No subject

Sun Feb 18 02:53:23 MST 1996

In Face Off With Clinton, Buchanan's Only Real Contender
By Charley Reese
February 15, 1996

The liberal Rockefeller Republicans, Pat Buchanan's
enemies, have adopted a new line in the face of his
continued success: Well, old Pat can win in states with a
lot of Christian right-wingers, but, of course, he could
never win against Bill Clinton.

In other words, the message to conservatives is: If you
want to beat Clinton, then you must choose a Rockefeller
Republican. Well, if a Rockefeller Republican beats Clinton
(and I don't think one can), all that would change in
Washington would be a few faces and the patronage. Just as
Clinton differs from George Bush only on marginal matters,
so a Rockefeller Republican would differ from Clinton only
in a cosmetic fashion. A Wall Street toady is a Wall Street
toady, regardless of party label.

Conservatives should not forget that, once Rockefeller
Republicans are elected, their attitude is, as expressed by
former Secretary of State James Baker, ''(expletive) the
conservatives! Who else are they going to vote for?''

Well, Baker found out in 1992. And, if Rockefeller
Republicans sabotage Buchanan's candidacy, they will find
out again in 1996.

Conservatives should not forget that conservative and
Republican are not necessarily synonymous. GOP liberals are
called Rockefeller Republicans because the late Nelson
Rockefeller was their leader.

The truth is Buchanan has the best chance of beating Bill
Clinton for a number of reasons.

Clinton would slaughter Bob Dole in a television debate. A
much younger and more energetic Dole was trounced in 1976
when, as President Gerald Ford's running mate, he had to
debate Walter Mondale. And Mondale is so underspoken and
poker-faced, he makes Al Gore seem like a speed freak.
Dole is too old a war horse to be ridden to an
inauguration. The liberal Republicans, Lamar Alexander and
Steve Forbes, wouldn't fare much better in a face-off with

Buchanan, on the other hand, would leave Clinton on the
floor in a televised debate. He's very good at that and
very comfortable on TV, where his humor shows to good

Moreover, Buchanan can do what the country-club
Republicans can't do, and that is bring in independent and
blue-collar union voters. Buchanan, and in my opinion only
Buchanan, can put together the same coalition that elected
Ronald Reagan to two terms.

Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Rockefeller Republican mole in
the House, is proposing that Republicans run against
unions, corruption and cronyism. What a disastrous strategy
that would be. Republicans are as vulnerable on corruption
and cronyism charges as Democrats. And a working man or
woman's union membership card is a whole heck of a lot
better recommendation than a membership card to some rich
man's private club. It hasn't been the working men and
women, union or otherwise, who have sold out the country.
It has been the white elite.

But what else can Rockefeller Republicans advocate when
they support the same global socialist policies the
Democrats do -- policies that are killing off American
jobs, driving down the standard of living, and wasting
American lives and treasure in various rat holes around the
world? It's typical that Gingrich wants to divide Americans
while Buchanan wants to unite them.

Check 'em out. Buchanan is the only one in the bunch who
has a coherent vision of where he thinks America should go,
buttressed by specific positions on specific issues. He's
the only one who would put the welfare of Americans and the
country first. He'd be the first president actually to
represent ordinary Americans since Harry Truman. He'd be
the first, since Truman, to talk the same after his
election as he did before it.

You really have only one choice: Buchanan or Clinton --
the real Clinton or Republican versions of Clinton.
 - - - - - - - - - - end- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list