I watch MSNBC frequently and I have seen Pat Buchanan on there many times. I think he is a very honest and smart man. I am a traditional conservative, but I have lost trust in the government, so I am more of a paleoconservative. I think Buchanan would have been a hell of a lot better President than Bush. I trust old style conservatives like Buchanan more than the neo-cons of today that are harming America. He reminds me of the type of man who would best bring moral and family values back to America.
2007-07-13 05:44:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is a great question and consideration.
I think he does a great job in that analyst role. He often gains consensus with those that "oppose" him, and I think he is "scary smart".
However, there is much more to being the President than those characteristics, and while I think Mr. B has some of those, I think he is best suited for the roles which he held under Regan and the role he has on MSNBC.
He should be an adviser to Bush, and I think we would be naive to think that he does not advise this Administration.
Bush actually, contrary to popular opinion, holds many of the same values as Mr. B., but carrying out those values is much tougher than stating what the outcome should be, which is what Mr. B does.
Like you, I long for the days of Regan, but this is a different world, and Regan would probably have struggled with these circumstances as well.
Great question!
2007-07-13 05:54:55 · answer #1 · answered by Schneiderman 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The thing we notice that turns us off is how everyone running for office aligns his opinions with the polls. When polls show that the public's opinion on something has changed, a candidate will change his own opinion, and insist that he has felt that way all his life and never otherwise. This is really transparent and just makes candidates look stupid. But this is what you have to do today if you want to get elected.
People who are not running for office--or running not to win but just to make a statement--have the luxury of sticking by their opinions whether they're popular or not. This is why Ron Paul is so popular among Republicans. His opinions don't waver with polls so he looks unusually consistant and 'honest', not mealy-mouthed and compromising.
Pat Buchanan is in that category. He doesn't have to pull his punches. He can take the GOP to task for abandoning their conservative principles--something GOP mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will never do because they WORK for the party. His consistency is really very refreshing. At least you get the idea that he's telling you what he really thinks, not what he thinks his audience wants to hear.
But beneath it, Buchanan, like Paul, have some opinions that are very unpopular in the US. Which is why neither of them will be president. And if they -did- become president, you can bet their whole outlook on a lot of things would change. Because they would have gotten their campaign financing from the same place GW Bush and Hillary Clinton got theirs.
2007-07-13 05:56:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm a liberal and love Pat Buchanan. I don't always agree with him but at least he can explain his position without having the listener take some giant political leap of faith. I'd feel much more comfortable with Pat in the White House than any of the other Republican nominees. He's consistently rational - remember what that was like?
2007-07-13 05:47:30 · answer #3 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Buchanan is honest, which made him a minority in both the Nixon and the Reagan Administrations. (He was not involved in either Watergate or Iran-contra or any other Presidential scandal -- as far as I know.) But his prejudices disqualify him from getting my vote.
Pat knows politics, he's a smart guy, he's true to his friends, he's honest, and he's got a good sense of humor. But he has a measure of intolerance that I cannot accept.
He reminds me of something talk-show host Dennis Prager used to say of Mario Cuomo, then Governor of New York and a liberal icon: "I'd love to have dinner with him, but I'd never vote for him."
2007-07-13 05:49:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I oppose most of Buchanan’s views but he is articulate and fairly straightforward. I agree that he would have made a much better president than Bush but that is not saying much.
2007-07-13 05:54:29 · answer #5 · answered by quest for truth gal 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
a huge situation is in basic terms about each and every person buddies 'conservative" to "republican" thank you often to the Rove/Rush/Billo media varieties - yet truly reasonable united states of america of america is a majority - screwed via Bush on the economy, and all of the Bush cronies who've spent the final 8 years singing in team spirit approximately how undesirable each and every physique who isn't them is, the republicans have lost good sized chunks of their "base" - an particularly genuine actuality is that there are a number of conservative democrats - who do not choose to lose their jobs, residences, and scientific well-being coverage to wealthy elitist Wall Streeters who spent years interior the republican wallet - No days if the international unearths out your organization has been milking the middle classification and taking section in inner maximum jets and costly luxuries off the backs of yours and mine retirement funds and lost each and every thing- properly, the rublicans could have hell to pay and a substantial mountain to climb - in elementary terms some suggestions-lifeless Rush limbaugh believers will follow - a minimum of till starvation contraptions in.
2016-10-21 03:28:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh Lord NO! It is not up to the governing body to legislate what you call moral/family values. We are individuals. They are as fallible as any human. Therefore lack authority on these issues.
2007-07-13 05:50:12 · answer #7 · answered by gone 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would never vote for him. I disagree with him far too much.
he doesn't seem to have 'morals' or 'family values'. I don't count hate, intolerance, bigotry, sexism, or a dislike of proven truth as a moral or value
2007-07-13 07:55:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. I believe Mr. Buchanan believes in the kind of economic policies and protectionism that would stifle growth in our economy.
2007-07-13 05:50:16 · answer #9 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'll tell you this our immigration policy would be much different if he had won in 1992. It would be something like Shoot on Sight.
Boookannan be representin. Rispek.
I'm kidding that guy is a little out there.
2007-07-13 05:47:58 · answer #10 · answered by alwaysmoose 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋