PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Needs Pat Buchanan's Help




AuH20
05-13-2011, 09:11 AM
Someone grab the old pitchforker and get him front and center. Maybe he'll kickstart the old man heart's as well. We need some energy and an edge. And Pat knows how to rebut Neocon attacks. Pat was inches close of capturing the Republican primary way back in 1996.

Agorism
05-13-2011, 09:12 AM
He works for MSNBC though so he won't be campaigning I assume.

AuH20
05-13-2011, 09:13 AM
He works for MSNBC though so he won't be campaigning I assume.

I wish we could grab him or place him in some ads. He would be a goldmine in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina.

bobbyw24
05-13-2011, 09:16 AM
But Pat is Catholic so many of the "liberty-loving" libertarians here would dislike such a move

LibertyEagle
05-13-2011, 09:17 AM
I wish we could grab him or place him in some ads. He would be a goldmine in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina.

Write him through his townhall.com email. I did that a couple of times during the last campaign. He will reply to you.

AuH20
05-13-2011, 09:17 AM
But Pat is Catholic so many of the "liberty-loving" libertarians here would dislike such a move

He's a good catholic not some phony. :)

bobbyw24
05-13-2011, 09:19 AM
He's a good catholic not some phony. :)

Bump dat

eduardo89
05-13-2011, 09:21 AM
But Pat is Catholic so many of the "liberty-loving" libertarians here would dislike such a move

He's a true Catholic.

AuH20
05-13-2011, 09:23 AM
Imagine for a second, the dismayed faces of the Frums, Brooks, Roves and Kristols of the World after witnessing the great unification of two American cult icons, Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. We would tear through Middle America kicking Neocon ass left and right.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyJt05xVUJo&feature=related

erowe1
05-13-2011, 09:24 AM
He works for MSNBC though so he won't be campaigning I assume.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he can't endorse him without giving up that job. I think the only way for that to happen would be if the campaign hired him, which would be cool, but expensive.

LibertyEagle
05-13-2011, 09:27 AM
Imagine for a second, the dismayed faces of the Frums, Brooks, Roves and Kristols of the World after witnessing the great unification of two American cult icons, Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. We would tear through Middle America kicking Neocon ass left and right.

I agree. If Buchanan was actively campaigning for Paul, I think Paul would win the Republican nomination. Hands down. But, I think for Buchanan to do this, he would have to quit his gig with MSNBC and go ALL IN. I don't know if he would be willing to do that, but if he was, I would imagine he would need to know that Paul was ALL IN too and intent on winning this time; not just an educational campaign.

specsaregood
05-13-2011, 09:27 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he can't endorse him without giving up that job. I think the only way for that to happen would be if the campaign hired him, which would be cool, but expensive.

I could see msnbc letting him out of his contract for a while though, as it would do nothing but raise Buchanan's popularity among a group of people that probably don't know much about him. Which could lead to ratings increase upon a return (after Dr. Paul's inauguration).

LibertyEagle
05-13-2011, 09:27 AM
Perot would be another one.

eduardo89
05-13-2011, 09:28 AM
Why the hell does Pat work at that shithole MSNBC? Well apart from the $...

eduardo89
05-13-2011, 09:29 AM
Perot would be another one.

Would he support RP?

LibertyEagle
05-13-2011, 09:36 AM
Would he support RP?

I have no idea. They both hated NAFTA, WTO, etc. I don't know about the other issues.

specsaregood
05-13-2011, 09:39 AM
Would he support RP?

IIRC, he talked positively about Romney last time.

kahless
05-13-2011, 09:42 AM
IIRC, he talked positively about Romney last time.

and his sister worked for the Romney campaign. They were both for Ron before she started working for Romney.

rp08orbust
05-13-2011, 09:45 AM
I seem to recall Pat talking quite favorably about Ron Paul on the eve of either the IA caucus or NH primary in 2008.

LatinsforPaul
05-13-2011, 09:45 AM
I'm hoping for a DeMint, Bachman, and then Palin endorsement. Rand needs to work on the DeMint and Palin endorsement.

specsaregood
05-13-2011, 09:45 AM
and his sister worked for the Romney campaign. They were both for Ron before she started working for Romney.



Perot says he intends to vote for Mitt Romney in the Texas Republican primary on March 4, citing Romney's experience in business and his family values. "When I went to the Naval Academy and met my first Mormons I asked why so many were excellent officers," Perot recalls. "I learned it was because of their strong family unit."


Although! This could be a way for Dr. Paul to get his endorsement:


The Texas billionaire, now 77, still has some scores to settle from the Vietnam era, and his timing is exquisite. Just days before the South Carolina GOP primary, he wants me to know that McCain "is the classic opportunist--he's always reaching for attention and glory. Other POWs won't even sit at the same table with him."
...
Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

Could Dr. Paul in private promise Perot he would do an investigation if elected? I can't see how that would be out of the realm of possibilities.

Quotes above from: http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/15/when-ross-perot-calls.html

eduardo89
05-13-2011, 09:47 AM
I'm hoping for a DeMint, Bachman, and then Palin endorsement. Rand needs to work on the DeMint and Palin endorsement.

People we could (realistically) get:

DeMint
Palin
Bachmann
Buchanan
Beck

LibertyEagle
05-13-2011, 09:48 AM
I seem to recall Pat talking quite favorably about Ron Paul on the eve of either the IA caucus or NH primary in 2008.

He was on-board from the very first. He had some great commentary prior to the very first debate. I'm sure it is tubed somewhere.

erowe1
05-13-2011, 09:50 AM
He was on-board from the very first. He had some great commentary prior to the very first debate. I'm sure it is tubed somewhere.

Yeah, he definitely was. He just didn't explicitly endorse him.

LibertyEagle
05-13-2011, 09:51 AM
Yeah, he definitely was. He just didn't explicitly endorse him.

Yeah, but the person who maintained his blog devoted it almost 100 percent to Ron Paul's campaign. lol

Johncjackson
05-13-2011, 09:56 AM
But Pat is Catholic so many of the "liberty-loving" libertarians here would dislike such a move

I don't think that's the reason libertarian libertarians might dislike Buchanan. I don't think anyone dislikes Paul's religious beliefs. RP is different than Buchanan ( or at least his appeal is), and if people don't see why, I honestly don't know how to explain it.

Agorism
05-13-2011, 09:58 AM
Paul was going to run in 1992, but decided not to because he knew Buchanan was running who Rothbard strongly supported.

AuH20
05-13-2011, 09:49 PM
Bump. With these attacks heating up, we need the Pitchfork. Imagine him in that Fox Business Segment? He would have undressed that Young Republican Tool.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/03/12b-BuchananTime.jpg

AuH20
05-13-2011, 09:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEyFQK-e0mk&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3q7TxZjJas&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk7ZrfjjHeI&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPhFC9LR2vY

Lovecraftian4Paul
05-13-2011, 10:11 PM
I have come to respect Pat Buchanan a lot more in recent years. He would be a great asset to RP's campaign. Does anyone think an e-mail bomb to Buchanan would help sway him, or would it just come off as pushy and gimmicky?

randolphfuller
05-13-2011, 10:35 PM
Didn't Pat Buchanan lose South Carolina? He and Bay would be invaluable in the campagin though.

nate895
05-13-2011, 10:49 PM
Didn't Pat Buchanan lose South Carolina? He and Bay would be invaluable in the campagin though.

In '92 he lost everywhere, lol. In '96, he won AK, LA, MO, and NH, and came pretty close (3 pts.) in Iowa. He came in 2nd in SC, 45-29 to Dole. There are so many people who would be invaluable to Ron Paul's campaign. I just think it's up to Paul at this point to get them on board. I pray that he takes those steps.

BlackTerrel
05-14-2011, 12:26 AM
I agree. If Buchanan was actively campaigning for Paul, I think Paul would win the Republican nomination. Hands down.

Based on what? I doubt if Buchanan could crack 1% of the vote.

White Bear Lake
05-14-2011, 01:14 AM
I'm a huge Buchanan fan. Probably moreso than Paul if I had to choose between the two. (If only that was the choice we had to make when selecting politicians!)

Buchanan should be veep if we get the nomination.

Bring back the Old Right.

Paulatized
05-14-2011, 07:37 AM
Why the hell does Pat work at that shithole MSNBC? Well apart from the $...
I know that Pat has done a great deal to defend the principles of freedom, but during he last election I kept wanting him to say "to hell with this job, we need to save our country", and throw all his support behind RP. It's all well and good to provide his knowledgeable commentary but, in many ways I feel this is our last change to save the framework that made this nation great. Come on Pat, the date is late and the time grows short...

LibertyEagle
05-14-2011, 07:45 AM
Based on what? I doubt if Buchanan could crack 1% of the vote.

I do not agree. He attracts a lot of the same people who loved Reagan's rhetoric. You know... the Republicans... the people whose vote we have to get. He inflames the people in charge, though, and that is why they go for the jugular when he runs for office. But, as someone who would be going around the country promoting Ron Paul and explaining what he is saying to people who do not have a clue what the good doctor says, he would be invaluable.

People are scared. Buchanan represents traditional American ideals.

bobbyw24
05-14-2011, 07:51 AM
In '92 he lost everywhere, lol. In '96, he won AK, LA, MO, and NH, and came pretty close (3 pts.) in Iowa. He came in 2nd in SC, 45-29 to Dole. There are so many people who would be invaluable to Ron Paul's campaign. I just think it's up to Paul at this point to get them on board. I pray that he takes those steps.

Pat Buchanan in 1996 got 3 Million votes in the Primaries

Ron Paul in 2008 got 1 Million votes

JohnGalt1225
05-14-2011, 07:55 AM
I love Pat and have read most of his books.

bobbyw24
05-14-2011, 08:12 AM
I love Pat and have read most of his books.


The idiots at Reason and Cato did not like The Great Betrayal. Pat was right in this book and the Libertarian extremists were proven wrong.

Book Review: The Great Betrayal

by Brink Lindsey


This article appeared in the July 1998 issue of Reason magazine.


Book review of The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy, by Patrick J. Buchanan, New York: Little, Brown, 376 pp.

The ongoing globalization of economic life leaves many Americans nervous and suspicious. According to a Business Week poll taken last fall, 56 percent of Americans believe that expanded trade will destroy more jobs than it creates, and 40 percent think that more trade means lower wages, compared to only 17 percent who believe the opposite.

Pat Buchanan has played to this anxiety in two presidential campaigns and is now preparing to do so a third time. To that end he has written The Great Betrayal, a root-and-branch rejection of free trade in favor of a "new nationalism." Consider this book a preview of his 2000 campaign strategy.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10919

Agorism
05-14-2011, 08:16 AM
In 1996, Buchanan lost Iowa by 2% to Dole. He won NH.

Had he won both, he would have won.

BlackTerrel
05-14-2011, 10:53 AM
I do not agree. He attracts a lot of the same people who loved Reagan's rhetoric. You know... the Republicans... the people whose vote we have to get.

From wiki:

In the 2000 presidential election, Buchanan finished fourth with 449,895 votes, 0.4% of the popular vote

So he got 0.4% of the vote in 2000. 12 years later I'd guess he'd get less, not more

sailingaway
05-14-2011, 10:55 AM
From wiki:

In the 2000 presidential election, Buchanan finished fourth with 449,895 votes, 0.4% of the popular vote

So he got 0.4% of the vote in 2000. 12 years later I'd guess he'd get less, not more

And he has his own baggage. There is overlap in their issues, and Pat is direct and will say so. That's great. But Ron Paul is the one running, not Buchanan.

Lovecraftian4Paul
05-14-2011, 10:56 AM
From wiki:

In the 2000 presidential election, Buchanan finished fourth with 449,895 votes, 0.4% of the popular vote

So he got 0.4% of the vote in 2000. 12 years later I'd guess he'd get less, not more

I didn't pay much attention to Buchanan in 2000, but I was somewhat tapped into following different third party candidates. I got the impression he was running more a paper campaign under the Reform Party than a real one. This is one reason why Nader took off as "the" third party candidate that year, as opposed to Buchanan. Active campaigning makes all the difference.

Regrettably, Pat was also hampered by internal conflict within the Reform Party. But it didn't seem like he was committed to running a real campaign.

AuH20
05-14-2011, 10:58 AM
From wiki:

In the 2000 presidential election, Buchanan finished fourth with 449,895 votes, 0.4% of the popular vote

So he got 0.4% of the vote in 2000. 12 years later I'd guess he'd get less, not more


He's much popular than that. The man commands incredible respect among the common people, especially trade union workers. The pundits revile him for good reason. He and Ron Paul are very similar in the reactions they evoke.

BlackTerrel
05-14-2011, 11:11 AM
He's much popular than that. The man commands incredible respect among the common people, especially trade union workers. The pundits revile him for good reason. He and Ron Paul are very similar in the reactions they evoke.

Not any of the common people I know. I'll be honest - I think Buchanan is old and racist and past his time and I doubt he'd win even 1% of the vote if he ran.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufsl5p8gtIM

AuH20
05-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Not any of the common people I know. I'll be honest - I think Buchanan is old and racist and past his time and I doubt he'd win even 1% of the vote if he ran.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufsl5p8gtIM

Pat Buchanan is commonly misunderstood because many people hear what he's saying as opposed to listening to him. You should read his books.


He was right about the futility about the Iraq War before it was fashionable.
He was right about the destructive nature of NAFTA and other crimes made in the name of "free trade"
He was right that the Neocon intellectual cabal would drive the Republican Party off the proverbial cliff.
He was right about the third world invasion, which would seed elements of distrust and dissension among the populace, while furthering destabilizing the remnants of our republic.

Secondly, if he's so racist, why doesn't he hate Arabs?

bobbyw24
05-14-2011, 11:22 AM
I am not being facetious here:

What is the definition of "Racist" being used here?

majinkoola
05-14-2011, 11:31 AM
Not any of the common people I know. I'll be honest - I think Buchanan is old and racist and past his time and I doubt he'd win even 1% of the vote if he ran.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufsl5p8gtIM
In the general election as a third party, yes.

In the Republican primary? You would be absolutely wrong. Guaranteed 5% minimum. I know a whole bunch of people who might vote for Paul but would definitely vote for Buchanan.

By the way, your logic doesn't make any sense. You said since Buchanan got less than half a million votes in the general election as a third party, he wouldn't get more votes in the Republican primary 12 years later.

So then, why did Ron Paul, 20 years later, increase the number of votes he got when switching from a Libertarian in the general to the Republican primary?

AuH20
05-14-2011, 11:32 AM
I am not being facetious here:

What is the definition of "Racist" being used here?

He's citing truthful statistics and that's "raaaaacissstt!" White people don't maintain hypnotizing stations in urban centers, where they condition black youth to commit crime. The fact of the matter is that the black nuclear family has been broken for decades and this instability in turn leads to lawlessness. Add the illegal drug element pushed by the Nazis in our government and it's gets even worse. It's rather tragic because blacks collectively have the capability to be a noble race, but they've been beaten down so long that they have no pride and cognizance of their past heritage. They need to break free from the chains of victimization and reclaim their birthright.

AlexanderY
05-14-2011, 12:04 PM
He's citing truthful statistics and that's "raaaaacissstt!" White people don't maintain hypnotizing stations in urban centers, where they condition black youth to commit crime. The fact of the matter is that the black nuclear family has been broken for decades and this instability in turn leads to lawlessness. Add the illegal drug element pushed by the Nazis in our government and it's gets even worse. It's rather tragic because blacks collectively have the capability to be a noble race, but they've been beaten down so long that they have no pride and cognizance of their past heritage. They need to break free from the chains of victimization and reclaim their birthright.

what's your un-PC opinion on Hispanics?

AuH20
05-14-2011, 12:07 PM
what's your un-PC opinion on Hispanics?

Hispanics need to take their native countries back from the tyrants that run them. Unfortunately, the bandits in D.C. pull the strings there as well. Mexico is intentionally kept down as an oligarchy, so as to provide cheap labor and facilitate the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. It's essentially a colony. Any country with the abundant natural resources of Mexico should be a world power but it isn't.

BlackTerrel
05-14-2011, 02:18 PM
Pat Buchanan is commonly misunderstood because many people hear what he's saying as opposed to listening to him. You should read his books.

I've never read his books I have read his columns. Many are as bad or worse than the Ron Paul newsletters. I can't imagine adding Buchanan to Paul's ticket would help him.

If he's so popular how come no one watches his show?


He was right about the futility about the Iraq War before it was fashionable.
He was right about the destructive nature of NAFTA and other crimes made in the name of "free trade"
He was right that the Neocon intellectual cabal would drive the Republican Party off the proverbial cliff.
He was right about the third world invasion, which would seed elements of distrust and dissension among the populace, while furthering destabilizing the remnants of our republic.

Secondly, if he's so racist, why doesn't he hate Arabs?

I don't know. Maybe he thinks they're special.

Flash
05-14-2011, 02:53 PM
Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul wouldn't work together well. Pat would advise Paul to change his rhetoric and pander to the Christian Conservative base. Which is what he needs to be doing. But Ron is too blunt and stubborn.

And yes, Pat Buchanan was right about immigration and everything relating to it. When people move into this country and refuse assimilation, it creates a huge amount of problems. I couldn't tell you the amount of Hispanics from my state supported Obama because he was non-white. Nothing based on policy. Right now our culture is becoming like that of Europe. Where anyone that takes pride in their heritage or nation is a racist and should be immediately rebuked. Things like massive immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism are these great gifts given unto us lowly white men. And Pat Buchanan KNOWS there is a huge problem out there but isn't doing anything about it. Now he just works for MSNBC and shills for Liberals like Donald Trump.

Like I said in another thread, it would've been beneficial to America to stay a Black & White nation. I don't think a nation like America could survive a Latin American invasion.

AuH20
05-14-2011, 02:58 PM
Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul wouldn't work together well. Pat would advise Paul to change his rhetoric and pander to the Christian Conservative base. Which is what he needs to be doing. But Ron is too blunt and stubborn.

And yes, Pat Buchanan was right about immigration and everything relating to it. When people move into this country and refuse assimilation, it creates a huge amount of problems. Right now our culture is becoming like that of Europe. Where anyone that takes pride in their heritage or nation is a racist, and massive immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism are these great gifts given unto us lowly white men. The only problem is-- Pat Buchanan KNOWS there is a huge problem out there but isn't doing anything about it. Now he just works for MSNBC and shills for Liberals like Donald Trump.

Buchanan would just give Ron street cred because his paleo credentials have been intentionally overshadowed by the MSM. Ron could act like Ron.

AuH20
05-14-2011, 03:02 PM
Like I said in another thread, it would've been beneficial to America to stay a Black & White nation. I don't think a nation like America could survive a Latin American invasion.

Not in 2011. Maybe 80 or 90 years ago, when the assimilation controls were intact. It's the land of hyphenated americans. It seems that everyone these days is part of their own government subsidized subclass.

BlackTerrel
05-14-2011, 04:22 PM
Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul wouldn't work together well. Pat would advise Paul to change his rhetoric and pander to the Christian Conservative base. Which is what he needs to be doing. But Ron is too blunt and stubborn.

And yes, Pat Buchanan was right about immigration and everything relating to it. When people move into this country and refuse assimilation, it creates a huge amount of problems. I couldn't tell you the amount of Hispanics from my state supported Obama because he was non-white. Nothing based on policy. Right now our culture is becoming like that of Europe. Where anyone that takes pride in their heritage or nation is a racist and should be immediately rebuked. Things like massive immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism are these great gifts given unto us lowly white men. And Pat Buchanan KNOWS there is a huge problem out there but isn't doing anything about it. Now he just works for MSNBC and shills for Liberals like Donald Trump.

Like I said in another thread, it would've been beneficial to America to stay a Black & White nation. I don't think a nation like America could survive a Latin American invasion.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Yes those are Pat's ideas I agree - not Ron Paul's. If Pat is in - I'm out.

Thankfully I don't see the two teaming up.

KramerDSP
05-14-2011, 04:26 PM
Pat Buchanan once said Ron Paul had the greatest voting record in the history of Congress. That's a pretty good compliment if you ask me.

AuH20
05-14-2011, 04:34 PM
I don't even know where to begin with this.

It's easy to understand. Take 100 million from the poorest regions of Latin America and Central America & thrust them into the United States with full voting rights and no real understanding of what is expected of them. What do you think would happen? The place would turn into Venezuela because the dwindling private sector would be pummeled even further downward than it is today. Nationalization of the means of production would have to occur to satisfy the increasing needs of the new population.

BlackTerrel
05-14-2011, 04:45 PM
It's easy to understand. Take 100 million from the poorest regions of Latin America and Central America & thrust them into the United States with full voting rights and no real understanding of what is expected of them. What do you think would happen? The place would turn into Venezuela because the dwindling private sector would be pummeled even further downward than it is today. Nationalization of the means of production would have to occur to satisfy the increasing needs of the new population.

I have a number of issues with this but for sake of argument let's say I concede your point. I have a couple questions for you:

1. What about the millions of Asians and Indians who immigrated to this country and basically sustain our high tech industry (one of the few industries we still dominate). Facebook, Google, Intel, Cisco - take a look around their campus.

2. How would you propose this be stopped? Racial quotas for immigrants?
2. A. You really think this is good strategy? This is what would help Ron Paul
win? Really?


Secondly, if he's so racist, why doesn't he hate Arabs?

3. You answer me that question: why are Arabs exempt from his wrath?

anaconda
05-14-2011, 04:51 PM
Pat was inches close of capturing the Republican primary way back in 1996.

He won New Hampshire, Alaska, Missouri, and Louisiana. Not quite "inches," unfortunately. But a significant statement. And he appears to have forced the hand on the VP selection by threatening to run third party.

AuH20
05-14-2011, 05:11 PM
1. What about the millions of Asians and Indians who immigrated to this country and basically sustain our high tech industry (one of the few industries we still dominate). Facebook, Google, Intel, Cisco - take a look around their campus.

That's a good question. I don't know enough to make a credible judgement.


2. How would you propose this be stopped? Racial quotas for immigrants?
2. A. You really think this is good strategy? This is what would help Ron Paul
win? Really?

We have country of origin quotas already built into our current immigration system. Secondly, if you want to stop illegal immigration you need a multi-faceted approach (fences, border patrol, fines on business who flout the law, strict allocation of social services to only citizens). There is no single silver bullet solution. Now regarding this approach, of course, it will help Ron Paul. He's running to be President of the United States not the United Nations. He preaches non-interventionism for a reason. America's citizens are the first priority. Why do we have to be the halfway house for the world, when we're on the precipice of internal destruction?


3. You answer me that question: why are Arabs exempt from his wrath?

Well, I don't think he has a personal problem with Hispanics, Blacks or Arabs. With Hispanics, it's the sheer numbers of uneducated and illiterate that dwarf the total numbers of European immigrants which came here in the early 19th century. It's a recipe for disaster, especially with the massive and addictive welfare state we maintain. Now regarding blacks, he's tired of them making excuses for themselves and using the government as a crutch. I think he's advising self-empowerment. In terms of the Arabs, Pat sees them as a once proud people who have been ravaged by the imperialist forces. They've been stuck in this state of arrested development, searching for their rightful place in the world and need to be left alone to grow.

Pro-Life Libertarian
07-21-2011, 03:55 PM
I could see him joining the campaign down the line. I wonder if we could get Steve Forbes as well? He endorsed Rand.

Southron
07-21-2011, 04:43 PM
You basically have a younger Buchanan in Jack Hunter IMO.