BUCHANAN OR BUSH?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EQUALIZER

New member
2 Questions:

It looks to me as if the Republicans are going to nominate Bush since they have jumped the gun and unofficially done so already, IMHO. I don't know anything about his view on 2nd Amendment issues. If he's like his Dad, we're going to loose some more rights if he is elected. Pat Buchanan is pro gun all the way from what I've heard from him over the years. We know where HE stands.

1. Do you think Pat Buchanan should stay in the republican party and fight to gain the nomination?

2. Should he run in "The Body's" reformed party against Bush?

Think about it. If he does #2 he probably will not have a snowflakes chance in Florida of winning the election AND will syphon enough votes from Bush to give a bigger gun grabber, (if we can safely presume Bush is too -I don't know), a chance to win the election. Just my 2 cents worth. Hey! Why are you giving me change?

None of the above may be your choice.
I'm opening a can of worms, but lets for sake of conversation and brevity stay with the above choices for now. ;)


------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
I agree that Buchanan could not win, and that his running on the Reform ticket would give the election to the Democrats on a silver platter. Let's not be dumb enough to vote for Perot's Party. Maybe George W is not the purest and he is going along with the minimum and least harmful stuff, but he is a whole lot better than "Ban-guns" Bradley and "Gun-ban" Gore.

OK, let's see the flames from those who think Ross Perot is God Almighty.

Jim
 
Oh boy, here we all go again.
I have always liked Pat Buchannan because he basically takes no prisoners and you know exactly what he thinks.
I was extremely proud of him when he went to that Arizona gun show and held that Winchester over his head in definance to the media.
Having said that, I don't think my poor heart can handle another Democratic regime right now, so I will have to go with whatever the vehicle is that will beat them.
If its Bush, its Bush.
If it could be Pat, fine.
But as it stands, all Pat will be doing is be playing the part of Ross Perot3 and giving it again to the democrats.
 
Pat should stay in the Republican party and fight like hell....he won't win, but he can revive the conservative membership, and who knows what happens sub-rosa? He could make it so bloody for GW that GW makes some serious concessions.

I'm losing my taste for the current Reform party....Jesse is the unacknowledged leader and he is talking about Donald Trump!!!!???
Gads!

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I heard two interviews on the radio yesterday with Pat B. and it sounds like he's just about ready to turn to a party who's platform does not jive w/Pat's way of thinking. Jesse doesn't like him. Jesse says of himself that he is an economic conservative, NOT a social conservative and that is why he doesn't want Pat in the party. I think Pat is a) Getting sick and tired of running each term, lately, w/out the support he needs to win. There is another issue behind the scenes that I don't want to bring up yet. Maybe I will when I get more reliable information, but for now it would be gossip so I'll keep my yapper shut.

Another Bush is aweful scary, but an ozone whole is a horrible prospect, more frightening than Chicken Littles falling sky theory. Or was that the critter that tried to cross the street? Either way, if Al G gets his way, he will do away w/fossil fueled vehicles, so the world will be a safer place. One in which a harmless little chicken can even cross a street w/out fear of getting hit by a car. What car? Gun? What gun? Oh...just the ones that HE has.

I know that its getting past my bedtime when my poke at humor turns into a targetless aim.
Goodnight...............
 
Narrow party politics being the only current check on encroaching federal power, I will vote for the democrat whoever it is and hope that the republicans can maintain control of the House. None of the republicans respect individual rights. They are all for their own brand of controls as are the democrats. The only hope for Liberty is for the two parties to act as a check on the encroachments of each other.

Look at republican firearms policy. The current line is the absolute enforcement of current gun control laws, not their repeal. Do you really want to go to prison for carrying your .38, or your 3 inch pocketknife into a post office? The republicans and the NRA are actually heading down a more insidious road than the liberal democrats. Regardless of what the law says, it is its enforcement that violates rights and does the damage. More gun control laws, who cares as long as they are not enforced?

Talk about tyranny, wait and see what the situation will be like if the conservatives tip the balance of power in their favor. I predict a mandate for federal law enforcement to strictly enforce gun laws, with grants for local agencies much as has happened with the drug laws. This is potentially a much more dangerous situation than liberals enacting laws for PR purposes.
 
hank, why don't you just admit your a democrat?
The republicans and the NRA have us headed down a bad path?
Hank, every democrat position I ever hear blames me and my kids and all other legall gun owners for every evil in the world.
Terrorists in prison are now freedom fighters and need a hug, but hell with you NRA members...
When you vote for a democrat, you vote for more gun control, more social upheavel, more hollywood morals, and plain more nonsense.
Hank, I hope you are kidding.
 
nebob,
"When you vote for a democrat, you vote for more gun control, more social upheavel, more hollywood morals, and plain more nonsense."

I agree! Of course it is also true that, when you vote for a Republican, "...you vote for more gun control, more social upheavel, more hollywood morals, and plain more nonsense."

The Democrats did NOT create gun control in America. There are TWO, repeat TWO!! parties that brought us gun control. Neither did the dirty deed by itself. Neither COULD do it by themselves. It was a joint effort - a good cop, bad cop example of Democrats asking for the moon and stars and the Republicans compromising by giving them all the Democrats really wanted in the first place.

The concept of voting for Republican gun control rather than Democrat gun control astounds me. We DO have a choice! We are merely too meek, mild, and indoctrinated to take it.

If every person says, "Vote Republican or Gore will win!" it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For those folks who want gun control, vote Republican or Democratic - it really doesn't matter much. But it irks me that my family and I will be forced to live under the increasing gun control GUN OWNERS were afraid to vote against.

80 million guns owners voting their Rights out of existence. THEY get what THEY deserve. But I didn't vote for gun control.

PS. Oh yes! Don't forget the Supreme Court nomination effort of the Republican gun control advocates. How can anyone really believe a pro-gun administration would nominate anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court?

Such a thought process is as flawed as the candidate selection process.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 16, 1999).]
 
Hey Hank……
I agree that the republicans seem to be following a “control all guns” path…. But I do not believe that they are as “hell bent for control” as the democrats are…..

You say “Look at republican firearms policy. The current line is the absolute enforcement of current gun control laws, not their repeal”

OK…. “The current line is the absolute enforcement of current gun control laws”…..

this is the wrong thing to do????

What should we be doing instead of enforceing the current laws???

And.. “Not their repeal”

since when did ANY politician go on record for having repealed a law???? (with the possible exception of the 18th amendment)

I have a question for you Hank…. How may socialists are currently in the House??

I will list only a few and you go look at http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html for more info….

CA = 11
NY = 6
IL MA OH = 4
AZ AL CO IN VA VT = 1
GA HI MI OR PA = 2
FL = 3

You see…I am a democrat and assist the party in my local precinct….

But I have found that over the last ten years or so… a conservative democrat no longer exists here….. the party went way way left of center years ago….I am constantly bombarded with “ you must help the party, join DSA, they really know how to help this country”

Help it what?!?

Become a UN controlled socialist state……..


I think not…..
 
I'm pressed for time but I'll take a stab.

I am a registered Independent. I will support any candidated who stands for defending the rights of individuals. There are precious few of those today in either party. What is offered instead is democratic controls and republican controls. Neither has any problem using govt. to violate your rights as long as it advances their agenda. If one party seizes the balance of power, what you have is one party rule. Treu that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, buth that dime's worth is one of the few checks that remain. The purpose of checks and balances is to keep power fragmented. To the degree that it is fragmented, is the degree that it can be controlled. One party rule is not the answer, especially when both of the contenders are statist.

The law. The purpose of the law in the American system is to protect individual rights. Any law that is inconsistent with that purpose necessarils violates rights and at war with the fundamental principles of America's founding. Such laws should not exist. When they do exist, they should be repealed. When they are not repealed, they should not be enforced. Enforcement of such laws is the violation of rights and turns law enforcement, the agent of a citizen's defense against criminals, against honest citizens (a perfect example is Waco & Ruby Ridge). All public officials take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution is to secure the fundamental rights found in the Declaration of Independence. Any act of govt. that is contrary to that purpose is immoral and unworthy of enforcement or respect.
 
The Republicans are a bunch of spinless wimps who caved into the Democrats on many issues rather than face the wrath of the media. That's why we have MODERATE republicans. They're chicken $hits and have sold out the Republicans. We keep getting more gun control even after having gotten the republicans control of both the house and the senate. And then what do they do? They vote for more of the same. Dennis was right when he said it takes both parties to pass any laws. Also, don't forget what the traitor George H Bush did to the NRA when he publicly renounced hie life membership in the NRA. That hurt us bad politically and now he wants us to support his son? Forget it buddy! The Republicans made a big mistake in not supporting our gun rights stronger than they did, they made a mistake by crowning George W. Bush as presidential candidate. He was handed that on a silver platter along with a silver spoon from his father. I've voted straight republican for as long as I can remeber and we still have more and more gun control. So where has it gotten us and our rights? Time to abandon the republicans and show them that they need gun owners in their platform or they are going to loose! I'm going to vote third party even if it means the democrats win. To my way of thinking, it will bring about change in one way or another much more quickly. If the democrats succeed in getting everything they want then we will have a repeat of 1994 when they were booted out of the house and senate in droves. Maybe that is what it will take to make the present power brokers in the republican party understand that they need us and they can't continue to ignore us and hope we will go away. HURRAY for Bucannon!!
Anyone want to bet that the combined republican and reform party vote is larger than the vote for the democrats? Yet, even though a majority of Americans voted against the democrats, they may well have all the power. Representative government? NO WAY! We need a law change that says if no one party has a clear majority of the votes then a run off election must be held. Until then we are a slave to the two party system and we'll keep getting screwed.

[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited September 16, 1999).]
 
I like football. I watch a lot of football. My son plays football. When you play on a team, you may not like everyone on it. They're goldbricks who won't pull their weight, prima donnas who think they are too good for the team, etc.
But since you are headed toward a common goal, you still pulll together.
You DON'T give the ball to the other team and hope they score quick to wear themselves out.
And you DON'T throw the ball to someone in the stands hoping he will score for you.
Thats it, I'M done listening to this nonsense.
 
That works great in football where the rules and the goals are clearly defined. What happens though, when you see evidence the what you thought was the goal turns out to be merely a stepping stone to a different goal, a goal that is opposite of the one you were striving for?
 
Here is my 2 cents' worth.

If I had a magic wand, and I could wave it in the fall of 2,000, Pat Buchanan would be our next president. Unfortunately, I don't.

Here is the equation as I see it, especially vis-a-vis gun rights.

Contenders:

1) Al Gore (D)
2) George W (R)
3) Buchanan (I)

Other variables:

1) 3 Supreme-court judges up for re-election (nominated by the president), who generally conducts a lithmus test on them.

2) One of Gore's EXPLICIT campaign issues=gun control.

3) Upcoming elections for the Houses.

4) The mainstream media are not only anti-gun, but are avowedly pro-democrat. Information wins people elections, unfortunately.

Now, let's assign each of the 3 candidates a "gun-friendly quotient" (on a scale from 1 to 10), along with the reasons why.

1) Buchanan=10. With this guy, our guns would be here to stay, I would be 100% sure.
2) GW=7.5 W signed into law one of the best concealed-carry laws in the US, and he tends to put himself in a subordinate role before the Constitution and the Law. No, he is not as actively pro-gun as Pat, but I would never even put him close to the center as far as his support for the 2nd amendment. And by the way, he IS more conservative than his father.

3) Al Gore= -5 He may not be as bug-eyedly anti-gun as a Feinstein or a Schumer, but you can rest assured that with his election a lot of our gun rights would be lost FOREVER. He runs on gun-control, and his appointment of 3 anti-gun S.C. Judges could even harm the actual 2nd amendment.

If we are concerned primarily sith the 2nd amendment and gun rights, we cannot afford for Gore to win. Another 4, or possibly 8 years of a Liberal White House would play havoc with our rights. It is not paranoia or doom&gloomism. Just listen to the guy every time he speaks, and imagine a whole administration (attorney general and all) of his peers.

Now, the problem with Buchanan is that right now, he is not electable (for President, I mean). It would be too easy for the Media to literally destroy him to the eyes of the "grey area" of the voting public, painting him as a racist, a bigot, an incompetent (he is not currently holding office), a pro-lifer (a bad word in some circles), etcetera.
WE know he is not, but unfortunately, the majority of the public is not as well informed.
It would be nice to see Pat run for office, maybe become a prominent figure in the House or the Senate and THEN, once the public knows him more, run for President.

As far as W, he is the one guy that can beat Gore, realistically. He is media-savy (for a Republican), he has a good track-record in Texas (my state), he is ahead in the polls, and he is not as "in your face" as Pat is, therefore being potentially more appealing to the "voting masses".

So, I am gonna vote for W, because he is the only one who can stem the tide of liberalism. Right now, it is better to "vote defensively" than to risk our beloved Rights on "principle". Sure, the Republicans have disappointed me in the past. But the Liberals positively scare me. Just watch C-SPAN and hear people like Feinstein, Schumer, McCarthy, and see the goose-bumps on your arms.

Pat would be ideal for President. Sure. Add Jeff Cooper or Massad Ayoob would be even more. But are they electable at this particular moment?
 
I think we all need to face realily.
In our hearts we would like to vote for Buchanan. But if he does go third party, than a vote for him is equall to a vote for Gore.
(Ross 3)
 
It is a shame the Reform Party semms to be subverted from within by the likes of Ventura who opposes Buchanan as the nominee. But I dont think it would really matter because the Reform Party is not really talking real reforms. Forget Bush as some kind of savior for America. He is just a younger version of his old man and represents the same old establishment system that has plagued us for generations. I sure wished the Reform party would have a real platform of saving our crumbling economic and corrupt political system which is run by a few power brokers with little or no regard for the taxpayers of the nation. Why doe s no one talk about the huge Federal debt, the huge deficit of trade balances, the collapsing manufacturing and agricultural sectors, and spreading Us military forces in nearly every corner of the Globe? Pat Buchanan has talked more about serious issues than anyother candidate,but he will probalby not get the Reform nomination anyway. But if he does, the Reform Party must come up with a good POpulist program that Would enable Pat to give it a good shot. Make the Reform Party a peoples party like in the old(and gold) days of William Jennings Bryan. But i am agin getting pessimistic that the Reform Party will be subverted by the elites just as the 2(orONE) parties have been for decades and decades. We all know in our hearts that the present parties do not represent the interests of the AMerican people one iota. Does anyone here really feel connected to our representatives we elect? After they are elected they might as well be on the moon.
 
Right on Ivan

Even if Pat did go Reform Jesse has poisoned the waters.

Unfortunately, Pat is dead in the water as a viable Pres candidate and the best realistic good he can do is stay in the Repub Party and
consolidate the conservative core. If he leaves the party, the Repubs will be carbon copy Demos and be forever destroyed......Pat has principle and integrity, qualities sorely lacking in the marketing shills running the party.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I disagree that Buchanan will syphon any more votes away from Bush than he will from Gore. First, Buchanan and Perot are joined at the hip on NAFTA. NAFTA does not play at all well with the GOP. But it does in heavily democratic Detroit (and similar jurisdictions). In addition, there are a lot of old school democrats that are very pro-life, but can't quite bring themselves to vote Republican. To them, Buchanan would be the perfect choice.

As for George W., the apple hasn't fallen too far from the tree. Some of us have lived long enough to have voted in the 1980 elections (and to have lived through the primaries when George Sr was running against Reagan). The ole man was (and still is) pretty darn wishy washy. He clearly flip flopped on the abortion issue as well as various other issues. The only backbone that Mr. "Read My Lips" has is the prosthetic one Ronald Reagan shoved up his ass. (At least he salvaged a respectable career.) At any rate, young George W. doesn't seem to have many more true "convictions" than Slick Willy, but at least sings the right tune from time to time.

Sorry to ramble. Just thought I would through in my 2cents.

Regards,
Oscar
 
I'm still debating in my mind whether or not Pat B. is really a viable candidate, even if he stays in the republican party. After slick W. and her husband, I think that this is THE prime time in modern history to elect a strong principled man like Pat B. Unfortunately, the powers that be and the corporations are not behind Pat like they are GW Bush. The media certainly is not. Average Joe registered voter, sadly, is very swayed by media view point. If Pat leaves the Rep party, I don't think he has a snowflakes chance in Florida of winning an election.

If he does, I really can't blame him for a Gore win any more than I can blame a Ross Perot for a klinton win. The people simply got what they asked for. Those who were too apethetic to vote, simply allowed others to make that decision for them. They have to take responsibility for their own inactions.
The majority of those who DID vote got what they asked for. The rest of us can't blame a man who said that if he were elected, he would send LEOs into the inner cities and trouble areas for house to house serches for illegal drugs and firearms. Didn't a man by the initials RP say that? Or was I immagining things. I didn't vote for him. But in our system we got a president and a Co-president (remember) who opposes our views.

GW Bush does not reflect my views. At least until I know what they are, he doesn't. Neither do I agree w/ his deomoncratic opponent. Is it down to a lesser of two evils again? Hmmmmmm......Do I like the Brady bill less, or the Crime Bill? What a choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)

[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited September 19, 1999).]
 
I'm leary of the Reform party. Never recieved a reply to my letter to them on where they stand on gun control. Pat Choate said the party takes no position on social issues. Wha?

As for Buchanan, I'd rather see him in the Republican Party as a loose cannon and tearing some new ***holes. I also believe we would have room to work with the Republicans if more people like him were in there.

With Smith and now possibly Buchanan leaving, it will only fall into the hands of the moderates (Libs).

I think it would be much easier for changes to happen with someone on the inside. To try and do it from the outside is much more difficult. Let's be practical here.

------------------
Without the 2nd Amendment,the Declaration of Independence is an old post card and the entire Constitution is just notes from a bridge club meeting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top