Buchanan interview about Ron Paul

[Agorism]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/21/buchanan-ron-paul-wont-go-third-party-it-would-damage-sons-political-future/

Click article to find video. Lots of text not in article.

[blazeKing]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

[Toxhicide]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

That doesn't even make sense.

[muh_roads]

That doesn't even make sense.

You do know they both carry the last name Paul and Rand is supporting his father?

[FSP-Rebel]

That doesn't even make sense.
No, it makes plenty. The Paul name would likely be tarnished. U hate or dislike Ob?

[Toxhicide]

You do know they both carry the last name Paul and Rand is supporting his father?

If anybody where to see through the bull they would know that they are both different people.

[phill4paul]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratic government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.

[milo10]

Kind of underwhelming. Buchanan has really disappointed me overall in terms of Ron Paul.

[Nate]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

This makes no sense from what we know about Ron Paul. Does anybody actually think that Paul values his son's political career over the best interests of the country when he so obviously doesn't do the same for his own? If Ron Paul feels that it is in the best interests of the country to leave the Republican Party & run as an independent then that is exactly what he is going to do. I don't really see the political landscape changing that much over the next 6 months to where a 3rd party run would be a viable option so I seriously doubt that happens but to say the reason he won't run 3rd party is because it would damage his son's political career is absurd & one of the last reasons he wouldn't do it.

[Nate]

That doesn't even make sense.

+1 None whatsoever.

[silverhandorder]

This makes no sense from what we know about Ron Paul. Does anybody actually think that Paul values his son's political career over the best interests of the country when he so obviously doesn't do the same for his own? If Ron Paul feels that it is in the best interests of the country to leave the Republican Party & run as an independent then that is exactly what he is going to do. I don't really see the political landscape changing that much over the next 6 months to where a 3rd party run would be a viable option so I seriously doubt that happens but to say the reason he won't run 3rd party is because it would damage his son's political career is absurd & one of the last reasons he wouldn't do it.

The best for country is for Paul's to be around after Ron retires. 3rd party hardly gona get us the presidency so it would be a stupid move to make. Make republicans hate Pauls and get Obama reelected.

[parocks]

This makes no sense from what we know about Ron Paul. Does anybody actually think that Paul values his son's political career over the best interests of the country when he so obviously doesn't do the same for his own? If Ron Paul feels that it is in the best interests of the country to leave the Republican Party & run as an independent then that is exactly what he is going to do. I don't really see the political landscape changing that much over the next 6 months to where a 3rd party run would be a viable option so I seriously doubt that happens but to say the reason he won't run 3rd party is because it would damage his son's political career is absurd & one of the last reasons he wouldn't do it.

There a probably a lot of directions that Ron Paul wouldn't go because it could hurt Rand in some way. It's got to be a factor. The likelihood of success of a 3rd party run just isn't very large. Cost to Rand has to be factored into a cost/benefit analysis. There are hail marys that he could throw if he isn't winning that he likely wouldn't throw because of Rand.

[JohnGalt1225]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratichttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3889682 government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.
Pat Buchanan is not a theocrat. He is deeply religious but I don't think that qualifies one as a theocrat. He's a paleoconservative and a bit to protectionist for my tastes but a theocrat he is not.

[Kilrain]

I feel dumber for having read that. Why in the world would RP give in to the party hacks and help prop up a corrupt system just so he can give a speech that no one will give a rat's ass about? If he did...no, I don't even feel to need to finish that sentence. It's too moronic to even contemplate.

[RonPaul101.com]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

There is a counter argument that it helps Rand. Since the elites in the GOP and Media fight Ron anyway, maybe his controlling the outcome of the election upsets them enough to finally give a Paul some respect when its Rand's turn, or he'll control the election, etc.

It's not as if Ron avoiding a 3rd party run will somehow make the future GOP elite be respectful to Rand; no chance.

You do catch more flies with honey, but a 10,000 volt bug zapper works best.

That being said, no 3rd party run because he'll win the nomination. 3rd party runs are very difficult.

[Carole]

BS on Pat Buchanan. So disappointing to have read those words from him. that RP should accept a top speaking spot at convention because he "won it". is an insult to my intelligence and certainly to RP's intelligence.

Message to Pat Buchanan: Ron Paul is trying to save this once great country you idiot, not win s speaking spot at convention.

I always liked Pat Buchanan, but now must rethink my opinion of him.

Pat Buchanan is not what I thought he was and he is not very bright to boot if he really believes what he wrote in that article.

[paulpwns]

This is Pat, just begging for us to give up, to basically settle for a speech at the convention.

A complete joke that won't fool any real Paul supporters.

[blazeKing]

The idea is that if Ron ran 3rd party, Rand would endorse him...and Romney would lose. Now, if Obama happened to win then the establishment GOP and the neocon voters would blacklist Rand for endorsing his father hurting his political future and possible future Presidential run. Makes sense to me.

BTW message to Buchanan...RP is first in Iowa and has a good chance to win this whole nomination so quit pretending he has already lost.

[ca4paul]

Poor Poor religious nutjob pat banana buchanan. He would have been more relevant if he didn't bible thump and side with the news medias' choices.

[Andrew Ryan]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratic government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.
That's kinda harsh

[ca4paul]

Rand and Ron are two different people, so much so that hannity has a man crush on Rand. A rand endorsement would be perfect.



The idea is that if Ron ran 3rd party, Rand would endorse him...and Romney would lose. Now, if Obama happened to win then the establishment GOP and the neocon voters would blacklist Rand for endorsing his father hurting his political future and possible future Presidential run. Makes sense to me.

BTW message to Buchanan...RP is first in Iowa and has a good chance to win this whole nomination so quit pretending he has already lost.

[American Idol]

Kind of underwhelming. Buchanan has really disappointed me overall in terms of Ron Paul.

FYI: Pat's sister (and former campaign manager/treasurer) is a Mormon and has already endorsed Mitt Romney.

[Suzu]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratic government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.

Looks like you've got the guy in question here mixed up with Pat Robertson.

[Cowlesy]

I thought that was a great interview n FBN between Cavuto and Pat. Still think it's a tragedy that Pat didn't win in 1996.

[The Gold Standard]

Buchanan isn't an Austrian free market guy, so he has no idea we are on the verge of collapse. I might be more patient and content to grow slowly in the Republican party and try to take it over eventually, if that wasn't the case, but it is. The government has been preparing for the collapse by eliminating nearly every one of our God given rights. When they default or destroy the dollar to pay the debt and there is chaos in the streets, guess who is going to be detained indefinitely? The people who know the government caused the whole mess. We can't afford to worry about Rand Paul's future in the party.

Not to mention, unless Rand changes his ways and thirsts for the blood of Muslims worldwide he will never be supported by the GOP. When his time comes to run we will see the exact same shit we are seeing now.

Ron Paul could get 30% running as a 3rd party. If Americans Elect put up a guy like Nader that takes away from Obama's numbers, Ron Paul could win a 4-way race. Ruling it out is out of the question, because we can't afford Obama or Romney or anyone but Paul to win in 2012.

[phill4paul]

Oh My! A neg rep from "scrosnoe" without a public challenge to my point. About what I'd expect.

[BucksforPaul]

There is no reason for Dr. Paul to run thrird party because he is currently the fron runner in the GOP primaries and has a legitimate chance of winning the entire thing. Proof of this can be found in the blatant lies propagated by the establishment whores during the last week. Secondly, if and this is a big if Dr. Paul does not get the nomination, at least 10% of us will either write him in or not vote for the lesser of two evils which guarantees an Obomber second term. No One But Paul is not that hard to understand.

[gls]

No surprise to see Tucker Carlson's website pushing this tripe. He is probably still upset about storming out of the Rally for the Republic after Jessie Ventura had the audacity to ask a couple of questions.

[phill4paul]

Looks like you've got the guy in question here mixed up with Pat Robertson.

No. I have not. I know Buchanen and his views past and present.

[Liberty Shark]

Kind of underwhelming. Buchanan has really disappointed me overall in terms of Ron Paul.

Exactly. I started thinking this a few months back. I really have to question Buchanan's thought process and motives.

[Liberty Shark]

Not to mention, unless Rand changes his ways and thirsts for the blood of Muslims worldwide he will never be supported by the GOP. When his time comes to run we will see the exact same shit we are seeing now.

Ron Paul could get 30% running as a 3rd party. If Americans Elect put up a guy like Nader that takes away from Obama's numbers, Ron Paul could win a 4-way race. Ruling it out is out of the question, because we can't afford Obama or Romney or anyone but Paul to win in 2012.

Some scenarios?:

1) Paul wins Republican nomination
Or
2) Paul doesn't win GOP nomination, but secures enough delegates to take to convention to influence party platform and nominee
Or
3) Paul runs for Libertarian nomination
4) Paul endorses Johnson for libertarian run.
5) Paul runs as a fourth party nominee again GOP, Democrats, third party (left leaning)

There are only two scenarios of the 5 above in which Paul has a realistic shot of winning the presidency: Numbers 1 & 5

However, there's no reason to really waste valuable precious time on anything other than number 1 because Ron Paul is currently the leading GOP contender for the nomination!

[Todd38]

No. I have not. I know Buchanen and his views past and present.

He's never been a Theocrat, I don't know what you think you know about his beliefs but you haven't got a clue.

[parocks]

I feel dumber for having read that. Why in the world would RP give in to the party hacks and help prop up a corrupt system just so he can give a speech that no one will give a rat's ass about? If he did...no, I don't even feel to need to finish that sentence. It's too moronic to even contemplate.

The idea is that if Ron Paul pisses a whole lot of Republicans off, it will hurt Rand in the future. And that's a very reasonable way to think,

[ChiefJustice]

It makes a lot of sense if Ron did run third party. Republican voters will hear the name "Paul" and remember how Ron Paul gave us four more years of Obama.

[papajohn56]

Heh, what would be fun, is if Ron and Rand both went 3rd party and brought a lot of defectors with them. It would be panic time for the GOP.

[phill4paul]

He's never been a Theocrat, I don't know what you think you know about his beliefs but you haven't got a clue.

Well, sir, I thank you. You gave me a neutral rep and challenged my viewpoint. I respect you for that. For my point I provide the following quotes...


1983: "The poor homosexuals – they have declared war on nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution."

- NY Post, February 24, 1983

Banal at best. Wreaking of scripture.


2002: “For homosexuality is not liberation, it is slavery. It is not a lifestyle; it is a death style.”

-- Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, P.197

I know of few individuals that are not theocrats that subscribe to this tripe.


2006: “And as we remain a predominantly Christian country, why should not a preference go to Christians?”

-- State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, P. 252

Hmm.... nothing theocratic about that quote. No.


1984: "Should the United States be a pagan or a Christian country?…America was a Christian country. A quarter of a century ago, without prior consultation with a democratic people, without support in precedent or the Constitution, the Warren Court undertook the systematic de-Christianization of America, beginning, but not stopping, with the public schools…..

"The school prayer crusade, then, is the first great counteroffensive of a badly routed Christian community to recapture their occupied public schools and re-establish their beliefs as the legitimate moral foundation of American society."

- San Diego Union, February 25, 1984

Oh my goodness...no. He is not a theocrat.

[phill4paul]

And just to follow up Buchanan should be shouting RON PAUL from the highest branch. If he were a true believer in LIBERTY. When he endorses Ron Paul I will re-evaluate my beliefs.

[phill4paul]

And just so it is perfectly clear...religion....in any form...if it wants special considerations from a government....is collectivism!!!

[TulsaRevolution]

The best for country is for Paul's to be around after Ron retires. 3rd party hardly gona get us the presidency so it would be a stupid move to make. Make republicans hate Pauls and get Obama reelected.

If he runs 3rd party he will be running to win the Presidency. There will be no strategy of "hardly gona get us the presidency" in a 3rd party run.

I don't think there will be a 3rd party run because he/we (yes, as delegates) will fight this war all the way to the convention, where we have the opportunity for outright victory.

[Brett85]

That doesn't even make sense.

Sure it does. Rand has no shot to ever be President if he doesn't support the GOP nominee this year, whoever it is. One of the reasons why so many Republicans won't support Ron is because they know that he won't endorse the eventual GOP nominee.

[Brett85]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratic government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.

Yeah, I love the people who use personal attacks against those they disagree with politically. It's wonderful.

[KingNothing]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

I tend to agree with that. It might work to soil the family name in Republican circles.

[Brett85]

Buchanan is generally right in just about everything he says.