<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The normal ideologic position for the GOP is anti-war.<br>
<br>
One should not forget that George F-double-U Bush was<br>
elected in 2000 on a platform of a "humble foreign policy"<br>
in contrast to the aggressive war-mongering of the Clintons<br>
in Nansilafu (Yugoslavia).<br>
<br>
While one can consider whether W's actual actions represent recant<br>
or deceit, the anti-war message resonated in 2000 to the point<br>
that there was no clear winner and the election was thrown into <br>
overtime (that's another story). It wasnt a clear rejection of <br>
the war party but the outcome was that the clear war party candidate
did not<br>
take the seat after 2000. Nevermind that there was no<br>
change in the war graph. <br>
<br>
Interestingly one message of the debate is a general shift toward<br>
a Paulian ideology if not Ron himself.<br>
<br>
Here's a much more cynical take on the CNN [Cartoon News Network] Debate:<br>
<a href="http://youtu.be/J4KLgRoMNaY"><br>
http://youtu.be/J4KLgRoMNaY</a><br>
<br>
On 06/17/11 4:12, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DFA63A6.8020902@illinois.edu" type="cite">[Joe
Klein surveys the Republican field.]
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2077962,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2077962,00.html</a>
<br>
<br>
...This ideological purity worked to the advantage of Michele Bachmann,
by making her seem less extreme. Bachmann is often linked with Palin as
a Tea Party pinup, but she is a different breed of cat: she knows her
stuff. She actually gives factual, informed answers. She lacks Palin's
bitter, solipsistic edge. She skillfully framed even her most extreme
responses in an amenable way, smothering her opposition to abortion in
cases of rape and incest within a paean to the sanctity of life.
Bachmann also led the pack in opposition to the Libya intervention —
and it should be noted that the Republican field was sounding
remarkably dovish, with the exception of Santorum, on the subject of
foreign wars. Romney said he wants the troops home from Afghanistan "as
quickly as possible," but then remembered he'd better consult the
generals first. Newt Gingrich, a traditional war lover, called for a
review of U.S. policy in the region rather than plumping for more
military kinetics. No one mentioned Iran. This is a fascinating
development: the only plausible space for Republicans in the
national-defense debate may be to Barack Obama's left...
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>