Buchanan interview about Ron Paul

[Agorism]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/21/b...-party-it-would-damage-sons-political-future/

Click article to find video. Lots of text not in article.

 

[blazeKing]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

 

[Toxhicide]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[muh_roads]

That doesn't even make sense.

You do know they both carry the last name Paul and Rand is supporting his father?

 

[FSP-Rebel]

That doesn't even make sense.

No, it makes plenty. The Paul name would likely be tarnished. U hate or dislike Ob?

 

[Toxhicide]

You do know they both carry the last name Paul and Rand is supporting his father?

If anybody where to see through the bull they would know that they are both different people.

 

[phill4paul]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratic government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.

 

[milo10]

Kind of underwhelming. Buchanan has really disappointed me overall in terms of Ron Paul.

 

[Nate]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

This makes no sense from what we know about Ron Paul. Does anybody actually think that Paul values his son's political career over the best interests of the country when he so obviously doesn't do the same for his own? If Ron Paul feels that it is in the best interests of the country to leave the Republican Party & run as an independent then that is exactly what he is going to do. I don't really see the political landscape changing that much over the next 6 months to where a 3rd party run would be a viable option so I seriously doubt that happens but to say the reason he won't run 3rd party is because it would damage his son's political career is absurd & one of the last reasons he wouldn't do it.

 

[Nate]

That doesn't even make sense.

+1 None whatsoever.

 

[silverhandorder]

This makes no sense from what we know about Ron Paul. Does anybody actually think that Paul values his son's political career over the best interests of the country when he so obviously doesn't do the same for his own? If Ron Paul feels that it is in the best interests of the country to leave the Republican Party & run as an independent then that is exactly what he is going to do. I don't really see the political landscape changing that much over the next 6 months to where a 3rd party run would be a viable option so I seriously doubt that happens but to say the reason he won't run 3rd party is because it would damage his son's political career is absurd & one of the last reasons he wouldn't do it.

The best for country is for Paul's to be around after Ron retires. 3rd party hardly gona get us the presidency so it would be a stupid move to make. Make republicans hate Pauls and get Obama reelected.

 

[parocks]

This makes no sense from what we know about Ron Paul. Does anybody actually think that Paul values his son's political career over the best interests of the country when he so obviously doesn't do the same for his own? If Ron Paul feels that it is in the best interests of the country to leave the Republican Party & run as an independent then that is exactly what he is going to do. I don't really see the political landscape changing that much over the next 6 months to where a 3rd party run would be a viable option so I seriously doubt that happens but to say the reason he won't run 3rd party is because it would damage his son's political career is absurd & one of the last reasons he wouldn't do it.

There a probably a lot of directions that Ron Paul wouldn't go because it could hurt Rand in some way. It's got to be a factor. The likelihood of success of a 3rd party run just isn't very large. Cost to Rand has to be factored into a cost/benefit analysis. There are hail marys that he could throw if he isn't winning that he likely wouldn't throw because of Rand.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratichttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3889682 government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.

Pat Buchanan is not a theocrat. He is deeply religious but I don't think that qualifies one as a theocrat. He's a paleoconservative and a bit to protectionist for my tastes but a theocrat he is not.

 

[Kilrain]

I feel dumber for having read that. Why in the world would RP give in to the party hacks and help prop up a corrupt system just so he can give a speech that no one will give a rat's ass about? If he did...no, I don't even feel to need to finish that sentence. It's too moronic to even contemplate.

 

[RonPaul101.com]

Buchanan says Ron won't run third party because it would destroy Rand's political future.

There is a counter argument that it helps Rand. Since the elites in the GOP and Media fight Ron anyway, maybe his controlling the outcome of the election upsets them enough to finally give a Paul some respect when its Rand's turn, or he'll control the election, etc.

It's not as if Ron avoiding a 3rd party run will somehow make the future GOP elite be respectful to Rand; no chance.

You do catch more flies with honey, but a 10,000 volt bug zapper works best.

That being said, no 3rd party run because he'll win the nomination. 3rd party runs are very difficult.

 

[Carole]

BS on Pat Buchanan. So disappointing to have read those words from him. that RP should accept a top speaking spot at convention because he "won it". is an insult to my intelligence and certainly to RP's intelligence.

Message to Pat Buchanan: Ron Paul is trying to save this once great country you idiot, not win s speaking spot at convention.

I always liked Pat Buchanan, but now must rethink my opinion of him.

Pat Buchanan is not what I thought he was and he is not very bright to boot if he really believes what he wrote in that article.

 

[paulpwns]

This is Pat, just begging for us to give up, to basically settle for a speech at the convention.

A complete joke that won't fool any real Paul supporters.

 

[blazeKing]

The idea is that if Ron ran 3rd party, Rand would endorse him...and Romney would lose. Now, if Obama happened to win then the establishment GOP and the neocon voters would blacklist Rand for endorsing his father hurting his political future and possible future Presidential run. Makes sense to me.

BTW message to Buchanan...RP is first in Iowa and has a good chance to win this whole nomination so quit pretending he has already lost.

 

[ca4paul]

Poor Poor religious nutjob pat banana buchanan. He would have been more relevant if he didn't bible thump and side with the news medias' choices.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

My personal viewpoint: F*ck Pat. He has been and always will be a theocrat. There are similarities between his non-interventionist policies that he and Ron share that shut him out in the MSM/Corporatist media. In the end the MAJORITY of Americans don NOT want a theocratic government. Which is why a candidate that wears religion on there sleeve will NEVER be elected president. Buchanan is irrelevant and a f*cktard to boot. IMHO.

That's kinda harsh