Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

A less cheerful permutation is a "far left-far right" alliance, formed over the war, which many in the latter oppose, mainly due to their residual anti-Semitism; combined with a consistent and generalized xenophobia (over economic issues on the left and "cultural" issues on the right), this could morph into the "New American Fascism" S&H warned us about.

No offensive intended, but how is what you've been generally proposing over the past year or more differ categorically from such a position?

Well just about anything would be a more effective "opposition" than the one we're being treated to now!

Still another possibility is "neo-isolationism," which could come about if the Deaniacs and the Buchananites were to break bread together, possibly with a Ross Perot-like figure brokering the deal between them. In this scenario, the "peace movement" morphs into an "America First" agenda, with the environmental wackos told to take a hike (and not a nature hike either!) and military disengagement is proposed concomitant with aggressive oil drilling and extensive utilization of nuclear power (short-term) followed by innovations designed to develop alternative energy sources (long-term). The deal-maker would have to convince both the left-wing and the right-wing components of the coalition that immigration is bad (using economic arguments to bring the former on board and cultural arguments to satisfy the latter), leading to a call for ending both immigration and the outsourcing of jobs, coupled with steep tariffs to protect U.S. manufacturing.

It's all about how you position the product: "Isolationism" comes across as manly, go-it-alone, rugged individualism, while "pacifism" registers as wimpy, effeminate and cowardly - even though the goal of both, at least regarding foreign affairs, would be identical in this case.

And even the social issues can be finessed: Wasn't the putative leader of the ultra-right in the Netherlands an openly gay man (Pim Fortuyn)?

Not only that, but something like this did happen in the past - during the last Crisis, when the Communists found common cause with the original America Firsters as isolationists, until Operation Barbarossa went down (they've done it before, and in the same turning - so why can't they do it again?)

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

A less cheerful permutation is a "far left-far right" alliance, formed over the war, which many in the latter oppose, mainly due to their residual anti-Semitism; combined with a consistent and generalized xenophobia (over economic issues on the left and "cultural" issues on the right), this could morph into the "New American Fascism" S&H warned us about.

No offensive intended, but how is what you've been generally proposing over the past year or more differ categorically from such a position?

Well just about anything would be a more effective "opposition" than the one we're being treated to now!

Still another possibility is "neo-isolationism," which could come about if the Deaniacs and the Buchananites were to break bread together, possibly with a Ross Perot-like figure brokering the deal between them. In this scenario, the "peace movement" morphs into an "America First" agenda, with the environmental wackos told to take a hike (and not a nature hike either!) and military disengagement is proposed concomitant with aggressive oil drilling and extensive utilization of nuclear power (short-term) followed by innovations designed to develop alternative energy sources (long-term). The deal-maker would have to convince both the left-wing and the right-wing components of the coalition that immigration is bad (using economic arguments to bring the former on board and cultural arguments to satisfy the latter), leading to a call for ending both immigration and the outsourcing of jobs, coupled with steep tariffs to protect U.S. manufacturing.

It's all about how you position the product: "Isolationism" comes across as manly, go-it-alone, rugged individualism, while "pacifism" registers as wimpy, effeminate and cowardly - even though the goal of both, at least regarding foreign affairs, would be identical in this case.

And even the social issues can be finessed: Wasn't the putative leader of the ultra-right in the Netherlands an openly gay man (Pim Fortuyn)?

Not only that, but something like this did happen in the past - during the last Crisis, when the Communists found common cause with the original America Firsters as isolationists, until Operation Barbarossa went down (they've done it before, and in the same turning - so why can't they do it again?)

As a LibNat, or as you would say, NatLib, what would be a concise summary of what you propose? I ask because I am also in the Lindian Center and am curious as to how another LibNat views this. What I've seen of your views so far are very different from mine even though we generally occupy a similar part of the spectrum.

I think isolationism, in a general way, could have a broad political base. Also, social issues might be relegated to the states in a loosened up federalism, making conflict less compelling.

Immigration? Once The Great Devaluation hits there should be a weakened attraction for immigrants.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

John Xenakis wrote of a country changing its identity in a 4T. Myself, I think role would be a better term.

So...during the 4T the USA might contract its involvement to the Anglo-sphere and our immediate neighbors, our "near abroad."

This is very possible. In fact, other Angloshere countries may decide to do the same. The Canadians aren't feeling very loved by the world at the moment, and may decide it's better to make common cause with their biggest customer. The Brits and Aussies have always been among our most loyal allies, so they seem a natural fit. We'll have to see about the rest.

Would we accept Crisis era refugees? Israelis, perhaps? Chaldeans/Assyrians?

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Linus

The trouble with Anthony's subtextual suggestion that Democrats would run better by pandering to the lesser angels of the white working class (which is to say their fear and loathing of gays, abortion, etc) is that 1) these voters would not be in play for Democrats unless they were to not only embrace a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (costing them potentially many thousands of gay and lesbian votes, and gays make up more than 5% of the Democratic base) but also embrace restrictions on abortion (and this would cost Democrats the votes of many, many single women who make up a much larger percentage of the Democratic base) 2) there is a broad if largely unstated consensus in the country that social issues should ultimately be left to the states, and that is likely to be one of the outcomes of this crisis period and 3) every credible anaylsis of the 2004 election postmortem suggests quite strongly that the persuadable voters (who might have voted for Kerry but didn't [most of these people were educated, white collar suburbanites]) swung to Bush on the basis of national security and foreign policy rather than social issues.

My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

I wonder if Brokeback Mountain is playing in Tehran?

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

Yeah, by selling out.

No Anthony, I think your point of view is exactly what this crisis needs to rid us of, the belief in war on human beings and the planet. It makes a difference, if we learn the chief lesson of our time, or not. That is more important than whether the Democrats win or not.

If Democrats win, but turn their back on the crucial lessons of our age, what have they won? what have the people won?

If we leave the Muslims alone, they won't attack us.

Don't look for Democrats to turn in your direction. They will have to stand for progress and human values. For Green-Peace, as well as social justice and caring. Those are the only antidote to superstition, fear and greed, the Republican values. Caving into these, as you wish Democrats to do, will get them nowhere, zilch, nada.

No, Democrats need to stand for something, instead of pandering to fear, greed and prejudice, as you wish them to do Anthony '58. McGovern may have been ahead of his time, but that does not mean that his time has not come. It has. War is useless, it is destructive, it serves no purpose, it accomplishes nothing, it is not worth the price of whatever is gained. The idea that Democrats are "weak" because they do not wish to attack other nations for no reason, has to be debunked every day. And surrender of our constitution, justified by attacks by our enemies, is not strength. What then are we supposedly "defending?" No, rational and constructive behavior is not weakness, Anthony. Get over it.

Sure, if we are attacked, we must defend ourselves. Imperialists like Hitler and Bush need to be deterred. BUT to wage unprovoked, unnecessary, dishonest, deadly, imperial wars, is not progressive Anthony. That is 19th century philosophy. That is from the time of McKinley and Bismarck. Get with it.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

As a LibNat, or as you would say, NatLib, what would be a concise summary of what you propose? I ask because I am also in the Lindian Center and am curious as to how another LibNat views this. What I've seen of your views so far are very different from mine even though we generally occupy a similar part of the spectrum.

My latest suggested scenario may indeed already be unfolding: Did you see Patrick Buchanan's latest column, Churchill, Hitler and Gingrich? (It was in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle but probably ran earlier elsewhere).

In it, Buchanan ridicules the neocons' likening the Islamic extremists to Hitler - even going so far as to suggest that diplomacy may be the answer to the current impasse over Iran and nuclear weapons.

Now imagine if say, Robert Scheer, rather than Patrick Buchanan, had written this same column, word for word - I can hear the Ann Coulters of this world now: "Wimp! Coward! Traitor! He's the new Lord Haw-Haw - hang him!"

But since Buchanan is a "conservative," he can get off with the reduced charge of "isolationism."

And what movement would be more likely to oust the entrenched conservatives - a movement led by Patrick Buchanan or a movement led by Cindy Sheehan?

Buchanan is a hell of a lot closer to national liberalism than Sheehan - that's for damn sure; in any event, isolationism arguably has considerable appeal for national liberals, on the grounds that the money now being spent policing the Middle East could be better spent elsewhere, domestically; but the message would have to be very carefully crafted in order for it to sway enough of the electorate to implement it.

What is really needed here is an open forum or journal of opinion where those of this political persuasion could hammer out a "party line" so to speak - with everything "on the table" except the apocalyptism subscribed to by the (neo-)conservatives and the appeasement favored by the left-liberals (I know such a thing does not yet exist - but isn't it better to light one candle than to curse the darkness?).

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

My latest suggested scenario may indeed already be unfolding: Did you see Patrick Buchanan's latest column, Churchill, Hitler and Gingrich? (It was in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle but probably ran earlier elsewhere).

But since Buchanan is a "conservative," he can get off with the reduced charge of "isolationism."

Ol' Brownshirt Buchanan has always been an "isolationist", if that's a polite way of saying he believes the rest of the world should FOAD. His analysis is always so superficial that I doubt he's going to sway many opinions.

In contrast, Francis Fukuyama was one of the few Deep Thinkers among the neocons, so his recent change of heart is all the more significant. In an excerpt from his new book America At The Crossroads published today in the NYT, he writes:

Originally Posted by Francis Fukuyama

Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

Read the whole piece; it's quite fascinating. I'm surprised Mr. Saari hasn't linked to it yet; it's very much his cup-o-tea. Fukuyama specifically argues for greater isolationism (although he offers many apologia for his former brethren among the foreign-policy radicals.) Tellingly, from a man who once wrote an essay entitled The End Of History, essentially arguing that modern conservatism had definitively won all the age-old arguments of politics and social policy, the essay is titled "AFTER Neoconservatism".

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

My latest suggested scenario may indeed already be unfolding: Did you see Patrick Buchanan's latest column, Churchill, Hitler and Gingrich? (It was in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle but probably ran earlier elsewhere).

But since Buchanan is a "conservative," he can get off with the reduced charge of "isolationism."

Ol' Brownshirt Buchanan has always been an "isolationist", if that's a polite way of saying he believes the rest of the world should FOAD. His analysis is always so superficial that I doubt he's going to sway many opinions.

In contrast, Francis Fukuyama was one of the few Deep Thinkers among the neocons, so his recent change of heart is all the more significant. In an excerpt from his new book America At The Crossroads published today in the NYT, he writes:

Originally Posted by Francis Fukuyama

Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

Read the whole piece; it's quite fascinating. I'm surprised Mr. Saari hasn't linked to it yet; it's very much his cup-o-tea. Fukuyama specifically argues for greater isolationism (although he offers many apologia for his former brethren among the foreign-policy radicals.) Tellingly, from a man who once wrote an essay entitled The End Of History, essentially arguing that modern conservatism had definitively won all the age-old arguments of politics and social policy, the essay is titled "AFTER Neoconservatism".

I do not read the NYT. I will not read the NYT, the paper of Mr. Walter Duranty and Ms. Judith Miller. It is a vehicle for the lessening of human knowledge with every inked character -Roman and Italic- it prints.

It is not it's Progress Report that I abjure (I read the NYRB and the Guardian and have done so for decades) but it's dishonesty. Mr. End-of-History may have produced something very much my-cup-of-tea; but I don't think I'll drink it from a urinal (I don't take my tea with sugar, much less with an odor cake or two). HTH

A better man than I reads the FF tea-leaves

Originally Posted by Mr. Leon Hadar

By now you all know that Francis ("The End of History") Fukuyama has filed for divroce from the Kristol/Podhoretz clans. ...


But I must say that it's a lot of fun to follow all the in/out fighting among the many neocon sects. It's starting to look more and more like the good old days of the late 1940's and 1950's when leading intellectuals like Arthur Koestler declared their own divroce with the communist movement. Koestler and the other ex-commies had more sex-appeal than Fukuyama and the other ex-neocons. And unlike these guys, Koestler and his colleagues were not chicken-hawks. They actually did fight in the Spanish Civil War and other armed conflicts and didn't send other people to die there.

As a general rule, anything bearing the prefix "new" or "neo" tends to end in tears.

Perhaps we ought not be so surprised to see both neoconservatism and its economic cousin neoliberalism go the way of New Coke and the New Left.

There seem to be several other fairly immutable laws to the universe, including the inevitable cheesiness of bands named after places (albums named after places are another matter), the impressive mass and volume of hairstyles favored by Republican wives (the preference afforded such hairstyles by second-wave Xer girls in the later 1980s in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions in particular [there may still be a rather sizeable hole in the ozone layer above greater Long Island and New Jersey dating to this period] seems to have been a fleeting phenomenon), and the peculiar tastes in American culture of French and Germans.

Originally Posted by Linus

the impressive mass and volume of hairstyles favored by Republican wives

They look bad. I can always tell the conservative women on Sunday talk shows because they're the ones with the dyed hair, gruesome mascara, and crimson, bloodied fingernails.

Kids need to know Why Mommy is a Democrat. Exerpt:

• 

No doubt, it's a book coming to a theater near you soon.

p.s. Note the hairdo on the Drizella like rich bitch, snubbing her nose at the poor black fella on the park bench? Ah, bigotry at its finest. 8)

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

As a LibNat, or as you would say, NatLib, what would be a concise summary of what you propose? I ask because I am also in the Lindian Center and am curious as to how another LibNat views this. What I've seen of your views so far are very different from mine even though we generally occupy a similar part of the spectrum.

My latest suggested scenario may indeed already be unfolding: Did you see Patrick Buchanan's latest column, Churchill, Hitler and Gingrich? (It was in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle but probably ran earlier elsewhere).

In it, Buchanan ridicules the neocons' likening the Islamic extremists to Hitler - even going so far as to suggest that diplomacy may be the answer to the current impasse over Iran and nuclear weapons.

Now imagine if say, Robert Scheer, rather than Patrick Buchanan, had written this same column, word for word - I can hear the Ann Coulters of this world now: "Wimp! Coward! Traitor! He's the new Lord Haw-Haw - hang him!"

But since Buchanan is a "conservative," he can get off with the reduced charge of "isolationism."

And what movement would be more likely to oust the entrenched conservatives - a movement led by Patrick Buchanan or a movement led by Cindy Sheehan?

Buchanan is a hell of a lot closer to national liberalism than Sheehan - that's for damn sure; in any event, isolationism arguably has considerable appeal for national liberals, on the grounds that the money now being spent policing the Middle East could be better spent elsewhere, domestically; but the message would have to be very carefully crafted in order for it to sway enough of the electorate to implement it.

What is really needed here is an open forum or journal of opinion where those of this political persuasion could hammer out a "party line" so to speak - with everything "on the table" except the apocalyptism subscribed to by the (neo-)conservatives and the appeasement favored by the left-liberals (I know such a thing does not yet exist - but isn't it better to light one candle than to curse the darkness?).

Your big mistake here is that you brought up Buchanan and Sheehan. Neither of them are relevant today. I agree with a lot of what Buchanan says about some select issues. I, of course, have a modicum of empathy for Ms. Sheehan. But that's about it. Neither of them carries much political weight. Sure Pat gets to hold court on Scarborough Country, and Sheehan was a spectacle to behold last summer but these people are at the very margins of the political process.

Who will be running in '08. The GOp likes George Allen because he has a nice American name and a nice American face. Sort of like a cross between George Washington and Ethan Allen. :lol:

The Dems don't really like Hillary, but they are afraid of her DLC connections. They are sort of intrigued by Wes Clark, warm to Mark Warner, and totally bowled over by the idea of a fire and brimstone breathing Albert Gore II with copy of Silent Spring in hand ascending to the throne of executive, walking amongst the Greco-Egyptian architecture of DC, and, above all, giving coherent speeches.

I heard Mr. Bush talk for 15 seconds today. In his draining drawl he said that the need for "'nrgy 'ndependence 's a true fact."

A true fact. I think I've made my point.

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Originally Posted by Linus

the impressive mass and volume of hairstyles favored by Republican wives

They look bad. I can always tell the conservative women on Sunday talk shows because they're the ones with the dyed hair, gruesome mascara, and crimson, bloodied fingernails.

Hey, that's not Mona Charen, is it? She was my next-door neighbor 40 years ago.

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Your big mistake here is that you brought up Buchanan and Sheehan. Neither of them are relevant today. I agree with a lot of what Buchanan says about some select issues. I, of course, have a modicum of empathy for Ms. Sheehan. But that's about it. Neither of them carries much political weight. Sure Pat gets to hold court on Scarborough Country, and Sheehan was a spectacle to behold last summer but these people are at the very margins of the political process.

Who will be running in '08. The GOp likes George Allen because he has a nice American name and a nice American face. Sort of like a cross between George Washington and Ethan Allen. :lol:

The Dems don't really like Hillary, but they are afraid of her DLC connections. They are sort of intrigued by Wes Clark, warm to Mark Warner, and totally bowled over by the idea of a fire and brimstone breathing Albert Gore II with copy of Silent Spring in hand ascending to the throne of executive, walking amongst the Greco-Egyptian architecture of DC, and, above all, giving coherent speeches.

I heard Mr. Bush talk for 15 seconds today. In his draining drawl he said that the need for "'nrgy 'ndependence 's a true fact."

A true fact. I think I've made my point.

By bringing up Buchanan and Sheehan I didn't intend to convey the idea that either of them would "lead" a movement in the sense of actually running for office themselves - only that they epitomize the opposition to the neoncons' foreign policy from the right and left, respectively, and that more voters may be receptive to the former's insights than the latter's; and if they somehow managed to join forces they might be able to pull us back from what could easily escalate into Armageddon.

But my point remains unchanged: Any opposition strategy would be more effective than the one presently in place, which has absolutely no chance of ever emerging victorious - if for no other reason than the fact that it is every bit as postseasonal as the "prosperity is just around the corner" crowd was at this stage of the last Crisis.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Your big mistake here is that you brought up Buchanan and Sheehan. Neither of them are relevant today. I agree with a lot of what Buchanan says about some select issues. I, of course, have a modicum of empathy for Ms. Sheehan. But that's about it. Neither of them carries much political weight. Sure Pat gets to hold court on Scarborough Country, and Sheehan was a spectacle to behold last summer but these people are at the very margins of the political process.

Who will be running in '08. The GOp likes George Allen because he has a nice American name and a nice American face. Sort of like a cross between George Washington and Ethan Allen. :lol:

The Dems don't really like Hillary, but they are afraid of her DLC connections. They are sort of intrigued by Wes Clark, warm to Mark Warner, and totally bowled over by the idea of a fire and brimstone breathing Albert Gore II with copy of Silent Spring in hand ascending to the throne of executive, walking amongst the Greco-Egyptian architecture of DC, and, above all, giving coherent speeches.

I heard Mr. Bush talk for 15 seconds today. In his draining drawl he said that the need for "'nrgy 'ndependence 's a true fact."

A true fact. I think I've made my point.

By bringing up Buchanan and Sheehan I didn't intend to convey the idea that either of them would "lead" a movement in the sense of actually running for office themselves - only that they epitomize the opposition to the neoncons' foreign policy from the right and left, respectively, and that more voters may be receptive to the former's insights than the latter's; and if they somehow managed to join forces they might be able to pull us back from what could easily escalate into Armageddon.

But my point remains unchanged: Any opposition strategy would be more effective than the one presently in place, which has absolutely no chance of ever emerging victorious - if for no other reason than the fact that it is every bit as postseasonal as the "prosperity is just around the corner" crowd was at this stage of the last Crisis.

Well the libertarians were correct on the Iraq issue. You'll find no disagreement here. In fact I bet you most of the Net Roots at DailyKos agree with the libertarians' position. I agree with it.

I am sort of confused myself about my political persuasions. I agree with much of what an old school conservative like Buchanan says, but I find that the Republicans are the big government, borrow and spend, lax on immigration, let's do it alone, party.

And the Democrats are the invest in social infrastructure, fair trade, fair tax, and keep government out of your bedroom party. Is the Republican party going to stand up for the rights of the individual anymore? Is that their priority?

If so, how come all I here from them is that they have a moral edict they'd like to enforce via the federal government? Howard Dean is closer to Barry Goldwater than George W. Bush is (see my signature line). I trust Howard Dean to obey the laws of the Constitution as written more than I trust this administrations commitment to any laws.

BTW, what was Cindy Sheehan's position other than she was upset her son was killed and wanted a legitimate reason why from the CIC?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Originally Posted by Linus

the impressive mass and volume of hairstyles favored by Republican wives

They look bad. I can always tell the conservative women on Sunday talk shows because they're the ones with the dyed hair, gruesome mascara, and crimson, bloodied fingernails.

Hey, that's not Mona Charen, is it? She was my next-door neighbor 40 years ago.

No, it's Mary Matalin.

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Originally Posted by Linus

the impressive mass and volume of hairstyles favored by Republican wives

They look bad. I can always tell the conservative women on Sunday talk shows because they're the ones with the dyed hair, gruesome mascara, and crimson, bloodied fingernails.

Hey, that's not Mona Charen, is it? She was my next-door neighbor 40 years ago.

No, it's Mary Matalin.

Does it matter? :wink:

I've heard Matalin tell the truth once or twice. I can't say the same thing about Charen.

Originally Posted by Truth '61

I've heard Matalin tell the truth once or twice. I can't say the same thing about Charen.

Actually I have. I e-mailed her back in 1999 after reading an article of hers about street crime in places like our hometown of Newark, NJ. We didn't agree on each and every word (of the article), but saw eye-to-eye on quite a bit.

Interestingly, she still remembered my little brother and me from Porter Place when I was 6... her family always referred to us "The Yesterday Boys" :-).

asdfsdfasfasdf

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Well the libertarians were correct on the Iraq issue. You'll find no disagreement here. In fact I bet you most of the Net Roots at DailyKos agree with the libertarians' position. I agree with it.

I am sort of confused myself about my political persuasions. I agree with much of what an old school conservative like Buchanan says, but I find that the Republicans are the big government, borrow and spend, lax on immigration, let's do it alone, party.

And the Democrats are the invest in social infrastructure, fair trade, fair tax, and keep government out of your bedroom party. Is the Republican party going to stand up for the rights of the individual anymore? Is that their priority?

If so, how come all I here from them is that they have a moral edict they'd like to enforce via the federal government? Howard Dean is closer to Barry Goldwater than George W. Bush is (see my signature line). I trust Howard Dean to obey the laws of the Constitution as written more than I trust this administrations commitment to any laws.

BTW, what was Cindy Sheehan's position other than she was upset her son was killed and wanted a legitimate reason why from the CIC?

The left-liberal position on the war - of which Cindy Sheehan is now the most recognizable spokesperson - is simply to cut and run and magically turn back the clock to September 10, 2001, without making any other policy changes, such as increasing domestic oil exploration, building more nuclear power plants, or for that matter, even tightening fuel-efficiency standards.

Just think of the possibilities if 1930s-style isolationism was to make a comeback: Instead of "borrow and spend," their slogan could be "burrow and spend" (the money that would no longer be spent on the war).

They can start with the introduction of a "Neutrality Act" for the United States in the Middle East, just like the one passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, and signed by FDR, in 1935.

And what did the "libertarians" say about Iraq anyway?

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Well the libertarians were correct on the Iraq issue. You'll find no disagreement here. In fact I bet you most of the Net Roots at DailyKos agree with the libertarians' position. I agree with it.

I am sort of confused myself about my political persuasions. I agree with much of what an old school conservative like Buchanan says, but I find that the Republicans are the big government, borrow and spend, lax on immigration, let's do it alone, party.

And the Democrats are the invest in social infrastructure, fair trade, fair tax, and keep government out of your bedroom party. Is the Republican party going to stand up for the rights of the individual anymore? Is that their priority?

If so, how come all I here from them is that they have a moral edict they'd like to enforce via the federal government? Howard Dean is closer to Barry Goldwater than George W. Bush is (see my signature line). I trust Howard Dean to obey the laws of the Constitution as written more than I trust this administrations commitment to any laws.

BTW, what was Cindy Sheehan's position other than she was upset her son was killed and wanted a legitimate reason why from the CIC?

The left-liberal position on the war - of which Cindy Sheehan is now the most recognizable spokesperson - is simply to cut and run and magically turn back the clock to September 10, 2001, without making any other policy changes, such as increasing domestic oil exploration, building more nuclear power plants, or for that matter, even tightening fuel-efficiency standards.

Just think of the possibilities if 1930s-style isolationism was to make a comeback: Instead of "borrow and spend," their slogan could be "burrow and spend" (the money that would no longer be spent on the war).

They can start with the introduction of a "Neutrality Act" for the United States in the Middle East, just like the one passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, and signed by FDR, in 1935.

And what did the "libertarians" say about Iraq anyway?

I doubt you'll find a left-liberal position on the war, since 'don't do it' is no longer an option. It's impossible to unring a bell, and this Presiudent is playing that for all it's worth. According to the adminstratin, we're fighting the Long War, now.

Perhaps we should review a few other long wars, starting with the Thirty Years War (the predicted length of this newly defined struggle), and the Hundred Years War (just in case).

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Well the libertarians were correct on the Iraq issue. You'll find no disagreement here. In fact I bet you most of the Net Roots at DailyKos agree with the libertarians' position. I agree with it.

I am sort of confused myself about my political persuasions. I agree with much of what an old school conservative like Buchanan says, but I find that the Republicans are the big government, borrow and spend, lax on immigration, let's do it alone, party.

And the Democrats are the invest in social infrastructure, fair trade, fair tax, and keep government out of your bedroom party. Is the Republican party going to stand up for the rights of the individual anymore? Is that their priority?

If so, how come all I here from them is that they have a moral edict they'd like to enforce via the federal government? Howard Dean is closer to Barry Goldwater than George W. Bush is (see my signature line). I trust Howard Dean to obey the laws of the Constitution as written more than I trust this administrations commitment to any laws.

BTW, what was Cindy Sheehan's position other than she was upset her son was killed and wanted a legitimate reason why from the CIC?

The left-liberal position on the war - of which Cindy Sheehan is now the most recognizable spokesperson - is simply to cut and run and magically turn back the clock to September 10, 2001, without making any other policy changes, such as increasing domestic oil exploration, building more nuclear power plants, or for that matter, even tightening fuel-efficiency standards.

Just think of the possibilities if 1930s-style isolationism was to make a comeback: Instead of "borrow and spend," their slogan could be "burrow and spend" (the money that would no longer be spent on the war).

They can start with the introduction of a "Neutrality Act" for the United States in the Middle East, just like the one passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, and signed by FDR, in 1935.

And what did the "libertarians" say about Iraq anyway?

Whatever.