Replies

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?

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.