[ER]

Yes, it's on NewsMax.com.

I found it to be a great read. He talks about the dangers of what he labels as "neo-Conservative" policy in Bush's first 4 years and what needs to be done to return to a truer, Conservative base.

[luvtolean]

You know, it's really too bad he was labeled a racist as it is completely untrue.

Buchanon is a lot closer to my political values than the current 2 idiots.

[figment]

Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency
Still have not read his other book "Death of the west".

[ondablade]

Strangely enough I too can agree with not quite all but much of what he has to say.

I think he's spot on on poor education and values in recent generations. I think there's number of separate problems in play which have contributed to this - the powerful but highly negative popular cultural stereotypes bombarding kids through the media, the knee jerk politically correct form of liberalism which while well intended is ultimately just another impossible ideology, and the equally destructive selfish right wing conservatism which outs self before others, and which is more than ready to use fear to manipulate public opinion.

I guess also a serious decline in political values. I've found both presidential campaigns so far to be sickeningly negative and lacking in leadership and vision, especially compared to the vision and ideals of the men who had power post WW2.

I think he's also pretty much correct about the leakage of jobs, in that the very small number of people people controlling the real money are basically being driven by their insatiable greed to use free trade, IT and globalisation to to maximise their returns without any regard for the fact that a too rapid a shift in economic activity will destabilise the world - even if the Chinese don't get carried away it risks huge political pressure building within a declining US for the use of military power to pursue economic objectives.

I'm far less understanding than he is of Geroge Bush. I can accept that he is maybe a well intentioned if limited man led astray by the neo cons, but if so (a) that says little positive about his abilities, and (b) there's not much sign of any admission of error coming from him.

What throws me is that there's no sign of the middle road that's needed emerging. Real wisdom has no truck with -isms. It skillfully blends compassion with pragmatism, and maybe most importantly of all recognises that no nation or group can prosper at the expense of others without ultimately negative consequences for all....

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by ondablade

Strangely enough I too can agree with not quite all but much of what he has to say.

I think he's spot on on poor education and values in recent generations. I think there's number of separate problems in play which have contributed to this - the powerful but highly negative popular cultural stereotypes bombarding kids through the media, the knee jerk politically correct form of liberalism which while well intended is ultimately just another impossible ideology,

Definately agree with this.

I guess also a serious decline in political values. I've found both presidential campaigns so far to be sickeningly negative and lacking in leadership and vision, especially compared to the vision and ideals of the men who had power post WW2.

Yep, worldwide.

I think he's also pretty much correct about the leakage of jobs, in that the very small number of people people controlling the real money are basically being driven by their insatiable greed to use free trade, IT and globalisation to to maximise their returns ...

This is a vicious circle. These men are driven by stockholders, who ultimately are regular people looking to buy the highest performing stock. Stocks do perform higher in the short term by outsourcing.

I'm far less understanding than he is of Geroge Bush. I can accept that he is maybe a well intentioned if limited man led astray by the neo cons, but if so (a) that says little positive about his abilities, and (b) there's not much sign of any admission of error coming from him.

I think he's hard on Bush. But his only realistic other choice is Kerry, and he thinks he is the better of the 2. (like me) As he says, we don't need that freak Kerry appointing supreme court justices. They're appointed for life, so once they're there, we have to live with them.

IMO, this is one of the biggest problems in our system. These damned judges became political when the Constitution clearly intends for them to be scholars of the law only.