Posted on 06/02/2004 6:30:14 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Spectators again in 2004
Posted: June 2, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
About George W. Bush, Americans seem to have made up their minds, and enough seem prepared to replace him that this election will be about John Kerry. And the forum where the nation takes the measure of Kerry will be the presidential debates.
These debates have often proved decisive. In 1960, JFK won by appearing confident, charismatic and the equal of two-term Vice President Richard Nixon in knowledge and communications skills.
In 1964 and 1972, Presidents Johnson and Nixon, sitting atop mountainous leads, declined to give Goldwater or McGovern a forum. There were no debates then, nor in 1968, when neither Humphrey nor Nixon wished to share a podium with fiery populist George Wallace, who could siphon off millions of votes from either of them.
In 1976, Ford lost his debate with Carter and the election when he declared Poland free. But no candidate benefited more from debates than Reagan. The eruption of his Irish temper, when a debate moderator ordered his microphone cut off – "Mr. Breen, I paid for this microphone!" ignited an explosion of cheering in that hall in Nashua, N.H., and vaulted Reagan to a two-to-one victory over George H.W. Bush, who had upset Reagan in the Iowa caucuses.
In the fall, Reagan's flippant "There you go again" to Carter's whining about what Reagan would do to Social Security convinced the nation to go with The Gipper. Against Mondale, Reagan removed the one issue Fritz had – Reagan's age and mental acuity – by his wisecrack, when pressed about it, that I have made up my mind that "I will not exploit my opponent's youth and inexperience."
In 1988, Michael Dukakis' subdued response when asked if he might support the death penalty if his wife Kitty were raped and murdered raised questions about whether he was too cold and bloodless to be president.
In 1992, Ross Perot was at 7 percent when let into the debates. From them, he vaulted to 19 percent of the vote, cementing defeat for President Bush, whose impatient glance at his watch during a debate seemed to suggest he was peeved that he had to be there.
In 1996, Dole lacked the charisma or charm of Clinton. Again, the presence of Perot meant Dole never got a one-on-one face-off. In 2000, Al Gore showed himself well-versed in policy but also a tiresome bore. For all his failings as a scholar and debater, George W. Bush seemed a likable fellow with a touch of Reagan in him.
Given the closeness of this year's election, the debates may well be decisive. Which brings me to the point.
While the nation will be given 4.5 hours of debate to measure Kerry against the president as both man and leader, they will not be offered a choice of destinies for America. For on the great issues, Bush and Kerry offer us – in times that cry out for a new direction for this nation – the same old, same old.
Both are interventionists. While Bush launched the war that is turning into a disaster, Kerry voted to give him a blank check to go to war. The president is open to sending more troops. So is Kerry. No voice in those debates will be heard to assert that it was a historic blunder to invade Iraq and that an early end to the U.S. occupation would serve the national interest.
Bush has approved the Sharon Plan for Israel's annexation of much of the West Bank. Kerry agrees. On amnesty for illegal aliens, they also agree. On the trade treaties that have cost America one in six manufacturing jobs since January 2001, Bush and Kerry both supported them all. Bush proposed both the Patriot Act and the vast expansion of federal power over education known as the No Child Left Behind Act. John Kerry voted for both.
While the president and Kerry disagree on taxes and Supreme Court justices, both support the United Nations, foreign aid, NATO expansion, NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, open-borders and free trade. Both are for bigger government.
Yet, on many of the issues above, a majority of Americans dissent. But these tens of millions will be like black Americans attending Major League Baseball games before Jackie Robinson. They will not see or hear one of their own make their case for what is best for our country, or represent the causes in which they believe.
In 2000, the co-chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates were former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. Their assignments: Keep third parties out of the debates. Keep the presidency in the hands of our ruling national party, the Republicrats. This year again, they will do their duty – and, this year, again, the American people will be swindled. Our democracy is flawed, if not an outright fraud.
I would disagree then. Conservatives are not going to be spectators in this election. They are on the field, and they have their swords drawn. One standard bearer has the American flag. Another has a flag with the Eagle, and under the Eagle the words "Let's roll."
Where does Pat Buchanan stand on a issue? For or against Bush! I think he is mostly against after seeing him on the Scarbourgh show on MSNBC last night.
When Patrick talks, I always hear wind breaking.
Buchanan is increasingly bitter. He does not offer anything to the American people or conservatives other than closed markets and anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
That being said, I would like to see him on the ballot in Florida this november.
Pat pouts.
Has Pat Buchanan ever been happy about anything???
Has Pat Buchanan ever been happy about anything???
Well, he also opposed HHH's "Politics of Joy" in 1968.
Yeah... "Since America didn't vote me in as president, the nation must be flawed."
Typical Buchanan spin.
But these tens of millions will be like black Americans attending Major League Baseball games before Jackie Robinson.
Those lucky spectators got to see some all-time great baseball!
I think Pat is more against Kerry. In his The American Conservative of June 7 he gives credit to Bush for Kyoto, International Court, Judges, and taxes. On Kerry he says '...there is simply no conservative case for Kerry'.
But for readers the jury is out. He ended the editorial with a request to readers for input on 'so what does the American Conservative do in 2004?
The basic question seems to be not which party his conservatives should support but which party [at all levels] will mostly support his American conservative views on trade, immigration, misplaced war on Iraq and big government conservatism.
"Let's roll."
To four more years of big govt socialism under your choice of:
a) Bush.
b) Kerry.
Yeah....that is a contest guaranteed to fire up the true conservatives.
Regards
J.R.
And since when is Pat Buchanan a conservative?
Pray for W and Our Troops
Yes, definitely, there are alot of folks in Palm Beach County who would like to vote for him again!
You need to engage the "unappeasbales" translation filters. Buchanan's idea of "conservative" is someone who blindly agrees with his isolationist, protectionist, and anti-semetic agenda.
Yes, definitely, there are alot of folks in Palm Beach County who would like to vote for him again!
In a nutshell:
Ole Pat wants the Leftists to win big, so they can implement their communist policies. Pat then expects the electorate to backlash against the Lefties that propels Patty B. and his brand of conservatism into high public office.
He's a buffon and a waffler. His flip flops are only a size or two smaller than Kerry's.
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.