Posted on 07/12/2010 9:57:32 PM PDT by John R. Guardiano
Pat Buchanan’s attempt to defend Republican National Committee Chairman (RNC) Michael Steele fails. Miserably. Steele, of course, recently insisted that Afghanistan is “Obama’s war,” which cannot be won and should never have been waged. Pat defends Steele on free-speech grounds.
“A majority of Americans oppose the Afghan war,” Pat cries.
And the point made by Steele about the futility of fighting in Afghanistan has been made by columnists George Will and Tony Blankley, ex-Rep. Joe Scarborough, Ron Paul and antiwar conservatives and moderates.
When exactly did supporting Obama’s war policy become a litmus test for loyal Republicans?
Pat misstates the issue. The issue is not a narrowly partisan one of support for “Obama’s war policy.” The issue is a broadly national one of support for our troops in the field. Indeed, the question is not: do you want Obama to win? It is, instead...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Steele’s comment, though inane, made me long for the days when Bob Dole could correctly lament the number of Americans who died in “Democrat Wars”. Dole unfortunately apologized for the comment. And unfortunately the GOP is now just as intent as the left on making the world safe for democracy.
Pat is getting senile from hanging out with the MSNBC crew of Socialists. Guess he is the token American.
” And unfortunately the GOP is now just as intent as the left on making the world safe for democracy.”
Both parties have been swilling Woodrow Wilson’s utopian koolaid for a long time now. Any Republican with Robert Taft’s views would get labelled a traitor by the current loudmouths who think liberal internationalism equals “conservatism”. Even a moderate like Eisenhower wouldn’t suit them. Ike, after all, ended the Korean War with a truce, not a victory. Eisenhower had no desire to waste American soldiers in an Asian land war. And Afghanistan, as any student of military history knows, is the graveyard of empires.
Really? No one gets it. Our troops are being set up by the islamics. The govt is filled with their moles now. Muslim Brotherhood et al. The intel is getting leaked back to Al Qeada and the Tliban. Maybe you were not paying attention but Al Qeada won in Nov 2008. Paid for with Saudi money.
Iraq and Afganistan are now all about getting brave Americans killed and the military humiliated and to bankrupt America. This is what O’s boss the King wants plus the Islamic world and this is what is happening. Just ask the troops.
Idiots just keep watching ball games and have no clue.
A bit late in the game but MS is pretty liberal and depending on which house district he lives in could be ok. Another run at Ben Cardin in 2012 would work too. I don’t think the bench for the GOP is real deep in MD. I doubt he could beat Mikulski since she is inexplicably popular there.
youre right
Not a good idea. I despise whiny-voiced bigot Buchanan anyway. He’s never even cheerful enough to be a greeter at Wal-Mart.
Shut up Pat.
I wish he was senile.
No, this is what Pat believes and he believed it before he got that job on that channel.
Pat has moments of clarity where he can be bright, articulate, charming and all around someone you’d love to represent your ideals. The other side of Pat is an anti-semite, racist and something of a nuisance when foreign affairs are discussed. Hate to see a man waste such talents with hate.
What are you smoking, Pat? Michael is as much a disaster for the RNC as Obummer is as POTUS.
What are you smoking, Pat? Michael is as much a disaster for the RNC as Obummer is as POTUS.
“Pat Buchanan Urges Michael Steele to Run as the Anti-War Candidate in 2012”
Wasn’t Obama the AntiWar Candidate in 2008?
Welcome, John.
A few things:
1. When posting to FR, you should post a thread, then stay to discuss it. This isn’t a “drop off a thread or two and never come back” kind of place. It’s more of a community. My advice is to be selective of what you post. Post your best column, and post the whole thing so we can read it. If folks like it, they will go back to your site for more. But no one likes folks who use FR for pimping purposes only.
2. Blogs should go under “Bloggers,” not News.
3. As stated above, post your entire piece. No need to excerpt (certainly not your own work, which you may freely post anywhere since it’s yours). It makes it easier to read and comment. Also, FR has a better reading environment - crisp and clean, and free of flash and popups. As much as I respect Horowitz, his site environment sucks. No matter who you are, popups are evil. And a popup that blocks the text you are reading????? Geez!!!!
Okay, that said, let’s get you and your fellow columnists on the right track here.
LL
**************************
Michael Steele was once the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare. He has since become the Republican Party’s biggest headache.
Pat Buchanan’s attempt to defend Republican National Committee Chairman (RNC) Michael Steele fails. Miserably. Steele, of course, recently insisted that Afghanistan is “Obama’s war,” which cannot be won and should never have been waged. Pat defends Steele on free-speech grounds.
“A majority of Americans oppose the Afghan war,” Pat cries.
And the point made by Steele about the futility of fighting in Afghanistan has been made by columnists George Will and Tony Blankley, ex-Rep. Joe Scarborough, Ron Paul and antiwar conservatives and moderates.
When exactly did supporting Obama’s war policy become a litmus test for loyal Republicans?
Pat misstates the issue. The issue is not a narrowly partisan one of support for “Obama’s war policy.” The issue is a broadly national one of support for our troops in the field. Indeed, the question is not: do you want Obama to win? It is, instead: do you want our troops to win?
After all, president’s don’t lose wars; countries do. And losing a war ought to be unacceptable to all conservatives and, indeed, all Americans. But the sad truth is that Buchanan and other anti-war critics don’t want our troops to win. They want our troops to come home!
That’s fine. Pat and other “lost conservatives” are entitled to their opinion and to give voice to their opinion. This is, after all, the United States of America, the land of free speech and the First Amendment. Here, people and pundits are free to criticize the president’s war policies.
But free speech is a two-way street: Anti-war types like Buchanan are free to criticize the war; however, they can hardly expect to be immune from criticism themselves. Yet, Pat cries foul whenever his side gets whacked or knocked down. Well, welcome to the NFL, Buchanan! Political debate is a contact sport, you know!
.Moreover, there’s a fundamental difference between the criticisms made by a pundit or a candidate and those made by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Candidates and pundits speak only for themselves, whereas the RNC chairman speaks for the entire Republican Party.
The problem with Steele speaking out against the war is that it communicates to the country and the world that the GOP is now against the war in Afghanistan. And far from encouraging the type of vigorous public dialogue and debate that Pat claims to want, this instead discourages and stymies dissent.
That’s because GOP officials and GOP candidates further down the totem poll take their cues from the party’s national leaders. These grassroots types, therefore, are reluctant to oppose the RNC chairman. They reason that if Steele is against the war, then maybe the party as a whole is against the war; and that perhaps they, too, should join the bandwagon.
So instead of siding with the MoveOn.org types, Steele should be supporting our troops — or, at the very least, he should refrain from saying anything that could be construed as anti-war. If Steele wants to speak out against Afghanistan, then the appropriate thing for him to do is to resign as GOP chairman and run as an insurgent candidate for president in 2012.
This is something Buchanan has experience with and I’m sure can advice Steele about. But I don’t think an anti-war/anti-defense candidate in 2012 will fare any better in the Republican Party primaries than did Pat in 1992 and 1996. Most conservatives, after all, support our troops.
You can follow John Guardiano on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano
Shouldn’t this be posted in the bloggers section?
Well said.
Cordial and informaive.
Pat is probably just angling to get Steele as his running mate when he tries another 3rd party run in 2012.
Buchanan trashed the GOP to run for president as another party’s nominee ... what is the reason his opinion is solicited, never mind paid any attention, as to whom the GOP should or should not run, what it should or should not do?
I didn’t post to the blogger section because it’s more than just a blog post; it’s a full article. Also, the dialogue here seems more substantive. I get better feedback.
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.