That is an accurate assessment of things happening as I view them.
Pat is a pretty smart guy, but he is somehow quite dysfunctional.
His reasoning has almost always seemed to me to be convoluted and inconsistent.
Certainly his "solutions" would not be in the best interests for posterity.
His still not so small voice, "crying in the wilderness," is certainly corrupted.
"That is an accurate assessment of things happening as I view them.
Pat is a pretty smart guy, but he is somehow quite dysfunctional.
His reasoning has almost always seemed to me to be convoluted and inconsistent.
Certainly his "solutions" would not be in the best interests for posterity."
As far as foreign policiy goes, I'm willing to cut Bush a lot of slack given the difficult predicament he found himself, along with all the widespread MSM antagonism. However, nation-building does not seem to be working and perhaps needs to be preceded by nation-destroying. Islam just seems to be contaminating any attempts at constitutional govt. America had thousands upon thousands of pages of radical economics, politics, and philosophy - mixed with a revived Gospel message - as an underpinning for the great experiment with democracy. We're still having a hell of a time refining it, so how much more problems will people have whose underpinning is the Koran -give me a break! Unfortunately, Pat will never support Israel and would probably go to bed with the same Arab nations that he would accuse the Bush's of being in bed with. Israel is the first front on the war on Islamofascism, and as far as the "Neocon" gurus go, at least they support Bibi, whose the only answer for Israel right now.
As far as immigration, outsourcing, and bloated spending go, I'm having a hard time wondering how true conservatives can defend these policies, which are actually quite Clintonesque. I would definitely side with the minutemen on these lines. The common arguments in support of Bush's Clintonesque policies are that "Pat is against them." - not a very astute attack. It's not free trade with thousands of pages of stipulations, or if the trading partner is an authoritarian country. Free Trade presupposes two free traders. And we need Latin AMerican support in the future in our war against Islam, not Latin American communism.
So Pat, like many critics, brings up good points but he himself cannot be taken seriously because I don't trust his sollutions.