Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Buchanan sees 'war' within conservatism
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 5/17/05 | Ralph Z. Hallow

Posted on 05/16/2005 10:34:50 PM PDT by coffeebreak

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: coffeebreak
All I know is Pat Buchannon doesn't speak for me. I have hope that the conservatives will continue to expand their influence and widen their majority.
I just wish Pat was helping us, instead of offering his untimely slight to the present leadership.
21 posted on 05/16/2005 11:25:07 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Nicely stated.

Kudos.


22 posted on 05/16/2005 11:29:14 PM PDT by HowardDeanScream08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak

Buchanan is right. A lot of self-styled conservatives are phonies.


23 posted on 05/16/2005 11:33:22 PM PDT by k2blader ('Lost' ping list - Please FReepmail me if you want on/off. :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xJones

The conservative movement died the night Bush worked overtime to call Republican members in Congress to expand the welfare state and burden the future generations for trillions in order to build his legacy by creating the prescription drug plan. That and No Child Left Behind, CFR, affirmative action...the list goes on and on. Small govt conservatism is dead.


24 posted on 05/16/2005 11:34:49 PM PDT by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad

I hear you. Unfortunately I think many people actually consider all that stuff "conservatism."

Too many also equate Republicanism with conservatism.


25 posted on 05/16/2005 11:37:35 PM PDT by k2blader ('Lost' ping list - Please FReepmail me if you want on/off. :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Buchanan is right. A lot of self-styled conservatives are phonies.

I agree and the man does make some good points.


26 posted on 05/16/2005 11:38:44 PM PDT by garylmoore (God Bless you W, you have prevailed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Hm, so if I agree with Buchanan on some things, I'm an "anti-semite"? And only if I agree with you I'm "normal"?

What Democrat-like "thinking."


27 posted on 05/16/2005 11:40:23 PM PDT by k2blader ('Lost' ping list - Please FReepmail me if you want on/off. :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Whoa there! You're putting a lot more on Buchanan than he's actually brought on his own head and it sounds like you've taken many of his critics slanders as truth.

1.The guy did hold an anti-Jewish position until two years or so ago when he retracted it after seeing Israel is critical for defense against Islamism.

2.Calling him an ersatz conservative now when everyone in the Nixon administration considered him the real deal is quite a stretch.

3.Post Vatican II world means what? He's against abortion and defends the idea that our Protestant-Christian culture should have every right to seek self preservation considering how it built this nation. I read his book "Death of the West" and found he wasn't just spouting off; he backed EVERYTHING up with documentation and multiple references. We ARE under attack, unless you consider yourself part of the self-beknighted elite who embrace multiculturalism for it's own sake.

4.He's peeing into the cornflakes of Free Trade promoters. I've asked five other FR members how Free Trade theory is better than the fair trade model that built this country. Perhaps you can explain it since they can't.

I don't particularly like the guy, but wouldn't want the slanderous attacks he gets from liberals and neocons falling on myself or conservatives I know. We should acknowledge when people are wrong and right, especially if it's deemed unfashionable.


28 posted on 05/16/2005 11:43:28 PM PDT by NewRomeTacitus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Heh heh. We stumbled into the Neocon Convention. Just think of Free Trade and slowly back away...


29 posted on 05/16/2005 11:46:34 PM PDT by NewRomeTacitus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mhx

Yeah, but they don't all pretend to be so all-knowing. Buchanan is a smart guy who makes some really boneheaded comments and pronouncements, yet he doesn't have much to back it up.


30 posted on 05/16/2005 11:51:43 PM PDT by Darkwolf (aka Darkwolf377 (lurker since'01, member since 4/'04)--stop clogging me with pings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
Pat likes to use military metaphors, often where they're not appropriate. I doubt there's a war, but there is confusion, uncertainty and something of a malaise. Conservatives won the Cold War, brought back prosperity, and changed the way the world thinks. After that, there's a feeling of "what next?" or "where do we go from here?"

Most Americans aren't going to support an overwhelming rollback of the size of government, though they might be for more limited cuts. And while they accept free markets, they'd be embarassed to celebrate global market forces too much. After a certain point, markets are like the weather -- something you learn to deal with, but not something to get enthusiastic about, because like the weather, what they bring is unpredictable and neither all good or all bad. When US politics gets stuck, the tendency is to turn overseas and try to accomplish something there -- and that's where we are now.

Buchanan's comments are curious because it looks like things have almost come around full circle from Nixon to Bush. In the Reagan years the perception was that conservatives had the White House, clear goals, and unity behind a free market program. Before, with Nixon, and today, goals and their relation to basic philosophy aren't so clear. There is a lot more unity than Pat lets on, but it's unity in support of a war-time leader, not for a program or philosophy.

31 posted on 05/16/2005 11:57:41 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
"Conservatism, by most accounts, has dominated the Republican Party since 1964, when it nominated Barry Goldwater."

After Nixon was nominated/elected in 1968 and again in 1972, he governed like a liberal, especially in domestic policy. He was followed by Ford, a liberal. Finally, they nominated a true conservative, Ronald Reagan. But he was followed by another RINO, GHW Bush.

I think Pat must be losing it.

32 posted on 05/16/2005 11:59:11 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak

Oops, better correct that -- "Pat must losing it" should read, "the writer must be losing it." There, that's better.


33 posted on 05/17/2005 12:00:54 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf
"...who makes some really boneheaded comments and pronouncements..."

True. For instance, in this article, he states neo-cons are not conservative because they're "Wilsonian interventionists." Odd that he overlooks the interventionism of Republican president McKinley, clearly a conservative, in the Spanish-American War. Then there were the interventions of Ronald Reagan in places like Grenada and Nicaragua. What would Pat call Reagan? Another Wilsonian?

34 posted on 05/17/2005 12:17:58 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
" What would Pat call Reagan? Another Wilsonian?"

I have no idea what he'd call him, and that's the problem--he flits this way and that in his bizarre and flexible definition of conservatism. I simply cannot get a handle of his idea of conservative thought. He's very inconsistent, and more to the point, unrealistic.

35 posted on 05/17/2005 2:47:18 AM PDT by Darkwolf (aka Darkwolf377 (lurker since'01, member since 4/'04)--stop clogging me with pings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak

He does? That's nice.


36 posted on 05/17/2005 3:00:39 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak

huge deficits
bigger government
centralizing power for law enforcement
from Patriot act to National ID
Huge drug benefits for seniors
no move on illegal immigration
no FCC action on cable monopolies
nation building/babysitting
Civil unions a fact of life
Abortion fact of life

Patrick goes over the edge here and there, but he will hit a nerve with this book because the facts are the facts.
We will see him everywhere, opening up this important discussion, hopefully having the effect of refocusing efforts.

God I miss Newt.


37 posted on 05/17/2005 3:12:40 AM PDT by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak

I agree that conservatives will be heard from in the 2006 elections. Most Republicans are Republicans because they don't like Democrats or their poletics. If they were to describe what they are for...they would have a difficult time....too mushy on the important issues...let's have a big tent and don't ask too many questions.

Conservatives know why they are conservatives. They are not a one trick pony as many non-conservatives would have you think. They have a vision of what the real truth is and know there is only one truth. Worshiping diversity is not what conservatives do. Dems and Repubs will learn this in 2006.


38 posted on 05/17/2005 3:15:28 AM PDT by Russ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf
Pat Buchanan can see into the future but can't win an election?

People like Pat here are always happier as a loser. To them it's more rewarding to fantasize about their success than live it out in failure.

39 posted on 05/17/2005 3:19:58 AM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Feeling guilty?


40 posted on 05/17/2005 5:19:22 AM PDT by Petronski (Pope Benedict XVI: A German Shepherd on the Throne of Peter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson