Despite the long shadow of her past misdeeds (individually and through association with a certain ex-President), and at great risk to my personal safety, I am going to also hope Senator Clinton continues to move more centrist in her views on the Heartland issues. I am, in turn, willing to compromise with my usual voting preference. I think HRC could be a unifying candidate in 2008 and, further, I think we will need one then, even more than now.
It is not only past time for our country to have a female President, it is high time we started looking at our differences and start working to narrow them. We cannot survive as a country or as a people with our current divisive stands. There is nothing that can defeat this country - economically, culturally, or militarily - except ourselves. If we continue this path of two countries - and that is really what we have become - we will remain too busy caterwauling in each others’ direction to address the economic challenges posed by China and India, the cultural challenges posed by growing elitism and poverty, or the military challenges posed by terrorism.
Folks, it is time we all started moving toward each other rather than away. There needs to be dialogue not talking heads screaming at each other on the radio or TV. As a lifelong, firmly right-of-center Republican, I am ready to work some issues out. I hope there are enough P.O.R.’s (see above) like me that are willing to start listening to and stop screaming at the other party.
I know, from long experience, that feelings people have - on the right and the left - regarding highly emotional issues are never going to be changed by rhetoric or logic. I will never logically win over a pro-choice advocate on the issue of abortion. I will never, short of brainwashing worthy of the Manchurian Candidate, ever convince a peace-at-any-cost proponent that the Iraq invasion was the right war at the right time. But that is alright. There are things we can make compromises on. We need to start doing that and stop focusing on what we disagree on or, worse, think we disagree on.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mary
Pat Buchanan is a prophet, not some "far right fringe," as the author ignorantly writes. I am not going to waste my time saying anything more herein. Thank you.
2 - Tim Hall
Pat Buchanan is a prophet, not some "far right fringe," as the author ignorantly writes.
If you really believe that then you yourself occupy the same far right fringe as Buchanan.
I am not going to waste my time saying anything more herein. Thank you.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
3 - Dave Nalle
Is Buchanan going to switch back to the Democrats and join the rest of the leftists again so he can run for president?
Dave
4 - Tim Hall
I've never been convinced by the right-libertarian argument that the authoritarian right are some wierd kind of leftists. If anything, the extreme authoritarian 'left' have fallen off the edge of the political spectrum and come back round the other end.
5 - Mike Kole
As a right-libertarian, I've never been convinced of it either. An authoritarian is an authoritarian.
As stated on another thread recently, Buchanan shares a curious number of positions with Ralph Nader: pro-union, anti-NAFTA, most notably.
6 - Dan
Pat Buchanan is an honest intellectual, and a decent man.
Leftist Ideologues have waged a relentless, aggressive war on Western Civilization for a long time. Their most effective tactic is to use their unearned moral superiority to tarnish and squelch the dissent of anyone who has the courage to defend Western Civilization, as they feverishly work openly and aggressively to dismantle it.
Pat Buchannon is a victim of this. Any reasonable person, upon listening to PB on a cable news show for the first time is likely to think: Wow! I wonder what all the hysterical shrieking about this guy was for.
dietdoc seems a little naive with the enthusiasm for Hillary. (no disrespect implied) She's obviously posturing for the run. She's engaging in the same ol' double speak phonyism liberals always have to resort to... to fool people instead of win them over. It's fun to watch, but a little creepy. Sort of Terminator like. Emotionless, calculating, cold-blooded.
A Hillary/Condoleesa Presidential Debate would be most interesting.
7 - Al Barger
Dietdoc, you seem like a nice enough fella, but you must be writing yourself some interesting scripts if Hillary is your idea of the uniter that's going close those gaps. Yowsa!
8 - alienboy
dietdoc is to be applauded for displaying signs of intelligence and an appreciation of reality; it is indeed "compromise that moves us along".
mary, dan and mr barger demonstrate both how rare this and how ambitious a project.
i really believe that if the usa does not find ways to resolve these internal conflicts, it will destroy itself from within. there are countless examples of this throughout history.
i also think that such a fall would be a bad thing, for everybody.
9 - Eric Olsen
Amazon please
10 - Diet Doc
Alienboy writes:
"i really believe that if the usa does not find ways to resolve these internal conflicts, it will destroy itself from within. there are countless examples of this throughout history."
Reply: I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said, paraphrasing, "America will can never be defeated; it can only die by suicide."
I appreciate your comments. I see the same problems you do and fear the same end game.
Cheers,
Ron
11 - Roy Smith
A very thoughtful post. HRC, if elected will be hated by a certain far-right portion of the electorate with a vehemence that will make their hatred of her husband look positively tame. Simultaneously, she will become hated by a portion of the far-left portion of the electorate for "selling out" their agenda (i.e., becoming a centrist). For the rest of us, she could be a very good President.
12 - Diet Doc
Roy:
I agree. If willing to compromise, I think HRC could be a major step toward one nation again. I really am disturbed at what I see today. I honestly still believe harsh times call for harsh measures. At the same time, I am clinging to a belief that in 2008, we will not need what we need now.
Thanks for the comments.
Cheers,
Ron
13 - DrPat
It will take 2+ years of consistently centrist action - votes, not just talk - to reposition Senator Clinton to a winnable stance for 2008. We're all watching.
Keep in mind, she will need to worry just as much about attention from the liberal Democrat base as from her right-wing critics.
14 - Diet Doc
Dr. Pat writes:
"Keep in mind, she will need to worry just as much about attention from the liberal Democrat base as from her right-wing critics."
Reply: Absolutely. As she drifts, I expect, toward just-left-of-center, the far left will howl. It will probably be very difficult to distinguish where the loudest howls come from - the boo birds from her own party or the (far) right wing. I agree voting record speaks louder than words.
Cheers,
Ron
15 - Big Time Patriot
I (and many liberals I would guess) believe in the commonly heard motto, "Abortions should be legal, safe and RARE".
I would take conservatives worries about abortion more seriously if they gave as much passion to those already alive. The mortality rate in America is going up. But once they are born I guess it doesn't matter anymore. 130 Iraqi children died in the war. Doesn't matter if there was a good excuse for the war, they don't matter anymore, they were already born.
Anyway, I think Hilary is great and she really is not very radical, she is pretty much a centrist like her husband. I myself don't think she goes far enough in several liberal areas. But she is brave enough to speak her mind AND she has a mind smart enough to see reality. Wouldn't it be great to have a President who had BOTH qualities?
16 - Big Time Patriot
d-oh, okay, I should have checked this first, infant mortality (not just mortality as I wrote above) is not increasing in America, I heard that somewhere and repeated it without checking. However our infant mortality rate is still piss poor compared to other countries http://www.unicef.org/sowc03/tables/table1.html so my point about priorities still stands, just not QUITE as strongly as before..
17 - Roy Smith
For more on the correlation between conservative opposition to abortion and lack of concern for infants, this article about Mississippi appeared in The Nation: Post-Roe Postcard. One of the more enlightening parts:
Such concern for the rights of fetuses does not appear to translate into a commitment to promoting the well-being of the children they may become. The uncomfortable irony for an opposition movement purportedly concerned with saving "innocent babies" is that restrictions on abortion are associated with worse outcomes for actual babies. Indeed, children fare terribly in Mississippi. The state with arguably the least access to abortion also has the second-highest rate of child poverty in the country, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Mississippi's infant mortality rate--a good indication of the health of both women and children--is the highest in the country. For every 1,000 live births, 10.5 infants under age 1 die in Mississippi. In parts of the impoverished Delta region, that number ranges up to 18. (The national infant mortality rate, by comparison, is 6.8.) Interestingly, a postelection comparison found that "red" states had higher infant mortality rates than "blue" ones. In general, states that restrict abortion spend far less money per child than prochoice states on services such as foster care, education, welfare and the adoption of children who have physical and mental disabilities, according to a 2000 book by political scientist Jean Reith Schroedel.
18 - Joe
Nah, it's still pretty lame. Try a little analysis: You think that maybe the higher rate of births in the US than some of the higher ranking countries might count for something? And just possibly, that because of advances in neo-natalogy, premature babies that might not even stand a chance elsewhere are often handled here where they would otherwise be written off? Would you rather take your child to a pediatrician in China?
19 - Roy Smith
The post compares Mississippi with other states in the United States, not with foreign countries. As a rule, states most opposed to abortion also take worse care of their children.
20 - Joe
My comment was in response to # 15/16.
21 - Roy Smith
The point that I am promoting (in #17) is exactly the same as the one in #15 or #16. Comparing states within the US probably makes the point more strongly than attempting to compare the United States with other countries.
22 - Joe
The point you are promoting is just more agenda driven B.S. How original!
23 - Al Barger
Hillary's really not particularly all that radical in her policy stances, certainly not since she actually began seeking her senate seat.
She's got some very likely insurmountable problems though, probably the worst of which is really her history of extreme and overtly, maliciously and ruthlessly dishonest partisanship. You could start there, for example, with her famous "vast right wing conspiracy" that was supposedly making up lies about her husband.
Then there are just SCADS of personal scandals, the memory of which will not be erased. Jebus Criminy, those people couldn't just manage to vacate the White House without stealing the frickin' furniture.
I don't that much mind the rather unlikely idea of President Hillary. Some Democrat will be elected president again someday, and I'd rather see her than a President Kerry. Flaws aside, she's probably got a little more sense than most of her party.
24 - SFC SKI
I just wonder how anyone so ambitious will do once in office? I mean, she didn't divorce Bill merely on stand by your man principles, she knows it would hurt her later, just as being a radical loudmouth in the Boxer vein would hurt her later. I am not saying she is dishonest or incompetent, but she knows what she wants and will play her cards close to the vest until she gets there.
She might be a good choice, but she would have to really work hard to make me believe she any other than raw ambition to get my vote.
Maybe in the next next 3 years she will step out a bit to show what she that she has a vision and is capable.
25 - alienboy
SFC SKI: Surely it should be taken for granted that anyone interested in high public office is ambitious?
the fact that you can see Ms Clinton playing politics can only be to her credit. and if she has to compromise to get ahead, i see no harm, that's just the nature of the game.
perhaps you could lay out the vision of her opponents, as all i can see is a cold disdain for the needs of both citizens and the larger world.
i really feel like vomiting when presented with ivy league educated rich people pretending to be just plain folk. then i see people actually buying it and do indeed vomit
Before Mr Barger or Mr Nalle start calling me a Democrat (or worse, lol), let me say i'm not.
However, if I had to pick, i'd go for honest ambition over cheesy falseness any day.