Buchanan Can Win? Yeah, Right!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MLT

New member
I know full well the appeal that Pat Buchanan has with this forum. His message on our Second Amendment rights is unequivocally consistent with ours. There's just one problem, for you guys in never-never land out there -- THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL PAT BUCHANAN WILL WIN!!! NONE WHATSOEVER. PERIOD. END OF STORY. I really don't think there is anything compromising or inconsistent with our convictions to be politically pragmatic. As our buddy Rush Limbaugh so eliquently states time and time again, there's no glory in losing! What drives me absolutely nuts is that there are many many people (pro 2nd amendment, pro-life, you name it) that will go to the grave before they support somebody that isn't 100% on deck on that one issue (whatever it is). Most of the time, I even agree with them on that issue. This "glass half empty" mentality, however, may win them a place in heaven, but in the meantime, it'll be hell on earth. Let's get real and, if Bush is the Republican candidate, let's swallow hard and support him. Don't get me wrong. I like Pat Buchanan, but the guy is about as electable as Jesse Jackson or David Duke.

[This message has been edited by MLT (edited October 26, 1999).]
 
Dear Friends,

Here's why I am going with Pat:

1. If W wins, the heat will continue to be turned up so slowly, we will continue to cook without most people knowing it.

2. If Al or Bill wins, they might accidentally turn up the heat too high, to where many Americans will wake up, say, "Ouch!" and do something.

3. If Pat wins, he will help turn the heat down.

I am going to vote what I believe in. And Pat will be the only one on the ballot who basically represents my beliefs. If he makes a strong showing, taking enough votes from W to let Al win, at least I have exercised self-government.

ALSO, the political momentum to be gained by a strong showing for a third party COULD mean a more realistic chance for other elections in the coming decade.

JP
 
Cpt. John Park,

If this were a normal election, I may tend to agree with you, but it is not. With the Emerson decision in Texas and the recent one in Kalifornia, the Supreme Court will HAVE to decide the future of the Second Amendment one and for all. I for one want George w. Bush nominating the next three Supreme Court justices and not Al Gore or Bill Bradley! Let me make this clear, the next President will nominate THREE Supreme Court justices! Are you so sure that you want to take a chance on getting a Democrat elected?

Joe


Joe's Second Amendment Message Board
 
Captain, I salute you! This thread should have been entitled, "Gore can win? Yeah, Right!" It is Gore that doesn't stand a chance. Period.

I must be in "never, never land" too, because I cannot in good conscious vote for someone that is CLEARLY an establishment man (George W. Bush), regardless of his delusionary stance on second amendment issues in Texas, or my life long devotion to the Republican Party. Bush is tailor made for the presidency (as defined by the establishment). I mean, here's a guy that didn't even have the grades to get into Yale, but guess where he went to college?...Yale. And not only did he attend Yale, he was annoited into The Order of Skull & Bones (just like pappa was), as well as became a full fledged member of the CFR and the Tri-Lateral Commission. Everything else Bush has done was to ensure his ability to carry out the ultimate deception sitting in the White House, while taking his orders from the rich and powerful elitists. Furthermore, it upsets me that our side is caught up in the political game of "he can't win". "The polls say this, the polls say that", you all say that eventhough you know that polls don't mean a damned thing. Have they polled you, or any of your family or friends? They said the same thing of a former wrestler named Jesse Ventura...remember that? So politically incorrect he was, he couldn't possibly win...yeah right!

To be utterly serious, I personally believe that the presidential election process is a fraud. In that I mean, so long as a government agency or any form of the government has their hands in the vote tallying process, you can count on corruption...especially when the vote is too close to call. But it's not like we don't know what George W. Bush will do if elected. We have already seen his father in action. Remember, "Read my lips, no new taxes!"??? Remember Bush introducing America to what he termed "The New World Order"??? Do you think he coined that term???

As in horse racing, there NEVER is a sure thing. Anything can happen, even a long shot coming from behind in the stretch has won many races. I will vote for the best candidate for a return to a Constitutional abiding government in America. Period. And that person is Pat Buchanan. Whether he stayed in the Republican Party or not, he'd have my vote...and I'd sleep soundly at night knowing that I didn't side with the New World Order by voting for another Bush!

[This message has been edited by Paul Revere (edited October 26, 1999).]
 
While respectful of those whose opinions may differ, I have to agree with MLT and nralife. To me, Job One is to defeat Gore or Bradley. If Buchanan can defeat Gore or Bradley, I'll vote for Buchanan, If Bush can do it, I'll vote for Bush. Right now, I'd say Bush has a solid chance of winning, while Buchanan's chance is slim to none.
 
I don't question your convictions, Captain or Paul Revere. I respect them. (And I meant no offense by my over-the-line "never-never land" reference. I apologize.) I just don't think I have to lose sleep over voting for somebody that is the best among the electable candidates (however hard I have to swallow). Ultimately, I don't think that is a "compromise". It's reality (notwithstanding the fluke election of Jesse "the mind is a terrible thing to waste" Ventura). Unlike anything in Minnesota politics, I would bet the house on Buchanan not winning. And I absolutely agree with our friend NRALIFE's analysis. This is no time to be making a political statement. The stakes are way too high.
 
Seems like this isn't an issue about who is the best candidate for a Constitutional America, but one about the appointment of three Supreme Court Judges during the next presidential term. If I understand this logic, it has huge holes in it.

Firstly, you guys give the Democrats way too much credit. Even the most snidely liberal couch potato has had enough of the Clinton era, and that means Gore too. Bradley isn't a threat to anyone but himself. We have a race between the Republican Party and the Reform Party. Thinking that voting for a Reform Party candidate is giving a vote away to the Democrats is utter nonsense.

Bush really isn't a conservative Republican, he's a moderate (self-proclaimed). He's not a threat to the Democrats, he might as well be on their side. He certainly isn't a threat to the establishment (the one's who really want your guns), he's bought and paid for by them. If he is elected, the Supreme Court nominations will most likely be moderate as well, but we don't even know that for sure. If you are so concerned about those Supreme Court nominees, why not go with someone who most assuredly will nominate ultra conservative Judges to the bench?

Our future is in our hands. We cannot vote with are eyes closed tightly and "swallow hard" when we punch the hole for a guy who will just continue the liberal leftist agenda under the guise of being a Republican. Let's put it another way...if Thomas Jefferson (a Democrat) could somehow be resurrected and he'd run for president in the year 2000, you'd all be saying the same thing. "He can't win", "He's unelectable". Why? Because his hard Constitutional line (the one that helped make this Country great) would be considered extremist today. After years of spoon fed leftist slanted propaganda, we are led to believe that a country led by a Constitutionalist would be akin to dictatorship! Shame on you all.

Reclaiming our freedoms and getting our Nation's strength back will take extreme measures. I will not play politics with the leftists. Political correctness is simply a leftist indoctrination to being led like sheep to a slaughter. We need a leader with brass balls, not one that "moderately" tells us what we want to hear while signing our freedoms away with additional executive orders.
 
While I respect, share my beliefs with, and admire Buchanan, his split from the GOP may still have cost us all very dearly. Don't count out the Democratic party, they did it once, they can do it again. Democrats will always be Democrats, and vote the "left" ticket, regardless of the name next to the button. Their main rationale is "at least he's a Democrat." Besides, they practically have the entire media machine on their side. Liberal bias in the media is not coincidental or accidental. You think eight years under Clinton was bad? How about another four or eight under Gore or Bradley. The Bill of Rights will cease to exist. Right now, it's the Democrats who need to be defeated, and sure, Dubya has warts, but he's still, unfortunately, the surest bet. Buchanan may have lost his opportunity to evolve the Republican party back to conservatism. The way I see it, Job #1 - Defeat Gore and/or Bradley, in any way that we can, and Job #2 - work from within to restore the Republicans to the "right".

I'm still of the belief that the Republican party can be reclaimed, and Buchanan would have been the best man for the job. I would also like to believe that the "two horse race" is going to be a Republican/Reform party runoff, but I can't make that stretch. Would be nice, though, if the real choices were between a moderate, "compassionate" conservative, and a "true" conservative, but I don't think it's going to happen.

------------------
Don LeHue

Salad isn't food. Salad is what food eats.


[This message has been edited by DonL (edited October 26, 1999).]
 
Paul Revere,
I respect your beliefs. I just can't agree with your conclusions.
The presence of a Pat Buchanan (or any other notable third party candidate) that will garner 20% or so of the popular vote is not that they will win. In all likelihood, he will finish a distant third in even the popular vote (and probably won't get a single electoral vote). The problem is that his presence creates a wild card that makes the whole outcome unpredictable between the two major candidates. That's how a Gore (or a Bradley), that otherwise would probably lose, may win. That would be a very bad outcome indeed, just for making a political (albeit principled) statement.


[This message has been edited by MLT (edited October 26, 1999).]
 
MLT:
You hit on the critical point: ELECTORAL VOTES. In all the babbling about voting for president, we often forget that there is an intermediate counting system between our levers and final tally.

There is no way for Pat to win. He simply won't recieve enough electoral votes; he probably won't get any, even if he gets a majority of the popular vote.
 
It is a year until the election. A lot will change. I am not a big Buchanan fan but in your heart you know he is better than "either" Democrat. I see it like this: I believe Pat will gain a lot of momentum in the next twelve months. He addresses issues and takes a stand. Most others dont. The American electorate is starving for a Presidential candidate in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt. If Buchanan can handle all of the negative crapola he will get from the left, particularly the media, I think he will be in a good position this time next year. Who knows?? I have been wrong (mostly wrong) on politics.



------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
When will the Republican apologists quit saying, "Hold your nose and vote Republican this time. It's crucial that this time we beat the Democrats." I've been hearing that since '88. We "had" to have Bush, we "had" to have a Republican Congress, we "have" to have GWB.

So, the question is, when will it not be critical to beat the Democrats at all costs, even if it means voting for a self-confessed gun controller? Will those who say "this time" vow to stop supporting the Republicans in the event they win the Congress and Presidency and continue to pass more gun control?

------------------
"...the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation."
Prof. Frank H. Knight
 
Listen guys,

The Reform party isn't even on the ballot in 29 states, they don't have any money, and they don't have a snowball's chance...

Joe
 
Not to beat a dead horse, guys, BUT. Presidents are elected by Electoral Votes, which correlate only generally to the ultimate popular vote. That system (which many will convincingly argue is flawed) make a third party (especially a disorganized third party like Reform) candidate unelectable. The Minnesota example (where Jesse Ventura was elected by popular vote) is N/A. With all the hoopla regarding handguns, etc, the Supreme Court will likely decide this question in the next presidential term. And you can bet your last dollar that there will be substantial turnover on the court especially if Gore or Bradley get in. I know that Paul Revere discounts this issue, but I vehemently disagree. If you all want to be federal criminals for having handguns (and maybe even shotguns) in your house, just continue to go down this path that risks a Democrat president being elected.

[This message has been edited by MLT (edited October 27, 1999).]
 
Not to worry, given 12 months P.B. will put his foot so far down his neck that only his true belivers will even think about voting for him.
 
Good topic. Frankly, I'm less interested in making a purest point than getting the most acceptable person possible in the White House.
 
This was a quick blurb on the ABC Radio news:

A poll shows that Liddy Dole is favored by 40% of Republicans (polled) as Bush's running mate. Yeah...I believe that Reps are different from Dems and there is good sense in the party...I also think the moon is made of green cheese. ;)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
MLT,
"If you all want to be federal criminals for having handguns (and maybe even shotguns) in your house, just continue to go down this path that risks a Democrat [or a Republican] president being elected."
 
DC; Re: Liddy Dole as the VP. It could happen, but I doubt it. I dont know. About two years ago I predicted G W Bush and J C Watts and I'm still not sure about that one!
I believe they could get some votes, though.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Dennis,
Unlike you and your disciples (collective voices crying in the wilderness), I have much higher hopes for the Republican Party. True Republicans haven't deeded any long-term turf (and never will) to any of those "moderate" (or "compassionate conservatives" for that matter) masquerading as Reagan Republicans. And I'm confident that the party will ultimately be taken back by the true Reagan loyalists. Only a small minority of the party are silver-spoon establishmentarians like GW. All MLT and nralife (I believe) have been saying is that, if GW's what we get this time, you better vote for him and pray that you're wrong (assuming you really believe in your last post). You know darn well what you will be getting with Gore or Bradley.

[This message has been edited by Oscar (edited October 27, 1999).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top