Comments

There Are 58 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Eagle on 17 October 2008:

   I would welcome an analysis from Mr. Buchanan or anyone on what it is that keeps the majority of Americans beholden only to the “choices” their masters have offered. I agree with what Buchanan says above. But, it still begs the question: why do Americans not understand or act on the right to vote for someone outside of the two party duopoly? Obama and McCain are no good? Fine, vote for another party or write someone in. Or don’t vote at all. I suspect that when we look closely at the situation we’ll find that “we” the public are as much, if not more, to blame as all the narciscists who devote their lives to public “service”. Until Diebold and the Secretaries of State start committing all out fraud (which, admittedly, may not be far off), I would say a sleeping public bears great fault.

2. 2 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 17 October 2008:

   Well Pat, since you live right around the corner from CIA you know McCain will lose Virginia, because I won’t be voting for him. My conscience will be perfectly clear voting for a loser like Chuck Baldwin — the closest option to voting for Ron Paul. The Stupid Party has gone to great lengths to alienate voters like myself for the past 20 years, so I feel no obligation to support a candidate who accepted money from George Soros’ front groups.

   The machine that wishes to bankrupt America both financially and morally has bought and paid for Obama’s victory. It will be short lived. Have a nice 2 years liberal swine.

   This election will bring about a rise of conservative democrats in the South, and a dagger through the heart of the neocons, which has been a long time coming.

3. 3 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 17 October 2008:

   The US a “center-right country”? Pat Buchanan is kidding himself, unless this is taken to mean blind militarism and allegiance to the Anglo-American-Israeli designs for global empire – neo-conservatism in other words. If the worst catastrophe which can befall us is another democratic administration, then Buchanan should be thankful that Obama is the presidential candidate. A white democrat, Biden for example or even Hillary Clinton, would be ahead 20 or so points by now and the down ticket effect would be even much greater. And that would actually have been a good thing since a wipe-out of the republican party (sorry, Pat) is a necessary condition for reversing the morally and political bankruptcy already upon us.

   The only really decent candidate in this election is Chuck Baldwin and he gets my vote, but neither he nor his party will save the country. The American global empire must come to an end and this may require the end of a centralized US government which never should have been created to begin with and the break-up of the US into various independent commonwealths. When the USSR broke up in 1991, I told my kids, then teenagers, that the same thing would someday happen to the US, probably not in my lifetime, but certainly in theirs. I now think it could well happen in my lifetime, and frankly the sooner the better.

4. 4 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 17 October 2008:

   The historic pattern is that the GOP closes a bit in the last two weeks. Hillary almost upset BHO in the second half of the primary campaign. BHO was saved by the inept failure of Hillary’s people to organize in caucus states. Whether that pattern will play out enough for what now must be counted as an upset, no one knows. A terrorist attack or another economic implosion could be enough to sway the election either way.

   The only arguments for McCain that resonate at all with me are judges and the main virtue of divided government–the difficulty of getting anything done, which is what Madison intended and the best we can hope for.

   If Obama wins, we can only hope he trims toward the center (he will, on foreign affairs at least).

5. 5 Comment by Akira on 17 October 2008:

   In Canada, Conservative Stephen Harper stood head and shoulders above the impotent Liberals, the irrational Dippers, and the insane Greens, and just breezed into his second term as Prime Minister. :8

   Meanwhile, in the U.S. of A., Communist Marxist Barry Hussein Dunham continues to lead McCain in the polls, as the Democrats begin to plan his 2012 re-election campaign.

   What does the future hold for Champions of Freedom?

6. 6 Comment by Patrick H. on 17 October 2008:

   Mr. Buchanan;
   You are determined to allow your credibility as a Conservative be one more casualty of the Republican Party, as now constituted. You ask, “ are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?” The answer is Yes.
   You then state that “this center-right country is about to strengthen a liberal Congress . . . and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history,” naming a couple of left-wing members of the Senate, according to the National Journal.
   There you are wrong. These “liberals” may be left, but they are to Kerensky’s Mensheviks, as Republican “conservatives” are to Lenin’s Bolsheviks. The most left-wing, revolutionary, members of the Senate, on a historical ideological test, are Senators such as Graham, McCain, and other Republicans, as well as the honorary Republican, Joe Lieberman. That is the revolutionary cabal that executed a military coup de tat, under the dual hatted, Commander in Chief. They are the ones who introduced the revolutionary , for the U.S., unitary executive theory, putting a veneer on what is constructively a legal theory of dictatatorship, overthrowing the constitutional order.
   The American people have been robbed blind by this revolutionary party’s cronies, with Jack Abramoff being a relative petty thief compared to those in the administration. The electorate is showing a healthy rejection of this revolutionary order, even if it is for another left-wing party. And why shouldn’t they reject a party that boasts of its “creative destruction,” when we’re the subject of the destruction.
   It is shameful and pathetic that you are working hand in glove with this revolutionary band, some of whom have committed treason in conspiring with Iranian agents, such as Ahmad Chalabi, in extending Iranian hegemony over its neighbor, Iraq, to the detriment of national interests. As a person who formerly called myself a conservative, until the term was so discredited, I may agree with Sarah Palin on the 2nd Amendment, but with her defending it, I know it too will be discredited. And with her as a leader of the Republican party, I am ashamed to admit I ever was a Republican. The way you have been defending her, I am waiting for a picture of the two of you standing in front of her gubernatorial office flag (which country’s flag is it again.

7. 7 Comment by Akira on 17 October 2008:

   Re: Eagle: “I would welcome an analysis from…anyone on what it is that keeps the majority of Americans beholden only to the “choices”…the two party duopoly?

   Both parties have usually been coalitions. No, I don’t mean they are one coalition. I mean that both parties are made up of shifting coalitions.

   Which is why there have been conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

   And the parties mostly compete to win over swing states and non-partisan voters.

   I think this is a very stable way of governing such a large and populous country. Certainly the US is better run than any similar-sized country (China, Russia, Brazil, India, Nigeria, Indonesia…). Japan , which has half the population of the U.S., and is also quite well-run compared to similar-sized countries, has also usually been ruled by a coalition (i.e. the LDP) since democracy was introduced.

   I have no time for people who moan, “They’re all the same…” “There’s no difference between Obama and McCain…”; but the two main parties do tend to converge on many points. This is because they race towards the centre and try to avoid alienating voters.

   I agree with Pat Buchanan about the far-left nature of Obama-Biden-Pelosi-Reid, and conclude that if such extremists win next month, that would signify a MASSIVE shift in American politics.

8. 8 Comment by Robert Bruce on 17 October 2008:

   Ther isn’t much difference to speak of Akira. The only difference between the two is the degree that they support a postion, McCain wants almost total war it sounds like, while Obama wanting to withdraw a majority of troops from Iraq, want to pound the hell out of Afghanistan. Both think the government, the very entity responsible for our financial hell, is the only one that can fix it, along with every other social problem that they themselves helped bring about. You can’t help but being cynical with the poor choices we have been given. Only difference between the two policy wise is the health care issue and both plans stink. Bottom line both prescribe more govt as cure all to all of our problems.

9. 9 Comment by polemicscat on 17 October 2008:

   Mr. Buchanan as usual has made excellent observations.
   But he has skirted around the conclusion that follows what he has said about Obama’s shifting statements. In this regard he is a much more ominous candidate than McGovern.
   . .” No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.”
   Although I disagreed with McGovern’s policy recommendations, I could always be confident that (1) he was honestly promoting a legitimate point of view and (2) he meant well for the people and future of the United States.
   Obama, on the other hand, has been a question mark from the start. And his shifting comments on policies simply reinforces the doubts thoughtful people have about him. Shifting policy recommendations shows that a candidate wants desperately to be elected and that’s all. We don’t really know what is in store with an Obama presidency. By contrast, McGovern was a statesman: he gave the American voter an honest choice and was willing to stand by his convictions even when he knew he was failing to win votes.

10. 10 Comment by Jack on 17 October 2008:

    I’ve voted Republican since Reagan, but I can’t get past what a blithering buffoon Palin is. I simply can’t vote for McCain for that reason alone. I’ve sent in my absentee ballot for Obama. I’d like to see the GOP utterly obliterated this year so that it can come back as a pro-freedom, anti-egalitarian, non-socially reactionary party. Let “the “GOP base” depart, and concentrate its time and money on erecting creationism museums.

11. 11 Comment by george on 17 October 2008:

    The thing that worries me about Obama is Zbignew Brezinski and his clan which will mean a full scale implementation of the Grand chessboard plan so expect a false flag event in the Crimea soon.

    McCain would be the same but he might be more focused on going after Iran first than destroying Russia putting the oligarchy back into power and putting its oil and gas reserves under US and British companies with the major shareholders of the companies being senior shareholders of the company case in point Yuko’s during the 90’s with the likes of Henry Kissinger.

12. 12 Comment by jack bailey on 17 October 2008:

    I love how around this time of the year we get visitors on this site who claim to have voted for Reagan and Obama in the same lifetime. I suppose it won’t be long before someone writes that they have voted for democrats since Kennedy but are voting for McCain this year.

13. 13 Comment by george on 17 October 2008:

    “putting its oil and gas reserves under US and British companies with the major shareholders of the companies being senior shareholders”

    Meant to say:

    …putting its oil and gas reserves under US and British companies with the major shareholders of the companies being senior US political figures

14. 14 Comment by Akira on 18 October 2008:

    Robert Bruce,

    With leaders like you, I can see why Scotland is in such dire straits!

    As for, “Ther isn’t much difference to speak of” — as I pointed out, both main parties are coalitions, and both tend to be officially centrist. This is because, the US not having a parliamentary system of governance, the winner takes all (with the checks and balances of the other branches). Therefore they both have to appeal to the majority of people.

    The important thing then is, which branch of each party dominates the coalition. This is what primaries are for, and that’s why they go on for so long and are so important and usually more acrimonious than the actual presidential race.

    McCain won because he appealed to both centrists and “hawks”. He appealed to a wider cross-section of Republicans than any of the other candidates, except perhaps for Bishop Romney, who was ultimately rejected by key segmenst of the party because of his blatant pandering and insincerity as a “conservative.”

    The Obama faction’s win is the subject of the article above. In fact Obama represents the crypto-communist, pseudo-post-modern [i.e. disillusioned communists], and anti-democratic wings of the Democrat Party. He should rightly be traipsing along behind McKinnon, Boxer, Pelosi etc, and I suspect he himself never expected to be the candidate in this election, but thanks to the Clinton’s having accumulated thousands of smiling backstabbing sworn enemies over the years, Obama’s now The Man.

    Re: “You can’t help but being cynical with the poor choices we have been given.”

    Frankly, people like you are enemies of freedom, and a sycophant of Big Government. A bit of self-reflection might do you good. Obama and McCain are the choices after YEARS and MULTI-MILLIONS of dollars worth of campaigning, nominating, endorsing, advertising, caucusing, and voting. It’s the longest and most intricate electoral process of any democracy in the world. And then fools like you pi$$ and moan about, “Oh, is this all the choice we get? Why doesn’t the government do more for us? Gimme gimme gimme.” You’re as bad as those idiots who on election day say, “I don’t know enough about the candidates! The media needs to do a better job. I don’t see any difference between McCain and Obama. Nobody ever told me what they believe or what their records are. How am I supposed to choose? They have the exact same policies, don’t they? Just like there was no difference between Careter and Reagan. Moan moan moan…”

15. 15 Comment by MAP on 18 October 2008:

    Kirt Higdon @ 3. You have expressed my thoughts exactly.

16. 16 Comment by Patrick H. on 18 October 2008:

    At least with an Obama administration, Republicans may appreciate the Constitution again. Will Republicans still be enthusiatic for “unitary executive theory,” or as the Straussian Harvey Mansfield puts it in layman’s terms, “one man rule” with a President Obama? Especially when Stephen Presser provided such valuable service in defending it in Congressional testimony this summer.

17. 17 Comment by Patrick H. on 18 October 2008:

    Correction:
    At least with an Obama administration, Republicans may appreciate the Constitution again. Will Republicans still be enthusiatic for “unitary executive theory,” or as the Straussian Harvey Mansfield puts it in layman’s terms, “one man rule” with a President Obama? Especially when Stephen Presser provided such valuable service in defending it (unitary executive theory, not the Constitution) in Congressional testimony this summer.

18. 18 Comment by Paul D. Alexander on 18 October 2008:

    Unfortunately, Baldwin is not on the Georgia ballot — we have Obama, McCain, and Barr to choose from down here — so I intend to vote the category “No Preference”. Personally, I couldn’t care less how bad Obama may potentially be; I’ve come to despise the GOP thanks to Bush & Co., and voting for the “lesser of two evils” is something I’ll never do again. Besides which, as a Southerner, why vote for the “Party of Lincoln”?

19. 19 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 18 October 2008:

    jack bailey @ 11

    I voted for Reagan and Nixon before him, but I haven’t voted for the Republican or Democratic candidate since and doubt I ever will again.

20. 20 Comment by Skepsis on 18 October 2008:

    Young men can no longer go west. Thus, were ought we go and what is to be done. Those words, once spoken among Russian “mavericks” in the early 20th century are lost upon a land of domesticated citizenry. As we have speculated all along, America is and will continue to die with nothing more than a whimper. Those of us above the line of alethea are too few and, unfortunately, too weak against a government that is more powerful than any other in history.

    America is a land of such irony. Communism, what we fought so ardently to defeat, is now our national objective. Communism has borrowed its way into the intellectual foundation of American ideals and is tightly woven into our national fabric. Don’t believe me? Look at our National Security Strategy and what it seeks to promote. Freedom, liberty, and Justice are just pseudonyms for “peace, land, and bread.” Soon this plan will go into overdrive, and into the African heartland. After all, this is necessary if we are to “heal the world?”

    We are all socialists now.

    Unfortunately, these fruits have yet to ripen.

21. 21 Comment by Eric on 18 October 2008:

    It doesn’t matter if we are “center-right country,” because as long as we stay in Iraq our political dialogue is static and partisan. Liberals claim that we should never have been in Iraq, and that Bush misled the country (probably true) and the conservative movement devotes its time and energy to finding new ways to defend Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. So nothing gets done and our political conversation keeps throwing the same accusations back and fourth. This is not healthy, even my American standards.

    The fact of the matter is that the Iraq war is clogging our entire political system. It’s going to impossible to confront any other major issue — tax reform, Entitlement reform, the burgeoning debt, immigration — as long as we keep spending so much money in Iraq, and as long as our country is focused on the so-called War on Terror. (There really is no War on Terror; it’s just a slogan that is helpful to the Neocons because it gives them a blank check to wage war wherever they please.)

    I think an Obama Administration is more likely to withdraw our troops from Iraq and this is exactly what must be done. This will unclog our political system and things can start flowing again. I oppose pretty much everything Obama believes in, but I regard McCain as more dangerous — he’s more likely to start another war.

22. 22 Comment by Seeliemee on 18 October 2008:

    I can only suppose by the tone of Pat’s article and the theme of the recent Chronicles that everyone’s assuming Senator Obama is all but in the White House now. Certainly some of the folks commenting are in a fury over that possibility but honestly how can anyone vote for Senator McCain? He will only extend (or expand) the ME wars which are breaking the spirit, the letter and the law of our already down-and-out republic. Here in Louisiana, we don’t have a choice: either Obama or McCain since the Republican SOS bumped the Libertarians off the ballot due to a hurricane-induced technicality. Nobama down here simply means Mowar over there.

23. 23 Comment by george on 18 October 2008:

    @17Skepsis

    The same international banking houses that financed the communist revolution and years prior conspired to weaken the Russian economy making conditions so the revolution could happen are the major financiers of both the two big parties.

    In fact I think a major banking firm that helped bankroll the revolution by Jacob Schiff is a major contributor to Barack Obama.

    Does anyone really think Obama has any clue or initiative to run as president?

    It’s obvious his advisors will be calling the shots telling Obama what to do.

    It’s the same reason they chose Sarah Palin as VP or McCain for that matter.

24. 24 Comment by Skepsis on 18 October 2008:

    Then the question is, what is to be done? What can young men do to fix this situation? Shall we just sit and wait? I am afraid that there is nothing we can do.

    I served proudly for four years in the military, only to realize that it is just a kinetic instrument–there is no room for intellectualizing. Now, still young and capable of idealism, I am beginning to realize that there are no alternatives to government service (unless you want an impecunious lifestyle.)

    Even academia has closed its doors to the young with intellectual gumption; our ivory towers are fortified with hate and ego.

    Again, young men, what is to be done?

25. 25 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 18 October 2008:

    Here is my recommended
    In 1979 when Jimmy the Born Again occupied the White House, Alexander Zinoviev was expelled from the Soviet Union for his book The Yawning Heights about a fictitious land called Ibansk. Since all the Ivans had the same name, they were identified by their nicknames. For example Truth-teller was Alexander Solzhenitsyn of blessed memory. Other characters included Neurasthenic, Dauber, Boss, Wife, Careerist, Schizophrenic and so on.

    I have recently made an effort to finish this wonderful tome, but three decades after its publication it no longer describes the late USSR, it now describes the stultifying bureaucracy right here in the politically correct US of A. The good news is the strength of the True Church was able to survive communism. Will our money-grubbing megachurches offer up the faith to carry us through the inevitable tribulation that Our Lord promised?

26. 26 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 18 October 2008:

    *my recommended Book Of Next Month

27. 27 Comment by Roy F. Moore on 19 October 2008:

    To Skepsis:

    You asked “Again, young men, what is to be done?”

    It seems we have three choices and only three:

    1) Mass suicide

    2) Armed revolution

    3) The Fatima Consecration

28. 28 Comment by Rob on 19 October 2008:

    Yeah, like so many others here, I am voting for Baldwin with no hope and not much passion. I like Buchanan but, just like every election save 2000, when November comes around, he’s talking up the GOP again. Where’s Sam Francis and his boogy man theory when we need him the most? RIP, Sam. RIP, our Republic.

29. 29 Comment by Josh Cooney on 19 October 2008:

    “Then the question is, what is to be done? What can young men do to fix this situation? Shall we just sit and wait? I am afraid that there is nothing we can do.”

    Skepsis @19,

    From one young man to another, there is no quick and easy method to solving our problems. Besides cultivating patience and hope (not optimism), the only remedy is the one proposed by Chronicles and The Rockford Institute: make a lifetime study of the languages, literature, history, and religion of Western Civilzation. It may be hundreds of years before any renewal takes place, but I like to remind myself of monks during the Middle Ages who transcribed scripture and ancient literature in their dim scriptoriums. These words from T.S. Eliot may prove helpful:

    “The fact that a problem will certainly take a long time to solve, and that it will demand the attention of many minds for several generations, is no justification for postponing the study. And, in times of emergency, it may prove in the long run that the problems we have postponed or ignored, rather than those we have failed to attack successfully, will return to plague us. Our difficulties of the moment must always be dealt with somehow: but our permanent difficulties are difficulties of every moment.”–From “The Idea of a Christian Society”

30. 30 Comment by Michael Ezzo on 19 October 2008:

    While I join many of you in voting for Baldwin (realizing that he can’t save our country, as Kirt Higdon pointed out), I also join Mr. Moore in putting my marbles on choice #3 (writeback #22) for the larger issue of peace in the world. Everything else has been tried, and failed.

31. 31 Comment by raven on 19 October 2008:

    The “center-right country” Mr. Buchanan refers to is an anachronism from the 20th century and does nor reflect the United States of today. Its the voting citizens who ultimately decide the political make-up of its legislative body and President and if they deem to install more “lefties” as Pat calls them, its obvious that the “righties” no longer appeal to the majority of the voters. The actual
    “Coming Backlash”, (Pat’s title, but not the one he hopes for), is much closer, November 4th.

32. 32 Comment by Arius on 19 October 2008:

    There may and will be a backlash but this time the Left intends to cement their hold on power like the Left did in Europe. This time they intend an irreversible castration of the Right. You can’t understand this unless you understand how it was done in Europe. All those on the Right that believe in freedom and private property in America should be terrified of a very possible Obama presidency and veto proof Democrat control of Congress. The Democrats are today essentially a European style Socialist party, much further to the Left compared to the Democrats in 1932 and 1965, and consider what they did then. This time it will be the end of the American myth that has animated US citizens since its founding, and the irreversible slide into national socialism and dhimmitude.

33. 33 Comment by Tulle Elster on 20 October 2008:

    As a Norwegian citizen, I wonder what Arius means when writing that “the Left intends to cement their hold on power like the Left did in Europe”, – or rather WHAT he means with both “Left” AND “Europe”. In case he means the European Union (of which Norway, one of the biggest oil exporting countries in the world, member of NATO, the last 7 years governed by a “Red-Green” coalition, is NOT a member), I suggest he reads up on both his geography and the different politics in the Union´s by now 27 souvereign countries. There´s plenty on Internet for those who want to know. Here´s short quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states):
    “The founding treaties state that all member states are indivisibly sovereign and of equal value. However the EU does follow a supranational system (similar to federalism) in European Community matters, in that combined sovereignty is delegated by each member to the institutions in return for representation within those institutions. (…) Those institutions are then empowered to make laws and execute them at a European level. However, as sovereignty still originates from the national level, it may be withdrawn by a member state who wishes to leave. Hence, if a law is agreed that is not to the liking of a state, it may withdraw from the EU to avoid it.”
    All 27 member states, after the fall of the Berlin Wall including several former communist countries who finally gained freedom, have democratically elected governments on scales varying from conservative to center and/or social democrats with little or no extremes either to the left or to the right, so please explain what you mean not only by “Europe”, but also by “national socialism and dhimmitude”, lest you deliberately want to offend us – the round about 500 million Europeans over here.

34. 34 Comment by D Simmons on 20 October 2008:

    Considering how most Americans react to being called “racist” or their country as “racist” I would say that dhimminitude and subjugation fits them well. Maybe one the TRI’s principals could put together a comparison of the flyover lumpen and their failed elite to the Russian Whites, another demoralized, dispirited mass whose leaders waited it seems for a word from god or meaning from the holy books.

35. 35 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 20 October 2008:

    Jack Bailey (@12):

    I’ve just returned from a whirlwind trip through Michigan this weekend. Based on the number of Obama signs in areas that have been solidly Republican ever since there was a Republican Party, there are undoubtedly quite a few people who voted for Reagan in 1980 and will be voting for Obama this year.

    As for those who might have been voting for Democrats since Kennedy and now might vote for McCain, is that any more surprising then voters who voted for Democrats from FDR on, only to vote for Reagan?

    The two major parties are a mess, and typically, during such times, crossover becomes more common. Why would a Reagan voter vote for Obama? It’s easier to ask why not. There are some reasons why not, of course (such as abortion). But most of the reasons not to vote for Obama are also reasons not to vote for McCain.

    And I shouldn’t have to note this, but I will just to save time, since someone will undoubtedly denounce me as an Obama supporter: I support neither Obama nor McCain. I’m simply relating what I observed this weekend. Mr. Bailey finds the distinctions between the two major parties are strong as they were in 1980, but many voters do not, and that confusion may be enough to decide this election.

36. 36 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 20 October 2008:

    I can think of only two reasons to vote for McCain–his judges will be marginally better (he has to get them through the Senate), and divided government is more likely to do very little than an all-Democrats, all the time government.

    However, since the GOP has abandoned every single talking point of the last 30 years, this is rather weak tea.

37. 37 Comment by MilesGloriosus on 20 October 2008:

    Etienne Gervaise wrote: “This election will bring about a rise of conservative democrats in the South, and a dagger through the heart of the neocons, which has been a long time coming.”

    Agreed. Without Bush’s quixotically radical departures from traditional conservatism, Obama would have little resonance and McCain slightly more credibility. After having suffered through eight years of that Connecticut patrician’s attempts to leave us eternally in hock to China, the American manufacturing base gutted, the American middle class undermined but his friends’ servant problem solved, there’s nothing I can think of that one could say against Obama that would ever make me pull the lever for McCain.

    If Mr. Buchanan is now worried about disastrous national policies, one has to wonder what planet he’s been on for the past eight years.

38. 38 Comment by Robert on 20 October 2008:

    The only thing I can say in defense of Pat is that it does show a little humility on his part that he continues to stump for the party that asked him to leave. McCain explicity told Pat and his followers that they were no longer needed back in 2000. said he would sport for the greyhoung to move them along. Pat reminds me of the orphan in Charles Dickens that keeps yearning for home long after his parents had whipped him, abandoned him, and told him to get lost and stay lost. As for the rest of it, the party deserves whatever it gets. This is Kristol and friends candidate and I am sure they will act like party leaders and accept responsiblilty for his loss. ( as well as buy into the iceberg in Alaska that Pallin wants to sell )In the meantime, why is Pat carrying water ?

39. 39 Comment by Sean Scallon on 20 October 2008:

    Pat would be right if the candidate Obama was running against embraced the old Reaganite, hell even old
    Goldwater or Taftian or Coolidge notions of conservatism. We have none of that in either John McCain nor
    Bush II Administration. You can’t beat socialism with socialism because people at least appreciate honest
    socialists like Obama compared to Republicans’ dishonest socialism. The Republicans socialism has legtimized
    Obama’s so if anything there really isn’t going to be as much “change” as one would think. On that scale
    Obama is fairly “conservative” figure compared to others who would be in charge of the Democratic Party
    in that he doesn’t act or speak in radical tones.

    If the GOP nominee was Ron Paul, would Pat’s argument be true. If McCain had joined with the House Republicans
    perhaps then he could have made a case he stood for the free-market. But no, he joined with the statists
    to give all our taxpayer money away to coporations. Ergo, end of campaign.

    Amazing isn’t conservatives who three years ago were trashing McCain are now finding excuses to vote for him?
    Pathetic is what it is. Fortunately there are those of us who remember “McLame” or “McInsane” or “McPain” to
    use the phrases given to us by a thousands conservative posters over the past eight years and won’t be
    suckered into voting for a phony conservative as compared to the real socialist.

40. 40 Comment by MilesGloriosus on 20 October 2008:

    Akira@7 wrote: “What does the future hold for Champions of Freedom?”

    Since we’ve had few champions of freedom in high office for quite some time now (at least at the federal level), when we get more back in, we’ll be able to answer.

    Bush will do to the Republicans in 2008 what Carter did to the dems in 1980. Must being a psalm-singing snake handler always mean suspension of critcal judgement? Looking at the political ineptitude and careers of JC and GWB would at least make one conclude that it’s best to keep their meaty hands far from the levers of power.

41. 41 Comment by MilesGloriosus on 20 October 2008:

    Patrick H@16 wrote: “Will Republicans still be enthusiatic for “unitary executive theory,” or as the Straussian Harvey Mansfield puts it in layman’s terms, “one man rule” with a President Obama? ”

    Obama may be the high colonic the GOP has long needed to purge itself of the fascist neo-cons.

42. 42 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 20 October 2008:

    I am not quite so sure that Obama has it wrapped up because there are millions of Northern folk who will not vote for a black, even though they will never admit it.
    Those of you who keep telling that you have voted Republican but have now seen the light—you are a half century too late.

43. 43 Comment by Abe Froman on 21 October 2008:

    What have Republicans done in the last eight years to earn the support, approval, and votes of conservatives?

    I believe the GOP must be defeated and thrown on the ash-heap of history in order that a true libertarian conservative party can come to the forefront.

    The Republican party richly deserves its fate.

44. 44 Comment by EE Roberts on 22 October 2008:

    “This center-right country is about to strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history.”

    Please don’t blame the upcoming appointment of emperor on “this country”. It should be obvious by now that our presidents are inflicted on us by a totally corrupt electoral system made up of party bosses and media shills. The American people have no more to do with the appointment of the emperor than we do with the insane laws passed daily by Congress.

    I see that you’re getting nervous, as you do every election cycle, that the evil democrats are going to displace some of your evil republican idols. Get a grip, Mr. Buchanan. Buy a clue, if you can find one for sale anywhere.

    No matter which of the twins are elected, he will be the worst president ever inflicted upon us. Of that, we can all be sure.

45. 45 Comment by Eagle on 22 October 2008:

    Mr. Elster,

    I am interested in hearing more about your European perceptions.

    I, for one, think that the leftists are and have been pursuing a strategy to cement their permanent hold on power (some may argue that it was cemented already and now they are simply implementing their crazy ideas). The path may not be identical to Europe’s, but, from my vantage point, Europe is indeed an extremely leftist continent (from governments to ordinary peoples belief systems).

    The parties that dominate politics in most every country are leftist. Even when their names might indicate otherwise, they are leftist. Look over the policies of of some of “Christian Democrats” across Europe and you see socialism. The “Socialists” and “Democratic Socialists” are obviously socialists and, in some cases, barely reconstructed communists. Some are American-inspired neoconservative hegemonists, which is another way of saying leftist communists.

    Do you mean to tell us that men like Javier Solana, Gordon Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy represent conservative or centrist views?? If you are saying as much, then perhaps we need to return to some more clear definitions of “conservative” or “centrist”.

46. 46 Comment by nicholasville conservative on 22 October 2008:

    Professor Wilson @#42: Was Jesse Helms wrong to keep Ronald Reagan’s political career alive in 1976 by carrying him to victory in the North Carolina primary? Was he wrong to have crossed over to the GOP in the first place? Was Reagan wrong to deliver his famous speech endorsing Goldwater? Was what used to go under the name “movement conservatism” in the halcyon days, all a waste of energy?

    Granted, the movement should’ve sought deeper inroads into both parties instead of placing all the eggs in one basket. (The Birchers, whatever their shortcomings, at least advocated and practiced that.) But I think your strategy of holding modern Republicans culpable forever for the sins of Lincoln attacks only symptoms of what ails us, not the root causes.

    I interpret Dr. Fleming’s writings to indicate that all these parties and ideologies are just monstrous manifestations of post-”Enlightenment” thought. Meanwhile, we are stuck (or better, privileged to reside) in the world into which we’re born, and each of us should strive to influence a few in the path of virtue, in whatever way God grants us the true liberty to do so – just as Reagan, Goldwater and Helms tried to do.

    But I defer to your experience over a long career of studies, and am anxious to find out what utility you find in trying to revive the Confederate cause in a raw partisan fashion, 140 years after the fact (as opposed to honoring, in a manner more consistent with the organicity of history, the memory of the most noble proponents of that cause).

47. 47 Comment by jack bailey on 23 October 2008:

    Andrew G., ditto! I couldn’t agree with you more. I was merely pointing out to (the otherwise uninterested in paleos) partisan bloggers who are leaving us messages lately, all of a sudden. Mr. Richert, I have enjoyed our debate about taxes. As for Michigan voters I do believe that it’s a case of a mass Stockholm Syndrome. On how the parties are so the same (or not), I recommend the DVD “Weather Underground”. I have spent a lot of time around universites and it’s easy for me to spot SDS alumni, but perhaps it’s unrealistic for me to expect everyone else to be able to do the same. SDS is now entrenched within the mainstream Democrat party, something that they were only on the fringes of during the Reagan years, during Bush senior or even early Clinton. I also recommend an article by Margaret Hemenway called “Ayers’ Agenda First Grade Guinea Pigs”, (HUman Events current issue on line) for further insight why the parties are not the same. As much as I would like to see the Neocons discredited and gone forever (and this would be the reason for not supporting McCain), a great evil of such social engineering that Margaret is warning about, given by Obama in a much larger dose is as big of an evil as Neocon imperialism. Which is worse Neocons or SDS Marxists? Frankly it makes me want to go to the polls after all, although it’s still a very close call.

48. 48 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 23 October 2008:

    Jack Bailey (@47):

    SDS is now entrenched within the mainstream Democrat party

    Yes. But that’s nothing new–they have been since at least the early 80’s. But you’re barking up the wrong tree. There is a lot to dislike about Obama–more, perhaps, than there is to dislike about McCain–but at 47 years old, he’s not SDS, any more than Sarah Palin, at 44, is a Goldwater Republican.

    If you look at the advisors that Obama gathered around him after he won the nomination, there are no surprises: They’re the same folks who were in the Clinton White House and the Kerry campaign of 2004. Yes, Obama is the most instinctively leftist candidate that the Democrats have ever nominated. Unlike McGovern, he has no roots whatsoever, which makes him as dangerous as a rootless Republican.

    But is he going to dump all of his advisors and turn instead to people such as Bill Ayers? Of course not. Or rather, perhaps I should say, let us hope he does. Then he will have revealed himself to the broader public as a leftist ideologue, and there might be some chance of rallying solid opposition against him.

    If he moves to the center to govern, as Bill Clinton did once he put the restraints on Hillary, then it will be much harder to generate such opposition.

49. 49 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 23 October 2008:

    Jack Bailey (@47):

    As for Michigan voters I do believe that it’s a case of a mass Stockholm Syndrome.

    I’m afraid I’m not following that one at all. But even if you’re right, does it make a difference to the point? These are historically overwhelmingly Republican areas (not the east side of the state, which is historically Democratic) that are now evenly split or going for Obama. That means that there are likely many voters there who did vote for Reagan and are now voting for Obama (something you claimed to doubt was possible).

50. 50 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 23 October 2008:

    @49 Scott
    “That means that there are likely many voters there who did vote for Reagan and are now voting for Obama”

    Further proof that the Republicans are indeed the Stupid Party. Well at least in Michigan. Some day “Neither of the Above” will be an option, but sadly not this year — which is too bad since the major candidates fielded by the Big 2 are the worst ever.

51. 51 Comment by jack bailey on 24 October 2008:

    SPR, I don’t believe that presence of SDS deserves to be regarded as benign at any time regardless of the timelines. Please take a look at the DVD and the article. The SDS ideology is infectious to the impressionable minds, as it incites otherwise apathetic bystanders to act violently on their behalf. Just ask any high school senior that had to put up posters around his high school for Mccain. As for Stockholm Syndrome, in a state like Michigan that’s been devastated by socialism already, there is the possibility that the people you are mentioning are taking cover by identifying with the opressors. They may have even felt pressured to put up those signs, who knows? Be that as it may, If you choose to believe that Obama and Mccain are pretty much the same, that’s fine, but there has to be some line drawn at where paleo sensibilities need to end, from where one has to start to stand up to the Marxists . Perhaps you have not reached that line yet, but some people have. Right now there is a good chance that we’ll get the worst of both worlds, Marxism and Neoconservatism at the same time.

52. 52 Comment by Tulle Elster on 24 October 2008:

    Miss Eagle (@44)
    Yes, I think your´re right. If we are to understand each other at all, we really, as you say “need to return to some more clear definitions of “conservative” or “centrist”, – not to say communism, an ideology which hardly exists any longer, at least not in Europe and/or the European Union! (In my own country Norway we had two tiny communist parties before the Berlin Wall came down, both of which have all but disappeared. Anyway, with 0,1 % and 0,3 % of the votes respectively they never reached representation in the parliament). But most of all, I think that the whole question is not so much about “left” or “right” but about human rights, security – both social and in other matters; equality and freedom, another thing which needs to be defined, like for example the difference between freedom to, and freedom from. In any case, in a parlamentary democracy there is no way anybody can “cement their permanent hold on power” except by the people and their vote.
    To put “Christian Democrats”, “Socialists” and “Democratic Soicialists” in the same sack is, excuse me, outright stupid, not to say insinuating that France´s president Nicolas Sarkozy, former leader of the conservative party ” is somehow a leftist. All this indicates that you know very little of politics, in Europe or else. So let´s straighten out the definitions first, before – or if – we´re going to continue this discussion.

53. 53 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 24 October 2008:

    Etienne Gervaise (@50):

    Further proof that the Republicans are indeed the Stupid Party. Well at least in Michigan.

    No quarrels here. I’m simply noting the phenomenon, not expressing approval of it.

54. 54 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 24 October 2008:

    Jack Bailey (@51):

    As for Stockholm Syndrome, in a state like Michigan that’s been devastated by socialism already, there is the possibility that the people you are mentioning are taking cover by identifying with the opressors. They may have even felt pressured to put up those signs, who knows?

    You’ve just given me the laugh of the day, and it’s not even 9 A.M. Trust me, the areas of Michigan that I’m talking about are not populated by folks who are likely to give in to “pressure” to put up any campaign signs. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: There was a time even in my life when putting up an Obama sign in, say, Baldwin, Michigan, would have meant that you put your family and property in danger.

    (For those who know Michigan, I’m speaking of the belt that runs northeast from, say, Newaygo to Roscommon.)

    But by the way, the east side of the state will be filled with Obama voters who voted for Reagan. That is, after all, the home of the fabled Reagan Democrats, who already largely reverted to the Democratic Party in 1992 (and even more so in 1996).

55. 55 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 24 October 2008:

    Jack Bailey (@51):

    I don’t believe that presence of SDS deserves to be regarded as benign at any time regardless of the timelines.

    That’s not what I said. You’re lumping Obama in with SDS types, and he simply isn’t. (What he is may, in its own way, be much worse.) He’s surrounded himself not with SDSers but with the establishment Democrats who populated the Clinton White House and the Kerry campaign. There’s no reason that I can see to believe that he’ll dump them after the election and fill his Cabinet with SDS types instead.

56. 56 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 25 October 2008:

    It’s a sad day when you have to go to Youtube to hear the minor party candidates state their positions on issues. Hell, at this stage of the game even Ralph Nader seems like a right winger compared with the Big 2.

57. 57 Comment by Whit's Son on 26 October 2008:

    Oh Pat! Wake up! We have even Southern Baptists thoroughly comfortable with adulterers in their pulpits, so why would a Socialist in the White House bother a fat pig Gaither-loving American? You mis-overestimate your fellow Americans. They really are swine now (The Hefty Goodmans), and they truly and richy deserve every low-brow, soul-killing measure that the next congress can inflict upon them!

58. 58 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 1 November 2008:

    @43 Abe Froman the sausage king of Chicago!

    Parties do not matter to me any more, but they did when I was younger and more idealistic. When it comes to voting in the legislature, it all comes down to a yes or no vote. A man of principle will vote no on everything, like Georgia’s Larry McDonald of blessed memory. Lots of people wanted him dead, and they got their way when KAL007 was shot down over Kamchatka.

    It’s come to the point where I’ll vote for a communist if he promises to vote no on anything he does not have the time to read, and that would be every bill.