Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :

Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;

Cite?

Buchanan loved great big government;

Cite?

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.

Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
which I'm trying to fight. The difference is that Pat was more of an
advocate for a more voluntary adoption of that brand of "morality," as
opposed to using the sledgehammer of the law to require us to follow it
like modern mainstream Republicans. At least, that is what I gather
from tomes like "Death of the West," and the article now under
consideration. (Advocacy and persuasion are favored by us old-line
'Pubs, because the decision is invariably left with the individual.)

And as for "culture wars," why in the hell *ARE* we fighting in Iraq?

With respect to protectionism, it is always a function of who throws
enough money around. The drug companies enjoy the immense benefits of
protectionism, which is why Jack Nicklaus and Bob Dole are drug pushers,
and we pay twice what the rest of the civilzed world pays for the bulk
of our prescriptions. No different from the Zionists buying our foreign
policy.

That's big fat
intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
in loco parentis means, I assume.

Of course, and the word "loco" is somehow fitting, don't you think?
The question here is how far the two groups -- the Zionists and Pat B.
-- deviate from traditional Goldwater Republicanism (of which I have
been a consistent advocate, and know well). On foreign policy, we're
generally isolationist, and don't relish the concept of fighting wars
for Israel.