Pat Buchanan Celebrates Donald Trump’s Win, Has the Last Laugh

By Eleanor Clift at The Daily Beast

“I was all for Trump. Do I feel my ideas appear to have prevailed? My enemies seem to think so!”

Before Donald J. Trump, there was Patrick J. Buchanan, who ran for president three times as a champion of the white working class. He railed against globalization and unfair trade deals, and he pushed for a crack down on immigration. His rhetoric inflamed the grievances of voters that felt left behind by party elites.

He never came close to the presidency, but the issues he ran on are the ones that propelled Trump to the White House. Asked if he feels vindicated, Buchanan said:

“I was all for Trump. Do I feel my ideas appear to have prevailed? My enemies seem to think so,” he concluded with a wry laugh.

“The idea of economic nationalism, an end to globalism, putting America first in trade, securing the border, one nation, one people—I’m still a conservative Republican, but this is the new and enlarged agenda,” he said.

Buchanan loves Steve Bannon, the appointment that set the mainstream media’s hair on fire when Trump named the CEO of Breitbart News his White House senior counselor. “He did it and took the heat for it, which is the sign of a leader,” Buchanan said in an interview with The Daily Beast. Bannon “was called a lot worse names than me” and Trump stuck with him.

At Breitbart, Bannon made inroads to the populists and the nationalists and the America Firsters—the voters that flock to Trump’s rallies. “I bet Bannon is behind that patriotic rhetoric,” Buchanan said, “Our folks love that stuff.”

Full disclosure: I’ve known Buchanan since I covered him as a reporter for Newsweek when he was President Reagan’s communications director, and then spent many years jousting with him on The McLaughlin Group. This interview took place the day after the first of President-Elect Trump’s Thank You rallies, which Buchanan watched on television.

“Last night was wonderful,” he said. “I was laughing like the guys sitting behind him. He really let loose,” zinging the rivals he had vanquished, and the media that got it wrong. “It was like Truman holding up the newspaper,” Buchanan said, comparing Trump savoring his improbable victory to Truman’s 1948 upset win.

“He’s far more entertaining than Hillary. If she’d been elected, we’d be yawning,” Buchanan said. “He brings tremendous energy and ideas, and a great measure of self-confidence—and a tremendously loyal following that will stick with him.”

Trump’s appointments so far, “generals and Goldman Sachs,” Buchanan quipped, are not what you’d associate with a populist movement.

But so long as Trump stays free of the neo-cons, Buchanan is happy.

“This whole thing rests on the shoulders of Donald Trump, and he understands who is the girl who brought him to the dance.” He’s got to create those jobs and get rid of those trade deficits. Listen to him at the rally, Buchanan says, repeating Trump’s words: “We’re not globalists, we’re not citizens of the world. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United State of America. We’re America Firsters.”

Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….

“This is valid nationalism and populism and the people respond to that. What broke (George W.) Bush was the foolish war and the consequences of that—and the whole neo-con agenda looking to have a war with Iran. Looking at Trump’s emerging foreign policy, I think I’m optimistic.” He noted that General James Mattis, Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense, said he would keep the Iran nuclear deal. “That’s key,” Buchanan says.

Even as he delights in Trump’s victory, Buchanan concedes, “we are taking a bit of a risk with this guy. We don’t know him, and there are caution signs.” Two-thirds of voters said Trump didn’t have the temperament to be president, and yet he won enough votes to be elected president.

“They wanted something different,” says Buchanan, and it’s not a lot more complicated than that.

Asked if he identifies with the alt-right movement, he laughed, dismissing the self-identified alternative right as a generational aberration. “They’re much younger, they’re basically guys in their twenties and thirties. Some people I know walked out of it—they’re not into Sieg Heil, they’re not into this stuff.” He’s referring to an Alt-Right conference in Washington after Trump’s win last month where several adherents were seen giving the Nazi salute. “When they throw up the Sieg Heil, the media loves this stuff, they can’t get enough of it,” says Buchanan.

It has long been a default position for the right that the media inflame and exaggerate fringe elements that then tar the broader conservative movement. That argument broke out at Harvard after the election when the Clinton campaign accused the Trump campaign of dog-whistle politics that tapped into racial and ethnic fears.

“I’m supposed to be the dog and I’m not hearing that,” Buchanan said, “I’ve been fighting against globalism for thirty years.” He says the grievances that carried Trump to the White House are the same ones playing out in Europe, where nationalism continues to challenge the European Union. With the exception of Austria, which last weekend voted down a far-right party, what Buchanan calls “ethno-nationalism” is poised to roil governments in France, Germany and the Netherlands next year.

Trump’s base of support is the crowd that cheers him at his rallies, and going after the media is red meat. “The mainstream media is the principle adversary of the conservative movement and now the Trump administration,” says Buchanan, who recites a long history of resentment towards the liberal media, with few allies among the media.

“With Nixon we had nobody,” Buchanan says, citing the anti-Nixon sentiment of every big-name newspaper back in the day.

With the rise of Breitbart and an alternative conservative media, Trump has many more tools available to him, and is arguably in a stronger position with the rise of social media than the under-resourced traditional media. Buchanan’s point is that the same battle lines remain. He recalled President Obama’s first White House Correspondents dinner, when he looked out at the ballroom full of reporters and various Washington hangers-on and said he felt like he was talking to “my base.”

“Everybody laughed—they knew it was true,” says Buchanan. “Just in terms of beliefs, the national media, the folks at the White House Correspondents dinner, do they believe in border security and a moratorium on immigration?”

Buchanan doesn’t wait for an answer. “They’re just not on our side.”

… Read more at The Daily Beast…

Former Pat Buchanan Adviser Starts Petition: We Will Walk from the GOP

Trump Rally - Florence, SC

By Alex Pfeiffer at The Daily Caller

A former Pat Buchanan adviser has launched a petition that threatens to launch a new political movement if the Republican Party fails to nominate Donald Trump.

Paul Nagy founded the Draft Buchanan movement in 1992 and went on to serve as his Northeast campaign director. On Sunday, he launched a petition titled “We Will Walk,” which currently has over 1,000 signatures…

The former Buchanan adviser said a new political movement rising out of the GOP’s exclusion of Donald Trump would not be one exclusive to the New York real estate developer. He told TheDC, “I believe that this movement transcends Trump individually. I mean this is about the country. It’s like Trump said ‘do we wanna have a country or not?’”

Nagy added, “It doesn’t have to be Trump. I mean this movement can take hold and that’s one of the things I hope to be a part of. I want to bring down the current Republican Party. I want to get rid of the impotent snobs.”

He has been contacting people in each of the states and is hoping to “interact with the delegates that have been elected and will be elected.”…

While the “We Will Walk” petition implies a new party, Nagy is willing to embrace the RNC on one condition. “It has to be brought down all together. And when Trump is the president, it has to be brought back up again. It has to be what it should be. It should be a people’s party, not an elitist party,” he said.

Read more at: The Daily Caller

Revenge of the Castaway

By Tom Piatak – Chronicles Magazine

Two years after Sam Francis’ untimely death, Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote a long essay about Francis titled “The Castaway.” The title came from an email Francis sent to friends (including me) after William F. Buckley described him as one of the “castaways” from the conservative movement. This was Francis' response to Buckley:  “As I have mentioned before, a ‘castaway’ is someone like Robinson Crusoe who managed to save himself after the ship on which he was traveling was wrecked . . . It is not someone cast out or away from a ship. That is called being marooned (Ben Gunn in Treasure Island is an example, as was Alexander Selkirk on whom Crusoe is based).  The word ‘castaway’ as applied to me by [Buckley] implies that the conservative movement was the ship in which I was traveling, that it wrecked and I survived."

Earlier this week Dougherty again wrote about Francis, this time arguing that his essay “From Household to Nation,” published in the February 1996 issue of Chronicles, had accurately predicted the rise of a campaign like Donald Trump’s. Many people found this persuasive, including Rush Limbaugh, who told his listeners yesterday that Francis had indeed understood the forces giving rise to Trump.

It is hard to imagine many other political writers who could be profitably read two decades later, much less accurately credited with predicting events two decades later, but Sam Francis was just such a writer. (Francis did more than predict the rise of someone like Trump; he told attendees at the Fall 2004 meeting of the John Randolph Club that someone named Barack Obama had a bright political future, a theme he explored in the March 2005 issue of Chronicles).  Like so much of what Francis wrote, “From Household to Nation” seems as fresh today as when it was written. In it, Sam saw the critical dividing line in American politics as running between “Middle America” and the “Ruling Class,” with the principal issue dividing these groups being globalization: “As champions of the globalist right like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, Newt Gingrich, Ben Wattenberg, George Gilder, Robert Bartley, Julian Simon, and George Will never tire of explaining, globalization means the disappearance of nationality, of cultures closely linked to national identity, probably of national sovereignty itself, and even of the distinctive populations of which nations are composed. By signing on to globalization, then, the right has effectively metamorphosed itself into the left and forfeited the sole grounds of its appeal to the nationalism and social and cultural conservatism that continue to animate Middle Americans.” Nationalism continues to animate Middle Americans today, which is why Trump’s criticisms of foreign trade and immigration and his pledge to “Make America Great Again” have proven so potent.

Pitted against these paladins of globalism in 1996 was Pat Buchanan, whose “[p]rotectionism . . . follows from his economic nationalism, reflecting the economic interests and identity of the nation, just as a defense and foreign policy follows from his political nationalism, reflecting the political interests and identity of the nation. So, for that matter, does his support for curtailing through a five-year moratorium, all immigration, legal as well as illegal.” Francis did not predict that Buchanan would win the Republican nomination, but what he did predict makes startling reading today: “If Buchanan loses the nomination, it will be because his time has not yet come, but the social and political forces on which both his campaigns have been based will not disappear, and even if he does lose, he will have won a place in history as an architect of the victory those forces will eventually build.”

Francis also recounted the advice he gave to Buchanan before the 1992 New Hampshire primary, advice reflecting the same view of the conservative movement Francis expressed in the “castaway" email cited by Dougherty: “I told [Buchanan] privately that he would be better off without all the hangers-on, direct-mail artists, fund-raising whiz kids, marketing and p.r. czars, and the rest of the crew that today constitutes the backbone of all that remains of the famous 'Conservative Movement' and who never fail to show up on the campaign doorstep to guzzle someone else's liquor and pocket other people's money. 'These people are defunct,' I told him. 'You don’t need them, and you're better off without them.  Go to New Hampshire and call yourself a patriot, a nationalist, an America Firster, but don't even use the word ‘conservative.' It doesn't mean anything any more.’”

If it proves nothing else, this year’s campaign does vindicate Francis’ dim view of organized conservatism. The grandees “of all that remains of the famous ‘Conservative Movement’” have issued numerous ineffectual fusillades against Trump. Those grandees include some of the globalists cited by Francis in 1996, such as George Will, and their disciples, such as Jonah Goldberg, former intern to Ben Wattenberg, and Paul Ryan, former intern to Jack Kemp. During the entire time Trump has been denounced by the likes of Will and Goldberg, he has continued to rise in the polls. Of course, Trump may fail to win the Republican nomination. But if Trump does fail, it will not be because of the denizens of organized conservatism, none of whom foresaw Trump’s rise and all of whom have proven powerless to stop him.

Visit Chronicles…

UPDATE – Meet Pat Buchanan in Cleveland!

By Linda Muller – WebMaster, Buchanan.org

Dear Brigade, I am posting this update because the deadline is fast approaching. See my previous note below.

This is a terrific opportunity to meet Pat Buchanan and attend another outstanding annual event from our friends at The Rockford Institute. 

The conference will be held on October 23-24 in downtown Cleveland.  On Friday night there will be a reception and opening address. On Saturday there will be a full day of talks followed by a dinner and debate.

You can register for by calling The Rockford Institute at (800) 383-0680. The cost is $350 per person if you register by September 15, and $400 per person thereafter.

They have a block of rooms reserved at the Hyatt Regency at the rate of $129 per night, but the number of reserved rooms is limited. You can reserve your room by calling (888) 421-1442 and mentioning The Rockford Institute, or by visiting The Hyatt Regency Cleveland at the Arcade – click on the “Make a Reservation” button…

Brigade, I hope you will join me and our fellow Brigaders in Cleveland – Let’s welcome Pat to the Buckeye state!

For the Cause – Linda

—————————–

August 26, 2015

Dear Friends and Fellow Brigaders,

You are all invited to attend an outstanding event on October 23rd and 24th in Cleveland, Ohio. This is an exceptional opportunity to hear Pat Buchanan speak on the critical issues Americans are facing today. For many of us it will also be a terrific occasion to meet up with old and new Buchanan Brigaders. I’m looking forward to you joining us in Cleveland this October.

Let me know if you can make it!

As always, for the Cause – Linda
lindamuller at buchanan.org

PS – Please see more information below in a letter from our good friend Tom Piatak, President of The Rockford Institute.

Dear Friend of The Rockford Institute and Chronicles:

Next summer, the eyes of the nation will be on Cleveland, as the Republicans meet to nominate their presidential candidate for 2016. If the past is any indication, the convention hall will be filled with lots of hot air and very little sense. In October of this year, another gathering will take place in Cleveland. If the past is any indication, this gathering will be marked by learned talks, lively debate, and good fellowship. I am referring, of course, to the 2015 meeting of The John Randolph Club, presented by Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, which will be held in Cleveland on Friday, October 23, and Saturday, October 24.

“Chronicles has become the toughest, best written, and most profoundly insightful journal in America. It drives the nail as deep and true as any magazine in print.”
 — Patrick J. Buchanan

The meeting will begin at 5:00 P.M. on Friday with a reception and opening talk. Panel discussions will continue throughout the day on Saturday, with a healthy break for an independent lunch at one of Cleveland’s many fine restaurants. The meeting will conclude with a banquet on Saturday night, culminatinMeet Pat Buchanan!g with a debate. The theme of the meeting is “Nation and State,” a fruitful topic of discussion as our own nation continues to be overwhelmed by mass immigration, buffeted by globalism, and marked by profound disagreements over fundamental issues. Increasingly, Americans have less in common with, and even less affection for, one another. And the federal government is running roughshod over the domains of the state, the locality, and the family.

We have an outstanding group of speakers to speak on these vital issues. Pat Buchanan will be addressing the Randolph Club for the first time. Pat’s public career has focused on these issues, and he gave us many clear warnings of the dangers that lay ahead. Unfortunately, his warnings were ignored, and many of those dangers are now upon us. Also speaking to the Randolph Club for the first time will be William Lind, the renowned conservative thinker and military strategist. His writings on Fourth Generation Warfare have revolutionized the way people think about war and the dangers posed by failing states and collapsing nations. Another first-time speaker will be Don Devine, veteran of the Reagan administration and long-time conservative activist and thinker and exponent of the thought of Frank Meyer. Devine will share a panel with Tom Pauken, another veteran conservative activist and thinker who takes a much dimmer view of Meyer’s attempted fusion of conservatism and libertarianism.

Register today for the JRC by calling (800) 383-0680. Registration is $350* per person and includes the Friday night reception and opening address, and all talks on Saturday, dinner, and debate.

A limited number of hotel rooms are available at the Hyatt Regency Cleveland at The Arcade at $129 per night, single or double occupancy. Call (888) 421-1442 and mention The Rockford Institute, or click here on the “Make a Reservation” button to access the special rate.

*Registration increases to $400 after September 15.

There will be plenty of familiar faces as well, including the editors of Chronicles, the best magazine in America—Chilton Williamson, Scott Richert, and Aaron Wolf. Chris Kopff and Peter Brimelow, veterans of many Randolph Clubs, will also speak. Chris’s talks manage to combine the learning of a professional classicist, the ardor of an American patriot, and the wit of someone who could have written comedy for a living. Peter has been a leader on immigration for decades. In May, Ann Coulter, whose book on immigration has been on the New York Times’ bestseller list for weeks, told Chronicles that Peter was the one who woke her up on immigration. Wayne Allensworth, who has written movingly in Chronicles about what built America and about what is now trying to break her, will also join us. I will be speaking as well. Finally, the inimitable and irrepressible Taki has kindly agreed to moderate our Saturday-night debate, guaranteeing that it will be lively and entertaining, no matter what the speakers may say.

We will be meeting at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Cleveland, a lovely hotel housed in a magnificent edifice, the Cleveland Arcade. The Arcade was built in 1890 and sits in the heart of downtown, across the street in one direction from the lively restaurant district on E. 4th Street and across the street in another from the many elegant Beaux-Arts public buildings that are the result of Daniel Burnham’s “Group Plan” for the city. The Arcade, with its glass ceiling, brass fittings, and imposing Romanesque entrance arch, is a fitting site for a gathering of a group that honors tradition. (Please take a look at the many pictures on the Internet of the Arcade to get a feeling for the place.)

You can register for The John Randolph Club by calling The Rockford Institute at (800) 383-0680. The cost is $350 per person if you register by September 15, and $400 per person thereafter.

We have a block of rooms reserved at the Hyatt Regency at the rate of $129 per night, but the number of reserved rooms is limited. You can reserve your room by calling (888) 421-1442 and mentioning The Rockford Institute, or by visiting The Hyatt Regency Cleveland at the Arcade and clicking on the “Make a Reservation” button.

If you wish to make a gift to The Rockford Institute Scholarship Fund so that students and other worthy (though indigent) persons can attend, please call Cindy Link at (800) 383-0680. For a gift of $500 or more, we will send you a set of CDs of all the lectures.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at tpiatak@rockfordinstitute.org I look forward to seeing you in Cleveland.

Very truly yours,

Thomas Piatak,
President

P.S. Although the program does not begin until 5:00 P.M. on Friday, October 23, William Lind, a native Clevelander, has graciously offered to conduct a walking tour of downtown Cleveland on Friday for those who may be interested. If you are interested, please let us know when you register at (800) 383-0680.

Also, if anyone is interested in recommendations on things to see and do in the Cleveland area, we will soon have a list on the website. Cleveland’s robber barons left behind a fine cultural infrastructure, including a magnificent (and free) Museum of Art, and those who immigrated to work for those robber barons also built things worth visiting, including restaurants featuring Hungarian, Polish, and Slovenian cooking.

Pat Buchanan Was Right – On the Iraq War, Abortion, Trade Deals and More

Pat Buchanan Was Right

By Craig Shirley – Lifezette.com

You can’t say he didn’t warn us.

Pat Buchanan, the conservative political commentator and former senior adviser to Ronald Reagan, warned against going to war for Kuwait.

He warned against the siren song of unfavorable trade deals. He warned against political correctness. And he warned against the evils of the abortion industry, among other things.

He wasn’t right about everything. But he was far more right than wrong, especially given the Bush family’s long record of abject failure, especially given the Washington establishment’s long record of abject failure.

Moreover, he warned against going to war in Iraq and was proven tragically right. The heartbreak is that so many young lives have been ruined in what was a counterproductive and needless foreign adventure.

Buchanan, who sought the Republican nomination in the ’90s, gave a speech in Houston in 1992 that was full of predictions. He predicted the “culture war for the soul of America,” the intolerance for Christians and the “with Bill you get Clinton and Clinton,” meaning two for the price of one. We are seeing this now in the sense that Hillary Clinton may be the next president of the United States.

At the time Buchanan was shamefully called “xenophobic” and an “America Firster” and a “protectionist.” Too bad. All for telling the truth. Politics ain’t beanbag, but the vitriol the Bush clan and the corrupt establishment aimed at an honorable conservative who had the temerity to ask unpleasant questions of the elites was astonishing.

Buchanan simply said we were a Republic and not an Empire. He was right then and even more right now.

As much as the neocon-High Tory-Establishment Republicans hated Ronald Reagan — such as those at the Ethics and Public Policy Center — they hated Buchanan even more. He called the neocons’ foreign policy “compulsive interventionism” even in the face of Washington warning against “entangling alliances.”

Iran and Iraq were two spiders, trapped together in a bottle so intent on killing each other they had little time for anyone or anything else. But George W. Bush, for reasons unfathomable, reached into the bottle and pulled the spider named Saddam Hussein out, freeing Iran to focus on paying for and exporting terrorism.

It took guts to run for president. It took courage to take on the Bush Machine.

He did not have WMDs and we knew so, despite the false protests of the Bush 43 administration and their sycophants. A CIA operative who was a station chief in the Middle East told me that several years earlier, Saddam’s nephew had been captured. He was in charge of Iran’s chemical weapons program except that Saddam had none, having used some of the Kurds while the rest had degraded into uselessness.

In short, Bush and Co. sold America a pig in a poke and only a few courageous voices like Buchanan had the courage to say so…

Read more at Lifezette.com

Outsiders: Trump, Bernie, Ted Cruz and the Peasants with Pitchforks

By Joel Achenbach – The Washington Post

Republican 2016 U.S. presidential candidate businessman Donald Trump answers a question at the first official Republican presidential candidates debate of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign in Cleveland, Ohio (Reuters/Brian Snyder)
Republican 2016 U.S. presidential candidate businessman Donald Trump answers a question at the first official Republican presidential candidates debate of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign in Cleveland, Ohio (Reuters/Brian Snyder)

I was there for the “peasants with pitchforks” speech. Pat Buchanan was holding forth in a crowded room at the Sheraton Hotel in Nashua, N.H., a couple of days before the 1996 GOP primary. The Republican Establishment’s favorite for the nomination was Bob Dole, but Dole, for all his solid credentials and admirable history as a war hero and congressional leader, was never someone to incite a political fever, never one to tap the more visceral emotions of the rowdy electorate.

So here came Buchanan, the TV pundit and unapologetic nativist, and in the icy environs of the New Hampshire primary he was a glowing coal of anti-Establishment fury. But he was also having a ball, relishing every moment, improvising the whole thing — a guy with nothing to lose. Toward the end of his stump speech, he uttered what became his most famous line:

“We shocked them in Alaska. And stunned them in Louisiana. And then stunned them again in Iowa. And they are in a terminal panic in Washington. They are frightened. They hear — ha ha — they hear the shouts of the peasants from over the hill. You watch the Establishment, all the knights and barons will be riding into the castle, pulling up the drawbridge in a minute. And they’re comin’! All the peasants are comin’ with pitchforks after them! So we’re going to take this — we’re going to take this over the top.”

[This is quoted imprecisely on Buchanan’s Wikipedia page. I have transcribed it from the C-SPAN coverage; see minute 34.]

Here’s my 1996 report on the Buchanan rally:

Buchanan’s candidacy is the perfect example of how a campaign is like an insurrection. His raucous rally today in Nashua wasn’t a slick campaign event by any means: It was just energy.

The room was too small to contain the event. Rage became condensed. Buchanan looked as if he might squirt through the ceiling. The Buchanan takeover, if it happens, will not happen gently.

Buchanan ran late, too. A hotel sound system played the same “Go, Pat, go” jingle again and again. The warm-up speaker, Buchanan’s brother Tom, couldn’t figure out how to work the microphone. “Volume!” people screamed, futilely. “Twenty microphones here. Musta come in from Mexico,” the younger Buchanan said cryptically.

But then Pat Buchanan himself came on, and he was red-hot. The stage was too low, and people were screaming at the camera crews to get out of the way. Buchanan charged ahead.

“The establishment in Washington is quaking in its boots!” he said. The “knights” and “barons” of Washington are going to retreat into their castles, he said. “They are in a terminal panic. They hear the shouts of the peasants from over the hill!”

Other candidates stick almost pathologically to their scripted message; Buchanan comes up with new riffs every day. He announced that bureaucrats would be racing out of Washington in “covered wagons” when he becomes president.

“Like immigrants! So I can have more room for my limousine!”

He laughed in that characteristic pinched expression where his eyebrows shoot up at the corners and he bares his teeth as though he’s going to bite someone.

“This is too much fun!” he said.

Buchanan edged Dole in New Hampshire, but Dole’s superior financial and organizational strength put him on top on Super Tuesday. But even if these peasants-with-pitchforks insurrections eventually sputter out, they signal changes taking place in the electorate. The Republican Party is far more conservative than it was just two decades ago. This isn’t Bob Dole’s GOP anymore…

Read more at The Washington Post…

Buchanan: 1960s-like Riots in Ferguson Could Cause Voter Rebuke For Obama

By Neil Munro – Daily Caller

President Barack Obama’s passive response to the riots and arson in Ferguson may prompt a November rebuke by the silent majority of American voters, says Patrick Buchanan, who was an adviser to President Richard Nixon during the late 1960s race riots.

The media’s focus on the conflict ensures the “country is being polarized by watching this,” Buchanan told The Daily Caller.

“I don’t think that that is going to be helpful to the party of Rev. Sharpton or Jesse Jackson,” said Buchanan, who is now a columnist.

“I think the riots and the violence and the looting are going to cause a lot of folks to recoil from those who appear to be condoning those sorts of act… there is no question about it,” he said.

The Greatest Comeback
Many Americans will remain silent amid the media furor, until they can vote, he said. “A lot of people just watch these things, observe quietly and talk with each other… [and] I think you will see it at the polls” in November, he stated.

“The silent majority will react as it always does — it will recoil [from] the cursing, the hollering, the obscene gestures, the assaults on police, the looting and vandalism,” Buchanan observed.

The dispute may boost turnout by Obama’s base, but it will also turn out his opposition, Buchanan said.

“The polarization is not going to be beneficial to the president,” he warned.

“The president should really call for calming down, let the law go forward and the facts presents themselves,” he said.

Obama should say, according to Buchanan, “Look this is a terrible tragedy, a 18-year-old life has been cut off in a violent act in the streets of Ferguson, and we’ve got to the let the law and investigation take its course…

Read more at the Daily Caller

The Republican Establishment’s 20-Year War On Conservatives

Pat Buchanan - Mississippi Conservative Daily

By Ryan Walters at the Mississippi Conservative Daily

     As Pat Buchanan said in his victory speech in New Hampshire nearly 20 years ago, “Do not wait for orders from headquarters, mount up everybody and ride to the sound of the guns!”

It began on a snowy night in New Hampshire. The first-in-the-nation primary. February 20, 1996. The story’s origins, though, began exactly four years earlier in that same frigid state.

In 1992, Patrick J. Buchanan, a popular conservative television commentator who had served as a longtime aide to Richard Nixon, took on the sitting President of the United States in the primaries that year.

Party insiders considered his candidacy little more than a joke. But his 38 percent showing in the ’92 New Hampshire primary stunned the political world, and although he won no contests that primary season, he did garner over three million popular votes and forced President George H. W. Bush to shift his rhetoric and his message to the right.

No one expected Buchanan to unseat President Bush but he did showcase a winning message that resonated with a large portion of Republican voters who could not be ignored. In order to keep these folks inside the tent, the RNC gave Buchanan a prime time speaking slot at the national convention in Houston, Texas.

In his speech televised before the nation, Buchanan espoused true conservative values, spoke to those Americans who felt forgotten, mercilessly attacked Bill Clinton, and called on his supporters to stand “right behind George Bush!”

But when Bush lost to Clinton in November, with major help from Ross Perot, the establishment didn’t wring their hands over the failures of Bush’s administration, or mistakes in the campaign itself, but laid the blame at Buchanan’s feet. Had he not challenged Bush, had he not given such a “partisan” and “extreme” speech at the convention (which network news pundits believed helped Bush), independents and moderates would not have been frightened into Clinton’s camp and the President would have won another term.

It had to be the fault of the conservatives, led by the new extremist on the block, Pat Buchanan.

Never mind the crucial fact that Bush had lied to the American people on raising taxes, or that the economy was in the doldrums, or the riots in Los Angeles, or that Clinton had waged a great campaign that successfully exploited these key issues. No, that couldn’t have had anything to do with it. It had to be the fault of the conservatives, led by the new extremist on the block, Pat Buchanan.

Despite the criticism, four years later, Buchanan, propelled by his previous success, entered a crowded field for the GOP nomination, again to provide a “voice for the voiceless,” those true conservatives who had no real leader. “We’re conservatives of the heart,” he said. “We care about the people. We will be the lobbyists for those who don’t have a lobbyist in Washington, D.C.”

Buchanan again surprised the country by prevailing in a non-binding straw poll in Alaska on January 29, winning the Louisiana caucus on February 6, and placing a close second to Kansan Bob Dole in nearby Iowa on February 12. But the big shocker came on February 20 when he unexpectedly won the New Hampshire primary over Dole in very heavy Republican turnout.

This victory was historically significant and not lost on the party establishment. From 1968 to 1992, every winner of the New Hampshire Republican primary went on to win the nomination. And since its inception in 1948, only two primary winners had failed to capture the GOP’s top prize. Buchanan was in the catbird seat.

But then the claws came out in force. Until New Hampshire 1996, he was simply an annoyance; now he, and the conservative movement, was downright dangerous. It had to be snuffed out.

The next stop for Buchanan would be South Carolina, a very conservative state that he stood an excellent chance of winning. Yet he had hardly arrived in the Palmetto State before establishment Republicans vowed never to support his nomination if he succeeded. One after the other, candidates, party leaders, and pundits ran to the television cameras to announce to all that Buchanan had no chance against Bill Clinton in November and he would not receive the party’s backing if nominated.

“The party will never unify behind Pat,” said fellow candidate Lamar Alexander. “I don’t know anybody who thinks Pat Buchanan will be the Republican nominee.”

But Buchanan, without question, would have been the best bet for the party against President Clinton. He possessed no baggage like Dole, Gramm, Alexander or any of the rest, while his message of economic nationalism, border security, and traditional values resonated with disaffected voters in both parties.

More than 3,000 New Hampshire Democrats wrote in Buchanan’s name, giving him a second place finish on the Democratic side.

In fact, the realization of Buchanan’s path to the White House was evidenced that very cold New Hampshire night. Rarely reported were the full results of the other party’s primary. President Clinton was on the ballot on the Democratic side against a slew of unknown, and mostly local, candidates, who had but a snowball’s chance in Hell to win. The highest vote getter among them gained less than 1,000 votes. Yet well more than 3,000 New Hampshire Democrats wrote in Buchanan’s name, giving him a second place finish on the Democratic side. This frightened the establishment of both parties.

“We’re bringing people into the Republican party, working men and women,” Buchanan announced after his victory. “These are Democrats. We’re bringing them home.” He was in the process of building a nearly unbeatable coalition for November, one made up of Republicans across the spectrum but also disaffected Reagan Democrats unhappy with Clinton’s free trade policies and scandal-ridden administration. This coalition, and Buchanan’s fierce debating skills, would have been hard for Clinton and the DNC to combat.

But it was not to be. By the time the smoke cleared from the Republican pile-on, and the steamrolling of the GOP money machine, Dole had the nomination in hand. Never mind that Buchanan had publicly backed Bush in 1992; the establishment would not support him and clearly favored Dole.

Despite his second place finish, Buchanan was denied a chance to speak at the national convention in San Diego, much to the dismay of conservatives, many wanting Pat to run third party on the Constitution Party ticket. He refused and supported the Republican nominee.

Dole went on to a glorious defeat at the hands of Clinton.

Dole went on to a glorious defeat at the hands of Clinton, an outcome most everyone with a thimble full of brains knew was coming. The easily discernable bottom line of 1996 was this: the establishment GOP preferred a second Clinton term than a Buchanan victory. No doubt of that.

Even though I am alleging that this ongoing war on conservatives began in earnest with Pat Buchanan’s 1996 campaign, similar battles have occurred in the past. When grassroots conservatives engineered a draft campaign to nominate Barry Goldwater for President in 1964, the Eastern Establishment, led by Nelson Rockefeller, turned their back on him. And although everyone knew then, as well as now, that Goldwater, or any Republican for that matter, had no chance against LBJ, a united Republican Party would have kept the race from turning into a rout. But the establishment would not go along with a conservative nominee.

It’s quite likely that if any explanation can be made for the assault on Buchanan, at least from the establishment’s point of view, it lies in the fact that he challenged and ultimately weakened an incumbent President from his own party, an unforgiveable sin in establishment circles.

Yet in 1976, America’s bicentennial year, a former governor of California, Ronald Reagan, challenged a moderate incumbent President in Jerry Ford, who had taken over for the disgraced Richard Nixon. Aside from Ford’s weakness against the surging Soviets, the presidential pardon of Nixon a mere 31 days after his resignation caused initial high approval numbers to plummet. Reagan jumped into the race to battle “pale pastels” with “bold colors.”

In shades of the 2008 campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Ford and Reagan battled all the way to the convention in Kansas City. But when it was over and Ford had squeaked by, Reagan stood on stage with the President, endorsed him, and gave one of the great speeches of his career. He also appeared in several television spots for the Republican ticket.

Ford’s loss to Carter was Reagan’s gain and the establishment party bosses could not hold back the surge of conservative support for him in 1980, as their handpicked candidates were no match for the “great communicator.” But the establishment had a plan to win the future – by controlling the vice presidential pick.

For Vice President, Reagan wanted a true conservative like Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada, but he caved in to establishment pressure and named George H. W. Bush, who had been a congressman, ambassador to China, head of the CIA, and opponent of Reagan in the primaries that year.

The bosses convinced Reagan that he needed Bush for two reasons: to balance the party ticket ideologically and to gain access to the vast sums of money in establishment hands that Bush could deliver.

Had Reagan not picked Bush in 1980, we would not have Obama today.

Both reasons are demonstrably false. Reagan could have defeated Carter with Big Bird as his running mate, and the spare change in his pocket, but he sided with the establishment nonetheless. And today we are still paying the price for that decision. Had Reagan not picked Bush in 1980, we would not have Obama today.

Consider: The Bush choice kept the establishment alive, which after Watergate and the hapless Ford was withering on the vine, as was the entire Republican Party. It was Reagan who breathed new life into it. Without becoming Vice President, Bush had no shot at the White House in 1988, and without him in the White House, son George W. Bush would likely never have made it either. It was W and his policies that gave us Obama. A great conservative Vice President under Reagan would have kept the conservative tide rising, rather than handing the ball off to the establishment.

Since Reagan, presidential elections have yielded few tangible results for conservatives. The Establishment Republican Party has had its way with the nominations in recent years – from Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II, and Mitt Romney, to most likely Bush III or Christie in 2016, if they continue to have their way.

Conservatives, though, have had success in state races, and those for the US House and Senate, much to the chagrin of the establishment, with recent victories by Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and David Brat. But for every Cruz, Lee, Paul, and Brat there’s a Sharron Angle, a Christine O’Donnell, a Todd Akin, a Ken Cuccinelli, and a Chris McDaniel, true conservatives who faced the ire and vile of the establishment, just as Pat Buchanan did.

Anytime a true no-nonsense conservative gains traction and begins to move up, the establishment orchestrates a campaign to tear them down and withhold support. Aside from the Chris McDaniel bright spot in Mississippi, wherever that may lead, the year 2014 proved to be a wipeout for conservatives vying for the US Senate, as the Republican establishment managed to align itself with whichever devil was necessary – everyone from Democrats to the liberal US Chamber of Crony Capitalism – to beat back every single conservative challenger.

But the battle is far from over and we can never give in. Instead, we must now look for a new fight. As Pat Buchanan said in his victory speech in New Hampshire nearly 20 years ago, “Do not wait for orders from headquarters, mount up everybody and ride to the sound of the guns!”

Read more at: Mississippi Conservative Daily

Pat Buchanan: Hillary Would Beat Romney in 2016

Pat Buchanan: Hillary Would Beat Romney in 2016

By Jerome Corsi – WND

But she must please progressive base while distancing from Obama

NEW YORK – Amid rumblings of another Mitt Romney run for the White House, author and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan is advising the GOP to avoid nominating the first two-time loser since Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and again in 1956.

In a wide-ranging interview on his new book, “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority,” Buchanan expressed doubt that Romney could make the kind of historic comeback Nixon accomplished in 1968.

Buchanan, a WND columnist, believes Romney would beat Barack Obama if the presidential election of 2012 were held today. But he contends Romney would lose in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, the Democrats most likely choice.

Buchanan bases his analysis on his nearly 50 years of top-level election experience. In December 1965, he left his job writing editorials for the St. Louis Globe Democrat and was hired by the Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander, and Mitchell law firm in New York City. A year later, Nixon’s campaign hired him as its first adviser.

Order Pat Buchanan’s new book now: “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority”

Buchanan believes, however, that Clinton will need to work skillfully to distance herself sufficiently from Barack Obama while reassuring Democrats she still advocates the progressive values of the party’s base.

“In 1968, the GOP was seen as an acceptable alternative to the Democratic Party,” Buchanan said.

“Today, while the country is ready to reject Obama, it is not ready to accept the Republican Party as an alternative. Among the reasons are the huge demographic changes in an electorate that is now approaching 30 percent from Third World countries that vote 70 to 90 percent for Democrats. These figures are not moving in the GOP’s direction, they are moving in the other way.”

Hillary running against Obama

Hillary’s problem right now, Buchanan stressed, is that she is running against the growing perception of being part of the Obama administration.

“The American people now are wondering if they want four years of Hillary after the two years of Obama since 2012,” he said.

The Greatest ComebackBuchanan said it’s much like the problem President Lyndon Johnson had in 1968 after winning in a landslide four years earlier.

“By 1968, the American people were saying, ‘We’re not sure we want any more of this guy,’” he said.

“This is the problem the Democrats are having today and the reason Hillary is receding from her high point of something like 70 percent approval when she left her job as secretary of state.”

Buchanan made clear that despite Hillary’s recent decline in popularity, she remains the front-runner.

“It’s very hard to see if Hillary runs who will beat her,” he stressed. “I don’t see Elizabeth Warren beating her. I tell people that if I were a 45-year-old Democratic senator, I would run, and I would challenge Hillary on issues, so if I lost I would have gained the opportunity to introduce myself to the American people and hope lightening strikes.”

Mindful of Bill Clinton’s support of Hillary’s candidacy, he added, “But I doubt any Democrat wants to take the risk of running against Hillary, since it means going after the king, and failing to get the job done might just have disastrous consequences.”

Comparing Romney’s comeback probabilities to Nixon’s, Buchanan said there’s nobody in the GOP like Nixon.

“Before I was 10 years old, Nixon was a world figure that had taken down Alger Hiss and was a famous American congressman who had wiped out Helen Gahagan Douglas by the largest majority in California history (for a U.S. Senate seat),” he said. “Then he was the second youngest vice president. He was a huge figure in the GOP, and there is nobody in the GOP with that stature today.”

Buchanan conceded the nation has changed since Nixon was on the political landscape.

“I can see back in 1965 how the GOP could be stitched together, and you might have trouble holding the liberals,” he said. “But if you commanded the center and the right, you see how we could trade our liberals, the Rockefeller Republicans, to pull away from the Democrats’ huge segments of FDR’s socially conservative supporters, including the ethnics who voted Democratic, southern Protestants and Catholics, in a trade where the GOP came out on top.”

Where are the conservative Democrats?

Buchanan believes the GOP is in a much more difficult position today to turn such a trade into a winning presidential coalition.

“It’s hard to see today where the GOP can find enough conservative Democrats to pull away,” he said. “It used to be there were a lot of conservative Democrats. Today, there aren’t that many.”

Buchanan pointed out the Democrats begin presidential campaigns with a large electoral vote advantage.

“In the last six elections, the Democrats have won the same 18 states plus the District of Columbia all six times, and among those states are California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York – four of the big seven. Two of the other big seven are now swing states – Ohio and Florida. Texas is the only reliable state of the big seven that the Republicans have left. So if the GOP loses those 18 states plus the District of Columbia, adding up to about 242 electoral votes, the Democrats need to pick one or two tricks and it’s over.”

Buchanan said he found it difficult to believe any GOP contender could break the Democratic Party hold on the presidential electorate.

“It’s hard for me to see what Republican cracks that base that is increasingly solid Democratic – first because of demography and second because of the welfare state that now embraces scores of millions of people who look upon anyone wanting to cut government as somebody who’s going to take my food stamps away, or cut my education, or my health care, or my housing subsidy, or my income subsidy.”

Buchanan pointed out that in 1968, Nixon’s only real contender for the GOP presidential nomination was Michigan Gov. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, but before the New Hampshire primary, Nixon was ahead among GOP voters by a margin of 4 to 1.

“The real problem for me in 1968 would have been had then-governor of California Ronald Reagan stepped in and torn the conservative vote away from Nixon. As it was, Nixon basically scared any other GOP contender off from going strong into the primaries.”

Hard to see a clear GOP winner

But this year, Buchanan sees no GOP candidate who can command the kind of lead Nixon had in 1968 ahead of the primaries.

“Going into the GOP presidential primaries next year, it is hard to see a clear winner,” he said.

“Rand Paul will have a following, especially among young voters, and Ted Cruz ignites enough voters to have a strong following,” he said.

Among establishment GOP candidates, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie “is having a hard time recovering the support he lost and he’s now running behind Hillary even in New Jersey.”

“I would be surprised if Jeb Bush ran,” Buchanan said. “Florida Senator Marco Rubio damaged himself early on with the immigration issue.”

GOP can’t win without tea party

Buchanan advised that if Romney wants to run again in 2016, he should be out on the campaign trail supporting GOP candidates, much as Nixon did in 1966.

“Romney should today be working this fall not only for establishment GOP candidates but for tea party folks,” he said.

“The GOP cannot win without the tea party’s energy and enthusiasm. You need those folks, just like in 1968 Richard Nixon needed the Goldwater supporters and the Reagan supporters to win.”

Buchanan argued the voter coalition Nixon put together in 1968 was the greatest of the 20th century, with the possible exception of the FDR New Deal coalition that led to four presidential election victories in a row.

“People forget that after LBJ’s landslide victory in 1964, the GOP was half the size of the Democratic Party at the time,” he said.

Buchanan doubted Romney has the ability to pull together the type of historic voter coalition needed to beat the Democrats in 2016.

“Because Obama is so unpopular now and is likely to be increasingly unpopular in the next two years, and his foreign policy is going to antagonize the interventionist wing of the Democratic Party, Hillary will continue to take a harder line than Obama takes on foreign policy,” Buchanan said.

“Hillary will increasingly distance herself from Obama’s record so she is not seen by 2016 as the successor to Barack Obama, but as someone different, much more realistic and tough-minded, especially in foreign policy – more of a Bill Clinton than a Barack Obama,” he said.

“Where she is right now, she is winning the nomination. But the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will assert itself in 2016, and Hillary wants to make sure Democratic voters know she continues to hold the basic beliefs of the Democratic Party, especially on domestic issues.”

He concluded by emphasizing that Obama could not be elected president again, even if it were constitutionally possible for him to run for a third term.

“By the time of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary will be positioned as a non-Obama, because Obama could not win again. If Obama were to top the ticket as of right now, Republicans could break the 18-state hold the Democrats have on the presidential electorate.”

Buchanan summarized his assessment: “In a contest Romney vs. Obama next week, Romney wins. In a contest Romney vs. Hillary in 2016, Hillary wins, despite Hillary having to spend the remainder of this year and the next two years making her way through choppy waters.”

Read more at WND

My Thoughts on Pat Buchanan’s Brilliant and Incisive Take on Washington’s Ukrainian Fiasco

By David Stockman

David StockmanIn just 800 words Pat Buchanan exposes the sheer juvenile delinquency embodied in Washington’s current Ukrainian fiasco. He accomplishes this by reminding us of the sober restraint that governed the actions of American Presidents from FDR to Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush I with respect to Eastern Europe during far more perilous times.

In a word, as much as they abhorred the brutal Soviet repression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Prague Spring in 1968 and the solidarity movement in Poland in the early 1980s, among many other such incidents, they did not threaten war for one simple reason: These unfortunate episodes did not further endanger America’s national security. Instead, in different ways each of these Presidents searched for avenues of engagement with the often disagreeable and belligerent leaders of the Soviet Empire because they “felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers of the world’s largest nation”.

Accordingly, during the entire span from 1933, when FDR recognized the Soviet Union, until 1991, when it ended, the US never once claimed Ukraine’s independence was part of its foreign policy agenda or a vital national security interest. Why in the world, therefore, should we be meddling in the backyard of a far less threatening Russia today?

More importantly, if Ike could invite Khrushchev to tour America and pow-wow with him at Camp David after the suppression of the Hungarian freedom fighters and his bluster over Berlin, what in the world is Obama doing attempting to demonize Putin and make him an international pariah? The fact is, Crimea had been part of Russia for 200 years, and the Donbas had been its Russian-speaking coal, steel and industrial heartland since the time of Stalin.

Putin’s disagreements with the Ukrainian nationalists who took over Kiev during the Washington inspired overthrow of its constitutionally-elected government in February are his legitimate geo-political business, but have nothing to do with our national security. And whatever his considerable faults, Putin is no totalitarian menace even remotely in the same league as his Soviet predecessors. In that regard, Hillary Clinton’s sophomoric comparison of him to Hitler is downright preposterous.

At the heart of the matter is the War Party’s desire to punish Putin for pushing back against American interventionism in Syria, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. For that Washington has now ensnared itself in an ancient ethnic struggle that has roiled Russia’s borders for centuries; and has landed smack in the middle of an attempt by Kiev’s nationalists to violently maintain the “territorial integrity” of a nation who’s boundaries have been meandering all over the map since the middle ages.

In that context, Senator John McCain’s call to arm the ruffians, opportunists, oligarchs and neo-fascists who took power in a street level coup in Kiev is downright lunatic. It causes Buchanan to ask, “Who is the real problem here?”

The answer is that it’s not Putin, and that conclusion comes from a brilliant partisan scholar of 20th century foreign policy who is no left-wing pacifist.

See: Is Putin Worse Than Stalin?, by Pat Buchanan.

David Stockman is the author of the New York Times best-seller, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America (2013), Stockman lays out how the U.S. has devolved from a free market economy into one fatally deformed by Washington’s endless fiscal largesse, K-street lobbies and Fed sponsored bailouts and printing press money.

Read more at: David Stockmans Contra Corner