Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ^ | Wednesday, August 28, 2002 | BY BRIAN MITCHELL

Posted on 08/28/2002 9:16:46 AM PDT by sixmil

Patrick J. Buchanan isn't giving up. He's left the Republican Party for good. And he isn't planning a fourth run for the White House.

But he is finally trying something fans have been telling him to do for years. He's founding a magazine.

The new, bi-weekly magazine will debut next month and be called "The American Conservative." Scott McConnell, former editorial-page editor of the New York Post, will edit it. Society gadfly Taki Theodoracopulos will help with cash.

Buchanan is upbeat, about the magazine at least.

"We hope to have a conservative magazine which is genuinely and authentically conservative," he said. "We hope it will be sort of a rallying point for the conservatism that is really utterly unrepresented by either the K Street conservatives or the Weekly Standard, National Review, Commentary, New Republic neocons."

IBD talked with Buchanan at his home in Virginia to get a flavor for the new journal.

IBD: How are we doing in the war on terror?

Buchanan: I think the president did a bully job of diplomacy and moral leadership from September to January. The way they fought that war and won it was outstanding. It was a moral and just war, fought in a moral and just way.

But when he got into identifying an "axis of evil" and then threatening pre-emptive strikes against all nations that might develop the kinds of weapons we've had for the past century, he lost his focus. He has disrupted alliances. He has threatened actions that we don't have the troops in place to take.

He's asserting a right to wage pre-emptive war without the approval of Congress on any nation that aspires to build the kinds of weapons we've had since World Wars I and II. I don't think he's got the right to do that, and I think a policy of warning about pre-emptive strikes is the kind of policy that could invite pre-emptive strikes against us.

IBD: What about a war with Iraq?

Buchanan: Anybody who has a state, including Saddam Hussein, is going to be reluctant to go to war against the United States or to commit any atrocity which would put them in a war with the U.S. Containment and deterrence will work with almost any state.

Saddam is terrified of the United States. He wants to hand over his power to one of these sons of his. He's got all these palaces out there.

Why in heaven's name would he want to trigger a war with the United States of America and have all that blown to kingdom come along with him, his sons, his family, his dynasty, his army, everything?

I don't think we should give up on the policy of deterrence. It frightened Joe Stalin. It frightened Mao Tse-tung. These guys are not in that league.

IBD: What should we be doing here at home?

Buchanan: The first thing we should do is get serious about border security. Since 9-11, we've only had 411,000 illegal aliens come into the United States.

If there is a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into this country, the whole idea of global interdependence and 10,000 Mexican trucks coming into the U.S. every day, almost all of them not inspected, and over a million containers - that's going to come to an end.

It will be a very powerful argument for retiring to economic independence and economic nationalism, where you do not have thousands of people crossing your border every day. One or two more of these attacks and globalization itself is in trouble.

IBD: What will that mean for an open society?

Buchanan: I'm a believer in an open society, I'm a believer in a free society, and this is why I'm opposed to the idea of an empire. They say we need a Department of Homeland Security. I thought the Defense Department was in charge of homeland security. Apparently it's in charge of empire security.

Of what advantage is all this American empire, interfering in all these quarrels around the world, if as a consequence we lose freedom at home and live in constant danger of some kind of small atomic weapon detonated on American soil?

I think the American empire is going to go, and I think that's a good thing. The reason they were over here on 9-11 is that we are over there.

IBD: Where do you see things 10 years from now?

Buchanan: I regret that for the rest of Mr. Bush's first term, we're going to be at war. The president has subcontracted out our Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon, and I think that's a dreadful mistake.

Palestinian terrorists ought to be condemned and Israel has a right to peace, but you have to give the Palestinian people some hope. And I think Bush's (June 24) speech gives them very, very little hope. I think his speech could have been written in Tel Aviv.

IBD: Will there ever be a Palestinian state?

Buchanan: I think the question is not whether there'll be a Palestinian state. There may be two. The ultimate question is whether there's going to be a Jewish state in the Mideast. I think Ariel Sharon is leading them into a cul-de-sac from which there is no way out but back through Oslo and Tabaah and the Saudi plan.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 next last
I still don't understand Buchanan's sympathy toward the Palestinians, but the rest is right on target.
1 posted on 08/28/2002 9:16:46 AM PDT by sixmil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Isn't it possible to recognize that Israel's interests are not necessarily our interests, without being "pro-Palestine"?
2 posted on 08/28/2002 9:20:17 AM PDT by Under the Radar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Why do I suspect that Buchanan's mag will go the way of Salon and Donahue's new show.

Pat, how about "The American Sore Loser" as a working title. You can get Gore and McKinney as contributing columnists.
3 posted on 08/28/2002 9:25:29 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Buchanan's become the bitter old gadfly who pines for an era that never really was, and can never come to pass.

Furthermore, the fact remains that Reagan and Bush Jr.'s brand of conservatism is the type that can eventually make this nation stronger. Our nation and culture have survived worse trials in the past, and I believe we can survive the current tests.

It's really a battle between optimism and pessimism, and optimism is a far better path, IMHO.
4 posted on 08/28/2002 9:34:33 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
His leaving will bring many more people into
the party than will leave with him. You can't
put lipstick on pigs and expect them to not
still get muddy. Pat Buchanan is as racist today
as he was twenty years ago, he's just learned
to conceal it better.
5 posted on 08/28/2002 9:35:56 AM PDT by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I have concelled NR after being a subscriber since I was 16. I will try Buchanan's mag.
6 posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:08 AM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Buchanan: I regret that for the rest of Mr. Bush's first term, we're going to be at war. The president has subcontracted out our Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon, and I think that's a dreadful mistake.

Buchanan is a 1920's conservative, anti-Semitism and all.

7 posted on 08/28/2002 9:43:05 AM PDT by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
It's really a battle between optimism and pessimism, and optimism is a far better path, IMHO.

DPS intelligence reports said Mexico-based rings were responsible for half of all homicides in Maricopa County. These are the kind of problems that Buchanan acknowledges and Bushbot's ignore. Ignoring problems and acting like they dont exist is not optimism.

So you brand Buchanan pessimistic and Bush optimistic. How lovely. You know the rest of the liberals simply brand themselves politically correct. They got it all covered in advance.

8 posted on 08/28/2002 9:43:43 AM PDT by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Buchanan's become the bitter old gadfly who pines for an era that never really was, and can never come to pass. "

Let's see why Buchanan pines.

- Pat was right on the economy bubble while Bush/Clinton were on spending frenzy plus tax cuts for as far as the eye could see.
- Pat was right about illegal immigration problems.
- Pat was right that foreign entanglements would bring war to our shores.
- Pat was s right that gay sexual practices will cause problems. Check out aids and what happened to the Catholic Church.

No wonder he is pining - so should America.

9 posted on 08/28/2002 9:47:38 AM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
My two cents:

Pat Buchanen has never been anything other than a self-styled arch-conservative. Just because he says he is the epitome of conservatism does not make it true.

I, for one, put Mr. Buchanen's comments on the same level as any talking head who has never felt that burden of actual responsibility. He might be a fine professor of conservative thinking, but he has very little grasp of the realities of day to day command and decision making. It is not wrong to dream of a conservative Utopia, or to even espouse such a dream, but leaders deal with actual situations containing actual problems.

If Pat wants to put forth potential solutions and forward thinking ideas to better our country I might listen, but it seems that his greatest commodity is the ability to find fault in everyone else but himself. As for me - I'm not buying.

10 posted on 08/28/2002 9:57:07 AM PDT by BlueNgold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Sorry, again, I don't buy it.

I don't know why Buchanan has his head in the sand vis-a-vis foreign policy. Saddam Hussein is a MALIGNANT CANCER who has to be taken down sooner, rather than later. The same deal was the case with the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and I could probably think of a few more places where we need to take a stand now.

A fair bit of our policy since World War II was not playing favorites, it was stopping things before they got to World War III, or it was standing up for what was RIGHT. Pat Buchanan's way is no better than "non-judgemental" liberalism applied to international affairs.
11 posted on 08/28/2002 9:58:00 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
We didn't attack the Soviet union. We allied with them though Stalin murdered millions more in his concentration camps than Hitler did! Two nations attacked Poland in September 1939 but the West declared war only on one of them. America was still doing business with Hitler as London was being carpet bombed. Chamberlain had the guts to declare war on germany. We waited till Germany declared war on us.
12 posted on 08/28/2002 10:05:13 AM PDT by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dwilli; SunStar
Wow. You, disagree with a man's ideas, so you label him a racist/anti-semite? Sounds like something the Left does really well. If I were to suggest that American foreign policy is being manipulated by the Saudi royal family or the Palestinian Authority, does that mean that I am anti-Arab?
13 posted on 08/28/2002 10:05:26 AM PDT by rogerthedodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PuNcH
Of course, you just highlighted another reason why Buchanan is an irrelevant side-show: His slash-and-burn style, is, in my opinion, just as bad as the fact that he has been completely wrong on foreign policy, and if you want my opinion, stuck in the 1920s.
14 posted on 08/28/2002 10:07:05 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
We didn't attack them, we contained `em for 32 years, and then Reagan pretty much initiated something that was "short of war" with the USSR through attacks on their economy (remember how the Saudis really kicked up production in the 1980s?), and subverting their governments.
15 posted on 08/28/2002 10:08:52 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Buchanan's become the bitter old gadfly who pines for an era that never really was, and can never come to pass.

Bitter? Have you ever watched his show on MSNBC? The guy is constantly laughing and joking, often at his own expense. Say what you will about his policy views, but he is anything but bitter.

16 posted on 08/28/2002 10:10:02 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
I don't see him on MSNBC. I do read his columns, and there seems to be a sense of bitterness about him.
17 posted on 08/28/2002 10:12:55 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Of course, you just highlighted another reason why Buchanan is an irrelevant side-show: His slash-and-burn style,

I said that Buchanan acknowledges the problems coming across the border and that highlights a slash and burn style? I guess you believe we shouldnt be paying attention to all those murders committed by illegal immigrants and their gangs.

18 posted on 08/28/2002 10:14:47 AM PDT by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I don't know, why DO you suspect that?
19 posted on 08/28/2002 10:19:24 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
What a bunch of garbage. He's a nationalist, he's a jingoist, but he's no racist. If you've read any of his books you'd know that. I think he's a brilliant man whose ideas are far too correct, and far to radical for our spineless sissified country.
20 posted on 08/28/2002 10:20:25 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PuNcH
And the Crips, Bloods, and Gangster Disciples don't commit murders?
21 posted on 08/28/2002 10:21:27 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
The new, bi-weekly magazine will debut next month and be called "The American Conservative."

"The American Socialist" would be more appropriate for a magazine founded by Buchanan.

22 posted on 08/28/2002 10:21:30 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
You believe the remark that "The reason they were over here on 9-11 is that we are over there." is on target? I think not. Also he repeats the lie that the President is going to war without the approval of Congress. Bush has clearly stated he would get approval from Congress...

"Publicly, White House spokesmen say Bush would still consult Congress on any decision regarding war on Iraq."

Source

It was the WH lawyer, Alex Gonzales who stated Bush did not need Congressional approval, HE does NOT make the decisions, in fact, although true, it was a very stupid thing for him to say publicly. To top that, Congress has already given their approval to topple Saddam already, via H. CON. RES. 286, dated Dec 11, 2001, the last paragraph which states:

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note) declares that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress supports the President in using all means at his disposal to encourage the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq."

Source: Thomas Legislation Archives

23 posted on 08/28/2002 10:22:09 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
there seems to be a sense of bitterness about him.

It's all in your head. He seems very even handed and sometimes even happy-go-lucky.
24 posted on 08/28/2002 10:22:43 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
"Patrick J. Buchanan isn't giving up. He's left the Republican Party for good. And he isn't planning a fourth run for the White House."

I'm sure the Satanic Druids and Illuminatis are relieved!

25 posted on 08/28/2002 10:23:52 AM PDT by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
"The American Socialist" would be more appropriate for a magazine founded by Buchanan.

Would you care to explain this comment? Please be specific and explain exactly how Buchanan is even remotely "Socialist". If you point out his views on Globalisation you'll have to then support the claim that that position is in fact Socialist, and explain how.
26 posted on 08/28/2002 10:24:35 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I have concelled NR after being a subscriber since I was 16. I will try Buchanan's mag.

I know the feeling.

27 posted on 08/28/2002 10:26:10 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Bush has clearly stated he would get approval from Congress

That's funny. Just yesterday they made a public affirmation that Administration legal counsel has determined that Bush does NOT need Congress's approval. If he did ask them it would only be a formality to get people to stop crying.
28 posted on 08/28/2002 10:26:34 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
And the Crips, Bloods, and Gangster Disciples don't commit murders?

DPS intelligence reports said Mexico-based rings were responsible for half of all homicides in Maricopa County.

29 posted on 08/28/2002 10:27:05 AM PDT by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Bush has clearly stated he would get approval from Congress...

"Publicly, White House spokesmen say Bush would still consult Congress on any decision regarding war on Iraq."

You no speaka the english? Since when does "consult" mean the same as "get approval"? You guys sure play loose with the facts when it suits your twisted agenda.

30 posted on 08/28/2002 10:30:23 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Pat, how about "The American Sore Loser" as a working title. You can get Gore and McKinney as contributing columnists.

I fully agree with you, Pat Buchanan is the biggest blow hard around. What makes him think he has any credibility left?

31 posted on 08/28/2002 10:30:37 AM PDT by CaliforniaOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PuNcH
And you've not answered my question.
32 posted on 08/28/2002 10:34:19 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Containment and deterrence will work with almost any state.

Except those who die for Allah and could care less about loss of life in any country. Buchanan is wrong on this. The best defense is a good offense. He may be conservative but he doesn't understand self-defense.

I also disagree with him vehemently on Israel. Buchanan sees both sides as equal which leads me to believe he is clueless about this religious war we are in, and he is clueless as to the religious nature of the war in Israel. He needs to bone up on radical islam. I will be glad to send him "Islamic Invasion" by Dr. Robert Morey if he needs an education.

33 posted on 08/28/2002 10:34:30 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
As much as I think Pat is a crank, I think he could actually do well with a magazine.
34 posted on 08/28/2002 10:34:52 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Just a future failure for Pat. Something he's used to.
35 posted on 08/28/2002 10:36:36 AM PDT by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I dont need you to see where your coming from and I dont have to spell it out for anyone else.
36 posted on 08/28/2002 10:37:00 AM PDT by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaOkie
I fully agree with you, Pat Buchanan is the biggest blow hard around. What makes him think he has any credibility left?

So don't watch his show and don't buy his magazine, then. Why whine about it?

37 posted on 08/28/2002 10:37:22 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
You said it exactly right..."Administration legal counsel has determined". They do NOT make the final decisions, their job is to RECOMMEND a course of action. Every article I have ever read on this has the WH spokespeople stating that they will consult Congress before taking action, despite what the "Administrative legal counsel has determined".
38 posted on 08/28/2002 10:37:26 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Except those who die for Allah and could care less about loss of life in any country. Buchanan is wrong on this.

Wrong! If the elites and the American intellegentsia -- left and right -- had heeded Buchanan's calls for tighter borders years ago we never would have had these homocidal ragheads in our country! Pat was right then and he is right now.

39 posted on 08/28/2002 10:39:39 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"Except those who die for Allah and could care less about loss of life in any country. Buchanan is wrong on this. The best defense is a good offense. He may be conservative but he doesn't understand self-defense."

Maybe so. I guess we should start in on Pakistan then, too?

Regarding your comment on Israel, does that mean you believe that the Palestinians are less entitled to a state than are the Israelis?
40 posted on 08/28/2002 10:40:33 AM PDT by rogerthedodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold; Tuco-bad
Just because he says he is the epitome of conservatism does not make it true.

I thought Tuco Bad said that.

41 posted on 08/28/2002 10:40:36 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PuNcH
Isn't your Senator McCain also strongly FOR illegal immigration on a perverted view of the "melting pot" theory? Why does AZ tolerate McCain? Will he have a primary opponent in 2004?
42 posted on 08/28/2002 10:41:08 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Buchanan can't get 1% of the vote...he is a noisy nat....a has been...no longer listened to but by the phone booth convention crowd.
43 posted on 08/28/2002 10:41:40 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogerthedoger
There already is a Palestinian state: It's called Michigan.
44 posted on 08/28/2002 10:41:53 AM PDT by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
You are right. Pat Buchanan is the liberal scaremonger's version of a right-wing Republican. He is a hater, pure and simple. Smell ya later, bitch. Have fun selling quarter page ads to the John Birch book club.
45 posted on 08/28/2002 10:42:57 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
They don't make those comments without the express consent of the Administration officials.
46 posted on 08/28/2002 10:44:49 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
I thought it was New Jersey (Hudson county anyways, Jersey City and Patterson to be specific)
47 posted on 08/28/2002 10:45:38 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Republicans are really good at self destruction, with the help of the left-wing's useful idiots, the libertarians.

Well....guess I have to prepare for '04 when the far-left is given the rule of the land and turns the republic into a Marxist utopia.

48 posted on 08/28/2002 10:46:08 AM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Well, if you think that, then you must assume Pat is an idiot, because what Bush did on Sept. 14 was to say that those who support terrorists are our enemies. Pat endorsed that. Now he doesn't endorse going after those states?

Forget this "preemptive" crap. The first shots were fired in 1993. We need no more evidence about the "intentions" of Saddam. His actions speak loud enough. That ANY of these pipsqueak countries harbor and encourage these terrorists is reason for me to support taking them out.

It's sad Pat compartmentalizes the world, seeing Saddam as separate from the Pales and from the Saudis and from Osama. The more I see, the more I see that all these nations are intricately tied together in terror.

49 posted on 08/28/2002 10:46:42 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Why does AZ tolerate McCain?

It is mind boggling isnt it. AZ is a corrupt place where the republicans are very often just as corrupt as the democrats.

50 posted on 08/28/2002 10:47:25 AM PDT by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson