Pat Buchanan says that Ron Paul is authentic

[bobbyw24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YJQBZmsQEd8


Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, who served as a senior adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, says that Ron Paul is "authentic" and that he "likes the guy."

While Buchanan disagrees with Paul on social issues, faith in public policy, and Libertarian-types of trade issues, he thinks that Paul is correct in his anti-war stance. Buchanan campaigned for Paul in 1994, when he was running for the House.

Buchanan says that Paul is genuine, real and honest, noting that it was Paul who put the Federal Reserve on the national table and that Paul was the only one of the candidates who voted against the Iraq war, a war that two-thirds of Americans now think was a mistake.

http://www.goddiscussion.com/88823/pat-buchanan-says-that-ron-paul-is-authentic/

[wgadget]

Gravitas.

[Fort Lauderdale]

RON PAUL!

[bobbyw24]

RON PAUL!

bump

[rprprs]

In this discussion, Buchanan states he disagrees with Paul on cultural and social issues, in that he (Buchanan) believes "a community" has its right to establish what it believes to be true and to have its faith represented in its schools, etc.

This is hardly a disagreement with Paul, other than having the level of "a community" defined more nationally than locally.

C'mon, Pat, get with it.

[Southron]

Good stuff.

[SurfsUp]

pat is far more conservative than fox news. remember crossfire? pat agrees with ron on foreign policy. i have his books. spread the vid

[heavenlyboy34]

In this discussion, Buchanan states he disagrees with Paul on cultural and social issues, in that he (Buchanan) believes "a community" has its right to establish what it believes to be true and to have its faith represented in its schools, etc.

This is hardly a disagreement with Paul, other than having the level of "a community" defined more nationally than locally.

C'mon, Pat, get with it.
This^^ Ron has been talking about this for years. I don't know where he's getting that.

[heavenlyboy34]

pat is far more conservative than fox news. remember crossfire? pat agrees with ron on foreign policy. i have his books. spread the vid
I don't agree with spreading this vid because it contains inaccuracies.

[Kevin Smyth]

I don't agree with spreading this vid because it contains inaccuracies.

Buchanan is a paleocon though so I guess that makes him further to the left than Paul? Is that how that works? I agree with Buchanan on the libertarian trade issues not being the right method, I favor Buchanan's trade views over Paul's.

[Pete Kay]

I read Pat Buchanan's columns every week. While Buchanan is a true isolationist (trade protectionism), his views mostly align with Ron Paul's. I think he's a powerful voice in the conservative movement and it's always good to hear him speak well of Ron Paul.

[bobbyw24]

I read Pat Buchanan's columns every week. While Buchanan is a true isolationist (trade protectionism), his views mostly align with Ron Paul's. I think he's a powerful voice in the conservative movement and it's always good to hear him speak well of Ron Paul.

One thing about Pat--he knows his history & politics and can backup his statements

[JohnGalt23g]

"Who else did it? Nobody!"

You're goddamned right Pat!! God Bless Ya, Brother Buchanan!

[suoulfrepus]

One thing about Pat--he knows his history & politics and can backup his statements

He doesn't seem to understand economics, though. He says that he's an Economist Nationalist like Hamilton and Lincoln.

[Hoax]

He doesn't seem to understand economics, though. He says that he's an Economist Nationalist like Hamilton and Lincoln.

I align more with Pat in terms of trade. The one problem I have with free trade is that American workers cannot compete with what essentially amounts to slave labor in third world countries. This sends manufacturing jobs overseas and ultimately weakens America in the long run. I understand the benefits of free trade - i.e. cheaper goods - but I think that gets offset by lower wages at home. Furthermore, the companies who benefit most are the multinationals, who frankly don't care about America in general, except insofar as it is currently a large market for their goods.

[KingRobbStark]

If he thinks he's authentic, then why didn't he campaign for him in NH?

[heavenlyboy34]

Buchanan is a paleocon though so I guess that makes him further to the left than Paul? Is that how that works? I agree with Buchanan on the libertarian trade issues not being the right method, I favor Buchanan's trade views over Paul's.
I like Buchanan sometimes too. (libertarian views of trade are correct, btw, and have been for several hundred years-going back to the classical liberals and even earlier "liberty-minded" thinkers) This vid in particular is simply not a good one to spread around. JMHO. You can do as you wish.

[heavenlyboy34]

He doesn't seem to understand economics, though. He says that he's an Economist Nationalist like Hamilton and Lincoln.
This^^

Look what he said recently (not someone I can support fully in good conscience):
http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan209.html
Daily Bell: What do you think of Ron Paul and the strides he has made and the traction he is getting?

Pat Buchanan: He has done extremely well. Ron Paul's an old friend of mine and I like him, admire his consistency and his political courage. He's a man who is willing to stand up there alone and vote his convictions when people laugh at him, which is one of the most difficult things to do in politics. Some of the ideas Ron Paul is championing now – some of them – are ideas that I championed in the 1990s. For instance, the idea that the United States has to give up the empire, to cut back and pull our horns in a bit, that we cannot be the policemen of the world, that we cannot give orders to the world. This idea is gaining traction and gaining ground. It's not a majority view yet in the Republican Party but it is moving ahead.
This idea about smaller government is obviously consistent with Republican philosophy. But, candidly, I don't think they'll be able to accomplish a great deal in the next four years even if the Republicans win. They've accomplished next to nothing, or very little in the last year when they had control of the House. On securing the border and halting mass immigration, I don't have much hope of great progress.
So I think Ron Paul has done a fine job. But do I think his ideas will be incorporated into the platform or the policy of a dominant Republican Party in 2013? We have to wait and see but I doubt it seriously. I truly believe that the American economic problems are going to be solved by massive inflation wiping out a lot of this debt – and wiping out the real savings of a lot of Americans.

Daily Bell: Are you an Austrian, economically?
Pat Buchanan: No, not really, but I'm obviously not a Keynesian. On trade I disagree with Ron Paul because I'm a believer in the Economic Nationalism of Hamilton and Henry Clay and the Republican Party from 1860 to 1928 when the United States was turned from a county that produced half of what Great Britain produced, into a giant that produced more than all of what Europe produced. Free traders decide policy based on what is best for the world and for the consumer. Milton Friedman wrote that even if other nations don't practice free trade we should get rid of all tariffs and allow them to dump their goods in the US market at any price they want because the consumer would benefit. Libertarians tend to put the consumer first and I put the country first.

[Kevin Smyth]

If he thinks he's authentic, then why didn't he campaign for him in NH?

Because Buchanan is still under contract with MSNBC, anchors and reporters are not allowed to actively endorse election candidates. Also, Buchanan has baggage that could hurt Ron Paul with the more mainstream PC voters especially in regards to his views on America and the world's changing racial demographics and World War II.

[bobbyw24]

He doesn't seem to understand economics, though. He says that he's an Economist Nationalist like Hamilton and Lincoln.

He thinks differently than you; therefore he doesn't understand it? Hmm

[specsaregood]

Buchanan is a paleocon though so I guess that makes him further to the left than Paul? Is that how that works? I agree with Buchanan on the libertarian trade issues not being the right method, I favor Buchanan's trade views over Paul's.

And yet Paul was Buchanan's economic advisor for his 1992 campaign.

[bobbyw24]

Buchanan did somethings Ron Paul may never, ever do:

1. Win GOP primaries

2. Have 3 Million people vote for him in primaries

[bobbyw24]

And yet Paul was Buchanan's economic advisor for his 1992 campaign.

Hmm

[Icymudpuppy]

Because Buchanan is still under contract with MSNBC, anchors and reporters are not allowed to actively endorse election candidates. Also, Buchanan has baggage that could hurt Ron Paul with the more mainstream PC voters especially in regards to his views on America and the world's changing racial demographics and World War II.

Doesn't seem to prevent them from actively supporting Obama and Romney

[Southron]

Buchanan understands economics. I heard him say recently that he has no doubt that free trade is good for the world but believes that a nation's economic policy should put that nation's interests first.

[anaconda]

Buchanan seemed somehow detached and emotionally unenthusiastic. Pat has spent years lamenting about foreign policy and big government overreach. Ron's social values would allow for Buchanan's view of social society to be unimpeded by the Federal government and determined at the local community level. This is a guy that should have practically been up on his studio desktop shouting with unbridled glee with the praises of Ron Paul. But alas, he even said that he disagreed with Ron on social issues and trade issues. Very strange. Somebody or something put a restrained script on Pat for this discussion of Ron Paul.

[bobbyw24]

Buchanan understands economics. I heard him say recently that he has no doubt that free trade is good for the world but believes that a nation's economic policy should put that nation's interests first.

Well stated

[heavenlyboy34]

He thinks differently than you; therefore he doesn't understand it? Hmm
He claims that Ron is wrong and "Economic Nationalism" is correct. Either he doesn't understand it or simply has a flawed worldview.

[anaconda]

Buchanan did somethings Ron Paul may never, ever do:

1. Win GOP primaries

2. Have 3 Million people vote for him in primaries

Ron should easily get the 3 million votes this time, since he got 1.2 million last time and his numbers are magnitudes more this time. The primary wins depend heavily on what happens over the next month or so, and will have a snowballing effect in either a good way or a bad (Romney) way.

[KingRobbStark]

Because Buchanan is still under contract with MSNBC, anchors and reporters are not allowed to actively endorse election candidates. Also, Buchanan has baggage that could hurt Ron Paul with the more mainstream PC voters especially in regards to his views on America and the world's changing racial demographics and World War II.

That makes sense, thanks for the response.

[Pete Kay]

He claims that Ron is wrong and "Economic Nationalism" is correct. Either he doesn't understand it or simply has a flawed worldview.

I don't think Buchanan has a flawed worldwiew; he just has a different point of view. He's made some very strong arguments for economic nationalism that are hard to argue against. I don't think that we do the American people any favors by putting our workers in a situation where they're simply unable to compete with foreign workers. This is especially egregious when we have unbalanced trade polices with other nations that favor their workers over ours. That's not free trade; that's unfair trade. Ron Paul has even made the point that our managed trade agreements favor big business over the American people.

[jersdream]

Seriously...Pat's protectionist beliefs are completely unacceptable, especially in the 21st century.

[Todd]

regardless his differences and weaknesses, Pat is an ally.

[Occam's Banana]

Buchanan understands economics. I heard him say recently that he has no doubt that free trade is good for the world but believes that a nation's economic policy should put that nation's interests first.
Actually, that sentiment leads me to conclude that Buchanan does not, in fact, understand economics.

For one thing, it embodies a "zero-sum" approach that ignores the fundamental fact that ALL voluntary exchanges are, by their nature, inherently & necessarily "win-win."

For another thing, this "zero-sumness" is based entirely on arbitrary geo-political boundaries, and on the arbitrary selection of one particular "level" of boundary-ness as somehow being more significant than any other. For example, by Buchanan's "logic," one could just as validly conclude that "free trade is good for the United States" but that "each state's economic policy should put that state's interests first."

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think Buchanan has a flawed worldwiew; he just has a different point of view. He's made some very strong arguments for economic nationalism that are hard to argue against. I don't think that we do the American people any favors by putting our workers in a situation where they're simply unable to compete with foreign workers. This is especially egregious when we have unbalanced trade polices with other nations that favor their workers over ours. That's not free trade; that's unfair trade. Ron Paul has even made the point that our managed trade agreements favor big business over the American people.His arguments aren't hard to argue against at all unless you accept his premises. I do not. The problems in trade he points out are real (like imbalances), but there are multiple solutions to the problem-and the Nationalist approach is not one of the better ones.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, that sentiment leads me to conclude that Buchanan does not, in fact, understand economics.

For one thing, it embodies a "zero-sum" approach that ignores the fundamental fact that ALL voluntary exchanges are, by their nature, inherently & necessarily "win-win."

For another thing, this "zero-sumness" is based entirely on arbitrary geo-political boundaries, and on the arbitrary selection of one particular "level" of boundary-ness as somehow being more significant than any other. For example, by Buchanan's "logic," one could just as validly conclude that "free trade is good for the United States" but that "each state's economic policy should put that state's interests first."
qft

[lucent]

Seriously...Pat's protectionist beliefs are completely unacceptable, especially in the 21st century.

Way to use the progressive line of argument. :rolleyes:


Actually, that sentiment leads me to conclude that Buchanan does not, in fact, understand economics.

For one thing, it embodies a "zero-sum" approach that ignores the fundamental fact that ALL voluntary exchanges are, by their nature, inherently & necessarily "win-win."

For another thing, this "zero-sumness" is based entirely on arbitrary geo-political boundaries, and on the arbitrary selection of one particular "level" of boundary-ness as somehow being more significant than any other. For example, by Buchanan's "logic," one could just as validly conclude that "free trade is good for the United States" but that "each state's economic policy should put that state's interests first."

I don't consider nations arbitrary.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't consider nations arbitrary.
I didn't say they were - and perhaps they aren't. Doesn't matter.

Their boundaries - and the boundaries of any sub-divisions within them - are.
They [boundaries] are contingent on geology, historical events & accidents of circumstance.

In any case, you can strike the word "arbitrary" out of what I said and my original point still stands.

[Jamesiv1]

"[throws his hands up with incredulous face] Who put the Federal Reserve on the national agenda?? [Ron Paul] ...and who else did it? NOBODY"

This statement is 400 troy ounces of pure* gold.



*995.0 parts per thousand fine