Pat Buchanan for President... Why not?

I’ve been reading this board for a while and now and it’s time to post. I hope this is the correct forum because I believe a debate on who should be president belongs here. Please feel free to support whomever you want in this thread, but I’d really like to know why you support that person, and also why you would or would not support Buchanan.

I’ve never given Mr. Buchanan much attention in the past because to be honest I just assumed people were correct on their rantings about the man. I’m certainly not here to advocate that he be elected as president. But just a simple question. Why not? Can we as Americans simply not face the truth about Gore & Bush (that truth being that they both seem to lie a lot and just say what they believe we want to hear, plus they simply lie a lot about the facts). Please don’t say you need examples. If you do, then you simply aren’t paying attention to the election.

Let me explain.

Nothing good was on television the other night so I came across a speech Pat was giving at a university. The speech was televised on CSPAN. I believe it was actually given on 10/26. I listened intently to the entire speech and to the following Q&A period. I was quite amazed and impressed by 1)his intelligence, 2)his knowledge of current and past world events 3)his involvement with previous administrations 4)his passion for freedom and America & 5)what he believes to be the right course for America. And I happen to agree with most things he stated. In particular, he doesn’t believe our troops should have ever been sent to obscure places such as The Balkans & Somalia (among other places where America doesn’t have a vital interest). I agree with that, and I would imagine if you are in the military or have a child or relative that was involved there, you would probably agree also. He believes we are over burdened with taxes and a tax code that favors the wealthy. I agree with that also. He believes that immigration should be cut back considerably, at least until the current immigrants have been assimilated into American society. I used to think that we should let anyone come here that wanted to come here. But his rationale has made me re-think that. An interesting question was posed to him by one of the (I assume) university students asking him why we should force “white culture” on immigrants (i.e compelling them to learn english and become “Americans”)? He made a good point about learning the english language and the benefits it provides to someones ultimate success in this country. And he also rebuked her for calling it “white culture” and made a good point that that was an insult to Americans of all color that have contributed to this country and it’s success as a nation. Simply stated, people from all over the world have immigrated here and one common goal was to learn a common language. English. He also spoke of a time when people of different nationalities were proud to become “Americans” but now everyone wants to be a <insert national origin here>-American which seems to devisive. I have to agree with that. I am proud to be an American. I don’t need to be a Scotch/Irish-American. American, suits me just fine. But I also believe it is a free country and if you have a need in your life to be a <insert national origin here>-American then that is your right as an AMERICAN.

I don’t want to go on and on, as I would rather respond to any posts that may come up on here and perhaps state the case further at that point. The bottom line is this, even if you hate the man you must admit, he doesn’t waver in his beliefs, he has strong beliefs and he doesn’t pander to special interest. IMHO.

Well, here is an example of where, if he does not “lie,” he stretches the truth to fit his audience. Immigrants have always been conflicted about who they were and they have always spent equal amounts of energy trying to become “American” while trying to be true to their place of birth. The term “hyphenated American” is not even remotely a recent term: Woodrow Wilson used it as a term of scorn. It is also true that the vast majority of our current immigrants work very hard to become “American”–despite the innuendo that Pat is peddling. Well over 90% of all immigrants learn functional English within a few years of arriving. The one group that does have a lower percentage of English speakers is the Central American immigrant population. In the last California referendum on bilengual education, that group (generally pointed at by Pat and his partisans as resisting efforts to become “American”) voted overwhelmingly to support the program to get their kids into the mainstream English-speaking classes as soon as possible. So while Pat has echoed the racist Wilson in railing against these hyphenated Americans, the actual people against who he is ranting are doing what he has demanded of them.

People who recognize that the world economy will not go away just because it makes him uncomfortable, people who believe in reproductive rights for women, and a few other people find that they cannot support him because he says what he believes. They find what he believes to be abhorrent.

I suspect that David Duke believes in what he proclaims; I would not vote for him, either.

I agree that the man is a good speaker and he does come up with some good points. And he’s downright fun to watch in an interview.

But I belive Buchanan has kicked himself in the arse by making several thinly veiled anti-semitic and pro-Hitler comments, which is one of the reasons why he is not taken very seriously this election, as opposed to that other third party guy.

For more information on the dark side of Buchanan (or any other candidate for that matter), check out:

http://www.realchange.org

–Caliban

I used to admire Buchanan. I even read his first book Right From the Beginning. I admired what I perceived to be a mix of tough conservatism tempered with real compassion, empathy, and fairness. Unfortunately I think he’s abandoned much of those latter qualities, and landed somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh.

I can think of quite a few people who would disagree with the wealthy being favored in the tax code. Indeed, in a progressive tax code such as our you get penalized for being wealthier. From Cecil’s response to a similar question: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html

Until current immigrants are assimilated? When is that? Where do you draw the line? Do we wait till our society is as homogenized as, say, Japan before letting anyone else in? Do you think immigrating to a homogenous country is a pleasant thing? Cultural diversity is one of ther better things this country has to offer and immigration has long been a feature of the American landscape. The notion that, “I got here first…everyone else stay away” is wrong. Imagine that those feelings existed back when your grandparents or great grandparents (or whatever) immigrated to this country.

I’ll say that’s simply stated…and wrong. There is no way people came to this country just so they could learn a language. They could have done that wherever they came from originally. In general people immigrate to the United States for a chance at a better life and/or to escape miserable conditions in their home country (be they political, war or economic).

Pat Buchanan stinks far too much of white supremicist for my taste. At the beginning you were complimenting him on being a fine orator and guess what famous German orator popped into my head?

The United States has many growing pains as regards different cultures, racial conflict, immigrants and the like. Still, the United States mixes different cultures better and more peacefully than any other nation on the planet. It is also one of this country’s greatest stregths IMO. The US is more flexible and adaptable and able to continuously innovate because we are a diverse nation. Any protectionist candidate, such as Pat Buchanan, that would hamstring some of this nations very strengths should never be president in my book.

I don’t care much for Buchanan’s hijacking of the Reform Party. Ross Perot’s original stance, around which the Reform Party was founded, was fiscally conservative and socially neutral (or socially abstaining). Buchanan has made his conservative social approach the main issue of his campaign. He had access to millions of dollars of federal funds because of the Reform Party’s showing in the 1996 election, but his platform has little relation to the one from four years ago.

I’ve been exasperated with the feathery rhetoric of the main party candidates for some time. I’d like to see more politicians truly speak their minds.

One interesting thing I know about Buchanan is that his personal views are actually rather more moderate than the political positions he takes. He’s pushing hard on the pendulum to try to move the middle a little bit to the right.

Yes, I have that on very good authority. No, I’m not going to explain, so you can tell me to bugger off if you wish. It’s just an observation.

That having been said, I wouldn’t support the guy if he were running for the men’s room after eating a plate of bad oysters.

The last time America took an isolationist stance regarding world events was in the 1930’s up until December 7, 1941. The movement was known as the Americ Firsters in the press, after their slogan. Since that time, American leaders have wisely realized that refraining from action is far more costly in terms of time, effort, money, and ultimately lives.

But, isolationism aside, my real differences with Buchanan are his basic attitudes. He is known as an anti-Semite, fiercely anti-gay, and is very patronizing toward and dismissive of women. His supporters are largely the ultra-fundamentalist religious right as well as a lot of white supremacists groups.

A couple good quotes from the link above:

“Promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide.” - Pat Buchanan 10/17/90

“Women are simply not endowed with the same measure of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism.” - Pat Buchanan

He is also firmly opposed to abortion rights, and advocates prayer in school. He is, in short, trying to sell extremely anti-American philosophies wrapped up in an American flag. I wouldn’t vote for him for dog catcher.

Umm…those feelings did exist back then. And the vigor with which those who “came after” were despised was even more virulent than it is today. I’d say we might have gotten better at tolerating immigrants now, instead of worse.

That said, I am very in favor of immigration, almost to the point of being unrestricted. I only wish other countries were as lenient.

Despite having some interesting and thought-provoking views on a number of issues, I think Buchanan is way over the line in his view that the U.S. is western-western Europe. Where he seeks to curtail immigration, it strikes me that he seeks to curtail immigration from Latin America, Asia and Africa.

He is unabashed in his defense of “Judeo-Christian” culture without exactly defining what it is. But when push comes to shove, I think he’ll have some philosophical differences with many Jews and Christians.

His candidacy reminds me of a political disucssion my father and grandfather had in 1968. My grandfather announced that he was voting for Geogre Wallace because only Wallace stood up for “real Americans.”

My father looked at him for about a half-second, then said “Poppa, you’re an immigrant! ‘Real Americans’ want you to go back to the old country!”

Why not Pat Buchanan for president?

Well … I’m not too big on a guy who’d gleefully take everybody who wasn’t a Southern Baptist and burn them at the stake. :wink:

To our eternal shame, Pat Buchanan is in fact a Catholic.

However, he finds himself opposing many things the church teaches, including the idea that capital punishment should be used rarely if ever and the notion that all nations and races deserve to be treated with human dignity.

I may be a Libertarian with conservative tendencies, but I find Buchanan’s rhetoric to be divisive and anti-American.

Caliban wrote:

True – one of Pat’s old White House colleagues, William Safire, said as much in The New Republic. This is a few years old, but as I remember it, Safire stopped short of calling Buchanan an anti-Semite.

Buchanan also seems to be uncomfortable with, if not prejudiced against, Hispanics. His current anti-immigration stance can be interpreted that way, and he has written at least one column arguing against statehood for Puerto Rico. The latter is significant because, a week or two earlier, he’d written a column urging Congress to offer statehood to much of anglophone Canada if the nation broke up, which looked likely to some at the time (1988-89, IIRC).

The combination of the two columns certainly looks suspicious – Pat has no problem bringing in lots of white people, but doesn’t want to bring in a few Hispanics who are already US citizens.

IIRC, Pat Buchanan has never held an elected office. While he’s been an appointee in a few administrations, he’s never had to be responsible back to the people he’s governed.

Another point is that for better for for worse, politics is the art of compromise. You give and take to eventually reach an agreement everyone can live with. Can anyone honestly see Pat Buchanan try to reach a compromise on any issue, especially one he holds dearly? And that’s just when working with Congress. How will he do when dealing with foreign powers?

Above being rabidly homophobic, he’s also anti-intellectual; his statements about giving Creationism equal time in schools scare me.

I’ll grant that Pat Buchanan is a charismatic speaker, but he’s not a leader and certainly not presidential material.

Molly Ivens said, after hearing a Buchanan speech, “I didn’t like it, but I’m sure it sounded better in the original German.”

Palandine wrote:

:eek: I had no idea! I really, honestly thought that Buchanan was a fundamentalist protestant.

I must have mixed him up with Pat Robertson, what with both of them having “Pat” as their first name.

Jodi wrote:

“You can’t really enjoy Shakespeare until you have heard it in the original Klingon.”

Jeff_42, I can’t respond to you because you apparently didn’t read very well what I ACTUALLY said. But I never said anyone came here for the sole purpose of learning English. That statement is preposterous.

I had hoped for a better debate about other candidates. I agree that Pat Buchanan is not fit for office. But that is because I don’t believe he could ever work with congress to get anything done. I personally don’t see the difference between someone that we know to be a racist and someone we know to be a womanizer (and who knows what the other candidates actually believe. They seem to have a big problem with the truth). In fact, I personally believe we all have our own prejudices but that we can still work together to accomplish goals that contribute to the common good. Yes, Bill has made several appointments of women to his staff, but Bill does a lot of things to try and look good, imho. Or can someone actually argue that people like Janet Reno or Joclyn Elders were good appointments? Perhaps you can. I’ll concede that (concede that anything can be argued). I’ll also concede, that a lot of good things have happened in this country since Bubba has been president (as much as I despise the man and find him morally reprehensible). Some would contibute our good economy more to Mr. Greenspan, however, and not to Clinton (something like 90% of polled economist, I’ll locate a source if anyone would like that.). And we also have to consider that congress has had a Republican majority since Bill has been president. I find both parties over burdening and I’m surprised that instead of Americans rising to the occasion and throwing them all out on their asses we have instead become lax and cynical about the whole idea of politics. Look at the number of people that actually vote and those that don’t. Most that don’t vote give their reasons as things like “all politicians are the same anyway so it doesn’t really matter”. Perhaps they have a point.

Geroge W. takes credit for lots of things in Texas that he actually didn’t support. In reality the Governor of Texas is more of a figure head. While the Lt. Governor does most of the work.

Al Gore, well, he is Al Gore and he takes credit for lots of things he didn’t do. While on the surface he seems like a decent “all american” sort of guy, in fact he is, and has been for many years, a Washington insider with interest in being part of the upper echelon of society dictating to the average person, through government, what we can or cannot do.

I see no real difference in either of these candidates. And for that reason, I ask the question, “Why not Buchanan?”. Does anyone have any proof that the other candidates aren’t as racist or prejudice as Buchanan? They are both of the upper income class. The only thing I can say about GW is that he hasn’t been a career politician. At least not on the surface. But it is well known, at least in Texas, that he ran for Governor just to use that as a stepping stone to the White House. He was never considered a presidential candidate before that. And all through his campaigning for Governor he avoided questions that asked him if he would be running for president.

I’m sure there are much better people out there than any of the people running for office. Ross Perot, while I’m not so sure he would have made a good president, would have easily won the office the first time he ran if he wouldn’t have flaked and dropped out of the race with the ridiculous reason he stated. Look at the numbers, before he dropped out he was literally a run away train. After people saw how flaky he was, though, his numbers dropped considerably. He had built a grass roots effort and people were actually starting to care again about who ran this country. But then he blew it. In retrospect, it seems to me he did this on purpose and that he never actually wanted the office, he just didn’t want Bush in there anymore. I could list many other reasons for why he did what he did, but they would all obviously just be specualtion. He managed to pull people together though, and that’s something we as Americans should acknowledge, not for Perot’s glory, but for the glory of the citizens. It is possible to make change for everyones benefit with the right person, if people will actually get involved and stop supporting the two parties that have done nothing but keep this country divided for their own benefit.

But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

To Hell with him.

And his little dog, too!

PicoDeGallo wrote:

Not quite. In 1993-4, the House had a Democratic majority. The '94 election brought in a bunch of Republicans, many of whom promised to serve only 3 terms. Of course, most of them are running for re-election this time out :rolleyes: