Pat Buchanan to endorse Bush tomorrow

[J. J.]

Well, I'm still voting for Bush anyhow.

[J. J.]

What's wrong with Buchanan?

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

[J. J.]

Did he seriously say that?

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.

[J. J.]

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

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[J. J.]

Ah yes, your mystical "aggressive" column.

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.

[J. J.]

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.

Well, he's no Willie Horten.  :-)

[J. J.]

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.

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.