• commentary
  • TUESDAY AUGUST 29 2006 3:00 PM

Pat Buchanan Calls for Bush Impeachment

Pat Buchanan is rapidly becoming the Lyndon LaRouche of the new millennium with the endless, hopeless presidential campaigns, marginalized views and disproportionate media exposure, likely because of the novelty factor inherent to them. Buchanan's latest claim? Bush needs to be impeached, though not because of Iraq or wiretapping, but because of his views on immigration.

BUCHANAN: I think the president is not going to be impeached, but he's guilty of an impeachable offense. The Constitution commands the president of the United States to defend the states from an invasion.

When he himself says six million people have been stopped, we don't know how many have gotten in. Most people think about half that number. You've got an invasion.

He hasn't been enforcing the immigration laws and he hasn't been defending the border against an invasion, John. He ain't going to be impeached, because the Democrats are going along with the program, because both of them are beholden to the same corporate people right down there on K Street who want limitless immigration and who want cheap labor, and who want to be able to go abroad and bring in foreign workers into this United States.

So I think that the president of the United States has been derelict in his duty, unlike Dwight Eisenhower who put together something calledoperation wetback" excuse me, on the border when he had a million immigrants coming in from Mexico. He said we have to stop this, he sent down a general to do it, and they deported those folks. Something has happened to the elites in this country if they can't defend America's border.


I've been reading Article II of the constitution and can't find any section that describes any sort of presidential obligation to "defend the states from an invasion," so I'd say that Buchanan is on shaky legal ground, at best, if he attempts to pursue impeachment. That and with a Republican majority in the Senate it seems unlikely than an impeachment vote would pass.

But it doesn't matter - Buchanan's true colors had already been shown before he made that idiotic remark, and they have nothing to do with presidential obligations.

KING: If the border were secured and through legal immigration California became a majority Hispanic, majority Latino, Texas became a majority, do you have a problem with that if they came in through legal immigration?

BUCHANAN: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Because of the Mexican situation Mexico has a claim on this country, John.

Our Irish ancestors, Italian ancestors, Jewish folks, they didn't say, look, this belongs to us. That (INAUDIBLE), what did you have 500,000 to a million people? They're under Mexican flags. They say, "This is our land."

You had 90,000 people in the coliseum in a soccer game in California, in L.A. What happened? When the Mexican team came out they booed the American flag, they tore down -- excuse me, tore down the American flag, booed our national anthem, threw garbage on the American team.

You've got a tremendously rising militant group among Mexicans in this country which is documented there, and if we don't wake up to it, we're risking the breakup of our country. T.R. warned against this, Wilson warned against it. Half the great Americans do.


So he's even against legal immigration because "they" all somehow feel like "the country belongs to us." Forget the fact that it would be hard to find anyone who actually thinks that way (and Buchanan offers not a single shred of evidence to back up his assertion), but this is the exact same argument that was leveled against Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century, Italians at the beginning of the twentieth, and pretty much every other ethnic group that has decided to emigrate to the US en masse since its formation. And it's always been the same lame cover for simple racism and xenophobia.

The more important question is: "Why do we care what Pat Buchanan thinks?" Is his opinion representative of anyone but himself anymore? He's a miserable failure of a politician who has managed to claw his way into the limelight more often than he deserves. Even if he is against Bush it's for all the wrong (and poorly conceived) reasons. It's still no reason to give him air time when actual adults might have useful things to say.

Hat Tip: AmericaBlog

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
RedBstrd

RedBstrd

Riverside, CA
April 2004

AUG 31, 2006 07:11 PM

9mm_squeeze said:
True, but these are the people who have influenced those who are. That was a pretty nifty read but the zero sum value is that these are not people who are organically conservative and believe in a restrained State and individual liberty.

They have an extremely ambitious view of the role of the State and see a servile, utilitarian role for the citizenry.

The intellectuals behind the Bush administration, many prominent Republicans in Congress (as well as a few Democrats,) the pompous fake conservative talking heads on radio and TV, the members of the thinktanks, publishers and regular contributors to certain publications like National Review and others, lust for an extremely liberal application of State power, primarily via its executive determining and dictating all policy to ceremonial bodies (Congress and SCOTUS.) The focus of such is abroad in geo-politics and foreign policy, but a tremendous amount is also focused domestically.

None of that crap above is "conservatism." You are also correct that it is not necessarily "trotskyism," "marxism," socialism, or "communism." That is just the intellectual background of those who are crafting this load, people who see the necessity of a centralized, powerful, planning State trying to wrangle specific results into being. Even nations other than their own. Its sort of like Woodrow Wilson on steroids.

IF anything what the neocons are attempting to resurrect is a slightly modified version of 17th and 18th century neo-mercantalism where the State utilizes its military to secure resources and its regulatory powers to manipulate markets, to subsidize certain industries connected to those in power through publicly gathered funds, to grant exclusive market access to specific enterprises that the State blesses, and establish something akin to "enlightened despotism."

Again, ^ not conservatism.



I definitely agree that the neo-con thinkers and policy makers are not committed to personal liberty (nor are they classical conservatives by any stretch of the imagination). Due to this, I am a major critic of almost everything about the administration and neo-con thought.

sucka_juice

sucka_juice

I'm lost
August 2006

AUG 31, 2006 07:47 PM

RedBstrd said:

9mm_squeeze said:
True, but these are the people who have influenced those who are. That was a pretty nifty read but the zero sum value is that these are not people who are organically conservative and believe in a restrained State and individual liberty.

They have an extremely ambitious view of the role of the State and see a servile, utilitarian role for the citizenry.

The intellectuals behind the Bush administration, many prominent Republicans in Congress (as well as a few Democrats,) the pompous fake conservative talking heads on radio and TV, the members of the thinktanks, publishers and regular contributors to certain publications like National Review and others, lust for an extremely liberal application of State power, primarily via its executive determining and dictating all policy to ceremonial bodies (Congress and SCOTUS.) The focus of such is abroad in geo-politics and foreign policy, but a tremendous amount is also focused domestically.

None of that crap above is "conservatism." You are also correct that it is not necessarily "trotskyism," "marxism," socialism, or "communism." That is just the intellectual background of those who are crafting this load, people who see the necessity of a centralized, powerful, planning State trying to wrangle specific results into being. Even nations other than their own. Its sort of like Woodrow Wilson on steroids.

IF anything what the neocons are attempting to resurrect is a slightly modified version of 17th and 18th century neo-mercantalism where the State utilizes its military to secure resources and its regulatory powers to manipulate markets, to subsidize certain industries connected to those in power through publicly gathered funds, to grant exclusive market access to specific enterprises that the State blesses, and establish something akin to "enlightened despotism."

Again, ^ not conservatism.



I definitely agree that the neo-con thinkers and policy makers are not committed to personal liberty (nor are they classical conservatives by any stretch of the imagination). Due to this, I am a major critic of almost everything about the administration and neo-con thought.



Me too.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

AUG 31, 2006 08:33 PM

9mm_squeeze said:

RedBstrd said:

9mm_squeeze said:
True, but these are the people who have influenced those who are. That was a pretty nifty read but the zero sum value is that these are not people who are organically conservative and believe in a restrained State and individual liberty.

They have an extremely ambitious view of the role of the State and see a servile, utilitarian role for the citizenry.

The intellectuals behind the Bush administration, many prominent Republicans in Congress (as well as a few Democrats,) the pompous fake conservative talking heads on radio and TV, the members of the thinktanks, publishers and regular contributors to certain publications like National Review and others, lust for an extremely liberal application of State power, primarily via its executive determining and dictating all policy to ceremonial bodies (Congress and SCOTUS.) The focus of such is abroad in geo-politics and foreign policy, but a tremendous amount is also focused domestically.

None of that crap above is "conservatism." You are also correct that it is not necessarily "trotskyism," "marxism," socialism, or "communism." That is just the intellectual background of those who are crafting this load, people who see the necessity of a centralized, powerful, planning State trying to wrangle specific results into being. Even nations other than their own. Its sort of like Woodrow Wilson on steroids.

IF anything what the neocons are attempting to resurrect is a slightly modified version of 17th and 18th century neo-mercantalism where the State utilizes its military to secure resources and its regulatory powers to manipulate markets, to subsidize certain industries connected to those in power through publicly gathered funds, to grant exclusive market access to specific enterprises that the State blesses, and establish something akin to "enlightened despotism."

Again, ^ not conservatism.



I definitely agree that the neo-con thinkers and policy makers are not committed to personal liberty (nor are they classical conservatives by any stretch of the imagination). Due to this, I am a major critic of almost everything about the administration and neo-con thought.



Me too.



Well damn, that makes three of us.

We should start a third party.

By the way - I now refer to Neo Cons as "Anti-Communist Liberals". Their roots are left wing, disaffected with Stalinism.

ThetotalM

ThetotalM

Providence, RI
July 2004

SEP 01, 2006 09:40 AM

I just think Pat is a bad ecample of the "left" as I once was for the "right"....he needs to come to his senses and maybe he'll win some votes and won't be such a joke. Anybody that is that hardcore for one side or the other is bound to fail becuase they see no middle ground. In milltary tactics you have to see milliatray tactics...what happens if something goes wrong and your convoy gets captures...you have to have a plan B. Pat dosen't seem to have this...he just likes to seem to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. I agree that Immigration is a big issue but Mexiacans being a milliatant group is extreme. Pat do yourself a foavor and buy a punching bag or something.

As for this other side conversation going on...I'm way outta my league to comment on this stuff. But it is to read and try (read attempt) to understand.

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

SEP 01, 2006 04:56 PM

I don't think Pat has ever been an example of the "left" of any kind. Bad or otherwise.

Extreme religious right, maybe ...

sucka_juice

sucka_juice

I'm lost
August 2006

SEP 01, 2006 06:04 PM

ThetotalM said:
I just think Pat is a bad ecample of the "left"


I bet you think Chomsky is a bad ecample of the "right"

ThetotalM

ThetotalM

Providence, RI
July 2004

SEP 01, 2006 06:19 PM

9mm_squeeze said:

ThetotalM said:
I just think Pat is a bad ecample of the "left"


I bet you think Chomsky is a bad ecample of the "right"



OK so I fucked up......no need to make insults now. wink

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next