See post #79. It isn't about "who." It is about "how many."
You seem to have failed my test already. Tsk. Tsk...
Posted on 10/17/2004 7:15:03 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
See post #79. It isn't about "who." It is about "how many."
You seem to have failed my test already. Tsk. Tsk...
When it comes to the subject of David Duke, why don't you just pull out the Hitler tie-in and be done with it? You brainless dumba--es always get around to it sooner or later anyway.
David Duke was a member of the KKK. Pat wasn't. Of course these tie-ins are always the last refuge of people who haven't the tools to argue points on the merits.
In one of my earlier posts, I suggested it didn't matter what Bush did, but that sailed right over that thick head of yours. Congressional leaders asked Goldwater to talk to Nixon. They didn't ask Bush to do so. Do you wonder why? It's because Goldwater was the elder statesman. Once again, you refer to a person who did not carry the weight of a Goldwater figure. And once again the point is made for you, that Goldwater's comments to Nixon cause him to resign.
That is history. What you are trying to do is rewrite history and It's just not going to play.
Goldwater has gotten the credit all these years. You can either accept that or continue to show what a shallow person you are for stating otherwise.
Oh I think I can bear up under your assessment. It doesn't carry much weight with me.
Not that I disagree with you...but I wonder if the Injuns in the tee-pees were wondering the same things about the Europeans arriving via sea.
Pat Buchanan has spent the better part of the year bashing Bush and the Republicans now he wants to endorse him????? I don't trust that man!!!
While I cannot stand Buchanan, I do think this endorsement will earn Bush a few votes, and I don't see it costing him any, so I guess it's good.
Meanwhile, my respect for Buchanan went from 0.0% to 0.1%.
I can understand some of the animus with Pat, but too much of it is group-think IMO.
He's not perfect. Hell, I'm not perfect. Nither is our current president and every one before him.
When Buchanan does something good, agree and express pleasure with that. When he does something bad, disagree and express displeasure.
Some of these people go postal on the guy without rhyme or reason. That's silly.
I agree with your comments. Thanks for posting them.
No. Goldwater was chosen to go tell Nixon to resign, but Goldwater, my near-hero, chickened out at the last minute. Here's what the White House Historical Society has to say on that fateful meeting when Goldwater only managed to tell Nixon that the votes weren't in the Senate to beat an Impeachment trial:
"George Bush, in attendance as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, could not bear to hear a mundane discussion of inflation problems continue, as if it were a normal meeting. Raising his hand, he stated bluntly, "Mr. President, you have to resign."21 It hit like a ton of bricks." -http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs/04_a03_a03.html
I think that a lot of Americans hate Buchanan for saying such traitorous things as "The U.S. Congress is occupied Israeli territory."
Republicans likewise hate Buchanan because he routinely violates President Reagan's 11th Commandment of not criticizing other elected Republicans.
...And then there's that whole Bush-bashing book tour that Buchanan likes to make, in addition to *leaving* the Republican Party to run *against* Republicans.
So there are *LOTS* of people who don't like Buchanan for much better reasons than what you cite.
When I first read that comment about Bush on the White House site several years ago, I quietly thought 'rewrite'.
In thirty plus years since Nixon resigned, I've never seen Bush given the credit for talking him into it, even once. Barry Goldwater was the elder statesman tasked with the job, and that's all there is to it. Nobody but nobody credits the Elder Bush. I can't change that. I can only describe what realtiy has been for thirty plus years.
It was Goldwater that was eight to ten years past his run for the Presidency. It was Goldwater thought of as the modern father of conservatism. It was Goldwater who had the juice to get Nixon to accept reality.
Goldwater tells Nixon that his support has evaporated in the Senate. Even if Bush did say what he did, was he implying that he was stupid enough to think Nixon didn't already get it? Grown men know how to say things without stooping to grade school terminology to get the message across.
Goldwater said all the needed to be said, but I guess if Bush wanted to shine his shoes to feel important, we should at least acknowledge he shined the shoes of a man far superior to him, at that time.
I do believe this will be lost on one person in particular.
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.