LGF’s Charles Johnson is supporting an effort to have Townhall.com disassociate itself from a recent Pat Buchanan column asserting that “Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran.” ÂÂ
The Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler, and doubleplusundead are joining LGF in purging Townhall.com from their lists of news sources, over that column and another suggesting that the Holocaust — like WWII — was ultimately the fault of the West, particularly Britain.ÂÂ
This is also the thesis of Buchanan’s current book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. It may say something about the book that it received this kind of review from John Lukacs in the paleocon American Conservative:
This emphasis accords with what isâ€â€and has been for a long timeâ€â€Buchanan’s view of history. The Second World War was an unnecessary war; a wrong war, especially involving Europe; it was wrong to fight Hitler; and Churchill was primarily, indeed principally, responsible. A man has, or more precisely chooses, his opinions. The choice, ever so often, depends on his inclinations. In this review it is not my proper business to speculate about Buchanan’s inclinations. I must restrict myself to questioning his arguments.
The British decision to offer an alliance to Poland in 1939 was a hasty one, replete with unintended consequences. Partly true. Hitler did not wish to destroy the British Empire. Partly true. He did want to destroy Communism and the Soviet Union. Partly true. Churchill was a warrior; he was obsessed with the danger of German power. Partly true. Hitler wanted to expel Jews from Europe but not to exterminate them, at least not while the former policy was still possible. Again, partly true. Or in other words, true but not true enough. Here is a difference between Patrick Buchanan and David Irving. The latter employs falsehoods; Buchanan employs half-truths. But, as Thomas Aquinas once put it, “a half-truth is more dangerous than a lie.
William F. Buckley famously found it “impossible” to defend Buchanan for lesser rhetoric during the Gulf War — and that was before Buchanan took up defending former Nazis and writing about “Holocaust survivor syndrome,” involving “group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.” Buchanan was also recently flacking his book on a neo-Nazi radio program (where he apparently defended Charles Lindbergh’s prewar views, though Lindbergh himself abandoned them).
As much as the aforementioned bloggers conclude Townhall.com has a problem, TNR’s Jamie Kirchick is surprised that Buchanan continues to fill airtime on MSNBC. Daniel Larison may not understand the old saying about dogs and fleas, but I think both Townhall.com and MSNBC got some ‘splainin’ to do.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Meh, I’m not sure how I feel about this. Buchanan went a tad off the rails a while ago, but I don’t think he’s unique in thinking as he does (except about his WWII stuff – that shit’s just wack.) Regardless, others have this “Israel’s fifth column” thing going, and I think it’s better to have it out there and debate it rather than just ban him until he learns a lesson.
Well, the problem with Buchanan is that the Proggstream Media identifies him as a “conservative” when he is most assuredly no such thing. As long as his commentary sits side-by-side with mainstream opinion he will continue to be associated with it in spite of the reality.
He should be restricted to a billet more appropriate to his overall views.
I think both Townhall.com and MSNBC got some ’splainin’ to do.
Didn’t Jonah Goldberg write a whole book ‘splainin’ that?
For MSNBC it’s simple. You find a “conservative” that fits your stereotype of a xenophobic, anti-Semitic, isolationist who at one time had some cred in the GOP and you parade him in front of the cameras as THE example of all those crazies just right of center.
It’s a standard left media tactic. If you interview people who oppose same-sex marriage, you don’t find reasonable people with rational arguments, you find the young earth, fundie male god-botherer who will quote Leviticus in front of the camera with drool dripping off his chin.
I have written to the editors of both Townhall and Human Events informing them that I would no longer patronize their sites as long as they continued to support and promote the works of the anti-semite, Pat Buchanan. I said the same thing to Hugh Hewitt when his name was on a cover letter begging for Townhall mag subscribers. I encourage everyone to do the same.
From something I sent to my brother yesterday:
Pat Buchanan, the commentator, has written a book wherein he states that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if Churchill had not pushed Hitler into war. The premises are ludicrious and go against all known historical fact – such as Hitler’s own writings and those of the German government. Now why would Buchanan write something that is guaranteed to get panned by any serious historian? What I do know about Buchanan is that he is an old-school isolationist – the United States should be kept isolated in order to protect it from the world. (This is opposed to those who are Marxist in politics, who want to isolate the United States in order to protect the world).
One of the conclusions historians have reached about the pre World War II years is if the western nations had intervened early in Germany, when Hitler began to move into the Rhineland, the European war could have been prevented. This is an argument in favor of interventionism, not isolationism, and since World War II the United States has kept to an interventionist foreign policy. If you want the United States to revert to an isolationist foreign policy what you have to do is destroy the reasons for interventionism, such as try to prove that leaving Hitler alone would have prevented the Holocaust.
This is an example of sophisticated conspiracy thinking: you have the conclusion you want to reach (support for isolationism by undercutting the argument for interventionism) and then you go out and select the facts you need to support your conclusion (it is the fault of Churchill/the British) while ignoring evidence that undermines your argument (the writings and ocuments of Hitler and the German government).
Now, I am not absolutely certain my explanation about what Mr. Buchanan is doing is accurate, but I think it is supported by facts drawn from his own utterances and writings over the years, and more important, it does not require a vast conspiracy.
Again, I am not sure that I am completely right here, but I think it is part of the explanation.
I’d throw Pat Buchanan under the bus. Hell, I’d drive. Pat is getting crazier as the years go by.
Buchanan was rejected from the mainstream conservative movement over a decade ago; he remains in the public eye only because he’s the left’s useful idiot.
did he ever really have any cred in the party? I always thought od him the as the crazy uncle who inhanced nothing in promoting conservatism due to his acerbic delivery and obsessive isolationism.
He should me marginalized every bit as much as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
I can’t threaten to boycott townhall.com, ’cause I stopped reading the site long ago.
did he ever really have any cred in the party?
He was Nixon’s speechwriter, as I recall.
“be” marginalized, “of” him, “enhance”, yet I spelled “acerbic” correctly.
Sadly, I’m not drinking.
Not drinking makes me sad too, sometimes.
Oh, yea, them there’s some mighty conservative cred and almost 40 years ago to boot.
“…and Churchill was primarily, indeed principally, responsible.”
How?
Churchill was a back-bencher before the war, basically exiled from the mainstream of his party, with a following of about 5 people.
AFTER the war actually started he was still only First Lord of the Admiralty, not Prime Minister.
It wasn’t until 11 months after the war had started, in May of 1940, that Winston became PM.
So, primarily responsible for the war? I think it was that German leftist Adolph Hitler who bears that onus.
Hitler wrote a book that pretty much told everyone what he was going to do.
I guess ol’ Pat skipped the chapter on Lebensraum? Or did he think that was “just a metaphor”?
That’s what happens when you only read the Cliffs Notes.
Who watches MSNBC anyway?
He may have also, just maybe, won the New Hampshire primary (and several others in 1992) against an incumbent Republican president. I’d say leveraging a few primary wins into the keynote on the night prior to the nominee’s acceptance speech is “cred.”
Lastly, he also accidentally helped the Republicans by drawing a number of votes in Florida in 2000 on those butterfly ballots. I say “accidentally”, because he was obviously running as an independent and because, apparently, Democrats in South Florida are too stupid to punch the correct name on a ballot. Those two happy accidents have combined to give 8 wonderful years of peace and prosperity!
Yep, I suppose I agree with Rob and McGehee. Having him write in Townhall does give credence to the “He’s own of ours” belief.
But, again – I like to give this stuff air so everyone can see it. I’ve read rather contrarian stuff in NR, and in the past it’s lead to some rather big, and interesting, debates. You cannot say people do not share Buchanan’s ideas (regarding Israel)- although many of them are on the left. You can’t ignore ideas out of existence.
But, from the sole thought that by allowing him to publish on Townhall “allows” the MSM to tout him as a conservative, I say they should kick him out. As if that will stop them, though, from labeling him as such.
I once looked into a more or less organized movement for non-violent national defense. They allowed that there are bad guys other than us–big diff between them and lefties–but that fighting them was not as good as non-violently resisting them.
One of their assertions was that the Holocaust didn’t really get going until the US entered the war. Hint, hint.
I don’t see a point in even bothering with MSNBC for now, Buchanan is a useful idiot for MSNBC, and they aren’t going to get rid of him for reasons laid out by Darleen and others.
I think for now the focus should be to push Pat Buchanan out of any mainstream conservative publication, and deny him any claim to being a mainstream conservative, because he isn’t mainstream conservative, he’s a fascist.
Townhall.com has Thomas Sowell. Other than that it’s sort of a useful compendium of impotent whatnot that you can safely ignore. It’s the iceberg where you put old tired people and the ones that aspire to be old tired people and let them float away I think. Hugh Hewitt is a dumb name anyway. What was his mom thinking?
“Well, the problem with Buchanan is that the Proggstream Media identifies him as a “conservative†when he is most assuredly no such thing. As long as his commentary sits side-by-side with mainstream opinion he will continue to be associated with it in spite of the reality.”
This needed repeating, Buchanan is not a Conservative. He may be religious, he may be pro-life however neither of the two define Conservatism. The division of religion is being created inside the churches; the government’s Golden Entitlement Coins are feeding a whole lot of wickedness.
That said; the way LGF freaks over the tiniest of symbols is kind of creepy to me plus their spastic ravings towards anyone who disagrees with them is getting to be a lot like Koz Kidz..ban, ban, ban and more banning. It’s gotten so bad over there in Lizardland I had to stop linking.
Yes, indeed. Bush’s 2000 margin of victory was within the Democrat margin of stupidity. Pat was the Reform Party candidate, though.
Those two happy accidents have combined to give 8 wonderful years of peace and prosperity!
4 years, the other 4 you can blame on yourselves for putting up Kerry.
I agree with LGF on this one. Buchanan has really decided to let his Jew hate shine through lately, and while he is entitled to hate whoever he wants, I don’t think TownHall should provide him a place to do it.
I’m sure I’m in the minority here but I like Pat Buchanan’s writings. I haven’t read everything he’s written and don’t agree with everything I’ve read. His positions of illegal immigration and control of our borders makes sense to me.. I don’t know enough about the history leading up to world war II to even have an opinion about the validity of his book..
However, the theme that Pat’s been on for some time now is the general idea that it’s a poor and dangerous idea for
The United States to make a blank check defense treaty with any country where no direct defense of American territory and/or specific interests are at stake. The NATO treaty provides that an attack on one member is an attack on all and will be met by a military response from all.. Period.. (obviously I paraphrase).. That’s all well and good for the core NATO countries but recently previous Soviet client states have been brought into the fold.. They’re up to 26 members.. I cant speak for Pat but I think his point is are we ready to pour our military 100% into a defense of Lithuania.. Czech rep.. Slovenia.. Latvia.. Slovakia…against Russia? Are we ready to go toe to toe with China over Taiwan? If Israel bombs Iran are we ready to open a third war..? Pour in hundreds of thousands of American troops (that we’ll have to take from somewhere else..), spend hundreds of billions of dollars and who knows how many American lives when Iran is no direct threat to the US. (to Israel..yes.. The middle east? Yes.. The EU.. Yes.. To America.. not so much beyond the flow of oil..and a possible terror threat).. And if we are, should we be?
The big picture is while it’s all well and good to support friendly countries logistically with arms, supplies, training, and intelligence we shouldn’t be obligating our military to jump into any wars the we’re not responsible for starting. My personal belief is that we should defend Israel on principal alone against the bully Arab states that surround her… But on our terms on our own timetable.. Not be pulled into a hot war after Israel throws the first punch.
Buchanan is an isolationist, just as the REPUBLICAN Congress was prior to Pearl Harbor, refusing to allow Roosevelt to send military aid to Churchill.
Don’t conflate opposition to THE NEW ADVENTURES OF CONSERVATIVE HEGEMONY (Bomb, bomb, bomb, bombomb Iran) as isolationism, per se;
Opponents of your new war front just want the facts. No more ready!
shoot! AIM! for our foreign policy decisions.
Carry on with your new WH talking points.
ush’s 2000 margin of victory was within the Democrat margin of stupidity.
Heh. How many percentage points is that, do you think?
But, I’m gonna start using that line with my family. LIke it was my own. They don’t read PW, so I’m good.
syn,
You’re not alone in your opinion of LGF, but am glad you looked past that to this particular case involving Buchanan.
cleo getting started on the incoherence early today. We (or I) am not conflating those two things. Larison (linked above) comes close in dismissing or ignoring criticism of Buchanan’s Nazi fetish, just because they agree on issues like Iran.
I do, though, see a danger in equating any criticism of Israel with “jew hate.” If someone is against our policy position with SA, does that make them a Muslim hater?
It is possible to be against our position with Israel and not be anti-Semitic.
Honestly, I have no idea if Buchanan is a “jew hater” – he’s always been an isolationist. HIs position with Israel fits that paradigm.
Now, please do not interpret this to mean I support or agree with Pat. I don’t. As I said, I thought he lost it long ago.
But, Cleo – he’s on your side! Kinda like Phelps.
LEAVE PAT ALOOOOOOONE !!!! Waaahhhhhhhh!
Cleo! How’s your New Slavery program going? Get anyone else to buy into the idea?
“But, Cleo – he’s on your side!”
On my side in 2003, as well. But that didn’t do any good, did it?
Cleo, Congress was in the hands of the Democrats during the 1930’s and most of WWII. Isolationism was popular with both political parties and with the American public as a whole. It was the default position for American foreign policy, and was abandoned after WWII as the lesson was taught – just because you are not interested in the world does not mean the world is not interested in you.
Pat Buchanan is an isolationist, and it explains a lot of behavior. Your behavior – well, I really can’t fathom an explanation for it other than flexing your blog muscles.
Are cleo and Buchanan both arguing that without aggressive US actions that Iran and Germany would not have commited crimes against humanity and acts of war against America?
Strange bedfellows.
Agreed. I’m a Paleo-Conservative/Libertarian and I know WW2 was much needed War. We were attacked by Japan! Some of my family fought in that War. They were, as it has been said, the greatest generation, ever.
Pat Buchanan is, like it has been said, a Ron Paul type, he is a part of the old isolationist wing of the Conservative movement. Non-Hawkish to the point of saying, we shouldn’t go to war, at all. Quaint, But quite dumb.
Carin
Perhaps I’m wrong, but when I add his seemingly never ending criticism for Israel and any US policy which benefits Israel even slightly (eg Desert Storm) with his latest outrageous comments re: the Nazis and the Holocaust, it sure starts to seem like a big heaping plate of antisemitism.
Buchanan is an isolationist, just as the REPUBLICAN Congress was prior to Pearl Harbor, refusing to allow Roosevelt to send military aid to Churchill.
This has been put paid to. Its sad but not surprising that cleo fucks up high school American History (the Republicans passed the New Deal? Who knew?)
Don’t conflate opposition to THE NEW ADVENTURES OF CONSERVATIVE HEGEMONY (Bomb, bomb, bomb, bombomb Iran) as isolationism, per se;
Opponents of your new war front just want the facts. No more ready!
shoot! AIM! for our foreign policy decisions.
Equally sad that she seems to sound like she’s auditioning for the Weather Underground Days of Rage. Or she’s finally finished Nova Express and has forgotten how English grammar works. Or she’s huffing the Carbona.
Carry on with your new WH talking points.
And that White House’s position on Pat Buchanan is…?
Buchanan is an isolationist, just as the REPUBLICAN Congress was prior to Pearl Harbor, refusing to allow Roosevelt to send military aid to Churchill.
Huh? Between 1932 and 1947 the Democrat Party had clear control over the House and Senate at times an almost 2-1 majority.
Pearl Harbor was Dec 7th, 1941. Roosevelt signed the destroyers for bases deal in Sept of 1940. Lend-Lease started in March of ’41.
And you are forgetting a little thing called “The Great Depression”. Massive amounts of debt owed to the US by nearly every country in Europe was left unpaid. Roosevelt campaigned on a “no foreign investment” platform in 1932. He did keep up with military assistance though, mostly to Britain and the Western Hemisphere, as long as they paid cash.
Please, read some history books before spouting off like that.
Comment by Semanticleo on 7/16 @ 8:53 am #
Do you speak English?
Please, read some history books before spouting off like that.
That is a sad and fruitless request. Cleo’s understanding of history is non-existent and she has no desire to learn any – as it might challenger her world view.
Facts are also largely irrelevant to the things Cleo says and believes.
It’s useless to ask her to have knowledge of anything before, during, or after she makes some ignorant and inane statement, as she has no desire to learn anything – as far as she (and her leftist cohorts) are concerned, they already know everything, so why bother actually, you know, learning any facts. their feelings and beliefs ought to be enough.
How does a pugnacious Irish-Catholic Mick become a nazi-sniffer anyhow?
Perhaps I’m wrong, but when I add his seemingly never ending criticism for Israel and any US policy which benefits Israel even slightly (eg Desert Storm) with his latest outrageous comments re: the Nazis and the Holocaust, it sure starts to seem like a big heaping plate of antisemitism.
He may be – and his WWII book is certainly … suggestive of something … but I think the criticism of Pat can be made w/o pulling out the anti-semite card. And I worry about turning any criticism of Israel into a charge of anti-semitism. Arguments can be made to counter Buchanan’s ideas w/o charging him with an “ism.”
Frankly, I think it’s refreshing that Miss Cleo openly embraces a Nazi apologist.
Buchanan – ugh. I thought that boil had burst in 2004.
“Jane (no, make that) Cleo, you ignorant slut…”
And I worry about turning any criticism of Israel into a charge of anti-semitism.
As would I, which is why I only use the “ism” when the criticism is as frequent and complete as I find Pat’s to be. Even then, it was the book that finally made me assign that particular “ism”.
Again, he is entitled to his opinions, I’m just not sure TownHall is the place for him to continue to express them. YMMV.
Insomuch as it links him to “conservatives” – then, you’re right Ed Guy. But, I’d rather his ideas were “fleshed” out and argued. Light of day and all.
Gray,
Ireland was not exactly a hotbed of opposition to the Nazis.
Carin,
re anti-semitism, it’s worth reading the entirety of Buckley’s piece, to look at how he defined it. Nuanced, yet he could not defend buchanan’s comments during the Gulf War, which were arguably milder than Buchanan’s current track record.
Oh look, Paleo Pat, better known as Chuck Adkins, even more widely known for what he did to Mike Hendrix. A little reminder for those that have forgotten.
http://patterico.com/2007/12/11/douchebag-of-the-day-chuck-adkins/
Don’t think we’ve forgotten or forgiven, Chuck.
Ask me if I honestly give a rip. I apologized for it. It was a mistake, I was man enough to admit it. If that ain’t good enough for ya. Tough shit. I’ve got better things to do, than sit around and live in the fucking past. You might want to look into that yourself, asshat.
NEXT!
But apparently not man enough to stop making a douchebag of yourself.
Chuck can rename himself as many times as he wants, change his site name all he wants, but we know who and what he is, and we’ll be sure to let people know who he is so they won’t be deceived.
If Chuck Adkins were really man enough to admit his errors, he’d have continued to call himself Chuck Adkins and stayed at Populist Blog.
Chuck Adkins did as Chuck Adkins always does, act in an obscene manner, lay low until the angry mob subsides, then comes back a while later to repeat the process at a new place, and in this case, a new name.
It won’t work Chuck, We’re watching.
Townhall can publish whomever they want. And we can choose not to read them. I honestly, I haven’t been over there for a while, so I don’t know how the format works, but it used to be that you could simply pick from any number of columnists, almost like a conservative buffet.
I think it wrong to suggest Buchanan is not a conservative. He is a paleoconservative, and — though many of those who currently identify as conservative are happy to marginalize Buchanan — the fact remains that he a right to call himself conservative, and Townhall, if it is truly representative of conservative thought, it could be argued should keep him around as a reminder to us that paleoconservatives need to be addressed and dealt with.
And I find Buchanan and his like useful for such purposes, because — thanks to Pat — we can readily see just how closely aligned are the policy prescriptions of the far left and the far right, who have become allies of convenience.
Remember, Reagan said he didn’t leave the Democratic party, but rather it left him. Many of us here, I’d venture, have had a similar experience, particularly after 911, and especially now that the Democratic party seems to have been overtaken by progressives, who, let’s recall, at one time repudiated liberals.
That having been said, I think it might behoove conservative sites who wish to see paleoconservatism marginalized even more to concentrate on addressing Buchanan’s arguments consistently and vigorously. The upshot is, it will show that any mainstream media outlet who tries to use Buchanan as a conservative touchstone will have to deal with the fact that the so-called “conservative” mainstream is constantly calling him a batshit crazy opportunistic xenophobe whose policy ideas track more closely with the progressive left than the mainstream right.
Beyond that, it will highlight the sharp division inside the conservative coalition, and set the battle for the soul of contemporary conervatism (which, I believe, is moving more in line with classical liberalism and the interventionist wing of the libertarian movement).
Having said all that, Buchanan is, in my opinion, both an America Firster and an anti-Semite. It’s one thing to disagree with US policy regarding Israel. It’s another thing entirely to hang the Holocaust around anyone else’s neck but Hitler’s.
I didn’t stay at “The Populist Blog” because YOU fuckers HACKED MY BLOG! Now fucking stop distorting the fucking truth ya god damned idiot.
Anyways, by the time it was hacked, My political views had changed totally. if you had bothered to read my “About Me” Page, you would have seen why.
Anyways, If you ain’t got the fucking balls to come out and say who the fuck you are, then fuck off. I don’t argue with anonymous fucking trolls.
For the record, and for what it is worth, I never, ever, was a far lefty. Left of center, yes. Far lefty, hell no. Of course, I’m not a Republican, Just a center right, who hates the far left with a passion.
There, I said it, I feel better. Thanks to KARL and others for letting me have my say here.
Jeff always says it so much better than I.
I suppose my “thing” is that his arguments shouldn’t be simply ignored by saying that he’s an anti-semite. People do share some of his views, and that doesn’t go away by merely labeling him.
But, to say he is a “conservative” – I suppose, but the issue I think MANY (most) of us have is that he is used, on tv, to represent the movement. I don’t know if there is any one person who could represent the right, but I do sure know it isn’t him.
The Hammer,perhaps.
Anyways, If you ain’t got the fucking balls to come out and say who the fuck you are, then fuck off. I don’t argue with anonymous fucking trolls
Ha, now that’s a hoot, “Mr Paleo”. You can see who the fuck I am, because I’ve got the fucking balls to always -wherever I go – use the same fucking name.
Whatever… Pat is my middle name, you know? As an Patrick?
I have to explain this stuff to you Neo-Con, ya ain’t known for your brilliance. (Current President being a perfect example.)
cause who doesn’t know everyone’s middle name. am I right?
I didn’t stay at “The Populist Blog†because YOU fuckers HACKED MY BLOG! Now fucking stop distorting the fucking truth ya god damned idiot.
Yeah, sure, you were HAXX0R3D! As for choosing to remain nameless, we do so because of your past record of posting personal information
http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/chuck-adkins-address-phone-number-and.html
and making threats of violence towards others.
http://www.freespeech.com/?p=540
So we choose to remain anonymous.
Whatever. You’re damn coward. Period. I’ve got better things to argue with a damn pussy. Now go suck Bush’s ass some more…. asshat
Back on topic, please. Ignore the heavily medicated among us.
Sure thing Jeff, Adkins has been exposed, that’s all I want.
If my post is unclear, let me emphasize that (afaik) LGF has only gone so far as to support asking Townhall to disassociate itself from certain of Buchanan’s views/columns, and to remove it from a blogroll. That seems consistent with Jeff G’s views and suggestions, which I find entirely sound. Indeed, the intent of my post was to help get the debate going.
#23: LGF is set to become the new Andrew Sullivan. It just depends on if he can parlay driving away his original audience into a paying MSM gig or not.
As for Buchanan, it’s also disturbing that he keeps showing up on FNC. I don’t know what Ailes thinks he’s doing, or even if he thinks. (Keep Geraldo but let Laurie Dhue go? Really?) But it can’t be good for ratings.
“… but let Laurie Dhue go?”
or worse.. Kiran Chetry..
“… but let Laurie Dhue go?â€Â
or worse.. Kiran Chetry..
…or Rudi Bakhtiar.
Jeff, I can see your point to an extent, but we can see and address and attack his rank anti-Semitism without giving him an otherwise respectable platform to do it. By allowing him to use an otherwise legitimate place like Townhall, he can then claim his presence there and at other legitimate places as a sign of his legitimacy in the conservative movement. Likewise, he serves the left by his association with those places.
I see no need to give him a platform, he’s no longer just a paleoconservative, but has entered the realm of fascism and Nazi Apologism. He should be driven out of respectable conservative publications, and left to spew his hate in his own publications.
From there, the conservative movement can take a dive into the sewers to address him at their leisure. That said, any purge of Buchanan must be backed with a solid explanation of the reasons for his purging.
“we can readily see just how closely aligned are the policy prescriptions of the far left and the far right, who have become allies of convenience.”
It is curious that “Neo-Con” is the enemy to both particulariy since neoconservatives are typically former democrats mugged by reality who changed parties to vote Conservative Reagan.
Perhaps it is that our nation is built on Christian-Judeo philosophy, which is intertwined in most of Conservative thought today, that Buchanan’s philosophy is not worth conserving.
Whether it’s paleocon or neocon neither clearly articulate Conservatism, which why the center is no muddled.
You’d have to ask the Kennedys.
Ian S,
I don’t know when Buchanan has been on FNC, as my understanding is that he’s under contract to MSNBC.
um, quick search turned this up, Karl.
Can someone please link to something that illustrates Pat Buchanan’s Anti-Semitic views.. and I dont mean his interpretation of events leading up to WWII (right or wrong..) Does not agreeing with Israel’s positions and policies or America’s place in defending her equate to anti-semitism? I’ve never read anything that he’s written that sounded hate filled or even derogatory toward Jewish people.. Walt Disney was accused of the same thing despite being a big supported of Jewish charities and employer to an awful lot of Jewish people.. even called man of the year by the B’nai B’rith..
If I’m wrong I dont mind being schooled, but show me the evidence.
maggie,
Must say I’m surprised; his MSNBC deal must be non-exclusive.
Ouroboros,
I would again urge people to read the entire Buckley essay on anti-semitism. But personally, when you stack the otherwise fairly debatable stuff on top of the stuff about “Holocaust survivor syndrome,†involving “group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics†and flacking his book on a neo-Nazi radio program, I think it might be fairly inferred that the only reason there isn’t the “smoking gun” I think you seek is that Buchanan isn’t terminally stupid, esp. after the last round in 1991.
And I worry about turning any criticism of Israel into a charge of anti-semitism.
It is an easy charge to make when the criticism only runs to Israel and not to Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Constant criticism of the one with no criticism of the other puts paid to any claim of neutrality, and since Israel is the only Jewish state…
I don’t have to draw you a picture now, do I?
Plus, I don’t think Buchanan’s views on WWII are so easily bracketed. Trying to blame the West for the Holocaust, claiming that we drove Hitler to it, is a little more than ahistorical and a little more than suggestive of where one’s sympathies are headed.
I find it embarrassing that he’s Roman Catholic. Oh, well. I wouldn’t wish him on the Orthodox.
Do you speak English?
I’m starting to experience a visual analogue of the teacher voice in the Peanuts cartoons whenever I see one of Semen’s posts.
WhaWha-WhaWhaWha. WhaWha.
He’s just so old school and has-beeny. Like one of those people who used to guest star on CHiPS or something. And I think he wears support hose.
#79 Karl:
That is where the e-mail to my brother, I think comes into play. Interventionism as a US foreign policy goes back to WWII. To undermine that you must show that interventionism pushed the German government to do the Holocaust; without that the Holocaust would not have happened. Discrediting interventionism gives credit to isolationism as a policy alternative. And Mr. Buchanan is a staunch isolationist.
I think that drives Pat Buchanan, and he will take allies wherever he can, even if they are the most odious cranks imaginable, so long as it promotes isolationism as official US foreign policy.
I enjoy how Cleo has fled after having it’s pants pulled down.
That one kid didn’t post anything today. Just a few comments really. I was really kind of hopeful that he would. Post something. But he didn’t. There’s always tomorrow though.
Debagged, techie? I never thought of it that way, more like coldly taking apart a statement. An ‘intellectual debagging’, perhaps. But then cleo walked into it – volunteered – to have it done.
Ignorance and arrogance combined will lead to such events, and no pity afterwards. Sort of like those ‘Messin’ With Sasquatch’ commercials. :)
Is it JOOOOOS yet?
And I worry about turning any criticism of Israel into a charge of anti-semitism.
It is an easy charge to make when the criticism only runs to Israel and not to Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Constant criticism of the one with no criticism of the other puts paid to any claim of neutrality, and since Israel is the only Jewish state…
I don’t have to draw you a picture now, do I?
Uhm no. don’t need to get pissy with me.
And, to belabor my POV on this – Buchanan writes a piece critical of Israel focusing on Iran and the US policy toward the Middle East. Merely charging that he is an Anti-Semite doesn’t really respond to the issues he raises.
There are many who make arguments similar to Pat’s. My fil (RIP) – a staunch conservative -would at times sound way too much like Buchanan for my comfort. MY POINT, and I don’t need a fracking picture, is that “OH, yea – well, you’re an antisemite” isn’t that great of a response.
He may be motivated by anti-semitism. I don’t know. And I think that’s secondary.
No, Carin. I am not getting pissy with you. Let me explain so that I am perfectly clear – it is part of the ‘company you keep’. If a person criticizes one group for certain offenses, and does not criticize another group for the same – or worse – offenses, then it is easy to say that person favors the second group over the first group.
Considering the disparity of behavior between Israel and its enemies, to continously criticize Israel without criticizing its enemies, leads me to conclude that the critic has some other agenda. And that agenda is often anti-Semitism – anti-Jew. Else, why take up the cause of Hamas or Hezbollah? They are odious to any person that supports western ideals.
Thinking a policy is wrong does not make one an anti-Semite, an anti-Jew. Criticizing Israeli policy while not criticizing policy that calls for the eradication of Israel does.
#89 Carin:
I think I explained that I put the driving force to Pat Buchanan’s actions to a desire to have isolationism return as the default mode of US foreign policy. I did not ascribe it to anti-Semitism in my comment #6, where I pasted in an e-mail to my brother. I think isolationism, and promoting it, explains why he works to build his coalition of cranks.
I could be wrong, but I think it is part of the explanation for his motives – discredit the foundational reason for interventionism, then isolationism can came back to the fore.
BTW, my brother is a US Army officer – not that means anything (no argument by authority), but we are close and we exchange ideas on this subject.
Yes, I get all that. I will remain, though, with my point that it is better to address what Buchanan says that to merely dismiss him. His motivations are irrelevant. There are people who voice similar concerns to his (in regards to Iran) who are not anti-semetic. They don’t look at Buchanan as a jooo hater. They see him as an isolationist, and they’re good with that, because they feel the same way.
As an Orthodox Christian, I thank you.
(OT: When I started reading this blog a few years ago, I was a Buddhist. Keep it up, trolls. Keep it up…..)
Sematicleo: “Buchanan is an isolationist, just as the REPUBLICAN Congress was prior to Pearl Harbor, refusing to allow Roosevelt to send military aid to Churchill.”
Too bad your history is off, SL. You forget the undeclared Atlantic naval war of 1940, the un-even trade relations permitted under US neutrality, the transfer of 50 US destroyers to the UK in 1940, etc. Even the lend lease program began some nine months prior to Pearl Harbor. Throw in Democratic domination of Congress and your sad little rant falls apart.
[…] “Now say it with me, Pat: NO BLOOD FOR OIL!”* […]