well, Austrian_Economist, judging by your whimsical and slightly paranoid interpretation, I’d say there’s good reason to assert that you don’t “really” understand what happened, and that your “World Government” bugbear is contributing to what I regard as a slanted and distorted interpretation on your part. Appealing to some ecelctic reading of history available only to initiates, Austrian_Economist, would be but another fallacious Appeal to Authority.
The mere fact, as you say, that “I read a lot” is no guarantee of understanding. If I may be permitted a reference from Heraclitus: “the learning of many things teacheth not understanding, else would it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hekataios.” Mutatis mutandis, Austrian_Economist.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus
A lot of conservatives have figured out the obvious: McCain is unfit to serve and McPalin is an airhead.
McCain was unfit to be admitted to the Naval Academy; his daddy got him in. He was unfit to be admitted to carrier pilot training; his daddy got him in (only the top ten percent of Naval Academy grads are even eligible for consideration; you have to be good at math so you can calculate, for example, how much fuel you have, which McCain flunked.) The fact that he wrecked four planes, two of them because he ran out of gas, proves the point. Now he’s rubbing shoulders with the likes of the Rev. John Hagee and the airhead end-of-times unethical absentee governor of Alaska. And the odds are that he will exhibit signs of Alzheimers and/or dementia before he hits 75. He’s unfit. His unethical running mate is unfit. Therefore, says the Buckleys, the Noonans, the Brooks, et al., don’t vote for him.
(McCain’s also a double-talking liar. In one breath he says “no new taxes,” in the next he says he’ll tax your health benefits as regular income. Maybe he’s already senile.
CF2K,
I appreciate your willingness to do some research and site sources. You are correct, we will never agree on much discussed here today.
Perhaps I slant because of an opposition to One World Government. For this I apologize. I read the bible a lot and find great merit in resisting a New World order.
I like to say that Nazi Germany would not reign long if they won Europe. The system of government they had would have crumbled from within. You may liken this to my argument that slavery would have ended itself and a civil war was not necessary. Many Americans died for the noble cause of liberation of the conquered European states.
Our entrance into the war was not legitimate in my view. FDR knew the attck on America was coming. Why did he do nothing to stop it?
As for my attacks on Woodrow Wilson. I still find his ideas insane. I will say that in his later years he regretted much of what he’d done. He knew the Federal Reserve System would run our country and our form of Government was gone. Hindsight is truly 20/20. I like to think he was a young man full of zeal as a president, but learned to come back to reality in his last years on earth.
Good talking to you.
I find Kathleen Parker’s column either slightly confused or disingenuous, I’m not sure which.
Those of us who believe in limited government and fiscal restraint have been abandoned by the Republican party, as it was before Buckley came to prominence. The big government “moderates” with the help of Bush have pulled the party back to the left as it was many years ago. I’m not sure how Parker comes to blame that on “the right wing”.
“the ‘kooks’ the senior Buckley tried to separate from the right”
Those kooks would have been the John Birchers. I don’t see an equivalent today.
kansasdem,
Do you have a critique of Obama you’d like to share with us? Shredding the other party to pieces is old hat around here.
Let’s hear your negatives of Obama as well. If you are feeling really frisky, you could share the positives of McCain and Obama too.
“I have not read any posts of yours that has listed even one example how Obama has demonstrated superb judgement and/or leadership worthy of the presidency.
How about just three?”
Here you go RFL:
Obama showed good, Presidential character reflective of his judgement, when at the third debate asked whose running mate would make a better President, he refrained from attacking Palin and even found some things to complement her on.
Ability to explain a concise and coherent tax plan. Whether it will work, who knows, but he has a specific plan. (A key part of leadership is providing vision.)
Co-author of the bipartisan “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006” which requires ‘the full disclosure to the public of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds’
“You don’t even know what McCain and Obama would do. They have changed so much that it is mind-numbing.”
-Austrian_Economist
I think it is pretty obvious from McCain’s record what he would do. He voted against the ethanol subsidies and the prescription drug bill. He has said in his campaign that he wants to freeze spending.
He is not perfect, but he is not a disaster like Obama.
It is obvious what Obama will do as well.
Obama has railed on Bush for the “era of easy money” even while he unabashedly proposes more government spending and tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes at all.
Obama’s one perceived weakness is of course foreign policy. Which is why he will be much more agressive to counterbalance that image. He will essentially be the same as Bush in the process.
The old John Birchers were anti-communist. They wanted policy to destroy communism here in America.
The new John Birchers are more small government and fiscal responsibility.
I took the kooks to mean the neo-conservatives who have taken over the party from within.
RFL,
There are better candidates running.
You even say yourself, McCain is not perfect. Why vote for someone to spite another? Why don’t you choose from one of the 6 presidential candidates and see which one more closely reflects your beliefs?
Both have the same interventionist foreign policy. I see no difference in Obama and McCain here. Where is the voice to bring all the troop home from all over the world?
It doesn’t exist because the powers that be win either way. They get to keep dictating to other countries and getting involved in matters that are none of their business.
Let’s talk about what McCain is bad at and what Obama is good at too. It should make for a better discussion.
“Obama showed good, Presidential character reflective of his judgement, when…he refrained from attacking Palin and even found some things to complement her on.”
brian,
Hopefully and prayerfully, Obama will provide some additional examples should he be elected and have to make some difficult decisions. A great leader can and will work with both sides of the political spectrum. However a great leader will not compromise on issues that are non-negotiable to the long term health of the country. There are no convincing examples at the present that you have provided.
For starters, why go negative on Palin when the media and hollywood are doing such a great job at the present and you lead in the polls?
“You even say yourself, McCain is not perfect. Why vote for someone to spite another?”
For starters, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Candidates have to compromise in some areas to lead in others. I do not believe that McCain has compromised in an area that fundamental to the long term health of the country. I would rather stay home than vote for Paul.
Why?
Paul has some great economic ideals but he is no different than Dennis Kucinich on the Iraq war. I will not vote for that head in the sand approach to dealing with Iraq. Iraq is a difficult situation, I opposed the invasion, like Paul, but I also oppose a reckless withdrawl that will only make things worse in the near future. Paul doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that.
Aus_Econ
Well I’m certainly confused about who the “extreme wing kooks” are that Parker is talking about. That’s why I find the whole column confusing. The “neo-cons” are generally former Democrats, hardly small government types. The social conservatives are certainly unpopular with the old power brokers in the Republican party but as a general rule they hold to limited government principles.
So to me Parker’s column is still a mystery.
Late to this topic and don’t have time to read all. If no one has pointed it yet Christopher had to wait until daddy was dead to have ‘principles’. If he thought this way – why wait – why not say it all along. And do I believe what sonny said over Bill Buckley, No i will let the older speak for himself. He did that very well.
A typical no topic. Why am I surprised?
“RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
“Obama showed good, Presidential character reflective of his judgement, when…he refrained from attacking Palin and even found some things to complement her on.”
brian,
Hopefully and prayerfully, Obama will provide some additional examples should he be elected and have to make some difficult decisions. A great leader can and will work with both sides of the political spectrum. However a great leader will not compromise on issues that are non-negotiable to the long term health of the country. There are no convincing examples at the present that you have provided. ”
I agree with your points about working with both sides and making difficult decisions without compromising on key issues.
The crux for the voter comes when they must determine who’s plan is best for the future of the country, and unless all of a candidates stances on every issue match the voters, which issues weigh more importantly.
“RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
…There are no convincing examples at the present that you have provided.”
I was not trying to convince you, just doing as I said I would and listing three things.
Frankly, I do not think there is anything anyone could do or say to make you think voting for Obama would be a good idea anyway.
(maybe with the exception of McCain conceding that Obama would make a better President before the election and dropping out)
“(maybe with the exception of McCain conceding that Obama would make a better President before the election and dropping out)”
Ha! funny :)
Obama would have to come up with some really good stuff which would cause his base to go bonkers.
Even then McCain has actually backed up what he says regarding his service for his country with action during his multiple decade long Senatorial and military career. Edge: McCain.
This just in……….
Joe Biden has just announced that Christopher Buckley is more qualified than he to be Vice President….
adding to the list….
RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
“You even say yourself, McCain is not perfect. Why vote for someone to spite another?”
For starters, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Candidates have to compromise in some areas to lead in others. I do not believe that McCain has compromised in an area that fundamental to the long term health of the country. I would rather stay home than vote for Paul.
Why?
Paul has some great economic ideals but he is no different than Dennis Kucinich on the Iraq war. I will not vote for that head in the sand approach to dealing with Iraq. Iraq is a difficult situation, I opposed the invasion, like Paul, but I also oppose a reckless withdrawl that will only make things worse in the near future. Paul doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that.
________________________________________________
We’re coming home either way. We cannot afford to keep this empire running.
So, come home now and rebuild our country, or come home later defeated and broke.
The economy and the war are all tied together. You cannot support one and not the other. Just as freedom is tied to the economy. You cannot have a centrally planned economy and freedom. They are incompatible.
Either way. We are going to be forced to come home. There is no choice in the matter.
“So, come home now and rebuild our country, or come home later defeated and broke.”
First of all, under a President McCain, We are not going to come home defeated in Iraq.
Secondly, the Iraq war is not the reason for the world’s economy experiencing a meltdown and deflation.
I disagree that we have to lose in Iraq to fix the economy.
“RFL” –
Please do for all of us what John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) hasn’t chosen to do:
Define “Victory in Iraq.”
Define “Victory in Iraq.
Fill power vacuum to allow for the
Iraqi’s to self govern.
John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
RFL – what happens if the government of Iraq cannot decide to give us permission to continue occupying their country after 12/31?
RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
“So, come home now and rebuild our country, or come home later defeated and broke.”
First of all, under a President McCain, We are not going to come home defeated in Iraq.
Secondly, the Iraq war is not the reason for the world’s economy experiencing a meltdown and deflation.
I disagree that we have to lose in Iraq to fix the economy.
________________________________________________
Perhaps you missed what I told you. We are coming home no matter what. We cannot afford to keep up the empire. We do not have the money. They are sacrificing the future of this country for reasons that are just not good enough for me.
The national debt is growing. Do you get that? We owe that money to the government. You and I. We are spending more than we have. That is irresponsible. The dollar is going to collapse now because of our irresponsibility.
As I’ve stated before. We come home and celebrate the liberation of Iraq, or we are forced home in defeat and now have a collapsed currency.
All we have to do to declare victory to the brainwashed masses is come home and say we liberated Iraq, which we’ve done.
You would be wise to start to link our foreign policy to our economy and money. You don’t just start a war with a country for free. It cost money to keep troops in 130 countries on military bases.
We don’t produce and export like we used to either. My point is, this is unsustainable. Meaning that it cannot go on. That is an economic fact. There is no choice here. We are coming home one way or the other.
I see that BrownLib is still fapping the leftist stance. It’s a wonder his hand doesn’t wear out.
“All we have to do to declare victory to the brainwashed masses is come home and say we liberated Iraq, which we’ve done.”
we have already had a president declare victory.
Didn’t prove to be true as I recall.
I do not believe that declaring victory is the same thing as achieving victory.
The brainwashed masses can be fooled for a few days or weeks but there is no substitue for actually achieving victory.
RFL – and how many decades until the ARI can take over?
Seems the republican party has managed to alienate all its thinking conservatives. The only ones left are the radical racist reactionaries, the religious demagogues and the submissives, and they’re fading fast. It won’t take a whole lot of effort for the party of Lincoln and Ingersol and Goldwater to finish its suicidal plunge into oblivion. Too bad; it used to be a party worthy of respect, even among those who disagreed with it.
The Republican Party was hijacked in 1994 by the Religious Right and ever since then the party has gone downhill. But since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been in power for the past eight years, it seems the Republicans with any brain cells remaining are coming to the conclusion that their Grand Old Party is in trouble – and they are correct in their thinking, in my opinion.
You know, McCain can sit there and say he is not George W. Bush until he is blue in the face but if you threw them both in a bag, you would not know which one popped out first.
And, that in a nutshell, is why this election is that close. If Bush and Cheney had only done what was right for the country instead of their own personal agendas, then the GOP could have run a dead man and still win this time around.
RFL
Posted October 22, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
“All we have to do to declare victory to the brainwashed masses is come home and say we liberated Iraq, which we’ve done.”
we have already had a president declare victory.
Didn’t prove to be true as I recall.
I do not believe that declaring victory is the same thing as achieving victory.
The brainwashed masses can be fooled for a few days or weeks but there is no substitue for actually achieving victory.
_______________________________________________
One more time so that you really understand.
We are coming home one way or the other. What we are doing as an empire is unsustainable.
We cannot afford it. No money, broke..these words familiar to you?
Quit acting like there is a choice here. You think McCain or Obama can defeat laws of nature? That is absurd on the face of it.
Truth always wins in the end.
“mom” –
I suggest you seek out the opinions of WE Blog contributor “Regular.”
Quite often he begins his contributions with “Anyone with half a brain would know…,” and for the life of me I can’t think of a better source for opinions generated by one with half a brain.
Our “Regular” is an over-achiever, after all.
Monkeyhawk – I have tangled with Regular before and I know how that half a brain works – around and around and around – kind of like the bridge to nowhere – thanks, but no thanks!
“mom” –
What attracts the moth to the flame?
Why do the swallows return to Capistrano?
What is “Regular” thinking?
What is the capitol of South Dakota?
Some questions simply have no answer.
Where does the white go when the snow melts?
Where does the green go in the fall?
Pierre.
Upthread I posted the following:
“One senses that the shotgun marriage between the Money Boys and the Nutjobs is beyond saving.”
In light of the dust-up between Austrian_Economist and RFL, I’d like to add a third partner to the GOP circular firing squad: Libertarians.
HLP,
That’s deep. Sounded Rumsfeldian.
“HLP” offers –
Where does the white go when the snow melts?
Where does the green go in the fall?
Pierre.
Oh golly! Is it Haiku Week
on WE Blog again?
I wish I’d checked my calendar.
(And that last line…”Pierre?” Sounds French to me.)
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 22, 2008 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
“mom” –
What attracts the moth to the flame?
Why do the swallows return to Capistrano?
What is “Regular” thinking?
What is the capitol of South Dakota?
Some questions simply have no answer.
================================
You mean you didn’t have to memorize the states and their capitols when you were a child?
Once memorized, why should one forget?
Hey, “Regular” –
I think it’s a matter of alphabetical order.
Once Kentucky screwed it up, who could remember anything.
So is it Louisville, Lexington, Paducah?
Reno or Las Vegas in Nevada?
Or maybe those damned mnemonic “aids.”
I was never good with mnemonic aids.
I remembered:
“In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-Three
Columbus sailed the deep blue sea.”
In Geography I thought I’d mastered the “HOMES” trick:
Huron
Ontario
Michigan
Erie…. and Lake
Sneezy.
It’s taken me half an hour to remember the Seventh Dwarf. It’s always that way but it’s never the same dwarf.
Sneezy
Doc
Grumpy
Happy
LarryMoe
Shimp
Curly
No, not Curly, damnit…
Dopey
Sleepy
… and that other guy.
In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-Four
Columbus stepped on America’s shore.
In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-One
Columbus followed the setting sun
And though all of this I’ve simply been vamping for time.
I finally remembered Bashful.
RFL,
IF we leave Iraq what will happen?
I will tell you.
The government that we put into power the Shi’ite’s will kill and run out the sunni’s.
There is no north Iraq that will come in as we leave.
Sometimes, you wonder what would happen if people in politics relied a little bit less on labels. Here’s what will probably end up being a poorly conceived analogy, but what the heck, it’s only the blog: anytime your favorite basketball team hires a new coach, and the coach announces at his first press conference that he likes to run and play fast, you know you’re in trouble. It means the coach will likely be prone to cramming his ideology on the talents of his team instead of making the best of his material. So the Republicans have backed themselves into a few corners by latching on to ideology instead of simply thinking about the best course of action. The free market purists operate in an alternate reality right from the start. The American economy is properly a mixture of different strategies. The key is to look at the reality on the ground and adjust your game plan accordingly. Sometimes that means a tax cut here or a tax cut there, but it’s hard to make a case for tax cuts when you’re simultaneously starting a full-fledged war and running up credit everywhere.
I’d like to see the G.O.P. abandon the current anti-intellectual attitude and welcome a more balanced, sophisticated viewpoint. It’s time to admit that a top-notch public education system should be the number one domestic goal for the country. That means paying people fifty to seventy-five thousand dollars a year to get in the classroom and tap the diverse talents of the young. Once the level of achievement is sufficiently high on that end, it’s easier to get a glimpse of a promising future for America.
What common Joe the Plumber is born again? Anti-abortion? Ant-gay? Anti-common sense?
I’d rather keep the Buckley’s on republican sides, we don’t need that kind of trash representing democrats.
Read about what a crappy father C Buckley is.
Rain,
“The government that we put into power the Shi’ite’s will kill and run out the sunni’s.”
Yes, that’s going to happen, whether we leave now or in a hundred years. It was going to happen anyway, and we just had to hang the bastard that was temporarily stalemating them. We’ve already set up the current leaders with nice fat Swiss bank accounts and villas in neutral countries, so let’s leave now and save having to do it all over again.
I used to be a Democrat until the party turned to Marxism and fascism. There is not any respect left in that party either. I’ve been independent ever since, but have voted pretty much Republican, considering I am not a commie. After this election I will sure as heck never vote for a Democrat, even if they paid me.
Jed,
I agree. Except we didnt have to do it this time! So doing it again, Will it matters who is leading us as much as who is leading them. Blinded by anger, fear, and hate we are letting the ones that did attack us grow stronger, and there still are those that defend that.
redandgoldroom,
Look up fascism you find a description of the current GOP with a pic of GWB.
Will = Well
Rain,
Once again, with a little more coherence?