Why doesn't Pat Buchanan get on paul type props?

[lester1/2jr]

edit: that should be "ron paul"!! type props



One thing I've noticed is that almost no one, certainly not enough people, are cognicent of Pat Buchanan's antiwar views, particularly those related to the iraq war.

If you do a twitter search of Ron Paul you get the occasional clueless dem talking about either the newsletter thing ot his anti healthcare opinions but he is generally held in high regard on the internet (I guess that kind of goes without saying at this point).


It seems like all the posts about Pat Buchanan are about what a "racist" he is. I don't think anyone, even the people he debates stuff with on MSNBC, are even AWARE of what kind of stuff american conservative does or his outstripping the dems on being anti wars in the middle east.

What's up with that? as they say

[Epic]

edit: that should be "ron paul"!! type props



One thing I've noticed is that almost no one, certainly not enough people, are cognicent of Pat Buchanan's antiwar views, particularly those related to the iraq war.

If you do a twitter search of Ron Paul you ghet the occasional clueless dem talking about either the newslterr thing ot his anti healthcare opinions but he is generally held in high regard on the internet (I guess that kind of goes without saying at this point).


It seems like all the posts about Pat Buchanan are about what a "racist" he is. I don't think anyone, even the people he debates stuff with on MCNBC, are even AWARE of what kind of stuff american conservative does or his outsrtipping the dems on being anti wars in the middle east.

What's up with that? as they say

For the most part, it wouldn't fit into the leftist narrative of conservatives, so those thoughts are unapproved.

The same reason that MSNBC didn't show the skin of the black guy with the machine gun... it didn't fit the pre-conceived narrative.

[Light]

I want to know why Mr. Buchanan stays on MSNBC despite most likely fully knowing that it is to left-wing partisanship like Fox News is to right-wing partisanship. He is pretty much only brought on to either have him mocked or to trash the foreign policy of Republicans (which is not much differen from the Democrats). Is Buchanan only there to give MSNBC the "token conservative"?

[lester1/2jr]

light- the leftists have pretty much the same foreign policy as the republicans though sort of milquetoast "what can we do?" pro war.

during the run up to the iraq war pat was pretty much the only one on EITHER side who was arguing stenuosly against it. except for ron paul who was unknown largely at the time and a few very old dems like ted kennedy and robert byrd who people didn't pay much attention too

Epic- the narrative is like a pagan god. it messes with their reality to the extent that they literally can't accept that he is more antiwar then them.

[erowe1]

Everyone knows Buchanan is antiwar.

[amy31416]

His very anti-war blog: http://buchanan.org/blog/

[WClint]

http://buchanan.org/blog/kristol-reflections-how-the-neocon-godfather-rewrote-the-american-right-3007

Similar to Ron Pauls rebuke, PB latest column is slaming the neo-con-men
YouTube - Ron Paul names Neo-Cons on House Floor July 10 2003 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNb_610L0GE)

n Sept. 18, neoconservatism lost more than just its “godfather.” It lost its most unabashed exponent, “a true, self-confessed—perhaps the only—‘neoconservative,’” as he described himself in the title of a 1979 essay. Others of his persuasion have disclaimed the label, coined as a reproach by the socialist Michael Harrington. But Kristol embraced it. Indeed, he expanded on it, explaining in Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea that he had always been a “neo” of one kind or another: “a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-socialist, a neoliberal, and finally a neoconservative.” After the Bush years, during which defenders of the administration insisted that anyone who spoke of “neoconservatives” really meant “Jews,” it is refreshing to return to Kristol’s frank self-description. He was not coy about his influences, either: he wrote that after Marxist philosopher Sidney Hook, “the two thinkers who had the greatest subsequent impact on my thinking were Lionel Trilling and Leo Strauss.”

He was comfortable with his radical past. “I don’t really mind when some journalist, even … a half-century later, casually refers to me as an ‘ex-Trotskyist.’ I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyist and have not a single bitter memory.” He had personal as well as ideological reasons for feeling that way, for it was through the Young People’s Socialist League that the 20-year-old Kristol met his wife-to-be, Gertrude Himmelfarb. “She had a trim figure and a strong, handsome face that radiated intelligence and sensibility,” he recalled. Theirs was an old-fashioned courtship: “Many of the young Trotskyists were bohemian in their ‘lifestyles,’ but that was not for me. Trotskyist or no, radical socialist or no, I was bourgeois to the core,” he recalled. Therein lay the seeds of his future neoconservatism.

Kristol’s work as polemicist and public intellectual is best understood in light of his lifelong desire to be on the right side of the Left, first as an anti-Stalinist and Cold War liberal, later as a neoconservative. His battles were part of a civil war within American liberalism. If he and his allies later came to be called conservatives of some kind, it was not on account of any affinity with the historic American Right: “The traditional Republican party that was so alien to us was a party of the business community and of smaller-town America. It had, traditionally, little use for intellectuals … it was still campaigning against the New Deal; and in foreign policy, its inclination was almost always isolationist.” But beginning in the 1960s, the defining issues in American elections would not be balanced budgets or the role of U.S. power in the world but questions of cultural identity. Kristol, an early critic of “the counterculture,” would find a welcoming home on the post-Goldwater Right. And once he did, he would help to complete the transformation of American conservatism into a populist anti-Left.

[Brian4Liberty]

I want to know why Mr. Buchanan stays on MSNBC ...

They write him the biggest check?

[lester1/2jr]

he is on MSNBC like 24 hours a day! they know they are nothing without him

erowe- everyone HERE

[Old Ducker]

I'm a big Buchanan fan. He's a first rate historian and is courageous in the presentation of his views. I part company with him on economic nationalism (he supported the auto bailouts), and probably some social issues that shouldn't even be "issues" but in general and in the most important areas, I consider him an ally.

[Krugerrand]

I'm a big Buchanan fan. He's a first rate historian and is courageous in the presentation of his views. I part company with him on economic nationalism (he supported the auto bailouts), and probably some social issues that shouldn't even be "issues" but in general and in the most important areas, I consider him an ally.

I'm really torn on his protectionism. I certainly applaud Ron Paul's ideas from a theory standpoint. However, PB makes some excellent cases how other countries policies can put us at a competitive disadvantage, if we let them. Also, it feels like we've exported so much of our production that it could seriously become a self-defense liability.

An excellent example is Toyota can assemble cars in the US with parts made elsewhere. These parts can be sold at an inflated cost to Toyota USA. Toyota USA pays less tax on profits because the profit is made by Toyota Japan on the sale of the parts. That is US policy that puts our car manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage. Also, (I believe) other countries force other manufactures to use parts made in their country.

One could argue - so what - less expensive cars benefit us and in the big picture will balance out. I'm not sold on that. Plus, in wartime, its manufacturing like automobiles that converts to tanks assembly. I'd hate to have to rely on imported artillery - especially if you end up fighting the country from which you had been importing.

I'm not for bailing out ... but I am for not letting our industry being stolen.

[lester1/2jr]

krug- well these other countries can afford to subisidze their industries because they don't fight expensive wars and so forth.

imagine if we cut savings so much our government could afford to subsidize our industries so stuff would be cheaper. it's inconceivable

Old Ducker- I think some people have screwy priorities. this isn't the 1960's, racism isn't a big issue with voters. yet when ron pal and pat buchanan say something brilliant it's always couched in this "but they're racist". have fun fighting endless wars for your non racist candidates you elect, normals!

[Old Ducker]

I'm really torn on his protectionism. I certainly applaud Ron Paul's ideas from a theory standpoint. However, PB makes some excellent cases how other countries policies can put us at a competitive disadvantage, if we let them. Also, it feels like we've exported so much of our production that it could seriously become a self-defense liability.

An excellent example is Toyota can assemble cars in the US with parts made elsewhere. These parts can be sold at an inflated cost to Toyota USA. Toyota USA pays less tax on profits because the profit is made by Toyota Japan on the sale of the parts. That is US policy that puts our car manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage. Also, (I believe) other countries force other manufactures to use parts made in their country.

One could argue - so what - less expensive cars benefit us and in the big picture will balance out. I'm not sold on that. Plus, in wartime, its manufacturing like automobiles that converts to tanks assembly. I'd hate to have to rely on imported artillery - especially if you end up fighting the country from which you had been importing.

I'm not for bailing out ... but I am for not letting our industry being stolen.

I remain a free-trader but I will concede some points of concern just from empiricism. Germany, Japan and the US became first rate industrial economies under tariff protection, while Britain (19th century) and the US (post ww2) declined under free trade regimes. The problem, however, with protectionism is that it encourages business to "invest" in government and this is a corrupting influence. I also believe much of the US industial decline was deliberate policy that placed the demands of imperialism ahead of national interest.

[Dunedain]

Pat Buchanan is a great patriot. Always nice he hear someone in the media tell the uncomfortable truths. He opposes the "Death of the West" as he calls the current demographic genocide the USA is facing in his book. I like his anti-war stance also. He saved John Demaunuke (sp?) from the Israeli's.

But I can't figure out why MSNBC would want him. He regularly sticks iron pipes in the communist spokes of the MSNBC guests. People don't get the upper hand with him.

[Dunedain]

Britain (19th century) and the US (post ww2) declined under free trade regimes. The problem, however, with protectionism is that it encourages business to "invest" in government and this is a corrupting influence.

I'm not sure we can support more government than we have already under our current ANTI-protectionist economy.

[WorldonaString]

I'm a big Buchanan fan. I always enjoyed him on the News Hour with Jim Leher.

[Danke]

I'm a big Buchanan fan. I always enjoyed him on the News Hour with Jim Leher.

Location: Xiamen, China

Cool.

[RM918]

Location: Xiamen, China

Cool.

Doing far better there than here, I'm certain.

[Kludge]

It's his end and he's being wishy-washy on MSNBC. Compare what he says on Morning Joe to what he writes on his blog. I refuse to listen to him (though, I am quite fond of the Ali G sandwich segment).

YouTube - Ali G - sandwich war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwEd_tcKBfU)

[BlackTerrel]

Old Ducker- I think some people have screwy priorities. this isn't the 1960's, racism isn't a big issue with voters. yet when ron pal and pat buchanan say something brilliant it's always couched in this "but they're racist". have fun fighting endless wars for your non racist candidates you elect, normals!

Paul and Buchanan are very different when it comes to their record on race for the past 30 years. I wouldn't compare the two.

[Dieseler]

Paul and Buchanan are very different when it comes to their record on race for the past 30 years. I wouldn't compare the two.

Yeah but Dr. Paul has been injured far more by the "He's a racist" attacks than Pat Buchanan ever has been...
Who is responsible for those attacks?
Who put them up to it?
You are the only person I have ever heard of to call Pat Buchanan a racist.

[BlackTerrel]

Yeah but Dr. Paul has been injured far more by the "He's a racist" attacks than Pat Buchanan ever has been...
Who is responsible for those attacks?
Who put them up to it?
You are the only person I have ever heard of to call Pat Buchanan a racist.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=pat+buchanan+racist&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=5b7cf21b103219ea

[lester1/2jr]

there are similar links about ron. just as lame

[Slutter McGee]

Pat Buchanan was a good friends with Hunter Thompson, probably one of the biggest pro-gun liberals to ever live.

It always surprises me when people fail to understand the logical arguments that he presents, and instead place them under the canopy or racism. Nobody knows how to disagree with out resorting to logical fallacy.

Slutter McGee

[Dieseler]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=pat+buchanan+racist&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=5b7cf21b103219ea

http://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+Racist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

And this proves what?

[lester1/2jr]

that 5000 years ago some liberal compiled something

[BlackTerrel]

And this proves what?

You said you've never heard anyone call Buchanan racist other than me.

[Dieseler]

You said you've never heard anyone call Buchanan racist other than me.

So Ron Paul is a racist to?
Is everyone a racist?
This cat is going to fuck someone up?
The cat picture is gone!!!

[BlackTerrel]

So Ron Paul is a racist to?

Nope.


Is everyone a racist?

Nope.


This cat is going to fuck someone up?

Possibly.

[Dieseler]

Well you are the forum expert on racism so ...
Then again it could be the differences in their writing styles.
Ron has a knack of throwing in that third sentence that smooths shit over where Pat doesn't give a flying fuck what you think.
Hmmm.

[lester1/2jr]

I think pat was a figure of speech for liberals back in the 80's and 90's and liberals can't look past that to see the stuff he's done recently. I think that's really stupid

[BlackTerrel]

Well you are the forum expert on racism so ...
Then again it could be the differences in their writing styles.
Ron has a knack of throwing in that third sentence that smooths shit over where Pat doesn't give a flying fuck what you think.
Hmmm.

Or it could be that Ron is an intelligent, well spoken and likable guy who has sound economic, domestic and foreign policy positions where as Pat is an old ignorant tool bag.

I'd say that's more likely than their writing styles.

[Dieseler]

Or it could be that Ron is an intelligent, well spoken and likable guy who has sound economic, domestic and foreign policy positions where as Pat is an old ignorant tool bag.

I'd say that's more likely than their writing styles.

Well I think that Pat Buchanan is also an intelligent, well spoken and likable guy who has sound economic, domestic and foreign policy positions.

[BlackTerrel]

That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

I was offering my opinion to the OP's original question.

[Dieseler]

That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

I was offering my opinion to the OP's original question.

You're right and I ought to quit messing with you like that at every turn.
My apology.
I'm going to make an honest and sincere attempt not to cross you on the same tired arguments from here on out and I'm certainly going to remain amiable from here on out whenever we do butt heads.
You are an excellent debater by the way.
/respect

[Kludge]

You are an excellent debater by the way.

Yes, he's very articulate.

... :p

[Danke]

You are an excellent debater by the way.


He is a Master-debater.

[Dieseler]

Did I lay it on too thick?
I'm just seriously tired of pissin' around with Terrel all the time and I admit it's usually me who starts it or wont let a basically un-winnable argument go.
I will admit it's usually my fault, or mostly as I have looked back over the records and boy there is a mess there.
Opinions are just too hard to prove and I can't stamp his toes through the monitor.
I'm not going to ignore him though.
At least I don't want to, I might miss something.

[BlackTerrel]

Did I lay it on too thick?

Don't worry they're just jealous :D


I'm just seriously tired of pissin' around with Terrel all the time and I admit it's usually me who starts it or wont let a basically un-winnable argument go.
I will admit it's usually my fault, or mostly as I have looked back over the records and boy there is a mess there.
Opinions are just too hard to prove and I can't stamp his toes through the monitor.
I'm not going to ignore him though.
At least I don't want to, I might miss something.

I can't lie - I am an asshole at times. My guess is if we met in real life we'd get in a fist fight and ten minutes later we'd share a couple beers and joke about it.

[Dieseler]

My guess is if we met in real life we'd get in a fist fight and ten minutes later we'd share a couple beers and joke about it.

I can't argue with that.
:D
Peace!