Now, why do you believe that pointing out that this man was a campaign manager for Pat is "attacking the messenger, not the message"?Since every sentence but your last had 'Buchanan' or 'Buchananites' in it without responding to any of the points in the article.
My comment very clearly points out that this message is the message of Buchanan,
No, the only part of any Buchanan message you mention is trade policy which is not even mentioned in the article. Granted the defending the borders issue in the article is pure Buchanan but you did not address that in your reply.
a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.
That may be true, but if you look at any poll today, after 9/11, defending the borders ala Buchanan, is an overwhelming winner (as a single issue). Every election is different, so if it was a loser last time that does not mean it would be next time.
It was not my intent to argue the points of this article in detail but to point out the inconsistencies implicit within the article.
As I stated earlier: "This only makes sense if one belives Buchanan is the fount of all wisdom. I find it mildly humurous when Buchananites attack Bush supporters for blindly supporting Bush while they swallow every word from Bucanan as if it were inscribed on stone tablets." This comment directly addresses one of the trusts of this article.
I also pointed out that: "I find it fascinating when Bucnananites attempt to grasp the banner of conservatism when they would impliment trade policies that would make a Frenchman proud." This also addresses one of the articles points, ie, that Pat is the true conservative and Bush is not. One cannot support trade policies that are more akin to socialism and at the same time call one a conservative.
I'm not sure of your point on poll numbers. Are you saying that poll numbers should guide national defense policy? How does this differ from Clinton's use of polling to define foreign and defense policy? Don't you find it odd that you would use polling data like Clinton did and still call yourself conservative?