How is it that Pat Buchanan is a better spokesman for us then ourselves?

[spotbird]

Buchanan is being interviewed by Wolfie, Wolfie is pounding the talking points but Buchanan is holding his ground about the absurdity of the war.

It is hard for me to believe that Buchanan is the best we have, but he is saying what no Democrat will. Saddam was no threat. It's fantastic that he has been captured, but it wasn't worth a war...an on and on.....

[XanaDUer]

1. As a RWer, they are also probably letting him speak

...not screaming, interrupting him, etc.

[spotbird]

5. Wolfie does interrupt when he gets too close to the point, and

try to put words in his mouth. Pat has been pretty good at getting back to the point.

Now Wolfie is accusing Pat of being antisemitic because Pat doesn't like the neocons.

This is a new generation in absurdity, first generation was if someone opposed Israel's policy they were antisemitic, now if one opposes the neocons they must also be antisemitic.


Damn they'll stop at nothing.

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Wolf says to Buchanan (and I quote)

"But Pat, you make President Bush sound like an idiot." Bingo Wolf!

[billybob537]

3. The fact is Buchanan is

a real conservative, real conservatives don't agree with Shit head*.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

4. Sad statement on the SPINELESS state of affairs in Dem-land.

I've said it once...I've said it a thousand times. Until the Dems start fighting rough-and-hard and STAND FOR A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSING VIEW, we will lose every time.

JB

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. Exactly... Something is fundamentally wrong here....

...when someone like Pat Buchanan, who a decade ago was considered the far right edge of Republican extremism, now makes more sense than the "leadership" of our own party.

Mr. "culture war" can see that the PNAC agenda is bullshit and the DLC/DNC can't??

[21winner]

6. Not many people watch cable news TV.

They have life. The WWF has sweat,cable news has spittle.

[mazzarro]

8. It should be obvious that the DLC HAS CO-OPTED

THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!!! Need I say more?

[Jon8503]

9. Buchanan is at least honest about who he is and what he

believes.

[napi21]

10. Buchanan deserves the word of the day award!

He didn't say Shrub was stupid. He said he was UN-TUTORED!!!!!

I never heard that word before today, but I love it! It makes my mind wander for the real definition!

[necso]

11. Having just written a book,

which has as its premise (or so I understand) that the neo-cons are just a small handful of bad apples, Pat is not to be trusted, for this is a lie (of the "big lie" variety). (In the past, for instance, he has argued that Bush is not a neo -- utter nonsense -- for Bush is the very model of the grasping, extremist, ignorant, lying, manipulative, posturing neos.)

But Pat has opposed the war in Iraq (which I am confident that he is selling as the work of this handful of neo-cons) and he is sticking to his guns there.

Still, you take help wherever it comes from, as long as it is isn't poisoned.

As for the respect given him, it is just possible that Pat will emerge from this fray with renewed power and influence. And, like with Nixon, it is hard to argue against Pat's rabid right wing credentials. (I suppose, however, that the neos might, if Pat presses them too hard.)

But let us save our respect for when Pat starts to attack the anti-Catholic bigotry of the neo-fundies.

And let me make clear that Pat is not, never has been, and never will be a spokesman for the Democratic party or its causes -- nor any progressive cause, except insofar as he is simply pursuing his own interests.

And I would argue at great length (groans) that Pat is not a true conservative, rather a reactionary, and that he has contributed largely to the demise of modern, intellectual conservatism in this country.

Still, there is a chance that we could work with his sort, and, of course, this is simply impossible with the neos, for any compromise is heresy to these monsters.

And why some of you must turn everything into an attack on our Party is quite beyond me.

[spotbird]

15. Even if everything you say is true, Pat was absolutely correct

on the war this morning. He was saying things that no one else will say, conspicuous in not saying it is the Democrats.

[necso]

18. I am not denying this,

but I am suggesting that his motives are not our motives, and that he does not have our interests at heart.

Pat is attacking a few people that he has (falsely) identified as being the problem. What he is looking for is to remove these people and increase his own influence.

If Pat wants to deal the neos a crushing blow, let him do as I have suggested numerous times, and attack the religious bigotry of the neo-fundies. But Pat has his own agenda (which includes nothing good for us) and will never do so.

If you have taken this as a personal attack, then consider that this is not my intention. My intention is solely to bring the whole framework of this phony "conservatism" crashing down.

And Pat isn't helping as much as you might think!

[mreh]

12. It is the media that choses who it wants to interview and often

it goes outside of the bounds that it "advises" it will cover in the interview, if the interviewed person is a dem or dem support, thus the dem appears caught off guard or is unprepared for the interview. The media gets to chose who it rakes over the coals and they are in charge, wish folks would figure out that Kerry and Edwards are hitting the * admin hard, it is just that the media isn't covering it.

GROW UP FOLKS - stop whining about the faults of the campaign and get out there and campaign yourselves. ACCEPT THE FACT that the media is against us and quit expecting more from them.

[Julien Sorel]

13. If I remember correctly,

Buchanan got less than 1/2 OF 1% of the vote the last time he ran for office. Maybe there's a reason no one else talks the way he does.

Nah, that's too obvious, too common sense.

Please, ignore me, and go back to fantasy land, where "All 'we' have to do is (fill in the blank), but the Democrats are too damn dumb to see it!"


Free Republic is where the right wing crazies hang out. Democratic Underground is where the left wing morons hang out.

[necso]

14. I find Pat's run for the Presidency illuminating.

While clearly it was a protest thing, still, old Pat set it up so that he would never get much of a vote.

He also managed to effectively destroy the Reform Party, a plus for Bush.

This man is crafty, folks, and you need to think deception when you deal with him. He is Nixon's man after all.

But I find your words about the left too harsh. Personally, I would have used something like "naive, ivory tower left".

[grasswire]

16. personally...

...I've watched Buchanan very carefully over the past year. One instance comes to mind particularly -- the night that the Israeli spy story broke. He was stunned and quite frightened by the implications. It was a Friday night; he apparently was the only political commentator left in the studio. You could see the wheels turning as he processed the implications. He was terrified. He said it approached the "T-word."

The guy has been right. His book "A Republic, Not An Empire" is now several years old. It was published before PNAC became common knowledge.

And he has an incredible nose for news. If you watch him interview someone, you'll see it. One night he and Bill Press were interviewing former CIA agent Larry Johnson about the Plame matter. Johnson dropped a tidbit about the source for the leak being in Feith's office. Bill Press didn't catch it and started to cut away to commercial. Pat came on like a bulldog and pulled the news out of Johnson.

Bottom line: he's a smart guy. Worth listening to, even when we disagree with him.

[necso]

21. Do you then

believe that the neo-con phenomenon is limited to just a few (largely ex-liberal and Jewish) people?

I don't and I was a Republican over the years that these people rose to power. I fought them and I left the Party when they became triumphant.

Pat mixes in enough truth with his lies to make the whole package somewhat believable.

But there is, of course, nothing personal in having a difference of opinion.

[H2O Man]

30. There are hundreds of democrats

that do a fantastic job of articulating the positions of our party. Some of them are at the "top," so to speak. They include Kerry and Edwards. They also include honorable people like Richard Gephardt on labor and employment issues; Robert Kennedy Jr. on the environment; Mario Cuomo on social justice; Howard Dean on empowering those who tend to be young and/or on the left; Al Sharpton gives voice to those who have been disenfranchised; Jesse Jackson sends chills up the spines of those with conscience; Ted Kennedy is the Honey Fritz of our generation; Senator Byrd is the wisdom of old age; and I could easily list one hundred others.

There are likewise more than 100 people on DU who rarely fail to amaze me with their common sense, with their sense of decency, with their logic and reason, and their ability to cut through the balony to get straight to the important issues.

No democrat has any justification in saying that we do not have the voices of truth and reason on our side. If you take the time to listen to General Wesley Clark on C-SPAN, talking about issues of war and peace, you can't say that Pat Buchanan says it better. You can only say that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox give Buchanan far more opportunity to speak.

Every democrat has the right to send letters to the editor of their local newspapers, as well as to CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox. Don't wait for someone else to do what you should be doing for your self.

I'll end this by saying Pat Buchanan is an interesting character. When he was a teen-ager, he was arrested for beating the heck out of a cop who was harassing him. His Nixon days did not seem to encourage the growth of his good potential. Yet he came to hold the Bush family in total contempt then. His tv "personality" is usually obnoxious and annoying. But his books are actually worth reading: he doesn't take a stance for entertainment's sake. He is at times insightful. But he never rates as a good spokesperson for the left.

[Julien Sorel]

31. "Ivory tower"

implies education and the capacity for reflection. These people are simply too stupid and emotionally reactionary for that. You are talking about a group of people who have whined for years about "the corporatist media," people who swear it was the "corporatist media" who ruined the great Howard Dean's campaign because they knew he would kick the shit out of poor George, and the "corporatist media" would never allow that. These same people have swallowed whole the "corporatist media's" characterization of the Kerry campaign without so much as a second thought. Anyone capable of that is either colossally stupid or self deluded. Actually, I think it's both, but what do I know.

[necso]

34. Well, frankly, my friend,

I was being "nice". And there are a few ivory tower types mixed in with the others... along with any number of agents of the "dark side".

And, personally, I have no use for people who wear their emotions or their "principles" on their shirt sleeves, as this is lacking in depth.

But my wish was, basically, to avoid offending (too much) those who would desert us in a heartbeat, because of their lack of depth or self control.

I am, however, willing to concede that we are much stronger at heart without them. Still, we can use their numbers -- if they don't ruin us in the process.

And, yes, I do fear the latter.

[SOS]

17. Strange days indeed

Buchanan is much better on Iraq policy than Kerry.
Even Seymour Hersh demolished Kerry on Iraq this morning on MTP.
Sad.

[Nordic]

19. that is a brilliant, and sad, question

[jpgray]

20. Pat's better than Dean, Kucinich, Byrd, Kennedy?

What are you on?

[Nordic]

22. unfortunately yes

Maybe it's just that Pat's getting more media time.

[jpgray]

23. That I see as more of the problem

I would hold up members of the CBC, the Progressive Caucus, Kennedy, Byrd, Harkin, Dean, Kucinich--any of these guys I'd hold up to Pat in talking about the war. Pat may be more effective in the eyes of some because he is allowed media time and he's attacking it from a conservative angle, but he's no spokesman of mine.

It's not that Democrats aren't saying these things (although the Likud angle I haven't heard much), it's that either leadership or the media aren't interested in having them be heard.

[madfloridian]

24. Buchanan sounds good, but so does Tweety sometimes.

Everyone here goes ga ga over Chris Matthews, we say watch out, he will turn on you. And he does.

Yes, Buchanan sounds good. But watch it, he is not our friend.

[Nordic]

26. Tweety comes across as A.D.D. after three or four Red Bulls

I don't think anybody takes Tweety too seriously. My wife can't stand him. She says "why is he always interrupting people and spouting his own opinion? He's an asshole!"

[wrate]

27. Pat's strength lies in the fact that he is perceived as a Conservative

So he gets the attention of the Republicans.

And, he looks strong, like he really believes in what he is saying. That is what Kerry lacks IMHO. Kerry seems to be trying to appeal to the moderate repubs and the independent, probably because he knows he has Democrats in the bag. But that strategy has a price, which is that he is perceived as unclear as to what he stands for. This is used masterfully by the media and the neocons to make him look weak and indecisive. I am not saying Kerry is indecisive or weak, but he is being perceived as such.

In that sense, I see Democrats fighting for the facts and the truth, and Republicans fighting for the perception of the facts. Who is winning? It seems the repugs are, because when all is said and done, perception is reality and they are managing perception to their advantage. Otherwise how could anyone explain that while Iraq is *'s biggest failure, American's still trust * more than they do Kerry when it comes to Iraq?

[mitchum]

25. Has Pat called him a Zionist toady yet?

[Cleita]

28. Pat is still the anti-semitic, racist politician he has always been, and

if you listen to what he is saying, it's coming through loud and clear, but he is attacking the PNAC, unfortunately only the Jewish members Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, et al., because he believes they are trying to conquer the ME to put Israel in charge as overlord. However, he is being allowed a platform to say it, which our liberal pols have not been able to do. I will take any crumbs thrown out there by Pat or any other conservative politicians who have had enough of the fascist domination of their party and who are willing to stick their necks out to expose the PNAC no matter that their motives are not the purest in intent.

[barb162]

29. he's a powerful speaker

and I am glad he is bashing the war and just telling how stupid it was /is from day 1. Plus he's pushing his book well. I hope the right wingers buy it as maybe that will push some over not to vote for Bush.

I would like to see Mario Cuomo get out there; one of the best around.

[Cats Against Frist]

35. I agree -- Cuomo should have far more visibility

And the thing about Buchanan that I find fascinating, is that even if he does have ulterior antisemitic motives, he is not only levying a charge against the rationale for the Iraq invasion, but he also critiques American foreign policy, in general, which is RIFE with brutality, overthrow/coup making, and corporate strongarming.

I feel that this is probably THE BIGGEST lie in all of our history. The revisionist take on American foreign policy -- the GOP has their "meme" down to a science. At the convention, they tried to harsh on the Democrats for "saying that 9-11 was brought on by something we did."

The fact is, it was, and it is only one small bean in the chili of corporate-driven, unjust American foreign policy. Press the GOP far enough -- strip them of their "pretty reasons," and every time, their last answer, in effect, will be "well, these countries control most of the world's oil, and we have to make sure we get a piece of the pie."

But this is never discussed, never put in a broader context. Our shame is that we're ruthless, and it's like alcoholism or a gay uncle -- the "family secret."

I feel that the GOP should make its case, if it wants to, for world domination, without the frills. This is what other nations already KNOW, but a large part of our population seems oblivious to. I think anyone who supports empire, and disregards the sovereignty of foreign nations should be made to speak it loud and clear -- meaning that they have to bring their conscience to vote for it. That they have to accept their stance, instead of revising history and trying to wriggle out of it. And they have to accept the 3,000 dead in the WTC, and the 1,000 dead soldiers as the result of their policies.

Pat is willing to speak to that -- and that's what makes what he says so shocking, so weird, sometimes. It is a subject that never seems to find its way into our national discourse. It's the reason for 9-11, that we've already forgotten -- BEFORE we even "remembered" it.

That is: actions do not come without consequences. Eventually, oppressors "get theirs." Somebody storms the castle. Someone gets their head chopped off. Somebody drops the twin towers of capitalism.

[barb162]

36. "well, these countries control most of the world's oil,

and we have to make sure we get a piece of the pie."

I believe Bush went into Iraq to "finish" daddy's job, the oil and to push his weight around with the Arab world. And then show the Arab world how big daddy USA does democracy. Like it was simple stuff or something to get a completely different people do Jeffersonian representative government. Why are we no longer interested in Iraq? Did you read anything about the quality of the oil is not as good as we thought? Saddam was pumping a lot of water in it to pump it out faster and that mucks up the oil fields. Plus the refineries there are "ancient" and would require billions to fix.

[gratuitous]

32. Nonsense

Give me a quarter million a year and a big media platform, and I'd reduce Buchanan to tears in five minutes.

Articulate defenders of the Democrats don't get invited back. We all rejoice when we see a new face pop up to go over the Democratic talking points, and are especially happy when those faces don't take any of the standard guff. But do you ever see them again? You do not. And there's a reason for that.

One example, and I'm done: Phil Donahue lost his show on CNBC despite the best ratings of any show on that crappy channel, and Dennis Miller gets a contract extension even though his ratings are not discernible, and they have to pay his audience to show up.

[liberalcanuck]

33. Isn't it odd? I'm sure his motives are very self-serving as he struggles

to find relevance in the neo-con repuke party but I find my head nodding in agreement vis-a-vis his positions on the Iraq war, the US economy and globalization. On those issues we've found common ground but as the old cliche goes; when you lie with dogs, you catch fleas.