Gay Patriot Header Image

Does this mean Pat Buchanan supports Israel?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:30 pm - January 9, 2009.
Filed under: Ex-Conservatives,Leftist Nutjobs

Buchanan Accuses Israel of ‘Blitzkrieg’.

It was the Nazis who developed and defined the idea of a “blitzkrieg.”  Pat Buchanan has apologized for the Nazis.  Is he thus comparing the Israelis favorably to those whom he believed nobly defended their fatherland against the diabolical Churchill?

Well, in my view, Pat Buchanan’s just another loony figure comparing Israel to the Nazis, even if he’s not as adverse to the latter as most who make the comparison.

UPDATE to revise my explanation:  Buchanan thinks the Nazis were justified in invading Poland with their “blitzkrieg.”  That suggests he believes a blitzkrieg to be a good thing.  Ergo, if he calls Israel’s operation a blitzkrieg, he thinks their operation is justified.

I guess that means he supports it.  That doesn’t make him any less of a crackpot.  And the Israeli operation is anything but a blitzkrieg.  But, then again, Buchanan does have a problem with world history.

Does W stand for Wilson (as in Woodrow)?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:42 pm - January 9, 2009.
Filed under: American History,Where W went wrong

We don’t have presidential opinion polling for 1920 or 1921 so we don’t know what Woodrow Wilson’s approval ratings were when he left office on March 4, 1921, but I would wager that if Gailup had been polling the American people back then, that Democrat would have then had approval ratings rivaling those of the currently outgoing incumbent.

One measure we do have is the result of the 1920 presidential election. The year, James Cox, the candidate of Wilson’s Democrats had the lowest popular vote percentage (34.5%) of any major party nominee in a race with no significant third party candidate. He even ran behind Herbert Hoover in 1932 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, incumbents running for reelection during the two worst economic crises of the last century.

Last fall, the candidate of George W. Bush’s party ran a full ten points ahead of Davis.

In 1916, Wilson won reelection with a popular vote margin nearly identical to that of Geroge W. Bush in 2004, though the Republican did win a majority of the popular vote.

While both men, Bush and Wilson, leave office largely out of favor with the American public, both espoused an idealistic foreign policy, centered around the notion of promoting democracy abroad. Compare Wilson’s Fourteen Points to Bush’s Second Inaugural Address. The essence of those points, “free trade, open agreements, democracy, and self-determination” is not much different than the broad outlines of Bush’s foreign policy goals.

History has held Wilson in higher regard than did the American people when he left office.  And I daresay, it will offer a similar opinion of George W. Bush.  Both led our nation to victory in foreign wars and may well have been undone, in part, by their idealism.  Neither will join the pantheon of the great, or even the “almost great” presidents, but neither will they be relegated to the list of presidential failures.

Blind Faith in Middle East “Peace Process”

In an excellent post on those intellectuals who ape Jimmy Carter in favoring more Israeli concessions as a solution to the crisis in Gaza, Jonathan Tobin finds them blind to reality:

Matthew Yglesias . . . takes up the familiar theme that the outline of a peace settlement is well known (back to Taba) and that all it will take to get back there is “ruffling” some Israeli feathers and giving Israel some of the “tough love” that Jimmy Carter dished out.

Missing from this analysis is, as usual, any connection with the reality of the other side of the equation: the Palestinians who stand by Hamas and their terror campaign. This blind faith in the peace process is almost religious in nature. All objective facts that might disprove its thesis are ignored.

if we continue to follow the peace process these intellectuals so consistently and assiduously espouse, we’ll only see, to borrow one of their favorite expressions, an ever-increasing “cycle of violence.”

Emphasis added.

UPDATE:  In another post, Tobin continues his excellent critique of the blame-Israel-first crowd of intellectuals: “. . . long before 1967 and ever since, ‘Palestinian self-determination’ has been defined solely by the urge to extinguish Israel’s existence.“  Read the whole thing.

On Economy, Obama Promises More of the Same

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:33 pm - January 9, 2009.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Economy,Obama Watch

It doesn’t seem that the incoming Democratic president is making much of the opportunity the outgoing Republican president gave him to reshape the political landscape, with the Democrats becoming the party of fiscal discipline.

As the Washington Post‘s Chris Civilizza put this morning in the paper’s blog, Obama Bets Big on Big Government.  “Only government,” the president-elect said, “can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy — where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending.”

Oh, really?

Where has he been these past eight years, the eight years he so sucessfully ran against in his presidential campaign?  Does he think the trillion dollar deficits which, he warns, will become “a reality for years to come” happened because the federal government didn’t spend enough?

It seems that Obama’s economic policy is not merely an extension of the policies of the Republican president he promised to change, but an attempt to dress up those policies as some kind of noble stimulative endeavor.

On domestic issues at least, instead of change from the last eight years, we’ll be getting more of the same.  Let’s call Obama’s stimulus what it is, Bush’s economic policies with a face more friendly to the MSM. And a larger price tag.