DRUDGE REPORT: Pat Buchanan to Endorse Bush Tomorrow

Drudge Report Radio | October 17, 2004 | Matt Drudge

[West Coast Conservative]

Matt Drudge said he heard from the "grapevine" that Pat Buchanan will endorse Bush tomorrow.

[bayourod]

"I voted for him in 2000. As such I realized the congress would moderate his desires. Many of his advisors would have been republican. "

I can't believe anyone actually thought on election day that Pat could win. He got less than 1/4th of one percent of the vote. Pat's supporters are delusional.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Coupled with Pat's 1992 speech, this should negate Bush's wooing of Jewish voters.

[RabidBartender]

This should be good for at least 40,000 more Florida votes! :)

[bayourod]

"It's sad to see such animosity toward a guy who stated in the early 1990s that if we didn't get our borders under control, we were going to be exposed to terrible acts of terrorism"

Not a single act of terrorism has resulted from "our borders not being under control".

Terrorists enter the U.S. using valid visas and other government issued documents. Why would they risk dying or being caught swimming the Rio Grande or walking for days across deserts and mountains when they can fly first class to any international airport in the country?

[Winfield]

Thank you! You "hit the naile on the head"! Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Finalapproach29er]

He has as much as said that Kerry is an empty shirt politician.

[Nov3]

Coupled with Pat's 1992 speech, this should negate Bush's wooing of Jewish voters.

The Buchanan Brigade speech would have been great to listen to at a private rally. At the convention it was an unmitigated disaster.

[DoughtyOne]

I voted for him in 2000. As such I realized the congress would moderate his desires. Many of his advisors would have been republican.   I can't believe anyone actually thought on election day that Pat could win. He got less than 1/4th of one percent of the vote. Pat's supporters are delusional.

We've had this conversation what, 25 perhaps 50 times by now.  That being the case, your response here not only doesn't apply, but reveals you to be either a disrupter or someone who is truth challenged.

I considered Buchanan to be an extreme long shot as much as a year before election day.  As much as six months before I was fairly sure his chances were zero.  Three months before I realized it was over.  So much for me thinking he would be elected on election day.  It was a principled stand that is more complex than I care to spend time on now.  I have done so a number of times before, and you know it, so why bother again.

It's sad to see such animosity toward a guy who stated in the early 1990s that if we didn't get our borders under control, we were going to be exposed to terrible acts of terrorism... Not a single act of terrorism has resulted from "our borders not being under control". Terrorists enter the U.S. using valid visas and other government issued documents. Why would they risk dying or being caught swimming the Rio Grande or walking for days across deserts and mountains when they can fly first class to any international airport in the country?

A number of the terrorists on 09/11 had expired entry visas.  The proper implementation of entry visas and the review thereof, is certainly a part of our border control.  As such, your comments don't merit further comment on that point, but I will say that granting entry visas for education, then allowing said individuals to practice takeoffs, but not landings, strikes me as something we should have been aware of.  Beyond that point, these were individuals from terrorist states, who arguably shouldn't have been admitted to our nation under ANY circumstances.

Our borders were not under control were they.  And yes it cost us dearly.

I voted for him in 2000. As such I realized the congress would moderate his desires. Many of his advisors would have been republican.   I can't believe anyone actually thought on election day that Pat could win. He got less than 1/4th of one percent of the vote. Pat's supporters are delusional.

We've had this conversation what, 25 perhaps 50 times by now.  That being the case, your response here not only doesn't apply, but reveals you to be either a disrupter or someone who is truth challenged.

I considered Buchanan to be an extreme long shot as much as a year before election day.  As much as six months before I was fairly sure his chances were zero.  Three months before I realized it was over.  So much for me thinking he would be elected on election day.  It was a principled stand that is more complex than I care to spend time on now.  I have done so a number of times before, and you know it, so why bother again.

It's sad to see such animosity toward a guy who stated in the early 1990s that if we didn't get our borders under control, we were going to be exposed to terrible acts of terrorism... Not a single act of terrorism has resulted from "our borders not being under control". Terrorists enter the U.S. using valid visas and other government issued documents. Why would they risk dying or being caught swimming the Rio Grande or walking for days across deserts and mountains when they can fly first class to any international airport in the country?

A number of the terrorists on 09/11 had expired entry visas.  The proper implementation of entry visas and the review thereof, is certainly a part of our border control.  As such, your comments don't merit further comment on that point, but I will say that granting entry visas for education, then allowing said individuals to practice takeoffs, but not landings, strikes me as something we should have been aware of.  Beyond that point, these were individuals from terrorist states, who arguably shouldn't have been admitted to our nation under ANY circumstances.

Our borders were not under control were they.  And yes it cost us dearly.

[AmarilloMorning]

I suspect he still has resentments from the Nixon White House-- he knows Kerry isn't a patriot. He might believe that Bush has made mistakes-- we know he hates the Iraq War-- but he knows that Kerry will only make matters worse.

[dr_who_2]

I seriously doubt that he'll carry 50 states as a result. A brief endorsement of Bush (as opposed to an endorsement of himself for endorsing Bush) can't hurt.

[Finalapproach29er]

Yep.

[Luis Gonzalez]

[bayourod]

If you believed that Buchanan had "zero" chance of winning why are you now trying to excuse your vote for him by saying that you voted for him because you thought he would appoint Republican advisers and Congress would moderate him?

If you thought when you voted for him that he would appoint Republican advisers then you obviously thought he could win

All the polls showed Buchanan with less than two percent of the vote, but Buchanan was saying that the pollsters didn't call his supporters. Buchanan actually had his weak minded supporters believing that there was a vast secret pitchfork army of voters who were going to pull off the biggest upset in history.

When are you going to wake up and realize that he's nothing but a con man preying on the fears and insecurities of the elderly, mentally disturbed and bigots.

[bayourod]

"A number of the terrorists on 09/11 had expired entry visas. "

They weren't expired when they entered. They didn't enter because "our borders weren't under control".

Buchanan was playing on the fears and prejudices of people against Mexicans. Don't you remember his ads about the dangers of choking on meatballs because the 911 operater might be bilingual?

That's how superficial his message needs to be to convince his racists supporters. Now he's doing the same thing by trying to tie terrorism to Mexicans entering illegally when there is no connection.

[judgeandjury]

Not a single act of terrorism has resulted from "our borders not being under control".

Yet.

[bayourod]

Maybe that's because our borders are more under control than people realize.

The first rule in security is to keep the details of your security system secret.

We know that the border patrol on the Southern border has been immensely beefed up and modernized with high tech surveillance equipment.

What we don't know is how much human intelligence we've moved into Mexico or how much satellite monitoring of cell phones in Mexico or how much monitoring of entry points into Mexico.

Just because we aren't arresting all of the Mexican laborers crossing the border doesn't mean we haven't effectively prevented it from being a practical entry method for Arab terrorists.

[Howlin]

Want to read something REALLY funny?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248324/posts?page=60#60

[Joe Hadenuf]

Doesn't matter anyway. By 2014 there will be 45 million illegals in America, our elections will have long since been undermined with massive fraud and corruption.

[DoughtyOne]

If you believed that Buchanan had "zero" chance of winning why are you now trying to excuse your vote for him by saying that you voted for him because you thought he would appoint Republican advisers and Congress would moderate him?

Excuse my vote for him?  I voted for him and I'd do it all over again things being equal.  As for the comments about moderation, I didn't fear a down side with him based on that.  That doesn't mean that I thought he would be elected.  I didn't.

If you thought when you voted for him that he would appoint Republican advisers then you obviously thought he could win.

It may seem that way to you, but then you've never been one to take someone's word for something when you could guess wildly wrong instead.  Why stop that practice now.

All the polls showed Buchanan with less than two percent of the vote, but Buchanan was saying that the pollsters didn't call his supporters.

I'm sure you think Buchanan was the first candidate to continue to talk positively about their chances going into election day, even when they knew they couldn't win.

Buchanan actually had his weak minded supporters believing that there was a vast secret pitchfork army of voters who were going to pull off the biggest upset in history.

Well in this case it appears only one weak minded hater of Buchanan bought off on that.
When are you going to wake up and realize that he's nothing but a con man preying on the fears and insecurities of the elderly, mentally disturbed and bigots.

You're actually much closer to a bigot than any Buchanan supporter I've ever seen.  I guess you think that folks who support adherence to the laws of our nation to be preying on fears and insecurities.  Why is it that the term mentally disturbed quite often appears in your posts.  Do I detect a bit of projection going on here?

[BoBToMatoE]

exactly. someone put a layer of duct tape on pat. lol.

The only good i see it does is maybe it will bring a few thousand votes which may be needed. I know, thats the purpose of an endorsment.. but I dont want to see people driven away.

Sorta like kim jong ill endorsing sKerry - which he has. lol.