"I can't believe that Pat Buchanan will allow his ego to get the better of his conscience," former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said this week, hopefully. But it looks as though that's exactly what is going to happen.
Faced with humiliating rejection on his third try for the Republican nomination, Buchanan is throwing sour grapes at the GOP and getting set to bolt to the Reform Party.
He charged on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that the GOP nominating process is "rigged," that the GOP had suddenly become a "Xerox copy" of the Democratic Party and that he is "strongly" leaning toward running for the Reform nomination.
You can understand why he'd be tempted to bolt: the Reform Party is entitled to $13 million in federal matching funds; instead of oblivion, it offers Buchanan a new national podium, and there's a chance he might force his way into next fall's presidential debates.
In other circumstances, the anti-establishment Buchanan might oppose the idea of taxpayer-funded federal hand-outs to politicians, but he's not complaining now.
That may be hypocritical, but in other respects Buchanan is totally sincere: He genuinely believes that his nativist, isolationist, "America First" ideas are right for the country and capable of winning majority support even though every evidence indicates he's wrong on both counts.
Unless a Vietnam-like foreign policy disaster befalls the country, it's likely that a majority will continue to support the world leadership role that's been U.S policy since World War II.
And the defeat of Republicans in California after their leaders adopted a militant anti-immigrant stance indicates that this aspect of Buchanan's case won't sell either, especially in an expanding job market.
Even more self-deludedly, Buchanan also believes that, with him at the helm, the Reform Party could replace the GOP or the Democrats as one of the nation's two dominant parties.
Such a thing hasn't happened since Republicans displaced the Whigs over slavery in the 1850s, and "globalism" isn't a nation-defining issue like that.
Moreover, it just isn't true that Republicans and Democrats are carbon copies of each other. They are rhetorically centrist at the presidential level, but the likely gridlock in Congress over tax cuts, Medicare and Social Security reform, guns and health care will produce plenty of debates in 2000.
Whether Buchanan can even get the Reform nomination is not clear. Buchanan has the support of Reform founder Ross Perot's 1996 running mate, Pat Choate, but Perot's own preference is still unknown.
Buchanan apparently will have to fight the reigning Reform superstar, Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who opposes having an anti-abortion social conservative as the nominee when the party's dominant culture has been libertarian.
But if Buchanan does get the nomination, how much damage can he do? Republicans are naturally worried. Buchanan has had a strong following on the right fringe of the GOP and polls indicate that he would draw far more votes from Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) than from Vice President Al Gore.
According to a Schroth and Associates poll, in fact, Buchanan's entry wipes out Bush's current 16-point lead over Gore. In a Luntz Research poll, Buchanan gets 6.6 percent -- enough to bring Bush down from 54 to 47 percent of the vote, but leaving him with a 14-point lead over Gore.
There's reason to think Buchanan's pull will be considerably smaller than Perot's was in 1992, when Perot drew 19 percent and arguably cost Bush's father the election, throwing it to Bill Clinton.
That was a year when the country was just coming out of recession, when the government was facing huge deficits and the public was deeply dissatisfied with the incumbent president's handling of domestic economic policy and dubious about Clinton's character.
Though Perot carried not a single state, his vote arguably switched the majority from then-President George Bush to Clinton in 20 states with 198 electoral votes, enough to swing the election.
But in 1996, Perot got only 8.4 percent and may have made the difference in five states. Even if Republican Bob Dole had carried them, Clinton would have won.
Buchanan is a better speaker than Perot, but he is currently pulling only 3 percent of the GOP primary vote. If Bush offends backers of Gary Bauer, Dan Quayle, Alan Keyes and Steve Forbes, Buchanan might pull 10 percent of the GOP vote away. Bush will be at pains to nominate an anti-abortion running mate.
But Buchanan will lose some of Perot's support because of his social views, his attacks on Jewish influence over U.S. foreign policy -- he once declared that U.S. involvement in the 1991 Gulf War was the work of the Israeli Defense Ministry and its "Amen corner" in the U.S. -- and a historical take that blames World War II on Britain, not Adolf Hitler.
In a very close race between Bush and a Democrat -- say, former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley -- Buchanan would be a threat to the Republican. Bush's job is to keep a big lead and remind Republicans that the next president probably will name three new Supreme Court justices.
More about Morton M. Kondracke
I will note that the country is no longer "dubious about Clinton's character". They pretty much know where he stains... oops, sorry about the typo... "stands".
I emphasized other points worthy of discussion.
Ignore any foreign lobbyists. They want to trap the US into war. Whenever
they choose they see a 'hitler' - their War Card to show American Manchurian candidates.
They direct their smears at Pat personally because they fear he will end their 'gravy train'
of USA blood and money.
They trash Pat because they want to suppress issues important to America.
Who else supports?
1) ending international military interventions (with GOP 'ground
troops' ) that have no clear American interest?
2) ending one-sided trade agreements where we swap jobs, industries,
and military assets for mounting trade deficits?
3) ending an unelected, dictatorial Supreme Court making law and
usurping voter choices (specifically reversing Roe v Wade which does not
end abortion but returns the decision to voter democracy. My candidate
will follow the Constitution, and not ‘the polls tell me the country is
not ready to follow the Constitution')?
4) ending the Balkanization of the country through vote pandering
immigration policies and foreign policies?
KEEP THESE ISSUES ALIVE FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE !!
Kondracke is a level headed, honest thinker. But he, like Rush and Sean, continue to sugar coat their appraisal of Buchanan with compliments. "he's sincere", "he's a great debater", "he's been a loyal republican", "he's smart", "he has a great sense of humor, gives great speeches...", on and on it goes.
This should sound familiar. It's the same praise that applies to Bill Clinton. "Style over substance, charismatic, great speaker, and most important, his supporters are loyal", no matter what.
I went to a Buchanan rally in 96, in fact the one that Sean referred to, where a few hundred were expected and 5,000 showed up. I was cheering and yelling right along with them, it was the most exciting political event I've ever attended. But afterward, I got scared to death. I realized I had been whipped into a frenzy because a charismatic Pat Buchanan brilliantly combined patriotic jingoism with verbal assaults on Clinton corruption. He hit all the right buttons. He whipped that crowd...and me, into a frenzy, with nothing more than sound and fury soundbites, and it seemed so easy for him, so much fun for him. Boy, does he ever know how to tap into emotions.
And isn't that how an Adolph Hitler and a Bill Clinton gain control? And what drives people like this? Ego. Kondracke nails Pat on this. An ego driven lust for power. Whoever has that is not going to get my vote.
Kondracke is a level headed, honest thinker
Kondacke is a globalist mouthpiece and Clinton cheerleader.
If I were a Bushie, I would not take any comfort in his agreement with me. Red flags should wave, sirens should blair and lights should flash instead, warning: ERROR! ERROR! ERROR!
"Red flags should wave, sirens should blair and lights should flash instead, warning: ERROR! ERROR! ERROR! "
Just like they should when Pat claims he is upset that republicans claim to be anti-abortion, then do nothing about it after elected, and then crawls into bed with the pro-choice, libertarian Reform Party and starts hanging out with liberals who are pro-abortion. As you say, Arator, ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!ERROR!
Sad to say, but Pat Buchannan will indeed should us all his his true principles if he bolts to a 3rd Party.....
He will indeed syphon off many republican votes from whomever gets the GOP nomination.....
If not enough to "perot" the elction to Hillary/Gore/Badley, it will at least materially shorten the winning GOP candidate's coat-tails & leave many more Democrats in the House & Senate who would otherwise be flushed into their proper legacy in history.....
Don't hide your ego with pretenses of principal.....
It shows too easily......
I AM AGAINST pat BECAUSE pat WANTS A SOCIALIST AMERIKA!
R I N Os Hmmm.......
You said, "Kondacke is a globalist mouthpiece and Clinton cheerleader."
While I might not resort to your colorful descriptive phrases, I don't disagree. Kondracke's political persuasion is no secret. That doesn't mean his political expertise should be discounted. You didn't disagree with my point that Kondracke is honest. Maybe you won't disagree that honest liberals are rare, and even rarer, sometimes they can be right.
Sorry about screwing up the link to Roll Call for more about the author. Didn't test my HTML thoroughly.
Just like they should when Pat claims he is upset that republicans claim to be anti-abortion, then do nothing about it after elected, and then crawls into bed with the pro-choice, libertarian Reform Party and starts hanging out with liberals who are pro-abortion.
Your statement is chocked full of untruthes and illogic. Let me count the ways:
1) The Reform Party is not pro-choice. The Reform Party has taken no position on the issue.2) The Reform Party is willing to nominate a committed pro-life candidate despite some Reformer's disagreement with Pat -- because they agree with Pat on so much else.
Contrast that with the GOP Establishment. They lack the guts to take a stand with their actions. They mouth a pro-life postion in the platform, but then flee in fear from any candidate that really believes it. They regard Pat's commitment to protect the lives of unborn children as a disqualifier for national office. He's too divisive; he'll alienate women voters, they say.
So the Reformers don't regard Pat's pro-life stand as a disqualifier but the GOP Establishment does. The Pubbies would rather nominate someone who's equivocating on the issue like Dubya, lest they offend anyone.
I'd say that any party who's got the guts to nominate a Pat Buchanan and stand with him is a better party than the GOP. Their actions speak louder than any words, and trump any labels the GOP diehards would like to tag them with.
Anyone who votes for Pat and elects Gore will cry many tears in the future. Republicans must unite and destroy the evil of clinton/gore. With all that we know about them, they should be the ONE AND ONLY TARGET. Ego should be forgotten - America must come first. REPUBLICANS, UNITE!
America must come first. REPUBLICANS, UNITE!
America first? Between Dubya, Gore and Buchanan, there's really only one candidate in the race that supports that: Pat Buchanan
Republicans unite? Behind a globalist/socialist pretender who supports policies (Kosovo, UN-ification and NATO-iization of US Armed Forces, unconstitutional erosion of national sovereignty, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, craven kowtowing to Communist China, erosion of 2nd Amendment rights, more federal meddling in education, new federal meddling into faith based organizations, etc.) that are nearly identical to Clinton's? What good could that possibly do?
Better yet, how about "CONSERVATIVES, UNITE!" -- behind the only real conservative likely to still be standing when we cast our ballots in November: Pat Buchanan.
A President Buchanan whould bring is all REAL CHANGE and REAL VICTORY.
The Reform Party is not pro-choice. The Reform Party has taken no position on the issue.
You can't blame them for saying that they take no position on the issue. There is no need for them to take a position and make waves at this point. They are happy with the status quo- Roe vs Wade, abortion on demand, partial birth-abortion.
If the Reform Party doesn't care to take a stand against pro-choice, that can only indicate that they have no problem with it.
Pat=an ego driven lust for power=Hitler=Clinton..... and who is your candidate? How about his charsima causing global warming? I will gladly attend his appearances. What the heck. It's my tax money supporting these. Only want my moneys worth. GO PAT GO!!!!
I do not believe that the direction of the country led by the present oligarchy can be reversed. It is probably true that if by some miracle my candidate, Pat Buchanan, is elected president, grave social unrest will result, and he will be murdered. This is an age of money, and thus party politics. When the social, moral and political decay progresses to even greater depths, eventually dictators will emerge, and the concerns of the present age will be forgotten...
Do not put your trust in princes! Fight the good fight and the only relevant reward will be yours...
You will lose this battle. Pat is selling out in order to build up his ego. I do not want Pat to be my president - not the man that thought we should have left Hitler alone during World War II. If Pat truly loved America, he would not help to elect a corrupt democrat to the Whitehouse. REPULBICANS, UNITE! SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON, D.C.! Pat needs to stay with the party or be ignored. He is another Perot and will sink this country for generations to come. Don't talk to me about your "principles". If you have any, you will not help to elect a democrat. Period.
1) The Reform Party is not pro-choice. The Reform Party has taken no position on the issue. 2) The Reform Party is willing to nominate a committed pro-life candidate despite some Reformer's disagreement with Pat -- because they agree with Pat on so much else.
No way. Most of the membership and all of its other leaders are prochoice.
If Buchanan gets the Party nod anyway (by spending millions getting his name on 30 ballots and importing thousands of "new" members), he ends up with the 13 million and not much else. The current "platform" (ie no tax cuts, etc) goes in the toilet and most of the membership goes elsewhere.
Show me one poll, show me any evidence that shows this to be wrong. He takes over the party, at great expense, and what does he have? The Republican Tarriff Party . Good Luck, Pat.
[
Refresh
|
Top
|
Last
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |