Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
They're not particularly good on economic issues, unless you believe protectionism is all we need. They're also seriously isolationist - not just in the ways you like, but the ways you would dislike - goodbye UN, goodbye any treaties whether economic, environmental, or other, goodbye foreign aid. Furthermore they have a nasty racist streak. It is true that their popular base tends to be a lot closer to a progressive economic agenda than the leaders.

But I never understand what people are trying to say when they suggest 'putting social issues on the backburner' or similar phrases. They're hard core on that - if you want to win them over to the dem side against a solid traditional Repub conservative you'd need to do some serious rollback on women's rights and gay rights.

Even if you're willing to pay that price, it's a huge political risk - say goodbye to social liberal economically centrist suburban voters, and enjoy lower support among blacks and hispanics. Or in other words hope that a rise in support in the bible belt compensates for turning the northeast and pacific coast into swing states.

by MarekNYC on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 at 04:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that the hype about Buchanan being the reincarnation of Hitler has the stench of TINA (There is No Alternative) policies.  Having read through what Mr. Buchanan has written in his books, and following what he's had to say for the past 8 years I don't see a racist.  I see traditional conservative that is thoroughly at odds with the neo-liberal dogma that's passed for politics in the US for the past 8 years. And I see hyperbole thrown in his direction in order to sustain the belief that there is no alternative to globalization, deregulation, and economic liberalism.

As for the politics of the matter.  The 2008 election will be won and lost in the economically depressed Great Lakes states: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.  The lesson of the 2006 elections was that Democrats win when they get the votes of small town and rural voters.  

Those are the seats that Democrat won in 2006, not suburban seats.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have got to be kidding me. Either you actually haven't read Buchanan, or you think that anyone who isn't a paid up member of the KKK isn't a racist.

As for which seats Dems won - first that's not completely true, secondly I'm talking about the base - goodbye suburban NYC, DC, Bay Area, Boston, Chicago. Enjoy seeing hispanic majority seats as highly competitive. And if they play their cards right, and the Dems were to embrace the likes of Buchanan, then black seats might become competitive. The white socially conservative low and middle income folks are not a majority in this country.

Given the choice between Buchanan and John McCain I'd vote for the latter, just like I would have for Chirac six years ago.

by MarekNYC on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 at 04:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have got to be kidding me. Either you actually haven't read Buchanan, or you think that anyone who isn't a paid up member of the KKK isn't a racist.

I disagree you, therefore I must be a Klansman.  This is precisely the hyperbole I'm talking about.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't say you must be a Klansman, I said that you must think that anything short of being a Klansman means someone isn't racist. Or in other words that you seem to have a blindspot on racism.
by MarekNYC on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 at 05:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
me the other day same applies to Buchanan.
by MarekNYC on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 at 05:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series