Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (60455)	9/21/1999 5:51:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I give the nod to jla I would EXPECT no less. <VBG> JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (60455)	9/23/1999 1:18:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I am no Buchanan supporter (I have never supported him), nevertheless I think he should leave the Republican Party because I think he can no longer function as an effective component of that "coalition" to which you sometimes refer. His politics have long fallen out-of-favour within the GOP, and it is about time he, the Gary Bauers and Alan Keyes of conservative politics understand this. Buchanan's essential views are rejected, or at best embraced gingerly by nearly every major player in the GOP. The party simply is no clear champion of his beliefs, and accordingly can never offer him a legitimate hope of ever placing him or his values at its summit. Additionally, he is increasingly removed from the values of the GOP such that he likely can no longer stomach sincere support of the party. So then on principle it is long past time for him to move on. But to the Reform Party? Obviously Buchanan and the Reform Party present to one another insurmountable philosophical hurdles; and this leads me to think he essentially trades a bad relationship for one that is fundamentally even worse. Buchanan and the Reform Party are obviously looking to overlook their philosophical abhorrence of each other to form a symbiotic relationship. The Reform Party wants to be really put on the map via a Buchanan candidacy, and Buchanan wants to avoid being left in the cold by his divorce from the Republican Party. I see here unacceptable compromise all over the place, and it irks me without end! How will that Fulani woman, who has for years championed causes and positions that are clearly anathema to Buchanan, actually make Buchanan her choice for President of the United States? She will do it by ignoring her own principles, of course. One can almost legitimately imagine she has on at least one occasion in her life considered Buchanan Satan himself, and yet we see her and Buchanan hopping in the sack together for the sake of politics. And what of Buchanan? Except for a few rare exceptions he has not held his punches on any of his beliefs. How will he fare as the uppermost representative of the Reform Party? He will compromise his principles, lest he be despised by a large contingent within his new party. If Buchanan must leave the GOP (and I think he must), he should do it either because on principle he can no longer remain Republican (in which case he should simply let the chips fall where they may), or because another party offers him a fighting chance to help him give the country a better presentation of his principles. He should certainly not join a party that holds principles fundamentally in opposition to his own. Surely he and the Reform Party have much in common on fiscal issues, but I think the similarities here are insufficient to overrule the fundamental differences between the two on social issues. Someone will have to seriously compromise principles. Fulani/Buchanan is little different than NOW/Clinton in my opinion.