If there’s one thing I hate, it’s when I agree with Pat Buchanan. And if there’s anything I hate more than that, it’s agreeing with Fidel Castro. Imagine my surprise when I discovered myself agreeing with both of them on the same day, and on the same general issue!
Pat Buchanan says that Republican infighting has gotten way too vicious, and that the “Republican candidates’ circular firing squad plays into Dems’ script.”
There still exists a possibility that, come Jan. 20, 2013, we could have a Republican Senate and House, and a Republican president.
But there is also a possibility that a Goldwater-Rockefeller-type family bloodletting could sunder the party and kick it all away.
I think he’s right. While partisan politics is expected to be brutal, this sort of nastiness is even worse:
In Iowa, Ron Paul’s ads charged Newt with “serial hypocrisy” for claiming to be a conservative but leaving Congress to make millions working the system. In New Hampshire, Paul escalated, calling Newt a “chicken hawk” who clamors for war on Iran but ducked service when he could have gone and fought during Vietnam.
Newt has said that, should Paul become the nominee, he, Newt, could neither endorse nor vote for him. Paul’s supporters would reciprocate, were Newt to become the nominee.
Paul’s ads also charge Rick Santorum with being a “corrupt” politician who exploited his 12 years of Senate service to make millions on K Street.
Santorum’s reply: “Ron Paul is disgusting.”
The Republican candidates have gone beyond challenging each other’s records and positions to impugning their character.
When I get into arguments with Democrats, I expect to be maligned and insulted, but the way things are going, I’d almost rather get into an argument with my Democrat friends than my Republican ones. Things are waaay tooo highly charged. People need to settle down and remember that the goal is beating Obama, not cannibalizing each other.
So, much as it always hurts for me to have to agree with Pat Buchanan, he is absolutely right in his central point.
Oh, I almost forgot Castro. It really is too much to have him say something that I agree (at least partially) with on the same day Buchanan did, but here:
Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro said Monday that a “robot” would be better in the White House than President Barack Obama…
Wow. Might that be a backhanded way of endorsing Romney? Sure, Fidel continues with his obligatory slamming of the Republicans, and sure, he is in his dotage, but I have to wonder about his subtext. I mean, a lot of people complain that Romney is stiff and robotic, and I have never particularly liked him, but maybe the country could use a robot right now.
No, this is not an endorsement! For starters, unlike the genuine humanoid robot we actually had in the White House, Romney is probably just a robotoid human.
But Castro got it right on the central point. A robot would be better than Obama. And if the Republicans don’t watch out, only a robot will be able to take the kind of abuse they’re dishing out.
No real human would.
Comments
2 responses to “Singing along with the Pat and Fidel”
Agreeing with Pat and Fidel on the same day is indeed momentous, but you should have added Paul to your “agree with” list.
He is spot on about Gingrich and Santorum. He is saying what the media refuses to say.
But then, that’s nothing new to RP.
I had been under the impression that classical values were not to be compromised.
If Romney represents a social moderate – at best – why shouldn’t he be torn apart by both sides?