Jump to content

Who Should Replace Bush


American presidential Candidates  

14 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Personally I think Bush is as good as it gets to face off against the list of candidates you posted as replacements.

No offence intended against Buchanan personally, but objectively speaking, I believe Buchanan is unelectable. His views on immigration, valid as they may be, are too unpolitically incorrect. The media would have a heyday portraying him as a "racist." His recent anti-Israel comments are unacceptable for most Americans.

Hillary and Howard Dean would be disasters for the USA. Their socialist views are better suited for being PM of Canada.

Kerry is too flip-floppy like General Clark. Both men have no views but what the wind blows into their kitchens each morning.

Gephardt is in the pocket of big unions and minority rights groups.

The only name I can come up with, off the top of my head, to replace Bush would be perhaps Rudy Guilliani.

Guilliani showed leadership and grace in the midst of crisis. He also restored New York to its rightful stature as a classy cosmopolitan city instead of the dumpster for crime and lawlessness that a succession of Democrat mayors had let it become.

Fyi, a Marist poll in September, 2003 showed that 2/3 of New Yorkers wanted Guilliani to return to public office and that he was so popular with New Yorkers that he could beat both of the 2 sitting state senators [ie. Clinton and Shumer]if he ran against them. That's a good sign re: general respect for Guilliani considering that New York is a left wing dominated state by and large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Guilliani definately has the potential to replace Hellary.

Guilliani was against a term limit for mayor. And I think he had a bout with prostate cancer at some point. I don't think you've seen the last of him though.

By the way, I predict that Hillary will choose to enter the Presidential race at the last possible moment, portraying herself as the savior of the Demoratic party. She will easily win the nomination. She will then choose as her running mate, you guessed it, Wesley Clark, to offset her weekness on national defense.

Then you will see the true Hillary as only few people have seen. Her bombastic speaking style pales in comparison only to Hitler's

Hillary's goal is to get either herself or GWB elected in 2004. If one of the midget candidates wins in 04, she will be unable to run against an incubant Dem candidate in 08.

However, if she runs against GWB in 04 and loses, which would be the case, she can kiss the Presidency goodbye forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good doctor may win to represent the DNC in the Presidential election, because the 8 other dwarfs he is running against are less appealing than he is and he would not need the support of the South at that point.

But Dean's recent faux pas about Confederate flags and pick up trucks, not to mention his apology suggesting that blacks may have been too stupid to understand the insult in the first place, has done irrepairable harm to him , IMHO, with the South. Dean is shaping up to be everything Karl Rove has dreamed about as a Democrat candidate to face off against George Bush in 2004.

Howard Dean's arrogance

-One day after the Rock the Vote debate turned into a debacle for Dean when he declined to disavow his previous declaration that he wanted to be the candidate of the Confederate flag cohort, the former Vermont governor shifted into damage-control mode.

Speaking at Cooper Union in Manhattan on Wednesday, Dean said he considered the Confederate flag a "reminder of racial injustice and slavery," stressed that he did not condone its use, and expressed regrets for "the pain I may have caused either to African-American or Southern white voters."

- Still, several nagging questions linger. The Confederate flag faux pas was the silliest sort of rookie mistake -- which is exactly what makes it a disturbing blunder in a man trying to operate at the apex of American politics. Once the gaffe was committed, a simple apology early in Tuesday's forum would have spared Dean the televised trouncing he took. And ended a controversy that had already simmered for several days.

- Dean's Cooper Union regrets had a significant aspect of the weasel- word apology about them. Take, for example, this comment: "Many people in the African-American community have supported what I have said in the past few days, because they understand. Some have not, so I say to those, I deeply regret the pain I may have caused."

- That is easily interpreted this way: I regret the pain I may have caused anyone who didn't understand what I was saying.

- Indeed, some news accounts and some rivals have asserted that Dean refused to apologize in his Cooper Union remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting artical appeared on Common Dreams just today which sums up dean's statement very well.

______________________________________________

Published on Friday, November 7, 2003 by the Boston Globe

Dean's Appeal to South Cuts Across Race

by Derrick Z. Jackson

NO ONE ACCUSED Howard Dean of whistling Dixie in February when he tried to appeal to Southern white men or to Southern black people about Southern white men.

"You know all those white guys riding around with Confederate flags in the back of their pickup trucks? Well, their kids don't have health insurance either."

Dean said this before a group of African-Americans at a hamburger joint in Spartanburg, S.C. A Newsday story said, "This blunt appeal to a commonality of racial interests won the moment and a burst of applause."

That same month in Washington at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Dean said, "I intend to talk about race during this election in the South because the Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us. . . . White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance either and their kids need better schools, too."

That brought a standing ovation.

That makes very curious the catcalls nine months later from Dean's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Last Saturday, Dean said in the Des Moines Register, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

As if this was the first time they heard it, the other candidates drew crossbows. John Kerry said it was "craven." Joseph Lieberman said it was "reckless." Dick Gephardt said "I will be the candidate for guys with American flags."

At this week's Rock the Vote forum in Boston, John Edwards told Dean, "The last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do." Al Sharpton said Dean sounded "more like Stonewall Jackson than Jesse Jackson." Sharpton also said, "Maynard Jackson said that the Confederate flag is America's swastika. . . . I don't think you're a bigot, but I think that is insensitive."

That last dig showed how fast Sharpton and the Democratic candidates get lost without a compass. Maynard Jackson, Atlanta's first African-American mayor who died this summer, gave Dean some of the loudest applause at the DNC meeting.

"Dean blew the roof off today," Jackson said. "There was no mealy-mouth wishy-washiness about it. It was very gutsy."

Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for the 2000 presidential campaign of Al Gore and Lieberman, and no mealy-mouth herself, said Dean's words were "the medicine to cure my depression." Referring to the Democrats' fear of squarely taking on Bush's policies, Brazile, despite her neutrality, said, "Anybody who gets us off the floor and out of the fetal position, I'm for."

The Democrats should stop trying to mop the floor with Dean's Confederate flag and grab their opportunity before it is lost. There is a health care crisis that cuts across race. There is a public education crisis that cuts across race. There is a jobless economic "recovery" that cuts across race. The Republicans have successfully distracted huge swaths of white males from those problems, exploiting various codes that blame everyone except straight white men for America's problems.

In the Deep South, ties to the Confederacy remain a powerful political code. In 2001, white voters in Mississippi voted overwhelmingly to retain the current flag, which includes the Confederate symbol, over the wishes of African-American voters who wanted a new flag. This week, former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour won the Mississippi governor's race after defiantly refusing to disavow the use of his photo by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group tied to the old segregationist white citizens councils. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney came to Mississippi to campaign for Barbour.

While Barbour played to the code, Dean was trying to crack it. Some political analysts talk as if the white South is locked up forever for the Republicans. Had the Democrats won just one other state in 2000, Bush would not be in the White House. Clinton had the economic message to win several Southern states in both 1992 and 1996.

Dean has since apologized for invoking Confederate imagery. He should drop the Confederate line because it risks its own distraction, narrowly stereotyping Southern white males when too many white men all across America, broadly stereotyped as "NASCAR dads," have been persuaded to vote for codes against their best economic interests.

Dean should not drop the cause. The real apology should come from the other Democratic candidates for not joining it. Dean was the first to get off the floor to say the Democrats cannot win unless they tell white men how code politics is killing them in the pocketbook. Back in February, Maynard Jackson said Dean's bluntness "stole the show." The other candidates are merely jealous that Dean stole the issue of white men while they are still talking their way out of the fetal position.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

###

______________________________________________

As you can see, Dean didn't go into damage control. It brought him MORE popularity than before and I think it will bring him even more votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news for Democrat Party Presidential hopefuls. Bush's tax cuts are paying off. More new jobs have been added for 3 months in a row. Ouch, that's got to hurt the doom and gloom soothsayers in the DNC.

Improved USA employment figures are good for Bush.

- As CNSNews.com previously reported, the U.S. Department of Labor announced Friday that American businesses added 126,000 new jobs in October, the third straight month of job growth. The nation's unemployment rate now stands at an even 6 percent, as compared to the September rate of 6.1 percent.

- House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had a more positive appraisal of the figures. Hastert noted that the economy grew at 7.2 percent in the third quarter of this year, the best quarterly growth rate since 1984, according to gross domestic product numbers released this week.

- Combined with other recent data, Hastert observed that Friday's employment report shows that the economy has created more than 286,000 jobs in the last three months.

- "It's all good news. The numbers are just phenomenal," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). "During the 1990s, we had one of the longest economic expansions in history, and now, we are seeing that the U.S. has had one of the shortest and shallowest recessions in the past 50 years.

- "President Bush and the Congress enacted sensible, pro-growth tax relief, and now, we are seeing the fruits of our labor," Craig concluded.

- Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) echoed the positive outlook, adding that Friday's news is especially good when considered in light of the fact that last week was the fourth straight week in which jobless claims were below 400,000, dropping to 348,000.

- "In headlines across America today, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said of the decrease in jobless claims that 'the odds... increasingly favor a revival in job creation,'" Wilson said.

- Consumer spending is up. Business investment is up. And the stock market has gained over $2 trillion in value since last January," Hastert said. "Democrats say they want to raise taxes to pay for more Washington spending, but that is the worst thing we can do to keep this economy strong and create more jobs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All excellent news. However, expect liberals to continue to carp on job losses in the manufacturing sector, a global phenomenon largely resulting from astronomical productivity gains.

Business Leaders Optimistic About Economic Upturn:

"We are looking forward to that acceleration in the economy in our business area, so we are actually hiring at a fairly strong clip right now,'' said Irwin Jacobs, chief executive of Qualcomm Inc., in a radio interview with Bloomberg News yesterday.

"We are currently actively hiring,'' said Alfred Mockett, chief executive officer of American Management Systems Inc., a Fairfax, Virginia, provider of consulting services to government agencies and businesses, in an interview Tuesday. ``Just based on our current backlog and pipeline, we are going to have to step up our hiring as we go into next year. I can foresee a situation where the whole industry is going to get into recruitment mode next year.''

"Companies are posting sales positions,'' said Jeff Taylor, founder and chief executive of Monster Worldwide Inc.'s Monster.com, the biggest U.S. Internet site for employment advertising, in a television interview with Bloomberg News yesterday. ``This is critical because it means companies have confidence in the future. We see a heavy amount of small- and medium-sized company postings.''

"The combination of faster growth in demand and slowing productivity growth should lead, in the next few quarters, to increased hiring,'' Fed Governor Ben Bernanke told participants in an investment outlook conference in Pittsburgh yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean is probably the best the Dems have and they screwed him over nothing. His comments were in essence saying that he wanted die hard Republican voters like "Guys in pickups with confederate flags to vote for him."

First; there are lots of guys in pickups with confederate flags that vote republican. It is a voting block and he pointed to it. He did not say he was going to become like them, cater to them, expouse their beliefs but simply wanted them to vote for him. Would the Left rather they vote for Bush? Now here they are on Dean's case and this is where he makes his only mistake. Instead of standing his ground and looking at everybody accusing him of being racist for misunderstanding his remark he appoligises! For nothing! This proves he is an idiot. He is supposed to sell himself to all groups, white, black, Republican or whatever and of course he has to try and sell himself to "guys in pcikups with confederate flags" otherwise they will vote for Bush. What does this coward do? Appoligises for the ignorance of his detractors. He should have told them to get stuffed instead and that America is for All Americans and he wanted to become a candidate for All Americans. Then countered; Why they think America is only for a select few, is that their platform, to leave out vast voter blocks?

I understand. In a right winger's view, a right winger can do no wrong, no matter how stupid, how corrupt, or how ineffective they are at what they do. I totally understand and admire the way you stick up for your party.

I think you are right. Both sides seem to have those. I will make an observation and say 'None Of The Above' to the poll and add that anybody from Bush's close staff will do in his place as I think he is not the one making the decisions anyhow.

Colin Powell would be good, stay away from Dick though. I'll reiterate what I said; Bush is only the front man, the empty suit, it's the rest of the crowd that make the show go on. And I think they are doing a great job. When you talk about decisions and stuff I don't think for a minute that Bush does it on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Farrius,

Your comments sound alot like sour grapes to me.

No offence, but neither you nor other Bush haters who contributed to this thread have been able to mount a credible argument to:

1. prove that any of the Democrat Party Presidential candidates are anything but pale shadows of the incumbent President.

2. that Bush is stupid, corrupt, or ineffective in the way he has dispatched his Presidential duties and responsibilities.

a. re: stupidity

I would agree that Bush has not always been comfortable before a microphone but he's no different than some other heads of state. Chretien is an prime example of someone who can't make himself understood in either French nor English. But I'm sure you'd never suggest that Chretien's fumbling with words shows that he's stupid. Nor does this same flaw indicate that Bush is stupid.

Bush has a bachelor's degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard - stupid people, even if they are rich, can't buy degrees from those elite colleges.

Otherwise rich people like Al Gore, the Democrat who faced off against Bush in 2000, could have done the same thing instead of barely graduating from journalism school. Everyone thought, including you I'll wager, that Bush was stupid while Gore was a genius. Appearances can be deceiving.

Al Gore's dubious academic record.

In terms of raw genius, I've heard it said that Jimmy Carter wins the title. But how did raw intelligence help Carter in the Oval Office? Carter's Presidency goes down in history as one of the most reviled for blunders, incompetence, bringing America to her knees diplomatically as well as economically.

b. re: corruption

And how is Bush corrupt? Did he steal money? How could he profit from being President when he was already a self-made millionaire many times over and that's not counting what he stands to inherit from his father and mother. If anything Bush takes a major income cut by being President.

c. re: ineffective

Ineffective is another emotionally based criticism with no proof. Since 9/11 and the subsequent meltdown of the stock market and the economy, he's stayed the course and has slowly but surely turned the economy around.

New jobs and other good economic indicators, NYT, Nov.8/03

There have been no other terrorist attacks on American soil, just threats with no fruition. Bush has taken the battle on terrorism to the terrorists' backyards, something that others have demonized him for but look what he has accomplished...he's headed a coalition of nations to drive out the Taliban and help bring Afghanistan to the 21st century. He's driven a ruthless dictator - btw, more graves of dead Iraqis have been found this week - the body count from Saddam's terror is up to 300,000 and still counting.

More graves are found in Iraq - now totalling 300,000 persons butchered by Saddam

He's given 20 Million Iraqis hope for a future.The Shiite Mullahs before tacitly and openly are referring to American GI's as "friends". The Kurds are as happy as can be. They're volunteering to help the GI's drive the Baathists and remnents of the Republican Guard away from Tikrit. Iraqis in Baghdad are stealthily setting up blogs to communicate with the outside world about how happy they are with "El George Bush" rescuing their nation from Saddam. These Iraqis say they fear that the traditional media are conveying distortions of what's happening in Iraq these days and these stories will cause the American public to pressure Bush to leave Iraq before all the work is done.

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

In the largest ME English language daily newspaper, Arab News, just a few days ago a journalist published a pro-USA invasion of article, admitting he changed his initial antagonistic position because he sees the positive changes for Iraqis that the Americans are causing.

Arab News, Nov.06/03 : changed to pro-US invasion of Iraq in retrospect

Formerly sullen and unco-operative Iran is being very accomodating with plans for inspections now that they've got American and UK soldiers as "neighbours." The aytollah's grandson is calling for Bush to invade Iran and bring democracy there, too. How about that?

Conversations with Khomeini, Christopher Hitchens, Oct.06/03

Talks are continuing with formerly pugnacious N. Korea, who is no longer uttering war cries, in the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Though the US military has been called upon to do heroic undertakings in the fight against terrorism and suffered some loss of lives, morale is up under Bush's leadership and re-enlistment is at 106%.

Army exceeds retention goals, Stars and Stripes, Nov.5/03

I think Bush inherited/was presented with crises that only a handful of Presidents have experienced over the years. I think he is leading his nation remarkably well and he's providing leadership to other nations as well at this time of political/economic uncertainty throughout the world.

Saudi Arabia has just been struck by terrorism and is calling on world leaders to help them fight terrorism. The Saudis are a perfect example of a nation who thought they could save themselves by befriending and feeding the crocodile...maybe other nations will learn from the Saudi's experience [cough... France and Germany]

Al Qaeda attacks Saudi Arabia, The Saudis now call on int'l leaders to help them fight terrorism

3. weaknesses I see in Bush

I don't think Bush is perfect by any means. He's way, way too liberal, in fact too much like a Democrat, in his domestic spending. Bush's support of entitlements makes Roosevelt look like Scrooge.

Bush is also too liberal, soft, on illegal immigration from Mexico. He prides himself on being a "compassionate" conservative and I think this business of not getting tough with illegal Hispanics plays to that part of his self-image. However, it would be disasterous if Al Qeada ever decided to use the soft border with Mexico to their advantage.

But these "weakness" I've just mentioned are not things that show Bush is stupid, corrupt, or ineffective.

Furthermore, all the Democrat candidates would be as bad or worse re: domestic spending and illegal Hispanic immigration, and from what I see in the 9 dwarfs, they would all fail in leadership qualities that Bush excels in, and which are desperately needed in these perilous times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta be kidding me Farrius. This crap you posted is nothing more than a collection of rantings from left wing websites.

Furthermore, as I'm sure Greg will tell you, it is a violation of forum rules to simply post links to outside websites without presenting a argument to accompany your "evidence".

Sorry, no. Try again

On behalf of everyone pulling their hair out on this forum, I challenge you to present your arguement based on real evidence this time. Try to imagine you're attempting to convince skeptics here, instead of preaching to the liberal choir. In order for you the acheive this, you must recognize the difference between an OpEd peice and a news column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush's ratings down? Yes they are. Here is a quick piece from USA today that blames it on the economy. Try to remember that the economy is at this moment going up, up and up. Jobless rate going down down and down.

RATINGS

A thin majority, 52%, approve of the overall job he is doing, down from this year's high of 71% in mid-April, when the war in Iraq still had a glow of victory.

Here are some sample ratings from other presidents. Not that none are sky high or down in the tubes. Then again none are in the middle of a war which is separating the country into distinct camps.

MORE RATINGS

Historical Approval Ratings

Clinton, 1997                62%

Reagan, 1985              51%

Nixon, 1973                73%

Eisenhower, 1957        69%

Truman, 1949              64%

Roosevelt, 1941  62%

Overall, I would say that Bush's 52% isn't too bad considering that when that polll was taken the economy was supposed to be a big millstone around his neck. Wonder what they are right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta be kidding me Farrius.  This crap you posted is nothing more than a collection of rantings from left wing websites. 

On behalf of everyone pulling their hair out on this forum, I challenge you to present your arguement based on real evidence this time.  Try to imagine you're attempting to convince skeptics here, instead of preaching to the liberal choir.  In order for you the acheive this, you must recognize the difference between an OpEd peice and a news column.

You want to start another argument about the validity of evidence. Show me any "reliable" source that isn't biased in someway and then come to me. Crap huh? Next time, provide some right winged sources and I'll make sure to shove it in your face and call it "crap". That's why you are ignorant. You seem to have a mindset in which liberals can never be right. HAH! Left wing sources are crap and right winged sources are all "based on real evidence"? Give me a break. Btw, not all of them were from left winged websites. One look and BOOM, it's faulty evidence huh? Did you even take time to read all of them? Evidently you didn't. If you read all the articles in the websites, actually took time to peruse them carefully, unpartially, without having a mindset unable to take in information that seems liberal, and chew on the information, you might find that you learn something new my friend. You can't do this for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to start another argument about the validity of evidence

Like I said before, the links you posted were an assortment of opinionated left-wing rants, not hard news information. There is a huge difference. I'm not implying that there exists any source that is completely unbias, but you must understand that in our efforts to present our case, we are not using information from non-credentialed, third-party, partisan websites to support our arguments.

Although I did not wade through every single article provided through your links, I read enough of them to determine that they lack legitimacy. They basically resemble postings such as those on this forum. None of the postings even present the author's name. Some of the basis for these articles are just ridiculus. Some examples:

Halliburton Contracts: The unknown author is disputing a story in the NYT with information he got from where? We don't know because he didn't tell us.

What If Hillary Had Said This About Republicans?: I watched the interview with Larry King and Mrs. Bush was a model of class. "you're dead"? Are you joking? I guess you better be careful because Mother Bush is making a threat on your life. Please...

I CANNOT But Tell A Lie: Starts out with a quote from Paul Krugman, a sydicated, left-wing OPINION COLUMNIST. Followed is an extremely long ranting post with no evidence to back up his conclusions, just more COMMENTARY from left-wing columnists. By the way, It doesn't seem reasonable to you that historically, poverty rates rise slighlty during a recession? I'm guessing it seems that way to Dick Meyer.

Why Does The GOP Hate Women?This is just discraceful. All this shows is that liberals are so incredibly out of touch it's no wonder they're losing they're monopoly on power and information.

Did Bush Really Rebuke Malaysian Prime Minister?This story was widely covered in the media. In fact I saw it mentioned on several broadcast outlets. Furthermore, Mahathir Mohamad is a long time anti-US, anti-semite bastard. It is unbelievable that anyone with a couple of marbles rolling around would take his word over Bush.

I feel like I'm responding to posts, and thats exactly the point. Don't use commentary to base your arguments on. Instead, use hard news and facts. If you want to make an argument here, you can either follow the formula or don't bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton is the worst possible person to be in charge of any country. Indeed, I think the world would be better off if she never existed...I personally believe that if Christianity is true, she must be the antichrist.

I have no idea who would be better; I have libertarian persuasions, so make your ideas of who I would vote for there.

And if I had been old enough for the 2000 election, I would have voted for Alan Keyes.

I just reviewed the list and voted for Ron Paul, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the links you posted were an assortment of opinionated left-wing rants, not hard news information.

Enlighten me. Give a couple of examples that to your definition is "hard news information". Furthermore, provide me with some links that prove that Bush would be a good candidate for the 2004 presidential election. Make sure they're not biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Farrius,

I direct you to Morgan's post (Nov 9 @ 10:58 pm) as a good example of a reasoned argument backed by credible evidence.

While you may disagree with his conclusions and in fact the information contained in his sources, you are free to address each point in his post with which you take objection. You may refute each point with your own commentray accompanied by facts that support your assertions. With the facts, you must provide the source of the facts, which is most commonly in the form of a news column produced by an outlet such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Fox News, abc.com, msnbc.com, Newsmax.com, WorldnetDaily.com, etc. These news outlets possess credentials which makes them accountable for what they print on their news pages.

It's usually ok to site facts found within op-ed commentary as long as the author writes for a credentialed outlet. Beware however. Bias in news reporting is usually never in the form of misrepresentation of fact, but rather omission of relavent information. A perfect example of this is illustrated in this story about a school shooting in 2002 which highlights the leftist media's anti gun agenda:

Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter. Yet of the 280 stories written about the shooting, a mere four mentioned the fact that the heroic students were armed and used their guns to halt the rampage.

Media Ignore Fact That Gun Owners Stopped School Shooter

Seeing as how you appear so adamant in your positions, It should not be a problem for you to find credible information to corroborate what you seem to know is certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who else voted for Pat Buchanan. I would have put Ron Paul second, and Alan Keyes third. Pat Buchanan's views are probably shared by a large portion of Americans, if they are explained. I think Pat Buchanan believes that America is going down the wrong path on social issues with regards to American culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...