Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Architectural Failure
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


If one had to sum up the legacy of Karl Rove as political adviser to the 43rd president, it could probably be done in four words: tactical brilliance, strategic blindness.

Though George Bush was not given the natural gifts of a Ronald Reagan, his victories in Texas, followed by successive victories in the presidential contests of 2000 and 2004, put him in the history books alongside Reagan, who won California and the presidency twice.

None of Bush's wins were nearly so impressive as the Reagan landslides in the Golden State and the nation. But it is a testament to Rove that he and Bush never lost a statewide or national election in the four they contested from 1994 to 2004. Rove has two Super Bowl rings. How many political advisers can say as much?

But if Rove's contribution to the career of George Bush will put him in the Hall of Fame, the Bush-Rove legacy for their party is worse than mixed. Rove wanted to be the architect of a new Republican majority. Instead, he and Bush presided over the loss of the Reagan Democrats and both houses of Congress.

The house Nixon and Reagan built, Bush and Rove tore down, leaving rubble in its place. Rove's failure was a failure of vision. He and Bush believed the future of the party lay in adding to the Republican base the Hispanic vote, now the nation's largest minority, approaching 15 percent of the population.

They went about it the wrong way.

Pandering to that voting bloc, Bush stopped enforcing the immigration laws and offered amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and the businesses that hired them. Bush and Rove were going to lure the Hispanic vote away from the Democratic Party by putting illegals on a path to citizenship.

But as we saw in June, when the nation rose up in rage against the Bush amnesty, the pair did indeed unite the GOP -- against themselves, and they severed themselves from the Reagan Democrats and the country.

It was cynical politics, and it backfired, crippling the presidential candidacy of John McCain in the process.

But even before the disastrous immigration reform bill, Bush had become a zealot of NAFTA, GATT and most-favored-nation status for China. These have left his country with the worst trade deficits in history, put the United States $2 trillion in debt to Beijing and Tokyo, cost Middle America 3 million manufacturing jobs and arrested the income rise of the middle class, as our capitalist pigs and hedge-fund hogs have happily gorged themselves at the capital gains tax trough.

Bush's original idea of "compassionate conservatism" was a fine one. But under him and Rove, compassionate conservative turned out to be code for a cocktail of Great Society Liberalism and Big Government Conservatism. How could professed admirers of Ronald Reagan think that by doubling the budget of the Department of Education the tests scores of school kids would inexorably rise?

Even earlier in the Bush years, the president, after the trauma of 9-11, had a Damascene conversion to neoconservatism, a neo-Wilsonian ideology and secular religion. Among its tenets: that we are a providential nation whose mission on earth is to liberate mankind and democratize the planet; that we are in a world-historic struggle between good and evil; that our triumph is to be accomplished by the robust use of American military power -- beginning with the benighted nations of the Islamic Middle East that represent an existential threat to America, democracy and Israel.

Sometime between Sept. 11 and his axis-of-evil address, Bush sat down and ate of the forbidden fruit of messianic globaloney. Consuming it, he got up and committed the greatest strategic blunder in American history by ordering the invasion of a country that had not attacked us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us.

The Bush-Rove rationale: For our survival, we had to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that we now know it did not have.

The great political architects of the 20th century are FDR and Richard Nixon. After the three Republican landslides of the 1920s, FDR put together a New Deal coalition that controlled the White House for 36 years, with the exception of two terms for Gen. Eisenhower.

After the rout of the Republicans in 1964, Nixon pulled together a New Majority that held the White House for 20 of 24 years, racking up two 49-state landslides for Nixon and Reagan, even as FDR had won 46 states in 1936. In his re-election bid, Bush won 31 states.

In seeking a new GOP majority, Bush and Rove rejected the Nixon-Reagan model. Instead, they embraced the interventionism of Wilson, the free-trade globalism of FDR, the open-borders immigration ideas of LBJ and the budget priorities of the Great Society. It was a bridge too far for the party base.

Now, Rove walks away like some subprime borrower abandoning the house on which he can no longer make the payments. The Republican Party needs a new architect. The firm of Bush & Rove was not up to the job.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Let's Get Some Perspective
George Bush cut taxes and as a result has presided over a booming American economy. George Bush has kept this country safe from major terrorist attack, unlike what has occurred in Britain, Spain and elsewhere in the world. George Bush has made terrific Supreme Court nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court in John Roberts and Samuel Alito and to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. George Bush brought back personal integroty to the offic eof the Presidency after the tawdriness of the Bill Clinton years.

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Ironically, what he writes today is more along the lines of George McGovern-type isolationism ("Come Home America") than Richard Nixon, who was very much an internationalist. Buchanan's beef with George Bush is that after 9/11, George Bush has agressively waged the war with jihad Islam by taking the fight to Afghanistan and Iraq and has promoted the gospel of democracy. For doing so, history will judge George Bush well, and Pat Buchanan, to the extent remembered at all, will be considered just a schreeching paleocon whose post-9/11 foreign policy writings were terribly misconceived.

Warren Small writes
The Republicans have tirelessly wooed Latinos, blacks and Jews ....The reason Repubs cannot win over this group of people is because of the racist attitudes and policies of your party. 50 years of civil rights do not wipe away 400 years of slavery. Most Blacks are not poor because they are "lazy" but because they were born into it. I was born poor also, fought like hell to get out of it, but the odds are against you...most of my family is still stuck in poverty. Programs to help poor minority students are not a slap against whites...your party needs to get past this...and calm yourselves....Mexicans are not going to take over...just like the Dems have a problem with the military you Repubs have a major problem with people of color...that is why you rejoice when Michelle Malkin or Star Parker..et al...make you feel good about yourselves by reinforcing some racist views.

Pat has his points but on foreign
policy Pat is an odd mix of Taft isolationism thrown in with a large amount of antisemitism. It makes for some quirky bent logic.

Phil
The short list you compiled to try to defend Bush demonstrates how far he drifted from his base. Granted, supreme court nominees are important, but the price of a booming economy came not just from tax cuts, but from the most rapid increase in federal spending in the last 40 years.

The economy, further, is undermined by a weak dollar and the loss of sovreignity to foreign countries whose ownership of our debt undermines the ability of this country to chart an independent course. We are a debtor nation, and they have become the bankers. The issues of the expansion of the federal government and the passage of entitlement programs such as the drug bill places the burden for payment on future presidents and congresses - something they will not be able to do. The onset this year of the retirement of the baby boomers dictates that the costs of entitlement programs to government will now steadily rise, and revenues cannot remotely keep pace. Iraq will never be seen as a great foreign policy victory, due to the fact that the cost already outweighs any likely benefits if the purpose is to advance our national security interests. Whatever government evolves in that country will still be more closely linked to the perceptions of the middle east, than to the west. Long after we're gone, trade with Iran will be far greater than trade with us, and the Shia clerics in Iraq will be more philosophically aligned with those in Iran, and those with Hamas and Hezbollah, than with our Christian ideals.

There is far more to being a good President than what you mentioned. Bush's tax cut does not offset his liberal economic policies, nor will his pandering to traditional democratic constituencies while ignoring his base reinforce the conservative movement - which he essentially abandoned.

Phil
You work at the White House, don't you? Surely, no one would be brainwashed enough to say all that w/o being paid to do it.

"messianic globaloney" ...
... classic Buchanan.

Paleo Pat
Makes some good points, but his decades long Hatred of The Bush Family tends to make folks tone deaf to his message.

Buchanan is right.
Bush's repeated references to a "universal right of liberty" bestowed upon all of mankind by the Creator is most worrisome, IF he believes the Creator has charged him, as our nation's leader, with the task of implementing this right. Iraq invasion was simply the opening salvo in this crusade.

The American people need to examine the rationale of a president who is convinced the Almighty has ordained him to be His agent here on earth...to democratize the world or at least the mideast...in a grandiose and messianic mission thru the sacrifice of our finest Americans, and the looting of our treasury and childrens' heritage.

This is a reckless, aggressive vision that is more in keeping with radical and revolutionary religious theologies than with traditional conservative principles. It has more in common with early 20th century(democrat)Wilsonian idealism and naivete than with rationality.

On Rove, I think Buchanan makes a compelling case. The original Rove philosophy was to "gin up" the GOP base, instead of appealing to independents. As long as the president could portray himself as a "compassionate conservative", this appeal to the GOP base did not alienate independents. It was successful.

However, both Bush and Rove made a strategic, fatal error in the political arena when they tried to force this amnesty scheme deal down the throats of the base. They thought this would resonate with hispanic voters. That is foolish.

Hispanic voters who have been in the U.S. for only a few years tend to be in the lower economic class, and as such are predominantly democratic party voters, because that party is more magnanimous in its social welfare benefits.

Buchanan Duped Again

.....Pat ...you have been snookered by a country bumpkin ...

.....Rove is nothing ...he is an empty suit ...a straw dog ...he is Elmer Fudd to Bush's Sylvester the Cat ...

.....Bush has been the man behind the curtain all along and Rove has been hung out there as the Wizard of Oz to distract and bamboozle all you so called journalists ...

.....you're still in Kansas Pat .....COLOSSUS

Buchanan is right again.
Especially about Bush/Rove's stance on immigration reform, NAFTA, GATT and most-favored-nation status for China. We DO have the worst trade deficits in history, and we ARE $2 trillion in debt to Beijing and Tokyo, it HAS cost Middle America 3 million manufacturing jobs and arrested the income rise of the middle class.

Buchanan's dislike of the Bush family politics doesn't change the fact that he knows what he's talking about.

Pat ... Returns to Dementia
I defy anyone to make any meaningful distinction between Pat's rants and the worst of the liberal hate-mongers! Pat simply can't concieve of the idea of Islamic terrorists gaining control of countries that WILL have nukes if left alone [Pakistan, anyone?] and when they can be delivered to your neighborhood from anywhere in the world in less than 30 minutes, it's time to wake up and abandon the idiotic isolationist philosophy, Pat ... the founding fathers would have been changing their policies in regard to no foreign interventions too in light of this glaringly obvious situation [but apparently, this fact CANNOT be beaten into Pat's skull made inpenetrable by his Bush derangement]!

Pat's world view regarding the impossibility of installing democracy in Iraq seems to be falling apart now with even the Sunnis coming along after a taste of REAL fanatics rampantly slaughtering even their purported allies against our army.

And, once again, Phil has it RIGHT! He might also have mentioned that Bush had the guts to tackle the largest entitlement disaster looming ... the vastly underfunded Social Security system with the Boomers just entering retirement!

There is plenty more wrong with Pat and his troop of supporters here; but I actually work for a living and don't have time to respond to EVERY idiot and idiotic assertion posted here!



oh, pat...
I have been reading columns by this clown since the late '80's -- during the time of Bush I. That's about 18 years or so. Every year Pat has proclaimed the upcoming great market crash, recession, economic collapse, you name it. The economy has hummed along through all that time, with a couple of minor recessions, in the largest economic expansion in history. But he keeps up the gloom-and-doom economic comments, and somehow people still give him credibility. Since I have made some money in the stock market, I assume I am one of those "capitalist pigs" that "gorge at the capital-gains tax trough." And I really don't consider that a bad thing.

Here on TH there are always a few who agree with Pat's "It's all going to collapse tomorrow" doom-and-gloom economics. And there are a few that tell us we're already in a massive recession, but all the rest of us are too dumb to know it! But realistically -- how many years of being wrong will convince this fool that maybe he doesn't have the answers?

Pat, you've been WRONG for at least 18 years. It's about time you change your tune.

oh, pat... (2)
But what bothers me most about this fool is that Pat considers himself a conservative and a Catholic to boot. Then he makes a hero out of the notoriously corrupt Richard Nixon. Nixon was wrong about the economy (wage-and-price controls) and about foreign policy (detente). But as a supposed Catholic, Pat needs to face the fact that: Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to SCOTUS; Blackmun concocted Roe v. Wade; and Nixon went along with it all. Nothing -- I mean nothing -- W did can be as bad as that to a conservative Catholic.

Nixon wasn't a hero who built up the great Republican coalition. He was a paranoid, cynical politician who benefited from the Democrats' self-destruction, as a bunch of commie leftists took over the Donkeys' party, alienated its traditional blue-collar core, and gave the US candidates like the commie fool McGovern and the total fool Carter.

Rove's mistake is not unique
Rove exemplifies a mistake made by Democrats as well as Republicans--the confusion of campaigning with governing. Jimmy Carter made this mistake too. He was a very successful, very canny campaigner, and he had absolutely no clue about how to govern. Rove performed the same service, if you want to call it that, for Bush. Rove was very successful at coming ukp with a winning combination of tactics to energize the Republican base. This success, however, has to be qualified if we look at the actual margins of victory in the popular vote for both 2000 and 2004. If Rove truly wanted to produce a "permanent" Republican realignment (and neither party has ever done this, obviously), he did not succeed.

Once Bush was in office, his campaigning never really stopped. He failed to get most of his domestic agenda enacted, in large part because he and Rove had not really transformed the Republican base into a majority base. A true realignment calls for getting very, very large numbers of Democrats--far more than the "Reagan Democrats" of the RR era--to shift over and vote Republican. Instead, Rove's efforts simply prompted the Democrats to energize their base, and thus the Dems have a real shot at the presidency in 08 [although I doubt they can pull it off).

Governing is different from campaigning. The sort of leadership governing requires is characterized by non-ideological bridge-bulding and (although conservatives hate this) the art of the deal. Bush wasn't really cut out for this, but with clever handling, he could have faked it well enough. Rove, however, is a true conservative ideologue; he'd rather be right than win, and he foisted this political silliness onto his boss as well. The time for ideological posturing is during campaigns, not while you're sitting in the Oval Office. Too bad for Bush that Rove never understood this.

Typical Pat
The all knowing Pat who thinks he is better than everyone including Rove. Yet Pat how many times did you run for president? And how many times did you lose?

You were a ridiculous candidate. Now your just ridiculous.

jerabaub
Got a newsflash for you. Bush wasn't the only one who believed that. Your Founding Fathers did as well.

kgregt
Please name one thing Phil listed that was not true.

basballdoc
You nailed it!

bush looking out for his own
"Pat ... the founding fathers would have been changing their policies in regard to no foreign interventions too in light of this glaringly obvious situation"
+Really, are you one of the people that believe that Constitution is a "living document?"

"Thomas Jefferson got Congress to fund a new navy for the specific purpose of invading North Africa and putting the hurt on the 18th century version of al-Qaida- the Barbary pirates."
+At least this was done in the interests of America in protecting our trading interests.

I could care less that Pat has a hatred for the Bush family. Actually I do as well. These guys have so many ties to the industries that benefit while they are in office. Bush I =war, Bush II =war. And another thing that doesn't get enough attention is that Bush I was on the Board of Directors for Eli Lilly, weird that his son pushes for a bill that will directly benefit the pharma companies. The Bush family is bad news and Pat calling them out is necessary. If you guys also don't think that their rich oil buddies in Texas aren't making a killing trading Oil Futures, you aren't paying attention. Bush makes one call to a "good ol'boy" that he is going to say something about Iran, and boom, he can predict which way the markets will go. For you guys not in the know, bad news is great news for Futures traders.

Buchannon swings & misses
Rove wanted to be the architect of a new Republican majority. NOT

Bush & Rove's concern for the Republican party was measured in microghiveshitz, they dont and never did give a crap about the Republican party or America for that matter, they're globalists, that's all they care about, their globalist agenda which taints their every action.

Thinking "Hispanics" who are notoriously poorly educated, have limited skills and huge families earning low wages and coming from a lawless Socialist neighbor would ever turn into Republicans is an insult to logic & common sense.

So lets all stop pretending that Bush made a bad bet that "Hispanics" would vote Republican, they're natural Democrats or Communists.

If Bush & Rove wanted Republican Hispanics they'd have to pass an "immigrant charge law", only if the masses of Hispancis were excluded from the cornucopia freebie services would they ever vote Republican, but BUsh didn't do that, he expanded freebie services more than any President in the history of the nation.

1896 and all that
Illuminating regarding Karl Rove's lack of wisdom and historic knowledge was his devotion to recreating the Republican coalition of 1896. However, with McKinley's assassination in 1901, his Republican pro-business(let's not call it conservative) coalition ended and was absorbed by the manically self-absorbed Teddy Roosevelt and then the Progressive Era. The two decades after McKinley's death saw much in the way in liberal legislation. Only the economic downturn of 1919-1920 and the general American disgust with Old Europe brought forth eight years of relatively conservative politics of the underrated Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. But Mark Hanna did not create either of those two men and, in fact, had been dead since 1904.

Remember Karl Rove, circa 1973, was the dweeb who fetched frat-boy George W. Bush's car keys from Poppy Bush. He's but a sycophant of George W. Bush, Sancho Panza to don Quixote, and little else.

Rove got Bush elected twice to the Texas statehouse and twice to the White House. But what did it mean to conservatives? Tax cuts. Two fine Supreme Court justice appointments. But little else. He conceded the culture war to the left. He engaged in spending on the lines of LBJ. He fractured his party on immigration. He got us into a wasteful war in Iraq. Most importantly, he has allowed the country's demographic revolution to continue unabated.

Rove and his squire have left the conservative movement in shambles.

Derek Leaberry

.....AMEN! ...

.....Rove was a media creation from the beginning and was called Bushes' Brain" as an insult to Bushes intelligence ...

.....'I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him' .....COLOSSUS

Small Warren and Davy and their ilk ....
.... projectile vomit the imploded content of the black holes that do such pathological promulgators of, propagandists for and projectors of the psychopathology they and other sufferers of the liberal psychosis call "progressivism" -- and/or by any other name.

Projectile vomit, that is, in ways that leave sound and intact and patriotic Americans -- among whom the two-bit totalitarian, trade Luddite, serial soused sucker upon the sour grape and Korsokoff's Syndrome poster person, Patrick Buchanan, is decidedly not numbered -- in no doubt as to the intellectual and moral vapidity of all such sufferers! Of all such morbid self loathing motivated, envy engined and rage driven America haters.

Davy writes:
The reason Repubs cannot win over this group of people is because of the racist attitudes and policies of your party.
****

The Republicans are racist?

Oh, how quick we forget;

It was the Democrat party that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of which voting against it was none other than Al Gore Sr. In the end 113 Democrats from the House and Senate opposed the Act, vs only 41 Republicans.

Before you accuse a party of something it is best to have a firm grasp of the facts.

As for Pat's column....
The Republicans lost in 2006 due to their wild ways with spending, and the Presidents lack of using the veto to force his party to control their spending. The Presidents favoring of big government also was part of that loss for the party.

Immigration was not as big of an issue then as it is today. McCain choose to side with the President on the immigration reform bill, thus he is no longer a top tier candidate.

Bush Sr. and the UN are at fault for this Iraq war. Had they removed Saddam Hussein after the Persian Gulf War in 1991 it would not have been an issue over ten years later.

I can see why Pat believes as he does, but his view is clouded by his own ideology.

Lolo
I have to disagree with you. From George Washington on, our founding fathers counseled against needless foreign entanglements and would have been appalled by the notion of using our military and treasure to go about the globe "bestowing the blessings of liberty" upon humankind, or other half-baked nation-building schemes.

Thomas Jefferson's eloquence in the Declaration of Independence asserted humanity's right to liberty issues from God, not man, but that DOES NOT mean Jefferson would have advocated employing our military to foist democracy upon the world.

Jefferson's view of Mohammadism certainly did not include the notion that it was incumbent upon the U.S. to democratize that area of the world.

reply to Christopher Parisho
Using the congressional vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to diss Democrats is an old, tired, and irrelevant move for conservatives. Conservatives should be the first to recognize that the Republican party of that era, at least in Congress, had lots of moderates and liberals (the folks now called RINOs)in it. Many Democrats were Southerners and long-time segregationists. Neither set of facts is relevant today.

You deliberately(?) misrepresent the actual voting patterns Here are the numbers, in “yes/no” order.:

Original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24

Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20,
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 45-1,
Northern Republicans: 27-5

The final vote:
Democratic 153-91 ;Republican : 136-35

In the Senate the following Republicans voted against the bill: John Tower (Texas), Bourke Hickenlooper (Iowa), Barry Goldwater (Ariz.), Edwin L. Mechem (New Mexico), Milward L. Simpson (Wyoming), and Norris H. Cotton (New Hampshire).


Switcheroo
Gestell's point is largely correct. Southern Democrats of the past have become Republicans. Liberal Republicans have largely become Democrats. The Republican Senate support for the 60s civil rights laws come from the ranks of the so-called RINOS- Javits, Saltonstall, Aiken, Stafford, Scott, Case and several more.

Lolo
"Got a newsflash for you. Bush wasn't the only one who believed that. Your Founding Fathers did as well."

Really?

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."


Lolo - pt 2
“Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them." -- George Washington
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

Lolo - pt 3
I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war.
-- Thomas Jefferson (1823)

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.
-- John Quincy Adams (1821)

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

TrueConservative
"Pat simply can't concieve of the idea of Islamic terrorists gaining control of countries that WILL have nukes if left alone [Pakistan, anyone?] "

I hate to tell ya, but Pakistan ALREADY has nukes.

Phil
"Let's Get Some Perspective
George Bush cut taxes and as a result has presided over a booming American economy."

Yes, let's DO get some perspective. Our debt is over 9 TRILLION dollars and we are borrowing over 2.5 billion dollars/day, much of which is from Red China. Did you catch the news a week ago when they were threatening to sell off the dollar? Yes indeedy, that's just brilliant giving a foreign country, much less Communist China, the ability to crash our dollar. LOL!

Bush may have cut taxes, but he has also borrowed our children and grandchildren into oblivion. He also has used the sneaky approach of taxing us. No, not directly. He and our Congress have used the back door approach by asking the FED to print money out of thin air and loan it to them. Do you believe that money grows on trees? Because if you do not, you must understand that when the money supply is increased, it devalues each and every single dollar that each of us holds. This is called the INFLATION TAX and Bush has presided over this in spades.

"George Bush has kept this country safe from major terrorist attack, unlike what has occurred in Britain, Spain and elsewhere in the world."

Let's see, six years after 9-11 our ports and borders remain wide frickin' open, allowing anyone who wants to do us harm, walk right on in. We have our military over in Iraq, while the people who attacked us are sitting pretty in Pakistan and have rebuilt. Yeah, that's a pretty smart strategy, right there. LOL!


"George Bush has made terrific Supreme Court nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court in John Roberts and Samuel Alito and to the U.S. Courts of Appeals."

I'll give you this point.

Phil - pt 2
"George Bush brought back personal integroty to the offic eof the Presidency after the tawdriness of the Bill Clinton years."

Just because Clinton was a slimeball, does not make George Bush have integrity. Nor does he. He has sold out our country to special interest lobbies, big Agra, big Pharma, the military industrial complex and the illegal alien lobbies. He is Mr. Globalist supreme, who cares very little for his own country. But, he does reign supreme in one thing. Pushing more unconstitutional legislation than any President I can recall that ever came before him, breaking the law by surveilling fellow citizens, his refusal to carry out the law, his numerous Presidential Signing Stmts ignoring the legislation he signed into law and just basically enacting the structure for a police state, all around us. Checked out some of his more recent Executive Orders lately, or Presidential Directive 51? This man is a traitor, plain and simple.

Phil
Since you believe our economy is in such great shape, perhaps you should listen to what David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, has to say about that.

America's Financial Future (Part 1) – David Walker, Comptroller General, GAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIgrxpp97OQ

America's Financial Future (Part 2) – David Walker, Comptroller General, GAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0pY

His interview on 60 Minutes:
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#controller_general_david_walker

And here's an article for you....
Foreign Money Props U.S. Economy
http://www.newsmax.com/money/archives/articles/2007/8/2/171912.cfm

reply to Derek Leaberry
What conservatives almost always fail to comprehend is that their political principles were massively oppossed to those of the civil rights movement. Cosnervative intellectuals knew this, as any glance at the pages of "National Review" or "Human Events" in the 1960s will make abundantly clear. Today's conservatives are often intellectually parasitic on liberalism, since they often have good things to say about MLK and the civil rights movement. They shouldn't do this, but they don't know they shouldn't. Today conservatives should be opposed, not just to affirmative action but to all provisions of the various civil rights acts passed by Congress since 1964. Real conservatives should also be in favor of overturning Brown v. Board of Education and other pro-black decisions made by the Supreme Court. (There's a whole string of them extending back into the 1940s.)

Just keep in mind that the white, formerly Democratic South became Republican when the Democratic party sided with blacks over civil rights. This should tell conservatives where their true loyalties lie.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.