What he sees is the same kind of backbiting and infighting that EVERY party has. But there is a difference between conservatives and liberals, granted.
Conservatives WILL often torpedo themselves and force themselves into a losing situation because of principle. Since the left really HAS no principle but winning, they band together a tad easier. So, Sullivan has a small point in his favor in his article.
But what Sullivan is not taking into account is the wide coalition of everyday Americans that are leaning more and more Republican who will be able to see past the far right ideologues. The folks will keep following their internet info sources, their talk radio and Fox news sources and stay the line IF the politicos dont fall totally apart.
This is where we need to ship extremist righties like Pat Buchanan and his sclerotic pre WWI isolationist foolishness off to nowhere land! If we are to win we need to keep racists like Buchanan as the lone voice crying in the wilderness.
What we DO need is more conservatives elected to Congress so that they can finally get the GOP back on track to fiscal responsibility. Once we get back on that track we will be unable to lose even with guys like Buchanan out there.
I smell something ...
Andy is of the opinion that there are vast numbers of Conservative homosexuals turning away from the Republican party.
Another English propaganda newspaper doing psyops.
Andrew Sullivan's expertise is b#tt crack. Ever since Bush opposed gay marriage, Randy Andy has been writing columns using his little head to do the thinking.
The conservative parties of other countries are not the equivalent of the the conservative movement in america.
You are...a dolt. Love the smell of Ozone in the morning.
Well, thats the cover story. Beneath the surface, however, American patriotism is in increasing trouble. The Patriot coalition, always fragile, now depends as much on the haplessness of the Tories as on its own internal logic. On foreign and domestic policy alike the American Republic is splintering. With no obvious successor to George Washington that splintering will deepen....
I'm so sick of the "Religous Right owns the party" line. Come to California where I'm at and take a look around. There is a coalition that is working and we see it on FR on a daily basis. There is spirited debate but in the end unless the Democrat is Zell Miller we're voting Republican.
He's nuts on the foreign policy end however. The Buchananites do not have any sizable allies in their isolationist dreams.
Spreading democracy will spread freedom which will build a more peaceful world. That is in America's interest and is a worthy goal for any conservative president. The Buchananites are wrong, which is not unusual.
WTF is this "coalition"? The 'Rats are a coalition of every leftist and anti-American group out there; however, the GOP is, IMHO, as united and focused as any political party in American history. It is the GOP unity that obviously has the left frightened.
Conservatism in America is ascending. Liberalism in America is declining. Ain't it cool?
Plus, there's a good chance we won't see CWII here.
Life is good.
The Democrats are so much more fragmented than Republicans on every level, that we have to worry more about self sabotage then Democrats.
The only way a Democrat gets the Presidency in 2008 is if Bush blows the war, doesn't work on what he said his agenda was and if Republicans throw an unelectable candidate at the voters.
The next worry is the House and AGAIN we need the Republicans to DO what they said to get elected.
If we have to throw new candidates in open races and to challenge Democrats, FOR GOD SAKE, MAKE THEM ELECTABLE.
The Republicans are not monolithic. They are having some debates over certain aspects of domestic and foreign policy.
On the other hand, the Democrats are squabbling over more difficult ground. They are arguing about whether they have any ideas, and if so, what those ideas might be.
The Republican dilemma is the normal one of a healthy political party. The Democratic dilemma is the one of a political party that is dying. It is not a difficult choice to make as to which one is better.
Posting some cut-and-paste, because this certainly applies...
Consider the 30 year cycle; it goes 10 years of conservative strength, 10 years of liberal spending of that strength (ie wasting of peace dividends), and then another 10 years of suffering under liberal socialism until people snap and say enough is enough, then re-elect conservatives.
This pattern fits perfectly going all the way back to the 1880s, at least. In keeping with it, this decade is essentially a version of the 1970s. We may have yet to elect a "President Carter" and collapse for 4 years before a decade of true conservatism takes hold. (Bush resembles Nixon in some respects, and I mean that as nothing but a positive thing.)
It's a strange factor to consider Bush as a moderate (somewhat debatable), as that could either blunt the strength of a reactionary movement against liberalism (Carter didn't just suck, he sucked ROYALLY), or perhaps it could actually enhance republican policy, with the greatest danger being our own tendency to become moderates and even 'liberal republicans' as we gain power.
BTW, Buchanan is a great man with sound ideas, but he has cost the right votes in a strategic sense. That's the price of being right.
Considering his pseudo-retirement, he is a non-factor and I don't see why you are bringing him up and calling him a racist.