Posted on 01/08/2008 12:48:04 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
MANCHESTER, N.H. – It is the historic mission of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary to give us the establishment candidate in each party, and then the insurgent candidate. The two pairs then battle it out in South Carolina to give us the probable nominees for November.
Year 2008 looks no different, with this exception: The insurgents, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, swept the first contests and now have the momentum. And both establishments are reeling. Twenty-four hours before New Hampshire, the GOP establishment has not even settled upon a champion.
If Mitt Romney wins the Granite State, he will be the alternative to Huckabee. But if he does not – and he has fallen behind – he must beat John McCain in Michigan on Jan. 15, stay in the race whatever it costs, hope to keep the anti-Huckabee vote split and hope that McCain runs out of fuel first.
Yet even as the candidates rally the party faithful, the issues they are raising and the early returns are telling us that the center of gravity in American politics has shifted seismically in four years.
On immigration, the center is now behind tough enforcement of the law and stronger border security.
The Republicans have all moved to the Tom Tancredo position. Hillary Clinton saw her campaign almost derailed by her temporary support of Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. McCain's pro-amnesty stand almost ended his candidacy.
On Iraq, the center of gravity seems to be: Let us end the U.S. involvement and bring the boys home.
Not only did all of the Democratic candidates promise an early, or immediate, withdrawal of U.S. troops, Ron Paul won more than twice as many votes in Iowa as Rudy Giuliani.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Which proves...uh, nothing, actually.
Pat seems to be publishing an article a day lately. Just another howler in the media maelstrom, not really adding anything.
A sober and sensible analysis by Pat, as usual.
I see no candidate who is pro-sovereignty. No one who is nationalist. Only globalist with the exception perhaps of Ron Paul, who is unelectable.
And no one has addressed the economy which is nearing recession. The Dollar is quickly falling, etc. Does the average person realize that the Canadian currency (the looney) is stronger than the dollar now? No one has addressed this. ITs the ECONOMY STUPIDS.
And as long as we are on a Buchanan related thread. Let me point this out. when Pat Buchanan advocated building a fence or wall on the Border he was ridiculed, laughed at, scorned, called a racist, and forced out of his own Party. And NOW... NOW.. everyone is scrambling in the GOP to advocate closing the Border, building a fence, etc. And trying to backl away from Amnesty.
I laugh. What hypocrasy. Buchanan was ahead of his time, thats all. And he tried to warn everyone 10 years ago. I was proud to be his delegate at the Convention, but dissapointed when he went for a 3rd Party and messed up a LOT for the Reagan Coalition himSELF with that stupidity.
And now, the only one who has DONE anything about THAT (the Border) is Duncan Hunter, who was left out of the last debates. Duncan Hunter has a lifetime Conswervative rating by the National Journal of 92 ... compared to even Thompson's 80-something rating.
And, if Romney loses the Granite State - he's finished...Think about it.
Amen
Buchanan : "On Iraq, the center of gravity seems to be: Let us end the U.S. involvement and bring the boys home." ... (Thereby surrendering to the enemy, creating another Cambodian killing field in the Middle East and another 9/11 here, probably of the Beslan school massacre type.)
Pat, I'll listen when you have a suggestion for victory over the enemy. Until then such talk is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war."
“And, if Romney loses the Granite State - he’s finished...Think about it”
I have...
Romney plays FAR better in the West than the rest of the field. And in a BROKERED CONVENTION, which is where we are heading, this will be important.
Actually, I wish that Pat were right on most of this. If he were, Duncan Hunter would win.
Why are we listening to this guy? He left the Republican party in 2000.
“Why are we listening to this guy? He left the Republican party in 2000.”
You’ve got it backwards.
The Republican party left the conservatives in 2000. It’s been the nanny-state big-gov’t party ever since. Bush has abandoned all conservative principles except for a strong military, and shown his true colors as a big spending, open borders, big gov’t president — in essence a liberal who favors the military.
We’ve had populist in the contest for a great many elections. Often they have a moment of glory.
Then they always lose.
pat buchanan is a moron
Totally correct analysis- but Pat didn’t even mention Hunter in this column.
What is WRONG WITH PEOPLE! I can’t figure out this aversion to the best candidate in the rae.
Yeah, and the globalist candidate gets in. Really, what's wrong with wanting the U.S. to remain number one in the world?
You are exactly right.
I’m not following your argument here.
Are you saying that only populist candidates want the U.S. to remain number one in the world?
I should add that I don’t agree with Pat, if this is his point, that populism = anti-globalism. Though it might include that, it’s not defined by it.
Populism, in my view is more akin to John Edwards, Saul Alinsky, Perot, Huey Long, etc...
“And, if Romney loses the Granite State - he’s finished...Think about it.”
Let me preface this by saying that I am a Fred Head. However, I don’t see how you can count Romney out if he loses (i.e. does not come in first) he’s finished. You are buying into all of the media hype. Let’s say he comes in second as predicted. He did very well in the debates and I’m pretty sure that NH was watching those closely. At least the ones that vote.
I think he’s going to make it a very close second. Even if he’s five points back, he will have come in second in Iowa and NH and won in Wyoming. Guess what? He will lead in the delegate count. Why the heck would you get out of the race if you are leading in the delegate count?
My point is, don’t believe everything the liberal media pundits are saying.
It sure seems that way. At least economically. Or, I am misinterpreting "populist" as far as its reference to Buchanan is concerned.
Duncan Hunter is an unswerving conservative. The "conswervatives" in the race are Romney ("Trust me; I've been converted overnight") and McCain ("Ted Kennedy is a good friend and colleague").
>>We can’t afford populists, be they democrats or republicans.<<
I am against both Huck and Obama, but I am for Reagan. I wish people would stop throwing the new buzzword “populist” around as if it means anti-conservative. It doesn’t.
The kind of populism that Obama people have is like, “Wow! He’s exiting!” That is different from the populism that defeated amnesty and Spitzer’s licenses for illegals last year.
I think you are interpreting “populist” as Buchanan does. At least in this article. It seems to mean “anti-globalist”.
Populist is one of those terms that often means whatever the speaker wishes. I tend to go with the definition of “for the little guy against the big guys” and anti-elitism, against the big corporations, etc. Huey Long would be my gold standard. It’s for the less powerful against the powerful, rather than “keeping America #1.”
So I think anti-globalist would usually be in there with a populist. But not necessarily so. I think John Edwards is running a populist campaign, but I think he would be for more globalism.
I also think that a non-populist candidate could often be against some or most globalist positions. It’s for this reason that I don’t agree with Buchanan’s framing in this article.
I think it’s easy to say who’s running as a populist, and less easy to say who is running as a globalist. And that was my original point that populist in the past have flamed out. They can do well in very hard times (as Long did), but more often devolve into demagoguery and class warfare. On the positive end of it’s spectrum is egalitarianism, on the negative is marxism.
Anyway, sorry for my length here, and thanks for your reply.
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.