A liberal's second look at Pat Buchanan

[rawstory]

Full story at The Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com (third column)

By Craig Colbert
RAW STORY COLUMNIST

Over the last few years I have been gaining much respect for one Patrick J. Buchanan, founder of the Conservative educational foundation The American Cause, confidant to Nixon, Ford and Reagan and perennial Presidential wanna-be.

I first started to look at Pat Buchanan in a different light in the days following the 2000 Presidential Election when Mr. Buchanan actually went on the Today show and stated that most of the 3,407 votes he received in Palm Beach County were probably meant for Al Gore.

I cannot think of anything he had to gain by making such an acknowledgement but my belief is that he was more concerned about the integrity of the process than what Bush and his supporters thought of him. Thus the worm began to turn regarding my view of Pat Buchanan, a man I had up until that point felt was an ultra-conservative nut job.

Since then “Bully” Pat, as a buddy of mine likes to call him, has written several articles for conservative outlets like WorldNetDaily.com railing against the neo-cons and their agendas.
In a March 24, 2003 column for The American Conservative titled “Whose War?” Mr. Buchanan outlined how, “A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.”

In that article he reveals that, “On Sept. 20, (2001) forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted… (The) letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, ‘will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.’”

He went on to add, “Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11.”

Now while this may be old news to those who have been paying attention what has made me an even bigger fan of Pat Buchanan these days is his bulldog determination to be the voice of reason on the conservative side.

This week he was a guest on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews and then a guest host Scarborough Country the following evening.

On Hardball Buchanan declared, “(This) was clearly not a war of necessity. It‘s war of choice… The neoconservatives have this agenda of democratic imperialism and it can‘t work. If you‘re an empire, you go in and dictate and you win. And it‘s the definition of a superpower, when you commit to a war, you win it. Our reputation as a superpower is on the line now….The stakes are more than Vietnam.”

As impressive as his showing on Hardball was the next night when he guest hosted Scarborough Country there was absolutely extraordinary as he actually tag teamed with Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, to press neocon defender Ann Coulter on where the war was going and why the President has been unable to articulate an exit strategy.

PAT BUCHANAN: “Ann, let me say, I happen to agree with Robert Reich on this. Look, I do think the country needs answers to some questions. Suppose, after we turn over power on the 30(th) and then they hold elections that the people who win the elections are radical Shiites, a lot of them are radical Sunnis, who run on the proposition that we‘re going to tell the Americans to get out of the country. Do we then get out if that side wins the election? And how long, in terms of blood and treasure and the rest of it, do we spend in Iraq to build a democracy when it does not look like right now the people that want a democracy are willing to fight quite as hard as those who would like to get us out of there?”

ANN COULTER: “I think the point is this is going to be hard. It‘s going to take a long time. But it‘s something that absolutely has to be done.”

BUCHANAN: “Why?”

COULTER: “We need an Arab Israel over there. We can‘t keep pimping for Israel. We need a puppet government. We need to be on the ground. We need a friendly government. We need democracy.”

[RoyGBiv]

1. Well...

I have absolutely no use for Pat Buchannan, but this highlights a point that Democrats, especially those running for office, would do well to consider. They could use it to force a recognizable split in the Republicans, if they did so carefully.

NeoConservatives are not conservatives in any reasonable sense of the term. They're more radical than the most radical leftist that has managed to gain any sort of major influence on American politics. Core conservatives that bother really to look at this don't like it at all because it goes against their fundamental instincts. More intelligent conservatives also realize just how dangerous it is. There are several conservatives who have made points similar to those Buchanan made here, but most of them, being held prisoner to the will of the RNC, are quickly silenced or dropped.

Pat is to be commended for speaking his mind on the issue, but I don't think I could ever be moved to re-think my negative opinion of him and his politics. When the votes are cast, I'd bet dollars to donuts he pulls the lever for Junior.

[Martin Eden]

2. Buchanan deserves respect because ...

... he is an honest conservative -- at least compared to the neocons and most Republicans. I'm sure if his entire domestic platform were laid out before us we would heartily disagree with most of it, but it is possible to disagree and still maintain genuine respect when the debate is about substance rather than smear.

Personally, I find myself strongly agreeing with most of Buchanan's recent foreign policy essays. His review of the Frum/Perle neocon treatise An End To Evil is well worth the read:
http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

[salonghorn70]

3. Buchanan and Nixon

I still think Buchanan is Deep Throat.

HOOK 'EM HORNS

[struggle4progress]

4. Well, OK, I sometimes get that blurry-eyed feel ...

that PJB is a moderate compared to the rest of them. This makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up ...

[pacifictiger]

5. I think everyone should start calling them

theo-conservatives, not neo-conservatives.
They are so far removed from Lincoln's republican party and I think Pat is really worried about that, as should we all.

[ljm2002]

8. theo-conservatives

I like it! Hope you don't mind if I borrow the term...

[kclown]

6. Pat Buchanan has always been worth listening to.

He is the best-schooled debater in the Jesuit tradition, which
rigidly excludes appeal to emotion.  Most of what passes for
debate these days is an appeal to emotion and nothing more,
which is why he stands out.

Among other things, he is a nativist who would drastically
reduce immigration in order to preserve white, Christian
American culture.  Implicit in this, and I bet he wouldn't
deny it if ever asked, is the necessity for a big increase in
the white, Christian American birthrate, with every cultural
course change this would require.  He has expressed the same
concern about Western Europe.

Agree or not, I can't deny that he is honest and coherent, at
least in his arguments.  His biggest political problems have
been: a. he has no children, and b. he drives foreign cars.

[ljm2002]

9. I agree, and here's why

I rarely agree with Pat Buchanan's positive political positions -- that is, his prescriptions for how things should be. However, I agree with him surprisingly often on his negative positions -- i.e., "here is something that isn't right". For example, I don't agree with his thinking about immigration and the necessary dominance of white Christian culture in this country; however, I do agree with him on the sellout of American citizens via the jobs exodus, and on corporate crookedness.

The truly great thing about Pat Buchanan, and why I really do respect him, is this: he will honestly state his position. Sadly, this is a very rare thing in today's political discourse. Think about it: politicians use "code words", and even if we are able to decode them, it also weakens our rejoinders, because if we use the decoded version to refute their position, they just say "that isn't what I said, you're putting words in my mouth". Whereas with Pat, he'll say what he means, and you can take his words at face value, and debate him on the merits.

[cornfedyank]

7. the enemy of my enemy is my friend......for now

on november 3, 2004 i will be ready to take on pjb on other long term issues. right i do not care which lever he pulls. one person one vote. if he will give truthful information about iraq and it's effects on this country to the people that he influences, then for now i will smoke the pipe. his raising questions can only have positive effects on the teetering. they represent more than one vote and may be the margin of victory on november 2, 2004.


i do not want this election to be close. it is important that we show the world that We The People can do preventative maintenance on our system. then maybe we can get them to trust the last superpower enough to get rid of some of the damn weapons.
wage peace---it's cheaper.
imagine