Talk Elections

According to Drudge on his radio show. 
Welcome back home, Pat.

Oh "God" no.  hahaha . . . sorry, couldn't help it.

Wow...this could give Bush almost as big a boost as Kerry got from the NY Times endorsement.

Well, I'm still voting for Bush anyhow.

Why would Buchanan endorse Bush? The president believes in a host of things that Pat utterly rejects, like democracy as a universal goal for humankind and an end to racism. Are candidates allowed to reject endorsements?

It isn't quite enough to change my vote to Kerry. lol. Nothing could change my vote to Kerry, but Buchanan sure isn't a favorite of mine.

So much for Bush's momentum.

What's wrong with Buchanan?

For one, he ran on the reform ticket four years ago.  Plus he's insane.

He lost me with his pre-presidential run column that the US should annex Canada (and keep pet French people).

Did he seriously say that?

He KILLED the Perot-Reform party.

Canada, yes.  "Pet French People," not quite.  He wanted to have Quebec as a protectorate.  I called up a friend in Canada and told her to start digging trenches.

So he wanted to invade them, or offer to let them become a territory, or what?

That's a straight-up lie. Buchanan is against imperialism. Hell, he wrote a book titled "A Republic, not an Empire" (very good by the way).

Buchanan is not crazy at all. Usually, people just make things up about him out of thin air, because the truth is that Buchanan is a smart, knowledgeable guy.

I will never like Pat, the man took some votes from GW in 2000, not alot, but some, and I won't forget that.

Annexation, I'm guessing by peaceful means.

Vorlon, you're safe.  The angry American hordes are not going to sally accross the boarder and ravage your sister.

Pat will always be on my good side again with the way he treated the Swift Boat Vets with great respect and dignity.

I'll tell you the one reason why he's endorsing Bush.  It's Hillary Clinton.  His big fear and mine is that Kerry may appoint Hillary Clinton Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  I would say, "God help us", but she might decide God can't be said in public.

If you are claiming the Canadian Annexation is a lie, here is something I pulled down from the web:

Quebec: Offer seceding provinces alliances or statehood
Canada has not been a security concern in this century. That is changing. Quebec may declare independence, and the Maritime and Western provinces could separate from Ottawa. Americans may profoundly regret a breakup of Canada, but we are not a disinterested party; Canada is the most important country on earth for us. Should it come apart, the US should offer trade agreements and security alliances to each successor state, and statehood itself, should any breakaway Canadian province wish it.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.370

His colume was much more aggressive.

One of the few good news in this bad day.

The Jews in south FL hate him (and he hate them)

Yet they still voted for him in 2000.  Go figure.  :-)

Can you not read?

He said that if Canada breaks up, we should promote stability amongst the remnants- including offering statehood.

He did not say "invade." He did not even say he WANTS that to happen.

It reveals the weakness of your argument when you have to lie about the other guy's.

Where the hell are you getting this from?

good ol pat lol

Why does his endorsement matter?  Oh wait it doesn't.

Well, I don't think that would happen unless Rehnquist dies.  And Hillary realizes her hopes of a 2012 run are going to be fruitless.  Plus the Senate wouldn't approve (as long as it stays Republican).

And what's so wrong with annexing bits of Canada?  I mean, if Canada breaks up and various bits want to join, I don't see any problem with that...

Plus I think we need revenge for the War of 1812 ;)

But he is full of hatred.
He is isolationist He wants the US out of the world.

Shira, would you say George Washington was full of hatred?

Well dern it, I lost a lot of respect for old Pat, and I find it scary that he's endorsing Bush.

Aren't you voting for Bush?

Yes, but in recent years Pat has gone looney.  In my opinion, if his endorsement has any effect at all, I think it'd draw more votes away than bring in.

The day when Pat Buchanan left the Republican Party to join the Reform Party was a day the GOP never fully recovered from. Under the guiding leadership of Buchanan, the Reform party grew by leaps and bounds, and the adherence to the Reform grew so large that Buchanan had to start the American Conservative Party just to expand for the sheer number of people who were joining his party.

Not to be all facetious in light of this endorsement, Buchanan is a smart and perceptive pundit and politician,. But he has marginalized himself to a point that his supporters are segmented into the extreme far right, and I doubt that he could get them to vote for that liberal George W. Bush.

I can read, but it seems you cannot, since I never used word "invade," only "annexation" and "annex."  You will note that those posts have not been modified.  You will also note that I indicated his column was much more aggressive.

I was not entirely clear, from his column if this annexation was voluntarily or, if it would be imposed in the case of a breakup.

Ah yes, your mystical "aggressive" column.

One area where he will help is with that small group of conservatives that opposed the war and a few fiscal conservatives.  On the war, he was basically the conservative opposition.  He's good for a slight net gain, but very slight.

If you wish to look through his columns, be my guest.  As I've indicated it was pre-1992.

You claimed that it was a "lie" that he ever said anything like that and wrote a book about it, yet the quote appears in his book, with page citation.  I just did that with a web search, without going to the library.

These are but some of the reasons Pat Buchannan has lost supporters.

Net effect.........0

Buchanan is a right leaning populist much like myself. I like him.

I like him as well.....but his endorsement wont mean anything

Hopefully I can find a way to write up a spin on this and use it to print out some propaganda fliers to hand out...

Well, he's no Willie Horten.  :-)

Before you think of him as a good thing, remember that Pat Buchanan could very well be the man responsible for Clinton. Thanks for your speech Pat!

Does this really help Bush?? I think Bush already had most of Buchanan's votes locked up, and with swing voters, it would be more likely to hurt than help.

Okay that's it now that Pat will endorse Bush maybe I should start to reconsider who I'm voting for...

Really though, I don't like Buchanan and I hope he doesn't say anything stupid when he offcially endorses Bush.

I don't see too much evidence that Bush supports democracy for everyone in the world. I hardly see him making a big push for democracy in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, China, Pakistan, etc.

Bush does not support the concept of every country in the world becoming a democracy. That's why I don't like his foreign policy. He supports what is best for big business, plain and simple.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm now ready to throw my full weight behind Bush over this endorsement.

Does anyone remember Perot endorsing Bush right before the 2000 election? That had even less impact than Buchanan's will probably.

JJ: Look, I READ "A Republic, not an Empire." It's very historical; someone probably intentionally took him out of context and posted it on the web. For instance, he talks about the US invasion of Canada during the War of 1812. He's not advocating anything, just discussing history.

But it's not my fault if you fall for cheap propaganda. You were still lying about his views.

I don't see any swing voter in this country considering Mr. Buchanan's endorsement when casting their vote.  Glad to have his vote, but it won't matter to anyone else.

Oh no I wasn't.  The quote is consistent with previous statements that I have read from Buchannan.  Now you have the quote, with the statement, "Canada has not been a security concern in this century."  That was not the case in the 19th Century, so he obviously is not speaking about the War of 1812, is he?

I have used the words "annexation" and "protectorate" which he used in his colume.  I have not used the word "invasion."  Perhaps you better reread his book since you did not seem to understand the passage.  

It would pretty hard to me to guess that this is in his book, unless I had heard his views on the subject previously.  This seems to have been a longstanding belief with him.

You can find some very interesting statements about (or "aboot") Canada from Buchannan by doing a websearch.  You might want to try that.  I kind of get the fealing that he wouldn't have gotten the satire in the Southpark movie.

What? Mr. Isolationist endorsing Bush?

Well Bush's welcome to 'im!

Dave

Has anyone actually seen this endorsement?

  Ah yes democracy, an instituion t hat gave the world Hitler, Allende in Chile,  Chavez in Ven. and almost turned Spain communist in the 30s, not to mention it almost turned Algeria over to Islamic radicals in the eraly 90s.

  As I told you many months ago M, democracy does not allways work out, not all societies are equipped to handle democracy.

Wow, now I guess this seals up the toothless, bow legged slack-jaw vote for Bush.  I was getting worried for him with this demographic!  There goes Peroutka's last chance to be known as a spolier in '04.  Without this endorsement his political career is over!

I wonder if Pat really will do it. He HATES the first Bush; feels they let down the Reagan Revolution.

Here's a good joke: "Why wasn't Pat Buchanan's campaign announcement speech shown with close-captioning on CSpan?"  "They didn't have the font with umlauts."  ;-)

The hatred he peddles isn't much different from the hatred Bush peddles.  I suppose if you've got a pair of intolerants, the one that's an isolationist is preferable because he only ruins one country.

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement. Basically, Buchanan hates liberals, Democrats, and Kerry so much that he doesn't see any option. Plus, he's afraid that if Kerry's elected then the Republicans will successfully blame the Iraq blunder on the Democrats instead of on the neo-conservatives:

His magazine ran a series of columns, urging votes for Bush, Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, and Peroutka.

The columns were all well-written.

Actually, Pat«s move is strategic and very smart. If Bush wins, Iraq will fall appart under neo-con watch, thus discrediting the movement forever, and allowing true conservatives to take the party away from them. Kudos for Pat.

The Republican Party is very welcome to him!

Dave