It's About The Republic, Not The Republican

Ether Zone ^ | July 27, 2002 | Glenn R. Jackson

[ned]

He would have to convert to conservatism . . .

LOL. Like everything else in life, conservatism is still evolving, Twodees. We're applying old principles to a new and changing world. The President, as the leader of the conservative movement, is defining American conservatism for the early twenty-first century.

If and when there exists technology which will enable you to return to the Mississippi of 1840, I will not need to tell you about it. It will be in all the papers.

Your conservative friend,

ned

[StriperSniper]

This only makes sense if one belives Buchanan is the fount of all wisdom.

Attack the messenger, not the message, guilt by association, change the subject. Damn! Why not just call the author a racist homophobe nazi!

That is just WWJCD (What would James Carville do).

[DugwayDuke]

"Attack the messenger, not the message, guilt by association, change the subject. Damn! Why not just call the author a racist homophobe nazi!"

Why not? Simply because I don't believe Buchanan and his cohorts are "racist", etc. Now, why do you believe that pointing out that this man was a campaign manager for Pat is "attacking the messenger, not the message"? My comment very clearly points out that this message is the message of Buchanan, a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

[StriperSniper]

Now, why do you believe that pointing out that this man was a campaign manager for Pat is "attacking the messenger, not the message"?

Since every sentence but your last had 'Buchanan' or 'Buchananites' in it without responding to any of the points in the article.

My comment very clearly points out that this message is the message of Buchanan,

No, the only part of any Buchanan message you mention is trade policy which is not even mentioned in the article. Granted the defending the borders issue in the article is pure Buchanan but you did not address that in your reply.

a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

That may be true, but if you look at any poll today, after 9/11, defending the borders ala Buchanan, is an overwhelming winner (as a single issue). Every election is different, so if it was a loser last time that does not mean it would be next time.

[DugwayDuke]

It was not my intent to argue the points of this article in detail but to point out the inconsistencies implicit within the article.

As I stated earlier: "This only makes sense if one belives Buchanan is the fount of all wisdom. I find it mildly humurous when Buchananites attack Bush supporters for blindly supporting Bush while they swallow every word from Bucanan as if it were inscribed on stone tablets." This comment directly addresses one of the trusts of this article.

I also pointed out that: "I find it fascinating when Bucnananites attempt to grasp the banner of conservatism when they would impliment trade policies that would make a Frenchman proud." This also addresses one of the articles points, ie, that Pat is the true conservative and Bush is not. One cannot support trade policies that are more akin to socialism and at the same time call one a conservative.

I'm not sure of your point on poll numbers. Are you saying that poll numbers should guide national defense policy? How does this differ from Clinton's use of polling to define foreign and defense policy? Don't you find it odd that you would use polling data like Clinton did and still call yourself conservative?

[StriperSniper]

It was not my intent to argue the points of this article in detail but to point out the inconsistencies implicit within the article.

So the fact that the author is a Buchanan supporter automatically makes him a unthinking robot that takes all the great wisdom that flows out of the mouth of his god as gospel? I think that is an attack on the messenger since it was you, not he who invoked 'The Great Pat'. ;-)

while they swallow every word from Bucanan as if it were inscribed on stone tablets." This comment directly addresses one of the trusts of this article.

See above.

This also addresses one of the articles points, ie, that Pat is the true conservative and Bush is not. One cannot support trade policies that are more akin to socialism and at the same time call one a conservative.

Again, it is you not the author invoking 'The Great Pat'.

I'm not sure of your point on poll numbers.

It is a direct answer to your statement:

a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

Since an election is basically a poll, I was pointing out that as circumstances change, the voters might be receptive to a message that they were not last time.

Are you saying that poll numbers should guide national defense policy?

No.

How does this differ from Clinton's use of polling to define foreign and defense policy?

See above, that was not my point.

Don't you find it odd that you would use polling data like Clinton did and still call yourself conservative?

I don't, and I don't.

P.S. - I'm not a Brigadier, though I like him, and he was my second choice with Pres. Bush as third.

[DugwayDuke]

"So the fact that the author is a Buchanan supporter automatically makes him a unthinking robot that takes all the great wisdom that flows out of the mouth of his god as gospel? I think that is an attack on the messenger since it was you, not he who invoked 'The Great Pat'. ;-)"

Would you care to point out any inconsistencies between this article and the pronouncements of "The Great Pat"? When you can demonstrate that this article is inconsistent with a Buchanan policy statements, then I'll withdraw my comments.

[StriperSniper]

Would you care to point out any inconsistencies between this article and the pronouncements of "The Great Pat"?

Why would I want to lie? I'll grant you that every point in the article is consistent with Buchanan's ideas.

When you can demonstrate that this article is inconsistent with a Buchanan policy statements, then I'll withdraw my comments.

I don't want you to withdraw any of your statements. I just wanted to know where the article is inconsistent with the truth. If you believe that by virtue of the author sharing the view of Buchanan makes it automatically wrong, well then, there is nothing further to say. Not to say that would make it true.

[DugwayDuke]

"If you believe that by virtue of the author sharing the view of Buchanan makes it automatically wrong, well then, there is nothing further to say. Not to say that would make it true."

Other than the fact that I disagree with Buchnans's economic, and defense policies, I really don't find much to argue with him about. I do believe he is right on abortion and most other social issues.

[TLBSHOW]

vote the rats out in November and it will register alright!

[billbears]

vote the rats out in November and it will register alright!

Son, put the pipe down already!! It may be a little better but not much. I've got a Republican Senatorial candidate saying Hillary's healthcare plan didn't go far enough. She's for implementing something along the line of 5 billion dollars for buying back tobacco, when if the federal government would have stayed out of it in the first place we wouldn't have to do even that. She's anti-gun, for fast track, and I'm supposed to vote for her? Conservatives should be worried about taking back the nation instead of taking back a legislative branch. We do it at the local level. Enough local change, you see state change. Enough state change, you see national change.

When it comes to this nation it is NOT about the victory of Republicans over the opposing team of Democrats, but about the victory of the people, the citizens of the United States, over government’s invasive nature.

This is what it's about TLB. No matter who is in office, whether it be Democrat or Republican, we have to call, write, even visit these officials that are promising more and more government intrusion. I don't care what party they're from.

Tell you what. You give me one valid positive conservative difference between Doles and Bowles and h#ll, I'll go vote for Liddy and show my support for the National Republican Party. It's not like I'm voting for Bowles. Liddy has won this race. She won it when she announced her candidacy. Trust me though. I have wracked my brain and I still can't find anything. This article is spot on.

Bump for you other gentlemen

[4CJ]

I watched Liddy during debates for as long as I could stomach it. "R" or "D", you state will be suffering in the near future - the maroons simply want to spend YOUR money on their social(ist) projects.