Buchanan: Republican Establishment Not Fit To Rule

[Jim Casey]

http://vdare.com/buchanan/100916_not_fit_to_rule.htm

Is the party leadership capable of uniting a governing coalition as Richard Nixon did before Watergate and Ronald Reagan resurrected in the 1980s?

Observing the hysteria and nastiness of Karl Rove and the GOP Establishment at the stunning triumph of Tea Party Princess Christine O'Donnell, the answer is no.

...

To the Republican Establishment, Tea Party people are field hands. Their labors are to be recognized and rewarded, but they are to stay off the porch and not presume to sit at the master's table.

[free1]

It's a good thing they are "not fit to rule" because Congress doesn't "rule" we the people do.

[Jim Casey]

It's a good thing they are "not fit to rule" because Congress doesn't "rule" we the people do.
Buchanan's point was to rightfully criticize the Republican establishment with strong words. Just look at how Rove attacked O'Donnell.
YouTube - Karl Rove on Sean Hannity, Discussing Christine O'Donnell and 2010 Election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jlh1EsgS7Q)

[angelatc]

What your point, Jim Casey? That we should vote for the Democrats instead?

[Jim Casey]

What your point, Jim Casey? That we should vote for the Democrats instead?
I certainly won't be voting for a Democrat, nor would I recommend others to do so.

My point is that new leaders are rising in the Republican party thanks to the Tea Party, and some establishment Republicans are unwilling to accept their leadership. That situation won't lead to a strong party.

[akforme]

What your point, Jim Casey? That we should vote for the Democrats instead?

What's your point? Should we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[Jodi's mom]

I'm still pondering Glenn Beck's actions re Deborah Medina. Yeah, Karl Rove, too. There are several we could mention. I suggest we make a list of the idiots/traitors and let them know their names won't come off the list permanently etched on this forum until they've adequately repented of their evil ways . We need to be mindful, too, that we don't unwittingly create a vaccum when we discard both parties. It can be seen historically, I believe, that tyrants take advantage to move in and take control.

[osan]

It can be seen historically, I believe, that tyrants take advantage to move in and take control.

They are already in control and have been for some time.

[angelatc]

I certainly won't be voting for a Democrat, nor would I recommend others to do so.

I don't see too many pro-union libertarians - that's why I asked.



My point is that new leaders are rising in the Republican party thanks to the Tea Party, and some establishment Republicans are unwilling to accept their leadership. That situation won't lead to a strong party.

If the GOP fails because the old leaders won't give up the reins, I could not possibly care less. I don't want a strong party that exists just for the sake of not being quite as openly socialist.

Those of us that were here for the 2008 cycle know exactly what to expect from the old guard, and Pat Buchanan has also had very public issues with the party.

Christine O'Donnell isn't a liberty candidate, but I was pleased to see her win the primary even if she doesn't win the seat. At this point it is far more important to cull the left wing of the party than it is to gain control of the Senate. If Delaware wants to be Democratic, then they need to get the hell out of the GOP caucus.

Having said that, the Alaska situation worries me more. Murkowski's candidacy could ruin a decent candidates chances, and that indicates that the old guard is also perfectly willing to sacrifice a Senate seat to the left rather than to allow the conservatives have it.

[Aratus]

is Mr. Pat Buchanan basically correct? is the DNC or RNC only capable of being
able to 'divide and conquer' insted of 'divide and rule' as a basic stratigery?
are we to see waves of fresh young GOP faces soon followed by likewise newbie
Democrats as 2010's cold fury gives way to the SuperTuesday race of 2012?