It seems Pat Buchanan was right:
In short, The Weekly Standard wishes to see, on a Republican ticket and a heartbeat away from the presidency, a proud liberal Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay rights, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, gun control, higher taxes on the top 2 percent, distribution of condoms in public schools and driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
What does Joe oppose? School prayer, the American Legion's flag amendment, Sam Alito, drilling in the ANWAR and any phase-out of death taxes.
Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."
But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in The Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you.
Well, if we aren't secure, we won't get a chance to worry about the rest of it. That said, anyone who trusts Lieberman and any of the RINOs needs his/her head examined.
Using the word "right" and buchanan in the same sentence is wrong on more than one level.
LLS
Yes, there is a difference between being a political opponent like Lieberman, and being a traitor like Lamont. In Connecticut, those are effectively the only available choices.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my position. Except I don't think the war has to be permanent. 100 years ought to be enough. Less if we use nuclear weapons.
But unless we stuff these Islamic jihadis back in their box, nothing else is going to matter.