"Kennel-Fed Conservative" Brother Buchanan Endorsed Bush But Is Now Barking About What The GOP Is Trying To Feed Him

[TheGeneral]

Well, better late than never, I guess, as they say – but not really in this case. You blew it, Brother Pat. The Constitution Party's 2004 Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka represented precisely the kind of "authentic conservatism" you are now barking about and calling for. But, you did not endorse him. So, please, my long-time friend, zip it. You have no credibility on this subject and it's your own fault.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=401

[Joe_Liberty]

Good column, John.

It is frustrating for me to see people like Pat coming out of the woodwork criticizing President Bush now that it is too late. Where were they in November, 2004 when we could have used their help?

I thought it was irresponsible for American Conservative Magazine to split its presidential endorsement between Peroutka, Nader, Bush, and the Libertarian. An uqualified endorsement of Michael Peroutka would have meant more votes for him. It is clear to me that, despite the important differences between Buchanan's worldview and The American View, that Michael Peroutka was far and away the candidate who was closest to Buchanan's professed views. One can only conclude that he made his decision with an eye toward his wallet. Endorsing Peroutka would probably have meant fewer invitations to appear on television.

It would be one thing if the criticism of President Bush by Pa tand others meant that they have finally learned their lesson. Wisdom so often never comes that I don't like to complain when it arrives late. But I have seen this kind of thing too many times. Every election cycle it seems that people like Pat spend three and a half years skewering the Republican Party and the last six months rallying to its defense.

[Areopagus]

You have no credibility on this subject and it's your own fault.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=401

Pat Buchanan, like the great majority of Christian conservatives, is all bark, and no bite. With tail wagging, they gladly accept the meatless bone of Republican rhetoric, while eschewing the full course meal of action offered by the Constitution Party.

In his January 1995 newsletter, Dobson wrote: "If the Republicans fail to address the things that matter most, I believe a third party will coalesce around an emphatically pro-life candidate in '96." He finally admitted to voting for Howard Phillips in his 1998 speech to the Council for National Policy http://www.wildershow.com/dobson.htm, but I have yet to hear him claim that was the beginning of a trend voting against the lesser evil party.

Some Republicans were addressing things that mattered most before, and after that ‘96 election. They hammered out and ran on a Republican Party Platform, and then ran away from it once elected by the party faithful, because they have learned that Christian conservatives will accept rhetoric over action every time.

Christian conservatives love the Bible quotes, the prayers, the occasional references to God, the promises, the speeches, the sentimental tear, and all the talk, but they never ever observe, much less recall the walk away from all the planks in the platform. Christian conservatives are so enraptured by all the imagery that they never notice the lack of substance.

Christian conservatives have let the Democrats pave the road to ruin, and they let the Republicans lead the nation down that same road at an accelerating pace.

[Will]

I voted for Michael Peroutka last year, but I voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. I will vote for Pat again in 2008 if we can get him to run on the Constitution Party ticket.

Will Mattison

[Joe_Liberty]

I voted for Howard Phillips in 2000 and Michael Peroutka in 2004. My reasons for going with Howard in 2000 instead of Pat were pretty well summarized by Gary Moeller at the time. See http://www.autentico.org/oa09436.php

It is my understanding that Pat was approached by the Constitution Party and he isn't interested. There are any number of other people I would rather see at the top of our ticket in '08 rather than Pat, most especially Michael Peroutka. Pat's endorsement of President Bush disqualifies him from further consideration in my book. I suspect his flirtation with electoral politics is over anyway. He will probably end his days as a talking head on cable news.

[Will]

Pat's endorsement of President Bush disqualifies him from further consideration in my book.

Joe:

What! You never made a mistake? It seems to me that Pat is now admitting his mistake. His mistake running in 2000 was that he put a black woman on the ticket as his running mate. I am not a racist, I voted for him anyway. He did it to convince everyone that, despite the liberals shouting that he is a racist, he is not. It was a mistake because his strength was in the white southern vote and very few would vote for a black woman. I would say that he lost probably hundreds of votes for every vote he gained. I like his political philosophy but he doesn't seem to be too bright to me. His name would gain us a lot of votes and a lot of converts. Face it! We are not going to get a national candidate elected until we win over a massive number of people. To do that we need to run people that are nationally known. McClintock (sp.) would have been a lot better governor in California than the "terminator" but even the Californians didn't know who he is.

[Joe_Liberty]

Yes, I have made mistakes. I am not comparing myself to Pat Buchanan. I am comparing Michael Peroutka to Pat Buchanan. I'm not claiming that Peroutka is perfect either, but I would vote to nominate Peroutka over Pat Buchanan any day because Michael Peroutka is a better candidate. That is assuming that Pat Buchanan were even interested in our nomination - which he isn't - and that he were planning to run for president again - which I doubt.

I agree that selecting Fulani as his running mate in 2000 was a mistake. That is another reason I didn't vote for him. I don't care that she's black - I do care that she is a commie and a woman. Endorsing Bush was also a mistake. I would not vote for anyone for president who voted for George W. Bush in 2004.

[TimV]

The problem with Pat is that he is as unstable as water. I think it's his addiction to being in the public eye. If he goes too far outside the mainstream, TV stations wont give him air time.

[bluebird]

Didn't we all know, those of us who made the choice to go from Republican to the Constitution Party membership, didn't we KNOW that one day conservative Republicans would be disappointed? It was not a matter of IF only WHEN.

Rush Limbaugh is still steeped in denial. You should listen to his radio show one time during all of this Harriet Miers fiasco, he's trying hard to support the prez but it's just not the passionate Limbaugh we use to know, he's become a company man, a 9 to 5 er.

Hannity, being younger, protested at first and within a relatively short time "assumed" the party line. Who do they really think they are kidding?

Ann Coulter, I suppose could not stomach the hypocrisy and finally broke loose giving Bush a critique that made diehard Democrats say, "hell is now freezing over."

The point is, those of us who converted just before the 2004 election, KNEW this day would come. There were many red flags. Unfortunately, some people were too comfortable and the affliction has set in. For some reason this reminds me of something I always heard back in the 1970s:

"Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable."

[Jaime]

Pat lost credibility with me when Pat decided to run in Perot's Party.

BTW, I voted for Pat in the GOP primary, I forget the year, when he gave his speech at the GOP Convention in Houston. Funny how he was "crucified" for stating the obvious "culture war" that now is generally accepted s a fact. Of course, a lot of people claimed that Pat was calling for a "culture war," which was not true.

Pat could have done a lot of good then but he showed to have feet and legs of clay when he chose money over principle, the Perot Party over the Constitution Party.

Pat does well as a columnist and when he draws history into his writing. Now he is doing what he ought to be doing ... as imperfectly as any of us.

[Will]

Jaime:

Great post, I agree wholeheartedly!

Will Mattison

[exmarine]

Buchanan is not the only one. Joe Farah from WND changed his mind at the last second and voted for Bush. He has now come out to say that he greatly regrets that decision.

There are great overt as well as subliminal pressures for people to vote for one of the two parties. People are constantly bombarded with "It's a waste of a vote," or "Your candidate can't win," or "If we don't vote Republican, the horrible Democrat will win," or "We need to stand behind our leader in a time of war," ad nauseum. When people hear such things often enough and long enough from people they trust, it creates a "herd instinct."

The bible repeatedly compares people to sheep. Thee similarities are striking!

-Both sheep and people have a mass mind (mob instinct).
-Both are stubborn.
-Sheep wander astray, and so do people ("We all like sheep have gone astray, each one to his own way" Is. 53:6
-Sheep are creatures of habit - they will follow the same path over and over. And they will acquire bad habits. Same with people. There is a saying, "sow a habit, reap a lifestyle..."
-Sheep are dumb, very dumb. And all I have to do is look at some of my own past foolishness to see I'm not that smart either.
-Finally, both have SHEPHERDS. But ours is a much better Shepherd than any sheepherder. Jesus said, "I AM THE GOOD SHEPHERD." Clearly, he was referring to the Shepherd King David wrote of in Pslam 23.

Until I found the Constitution Party, I felt like the Lone Ranger. It was a lonely feeling. At times even I had doubts because I could find no reinforcement or support, not even within my church, where I never really fit in because I didn't go with the flow. The ONLY leader I follow is Jesus Christ and the Word of God. My first loyalty is never to a man. The Lord is my Shepherd.

I wish I could say I was optimistic that things will change, but I'm not, because the root of the problem lies with the people who elect the bad leaders we have today.

[Patriot 2]

Well sad John Lofton!!


What galls me is that normally well informed, conservative Catholics give Buchanan too much credence.


Any Catholics out there?

Yes come home, come home to a political party that most closely supports positions in harmony with the Church!!!!

Christ is King and Lord. We are to submit and obey, as did Mary, the Apostles and all beleivers. We cannot retreat and cannot tuck our tails between our legs and run away. We cannot pretend all is well, nor construct a fantasy world, like Dobson, Robertson, et al.


Any Catholic out there? STOP SUPPORTING THE GOP AND DNC!!!! Both support neither of your Church's stands!!

I have a hard to saying this, but yes TImV, I agree with you, Pat me thinks likes too much attention and publicity.

Truly,


A Constitutional Catholic

[BrandonH]

Buchanan ran for the Reform Party in 2000 only after he failed to win the Republican Nomination. However, he is a well known name. One of the reasons the media ignores third parties is because they are lacking well known names. But when Nader and Buchanan ran for the Green and Reform Parties, they got a little bit of coverage. Gilchrist is the CP's best shot ever at a Congressional seat, mainly because he is a well known name. So I won't hold 2000 against Pat.

In his AC endorsement, he did mention Peroutka. He said it would be ok to vote Peroutka in the safe states but Bush in the swing states. I remember he said "Bush is right on taxes, justices, and soveigty" and a few other things. "Kerry is right on nothing." The lesser of two evils syndrome. I think we would be better off with 60 Republican Senate seats and a Kerry Presidentcy than what we have now.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041030233942/amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html for the endorsement.