Posted on 08/22/2004 10:29:33 AM PDT by 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.
You're going to find that 99% of FReepers hate Buchanan. Are you sure you wouldn't fit in better on some other forum such as DU or one of your white supremists group forums?
Compared to the partisan mudslinging over the service records of the two Republicrat candidates, I think they're probably thankful that PJB can keep a balanced historical perspective relative to current events.
Thee thang? Oh, yes, lest we forget the 'other side'. Glad to see your partisanship is so strong therefore preventing you from discussing the issues Mr. Buchanan raises. Of course one not so partisan may ask why would there be 'in-party hemorrhaging' if the Republican party is so steadfast on the conservative track we are told day in and day out about. Thank you brave Republican party defender from steering us from the meat of the matter to the much more beneficial path of calling names. I'm sure that'll help steer our politicians down the path of limited government one day....
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Are you sure you wouldn't fit in better on some other forum such as DU or one of your white supremists group forums?
Ah, so now if one is against the total destruction and the undermining of our sovereignty and our borders, one must be a racist?
Another profound post by bayourod? And you are the Republican spokesman here?
Lord help them....
It's not just Buchanan the cheap labor pimps despise, it's anyone who talks about controlling the borders. They have too much money invested in seeing to it that the slave labor pool doesn't dry up and so they're willing to steamroll their mothers if they get in their way.
I'd go further and say Pat's book will have no effect at all either way. Most people have already made up their minds how they're going to vote in November and so it will be a blip on the radar screen.
I don't think it'll hurt Bush this time though.
In part because Keyes is running (who doesn't bash Bush) and Keyes is far better than Buchanan on most the issues. Keyes will divert all the attention that Buchanan may have received. So stop bashing Keyes.
Where do you come up with these conclusions? You don't appear to hae a rational thought process. You write as if you belong to a cult.
My life is not that much different under George Bush than it was Bill Clinton. Although I believe Bush to be a well-intentioned and far more moral man than Bill Clinton, there is still abortion on demand, my taxes are still way too high, I still don't trust any government to educate my children and we have a budget out of control.
I don't defend everything Buchanan says or does but people who defend everything Republican are those who will end up with guys like Arnold Schwarzenegger in office - and deservedly so.
If the list is so long, I'm sure you can share some of it with us.
Long "history", not long "list". Try Nixon and Reagan.
Oh yes, now I remember, when Buchanan was campaigning in Iowa against Keyes and Bauer he promised that if he got elected, he would outlaw all abortions the day he was inaugurated.
Amazingly, there were some people who actually believed a president could do that. You must be one of them.
Be careful, trolls thrive on the attention, especially those who are about as conservative as George McGovern. Their only purpose here is to cause disruption and division.
Pat is also hated because he is for American interests only and because he is right about illegal immigration, trade deficits will lose jobs for America, homosexual practices and abortion are bad and foreign entanglements will bring war to our shores.
Pat is for the American interest war on al-Queda but against being the world's Globocop for the interests of England, Kosovo, Kuwait, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan or the Rock of Gibraltar. Of course, including Israel here makes him anti-Semitic and opposing homosexual practices makes him a homophobe.
Tell Keyes to stop proposing silliness like repealing the popular election of Senators and a cockamamie, race-pandering reparations plan.
He did I think put his foot in his mouth regarding Israel one too many times, they're our only true friend in the Middle East. But other than that Pat's belief in controlling ilegal immigration strikes a chord with millions in this country even if if he's no longer a political threat.
Re: Senatorial Election. It is not a campaign issue. Apparently you've taken the liberal bait. It was dug out of some old speaches of his. Nevertheless, Keyes is right, he also knows that it is impractical. It's not part of his platform.
re: reparations -- It's not reparations. It's a response to the reparation's hoopla. It's a moratorium on federal income taxes . . . a mere offshoot of long maintained support for abolishing the federal income tax. But I suppose we prefer seeing that none not suffer under the punitive tax system which discourages enterprise.
Blacks who could most benefit from an income tax reprieve don't pay income taxes now. Shaquille O'Neal and Oprah Winfrey, and Alan Keyes himself, would most benefit from Keyes' plan.
Asked to clarify himself, Keyes reiterated that an income tax holiday for blacks would be a good idea.
You actually favor exempting blacks from income taxes?
"Where do you come up with these conclusions? You don't appear to hae a rational thought process. You write as if you belong to a cult."
You write as if you're a frothing at the mouth functional illiterate. Go back to topic 83 where I refer to at least one website that outlines Buchanan's "flirting w/ fascism" (to quote William Bennet). Here is another website that shows his attraction to fascists: http://www.realchange.org/buchanan.htm#fascism
Scroll down to show people whom have been associated w/ his campaign who have connections to White Supremicist and Fascist organizations.
Here's another about him accepting the accusations of Holocaust deniers uncritically: http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/
He has supported segregation:
"On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no
politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of
Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses,
playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning,
Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)"
web source: http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html
And here are William F Buckley Jr's (hardly a Leftist) comments on Buchanan and Anti-Semitism: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/buchanan-pat/buckley-1991.html
If Pat Buchanan is still your great conservative savior after confronting what he has said in the past about Hitler, Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, so be it--but be honest about who you are and what you stand for. I would like to know how a man who admires Franco, who denied that nearly a million Jews were killed by exhaust gas, who blames the Holocaust on the Allies, is somehow morally credible to lead our country ,and if not the country, than the ideology of Conservatism. I want to hear the "rational" thought process behind such a "Go Pat Go!" conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.