When Pat Buchanan made a run at becoming POTUS, many felt he was too radical to win.

I always appreciated his no BS style especially on foreign policy: Let us cease our interventions and call a halt to our endless hectoring. How other nations rule themselves is not really the US’s business. If there is nation-building to be done, let it begin here. The watchword of the Romney campaign and presidency should be enlightened nationalism. Time, again, to put America first.

I agree. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e52c592a-d4ad-11e1-bb88-00144feabdc0.html

That's definitely something I agree with. Way too much time and money has been spent doing such things like colonizing the Middle East while our own problems just get worse and worse.

Even I can't disagree with that. Dammmit. this sucks.

Well that's certainly not very Rick-Santorumesque of Buchanan. Wonder if Romney will take that platform ...

... unfortunately, I don't think I can equate either candidate's platform to their eventual policy ...

Doesn't matter what Mitt says during the campaign, he'll just flip-flop his position and deny he ever had the previous opinion.

His is becoming the epitome of the "sound-bite" campaign. He makes a lot of pronouncements but never backs any of them up with detail. Hell, any of us could stand up there and say these things if we knew we never had to expound on them.

Such an opportunity for the R's this year and they settled for this.

stlouiedipalma;1232526 wrote:Doesn't matter what Mitt says during the campaign, he'll just flip-flop his position and deny he ever had the previous opinion. His is becoming the epitome of the "sound-bite" campaign. He makes a lot of pronouncements but never backs any of them up with detail. Hell, any of us could stand up there and say these things if we knew we never had to expound on them. Such an opportunity for the R's this year and they settled for this.

The Sound Bite candidate vs. The Teleprompter Prez?

Yeah, if we are concerned about neo-imperialism, then stick with Obama, as Romney's advisors are pretty neocon.

Yeah the Obama regime just gives guns to other countries so they can kill Americans.

ptown_trojans_1;1232986 wrote:Yeah, if we are concerned about neo-imperialism, then stick with Obama, as Romney's advisors are pretty neocon.

Eh ... military expansion hasn't lessened since the current president's inauguration, I don't believe.

However, Romney will do just as poorly. The other side of the same damn coin.

O-Trap;1233312 wrote:Eh ... military expansion hasn't lessened since the current president's inauguration, I don't believe.

However, Romney will do just as poorly. The other side of the same damn coin.

PTowne is correct though. Romney's spirit is much more in line with American world expansion in comparison to Obama. And the rhetoric regarding Iran mirrors that of Iraq. Romney will line his advisor staff with the exact same thinking knuckleheads as Bush did.

Obama is a fraudulent Peace Prize Winner for sure. But he eventually removed most of our troops in Iraq and is finally drawing down in Afghanistan. His charades in Pakistan and others is pretty disgusting though.

Neither candidate wants to talk about the Middle Eastern wars because the wide majority of Americans are sick and tired of the waste..both in lives and money...yet neither want anything in regards to an end of our empire over there.

By far and away, Obama has the softer approach. My God there's talk of the insane John Bolton having a top advisor position for Romney.

If Romney wants to beat Obama, he had better listen up to the Buchanans of the world and wake up. Because there is no way America wants anything to do with what we saw militarily under Bush and company.

believer;1232907 wrote:The Sound Bite candidate vs. The Teleprompter Prez?

Aren't we so lucky to have these choices?

Bastards.

I agree with the parts about stopping all the damn interventions and such but the nationalism thing is silly.

Footwedge;1233406 wrote:If Romney wants to beat Obama, he had better listen up to the Buchanans of the world and wake up. Because there is no way America wants anything to do with what we saw militarily under Bush and company.

I agree. Both have either a precedent or an indication of expansion. However, given the recent presidency, the Republicans automatically have the nomenclature of "war party." He's going to need to do something to shake that if he wants to win.

Between the two of them, I don't think we have a better option, but Romney has a party perception going against him.