Buchanan said this on Imus ...

he made two interesting observations ...

first, he said that there was no way that either Hillary or Biden (he speculated they would both run for President in 2008) could come out against the war because no one has ever been elected President who called for PEACE during a war (although didn't Nixon run on a "Peace with honor" platform in 1968?) ...

Buchanan said that he expected an anti-war Democrat to emerge in the next 6 months to represent those in the Democratic Party who were calling for an end to the "war" in Iraq ...

i think he's right and i think this will cause a very dangerous rift in the Democratic Party exactly as it did in 1968 ... if Democrats don't reach a consensus on the "war", we're going to have serious problems in 2008 ...

Buchanan's second observation was that, if the "war" continued as it is into 2006, Republicans were going to suffer serious losses in the mid-term elections ... while Democrats have not offered a serious alternative plan for Iraq, and I think because of this 2006 may be more of a rejection of the neo-cons than a support for the Democratic Party, Buchanan is probably correct ...

so, Democrats may make solid, short-term gains in 2006 to punish the neo-cons for their incredible failures ... but the Democratic Party has still failed to inspire American voters for the long-term ... in light of how miserably bush has run the country, we should be able to make a better case than "at least we're not them" ...

Democrats need to start offering real leadership on solving the critical problems we face in this country ...

Not the continuation of war into 2006 but the part about the repukes suffering. Oh and I also hope he is right about the serious losses in mid-term elections as well.

Why does the administration keep saying that things in Iraq are getting better every day, when clearly they are not. Buchanan basically said "It is up to President to keep moral of the troops up and not bring them down" All I could picture while he was talking was Bush in his "Cheerleading uniform" from school.

Yep, that is all he his a "Cheerleader"

he got from the Reform Party. He sure didn't campaign with those bucks.

but we still don't know what was in that secret plan, since he never managed to put it into action despite serving 1 1/2 terms.

Biden doesn't have a prayer because at heart he's an untrustworthy weasel, but I think Hillary has a very good chance in 2008.

His secret plan was to bomb the bejesus out of North Vietnam until they came to the negotiating table and negotiated a peace plan that allowed the US to withdraw it's combat troops. And that's exactly what happened.

US soldier comes home.

"...if Democrats don't reach a consensus on the "war", we're going to have serious problems in 2008 ...

i am very worried that many Democrats believe that there will be no difference within the Party between 2004 and 2008 ...

i was a strong ABB voter in 2004 ... bush had to go at any cost ... but bush will not be running in 2008 ... in fact, it's not entirely clear that the neo-cons will be able to run a candidate in 2008 ...

so, it's possible that many who "were willing to go along to get along" with the Democrats in 2004 will not but quite so willing the next time around ... i know i won't be ...

and it's no small point to understand that by 2008 we very well may have tacked on "four more years" of war since the last election ... look at the current polls on the "war" today compared to where they were at in 2004 ... the times they are a-changin ... tolerance for the "war" by the time 2008 rolls around will be much, much lower ...

if Democrats are still pushing the same line the neo-cons are pushing, i think a very deep intra-party rift among Democrats is a very real possibility ...

"bush will not be running in 2008"

I hope you're right.

i think there are already signs of a rebellion of moderates in the republican party ... look at the so-called compromise on the "filibuster" issue ... look at dissension from Hagel and even McCain about the "war" ...

neo-cons have badly failed with every policy and the republican party may take a real bath in 2006 ...

Jeb will not run in 2008 ... i think you might view it as a "keeping your powder dry" strategy ... he'll lay low in 2008 so that he can return to fight another day ... if he runs, he'll be badly tarnished by his brother's colossal failures ...

don't worry though, he'll be back in 2012 when the publics' memory has faded a bit ...

to get him out of the race.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/050627/27whisplead.htm

Here's Why Jeb Bush Won't Run
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has for months sternly rejected running to replace his brother in the White House, but only now are we finding out why. Friends say it's his wife, Columba, who closed the door. "His wife has just said no," a close Bush Florida political pal tells us.

I am so fucking sick of the media and these assholes.

It's not Bush's fault that he doesn't have a plan. It's the Democrats for not coming up with an alternative one.

It's not Bush's fault for coming up with a fucked up social security plan. It's the Democrats fault for not coming up with a better one.

It's not the Republican's fault that their approval ratings are in the shitter. It's the Democrats fault for not inspiring everyone.

Well, guess what. The Democrats have come up with their own plans. It's not our fault if the media doesn't cover it.

One day these Bush lovers will wake up and realize that they just got their ass kicked.

Just keep remembering what the Brit's did in their last election. Blair won, but his party took a beating. My hope and prediction is that we'll see the same thing here in 06'.

first, if you know what the Democrats plan for social security is, please let me in on it ... if you can explain how Democrats will deal with globablization and help create more jobs, i'd like to know more about it ... if you can explain to me how Democrats differ with bush on Iraq, please elaborate ... if you can elaborate on how Democrats think we can prevent war with Syria and Iran, i'd like to know what their vision is ...

it has very clearly been the Democratic strategy to "make bush hang on his own rope" ... they have refused to present alternatives because then bush can launch a counter-attack against their vision ... right now, when bush fails, he fails ... there is no one else to blame ... the good news is that this is having some degree of political success ... the bad news is that the Democratic Party has not laid out a clear vision for America and in the long-run, we will not succeed as a Party without doing so ...

and it is NOT just the media ... plenty of Democrats have appeared on the various talk shows ... I have all kinds of problems with the overly centralized, corporate controlled media ... the MSM has become one of the most destructive elements of our society ... without a truly independent MSM, democracy cannot exist ... but a biased media does not excuse Democrats from failing to formulate a message and from doing all they can to dessiminate that message ...

as i said above, if the Democratic Party wants to bring about real "regime change" and not just win an election or two, they are going to have to offer far more than they have to solve the country's problems ... we have to be a Party with a vision; not a Party with candidates who each have their own vision ... the candidates' messages have to emerge from a strong, thematic platform that the Party develops over time ... go ask a few people, both Democrats and republicans, which Party has very strong convictions on the issues and clearly spelled out positions ... i suspect you won't like the results of your poll ...

that if you want to sell it here, you have to build it here. same thing in mexico, china, russia, india. you want to sell you cars, set up plants, work out deals with the local government and get busy. same thing for steel, electronics, etc.

what's so hard about that.

social security has so much fat that billions could be saved by just simply stating that everyone contributes, but we are only going to help the needy. if I have a certain amount coming in from other retirement plans then I can for go my social security. use it to help those who are too old to work but are in need. Isn't that what Jesus would do.

seniors and young widows with children for the past 60+ years. Continuing Social Security as we know it IS the Democratic Plan. The Republican Plan is to destroy it.

Right now, and for many years, Social Security funds have been in surplus and are being raided for the general treasury. That's what the "lockbox" idea was all about.

If there are shortfalls in 30 or 40 years, extend the payroll tax limits beyond $90,000. Or extend retirement age to 67. This stuff ain't hard.

that the media bias against the Democrats thwarts the promotion of any alternatives they MIGHT have. Not to let the Dems off the hook, but they've got a difficult task to sell their ideas with the lapdog US media controlling the spin machine.

The smart Dems are starting to realize that they must use other means of getting the message out.

There can't be a paralell to 1968, since it was Johnson/Democrats who brought us the Vietnam War and Nixon who said he had a plan to end the war, with honor.

Here, it's the republican war, and every single possible republican candidate is STILL for the invasion, STILL for the occupation. How do they coopt the anti-war sentiment?

The concept that nobody has won as a "peace candidate during a war" is pretty much crap, given his boss Nixon doing just that, promising that he had a "secret plan" to end the war in the 1968 campaign. Did Nixon have a plan. Maybe. The important point is that he could credibly come off as not happy about the war itself. Can any republican today to that?

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history/

The only point of Buchanan's that I can wholeheartedly endorse is the fact that the dems don't have a plan and that is going to hurt them. You can't beat something with nothing. Even with the chaos and disarray and flipflopping among the republicans, they can mutter, "stay there until the job is done"--worthless as a statement of intent or policy and STILL better than what the dems have!

i think you missed the point here ... if i understand the point you were making, 2008 can't parallel 1968 because Vietnam was a Democratic war and Nixon co-opted the PEACE message ...

but i think you've put your emphasis in the wrong place ... Nixon certainly did not attract the anti-war vote ... the point of comparing 2008 to 1968 was to highlight how badly weakened the Democratic Party was because intra-party differences over the war ... the McCarthy movement coupled with the scenes from the streets of Chicago at the 1968 Democratic convention made Democratic victory in 1968 virtually impossible ...

the republicans are not going to attract the anti-war vote in 2008 ... the point of the analogy is that it's just not clear the Democrats will either ...

Just as I say that disarray hurts now.

But I think you are wrong when you say Nixon didn't coopt the anti-war sentiment. Not everyone worried about Vietnam and wishing that the gov. could find a way out puts it at the top of the list or wants a pull out right that second. Nixon's second formulation "peace with honor" showed that he can get people with doubts and want the war to end without actually being an "anti-war" candidate.

I think that the same thing can be seen today. Between those who just want OUT and those who want to stay IN are a huge sea of those who want a facesaving, half a loaf, gradual withdrawal. The percentages are unclear and shifting as time goes on. But they are there. I would expect individual republican congresssional candidates in 2006 to be floating all over that space. But so are democrats.

one interesting point, that transcends political parties, is that the 1968 analogy, even conceding your point about Nixon, is that someone like Hagel could run in 2008 as the anti-war candidate ... he could run as the "peace with honor" candidate and argue that bush was wrong on the war ...

just to toss out this little factoid, perhaps a bit out of context, more Americans died in Vietnam while Nixon was in office than when Johnson was in office ... not exactly "peace" with honor, eh?

Had he not been assassinated by his own government, just like his brother, Bobby Kennedy would have been elected in 1968 ... and withdrawn from Vietnam.

People on the left were so dazed and confused by the murders of Martin and Bobby in 1968, that Hubert Humphrey's candidacy was just a sick joke -- especially since Humphrey was not denouncing the war (even though we now know he wanted to come out against the war but was effectively blackmailed by LBJ into maintaining public support.) It was a black, sick political year and ended with the election of Dick Nixon and his gang of thugs.

Let's just keep our anti-war candidates safe and secure for the next few years.

Four years after "peace with honor" and he still won by a landslide.

One can drag out the "light at the end of the tunnel, last throes, stay no longer than we have to" stuff for a good two presidential election cycles.

The left leaning parties in Germany also fought amongst each other, which is one of the factors that led to Hitler's rise in power.

of course, one lesson could be that the anti-war left should keep its mouth shut and just go along with establishment Democrats to prevent further tyranny from taking hold ...

orrrrrrrrrr .............

the lesson could be that the elite, establishment Democrats better learn to share power within the Party with its anti-war wing to prevent further tyranny from taking hold ...

the facts you cited are important; the lesson learned remains to be seen ...

I believe the anti-war movement is the right way to go. But, the Dem party needs to reach an understanding that they have a common purpose. They need to start coming together to reach that goal, instead of weakening each other.

it's just that i've seen far too many posts suggesting that the anti-war wing is the minority in the Party (are they?) and that we need to go along because if we don't all we're doing is electing republicans ...

so, yeah, you nailed it ... i'm a bit testy ...

the Party needs to find a way to sit down and discuss the issues ... we cannot continue our un-democratic ways ... 2004's ABB will not hold in 2008 ... without a genuine push for real unity, Democrats will remain a minority party for many, many years ...

and as your history lesson points out all too well, we just can't afford that ... those controlling the Party better seek unity rather than demand unity ... time's a-wasting and i haven't seen any changes so far ... everyone keeps telling me Dean is the grassroots guy ... well, not yet he isn't ... if he and others aren't able to bridge the gaps, we're in big trouble ...

but one thing I know with 100% confidence, the answer doesn't lie in anything Pat Buchanan says.

come up with a "Serious alternative plan for Iraq"--before 2006--could this propel them to greater political gains than if they just sit on the fence? Judging by the diminishing support for the "war" --it would seem so. Why would Dems not support this?

Here's a reminder of the brave (and correct,IMO) senators who stood by principle and voted against this horror back in October, 2002:

Akaka - HI
Bingaman NM
Boxer - CA
Byrd - WV
Jeffords - VT
Kennedy - Ma
Chafee RI
Conrad ND
Corzine NJ
Dayton MN
Leahy VT
Levin MI
Durbin IL
Feingold WI
Graham FL
Inouye HI
Mikulski MD
Murray WA
Reed RI
Sarbanes MD
Stabenow MI
Wellstone MN (MHRIP)
Wyden OR
And Jay Rockefeller who later saw the light

And then the big names who voted YES (for whatever reason)
Clinton
Kerry
Biden

...a card carrying mindless cheerleader.

Buchanan's stopped clock, at least to some degree, is correct on this one. Rangel said that Hillary's biggest problem is that she voted for the war. And no matter what happens between now and 2008, the dead will still be dead, the weapons will not be found, US integrity will still in the toilet, and the bills will still be rolling in. In short, this is the greatest geopolitical blunder the US has ever made. To have voted a blank check for bush, one had to either be incredible dumb, or a cynically grasping political.

The way out is Clark, he came out against this debacle, and yet even in a business suit one can still see those four stars. Would the left be happy--probably not completely--but happier than they are with most of the "big names." Would the moderate, center-left be OK with him as a nominee--me thinks "yes." He is the way out of the Democratic conundrum and he is an automatic assurance that if there is a way out, he is capable of walking point.

Nevertheless, if the anti-war forces stay divided and ripping out each others throats, then sadly Buchanan is correct. We will find ourselves trying to supporting a candidate with exactly the same position as the republican: "I was for it, but it was fought badly, and maybe the whole damn thing was a bad idea that needs to be swept under corporate rug."

If in some far-away perfect political galaxy, the left comes together early and loudly to pressure the Democratic interests to support a candidate that can represent all of us, and pull in the military vote as a bonus, well, then I want to move there.

I am speaking not as a cheerleader for Clark, but as someone who has a deep dread of a train wreck where average Americans will, no matter how they vote, find themselves conflicted. I am working to provide an alternative. The country is no longer behind this war, and we need to offer people an acceptable alternative.

voice in the Repug party and now he's almost sensible? That's what 20 years of pandering to hate, fear and ignorance will get you, among other things...

unprovoked, for no fucking good reason, out of whole fucking cloth. The whole damn country seems to keep forgetting this simple fact. Iraq did not attack us. They did not support the ones who attacked us. They were no threat to us. Saddam was the fucking mayor of Baghdad for all intents and purposes. Jesus, will somebody start shouting this truth over and over and over and over and over and over and over......

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was totally bogus.

I mean this one we pretty much started from scratch....I'm not justifying our stepping into the Viet Nam mess by any stretch....

entered the Cold War...

VP Richard Nixon went to Vietnam ('56 or 57 iirc) to observe and report on the legitimacy of the election. The election was a sham, but Nixon declared it okay. Sad.

The rest is history.

Going back further we find Vietnam, under the protection of China, turned over to the French because of a trumped up charge. A French missionary priest was killed. With French guns trained on Vietnam, the Chinese said: sure, Vietnam is your colony.

We took over from the French.

There is something about occupation that pisses people off. Ask the Iraqis how they handled the British.

This is the Great Game Redux.