Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

I was only somewhat familiar with Pat Buchannan (from his presidentail run) until the last several months when I discovered his writing. Finally, I thought, here is someone who doesn't regurgitate one party line or the other and yet still understands statesmanship and diplomacy. Why isn't this man being drafted for the presidency when this country needs him the most? Unfortunately, his last two editorials could be synopsized as: "Too much diversity is killing our country" and "We need more God in our government and our schools". My "Buchanan for President" grassroots effort hit the skids. I now understand why he is as un-electable in '08 as he was in '96. What a shame.

Reply
Report this post

In many respectsRomney's speech showed an intolerant and unbending side - the one that wants to adhere to Republican Orthodoxy as the supreme creed. Before religion was ever discussed, he had to get in the line that Bush senior's generation rose to occasion then "to vanquish the Soviet Union." The reference was clearly to Saint Ronald the Linereader who is given credit for the downfall of the Soviet system in the holy tenets of the GOP. And he felt compelled to reinforce his doctrinaire acceptance of the new evils from which the Republican party would protect us - radical violent Islam, China, government overspending, overuse of foreign oil (note overuse not reliance on), and the breakdown of the family. This was intended as a campaign speech, not a challenge to bigotry. Moving to the theme of religion, the basic speech was written to show the die-hard opponents of separation that he too believed that only the god-fearing have a place in society; the digs at secularism, the emphasis that all men of piety should pray together were meant to be as exclusionary as one could possibly be - to exclude those who wish to keep observance and pronouncement in the home and the houses of worship and out of the judicial nominating world and as far away as possible from the legislative arena.