New book criticizes President (Buchanan again!)

Fort Worth Star- Telegram ^ | 8/23/2004 | David Kirkpatrick

[sinkspur]

Patrick Buchanan, the conservative commentator whose Republican primary challenge and divisive convention speech weakened the first President Bush's campaign for re-election in 1992, is publishing a book excoriating the second President Bush over the invasion of Iraq, just in time to grab a share of the limelight at another Republican convention.

In Where the Right Went Wrong, released late last week, Buchanan calls the invasion of Iraq "the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years, a mistake more costly than Vietnam. If prudence is the mark of a conservative, Mr. Bush has ceased to be a conservative," Buchanan wrote. The release of the book, which coincides with the Republican National Convention, gives Buchanan occasion to lay out his case on television and in book promotions just as the Bush campaign seeks to project an image of unity, reviving unhappy memories of the disruptive role Buchanan has played in the past.

"He has a following in conservative circles," said Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer. "It is not what it once was just because the religious right is not particularly enamored with him. But it is going to have an effect. In a very close election, criticism from anybody who is credible is going to have an effect."

In an interview, however, Buchanan said publishing a book during the campaign was the best way he knew to inject what he considers important ideas into the debate. "The reason I wanted it out now is, it addresses big issues that are not being addressed in this campaign: the massive and growing deficit, the disintegration of the culture and a Wilsonian foreign policy that means war ad infinitum," he said.

[CWOJackson]

Scrambled eggs and smoked kippers happen to be one of my favorite breakfasts.

[CWOJackson]

Simply because a publisher puts something into print doesn't mean it's worth reading. As for buchanan, there's zero reason to believe there is anything new in this latest drivel...and from his interview regarding the book that seems very much the case.

Granted, a dust cover from his book makes an excellent urinal liner/target, but the pages are far more expensive then real toilet paper and not nearly as functional.

[bayourod]

I expected you to show up on this thread to defend Buchanan. Less than three months to go before Buchanan and his supporters slither back under their rocks.

[CWOJackson]

Yes, but expect buchanan and his shills to become very shrill these three months. This election is far too important to them to allow Kerry not to win.

[onyx]

Never takes the Patsters long to come to the defense of their queen.

The ants go marching one by one hurrah, hurrah
The ants go marching one by one hurrah, hurrah
The ants go marching, one stopped to suck his thumb
And they all go marching down to the earth
Boom, boom, boom, boom
Two by two - to tie his shoe . .
Three be three - to scratch his knee . .
Four by four - to shut the door . .
Five by five - to dance and jive . .
Six by six - to pick up sticks . .
Seven by seven - to look to heaven . .
Eight by eight - to shut the gate . .
Nine by nine - to have a shoe shine . .
Ten by ten - he want's to start again!!!

[Grey Ghost II]

Buchanan overestimates his importance and influence.

If it's overstated then why is just about everyone on this thread foaming at the mouth?

[CWOJackson]

I know. Benedict Arnold caused the same reaction. Strange how people react to lowely creatures like those two.

[Grey Ghost II]

And you love him because he helps elects Democrats.

Republicans might want to take another strategy and try to get elected because they stand for something - rather than being the lesser of two evils. You will never score if you play defense all of the time. Don't blame Buchanan, blame wish washy Republicans that have sold out.

[Long Cut]

I voted for Perot that election. Indeed, I was an idiot.

I was "angry" over the gun bans, tax increases, etc. I was also younger, and liked the idea of a challenging Third Party.

I freely admit to having been both bamboozled and giving in too easily to raw emotion on a serious issue demanding thought and logic.

I haven't made that mistake again, and will not. I now vote for the party and candidate who most closely represents my views, with an eye towards their actual chances of winning and placing those views into practice...and that is the President and the Republicans. I was so hotheaded and angry then that I helped give this country 8 years of Clinton. I have regretted that every time I saw his miserable face on TV or heard his voice.

No, I do not agree 100% with everything the party or the President do, but now I'm smart enough to swallow it and work for the changes I want the correct way, instead of by torching the forest.

It has helped that I have learned a good deal more about politics in the intervening years...the nuts-and-bolts of it, not just the raw emotional side. Had I known these things then, instead of being a stupid kid, my vote would surely have been different.

In such as Buchanan, I see exactly the same type of huckstering appeals to raw emotion and fantasy that Perot traded in.

[Willie Green]

From all the 'intelligently' formed responses here, it seems many have had a chance to read Pat's book and make an informed decision....

"Sir Batman and the King of Norway discuss strategery
before having a breakfast of kippers"

[billbears]

the massive and growing deficit, the disintegration of the culture and a Wilsonian foreign policy that means war ad infinitum

I don't like Buchanan, especially some of his trade policy stances, but this statement from him is true. It's an issue and it needs to be dealt with. Buchanan won't probably have the answers that would deal with these issues, as he is too ready to point out the problem without a viable answer, but I can't say either of the major two candidates have one. They're both seemingly too busy in making more unconstitutional promises to get votes.

I just found it telling that instead of discussing some of the points discussed in the article by the third post it devolves into fourth grade namecalling. How exactly is that constructive?

[sinkspur]

Why is it that sedevacantists back these extremists, like Buchanan?

It never fails.

[billbears]

see #151, I don't support Pat but I am concerned about many of the same things. Sorry to see you aren't

[CWOJackson]

At least you could have used a different photo then the one taken of you and pat at the reform party convention.

That's pat on the left right?

[Grey Ghost II]

Why is it that sedevacantists back these extremists, like Buchanan?

Why inject that sort of venom into a political thread? If you are going to attack my religious beliefs leave it to the religion forum.

[CWOJackson]

"How exactly is that constructive?"

LOL! You would be better to ask how is buchanan launching his Bush attack book at this point in a close election constructive? It's not, and it's not intended to be.

[Dog Gone]

If it's overstated then why is just about everyone on this thread foaming at the mouth?

If they are foaming at the mouth in support of Buchanan, you'd have a point. If it's because they resent a supposed conservative trying to torpedo Bush's re-election, you don't have a point.

You don't.

[CWOJackson]

"see #151"

See #156.

[GSHastings]

Well, this book should get Buchanan helpful bookings on the Daily Show, Good Morning America, Larry King, Air America, Hardball, McNeil News Hour, and 60 Minutes, and relatively warm receptions in the New York and Los Angeles Times Book Reviews. And prominent placement on the front shelves at bookstores around the country. Congrats, Pat! You are cashing in on the Bush-bashing media gravy train.

Exactly! There was a blurb about Buchanan and his Bush Bashing Book in todays local paper (Bend Bulletin - Bend, OR). It doesn't matter how unknown or irrelevant you are, nor how insignificant your book. If it bashes Bush, instant media coverage.

The same local paper has never mentioned one thing about "Not Fit For Command" (I'm not sure I have the exact title correct, but you know the book I'm referring to.). As for that book, the local Barnes and Noble doesn't have it in stock. They have a sign posted saying that the demand has been so great, they can't get them. Hmmmm. I wonder if that is really a way of just not selling the book. Or, has it really been totally sold out? Anyone?

[CWOJackson]

"Why inject that sort of venom into a political thread?"

Do you mean the way buchanan is injecting his venom into a crucial election?