I. That Was Then Any news network that would let Pat Buchanan comment on a Democratic Primary
wants the Republican nominee, John McCain to win this fall. This goes without saying. We all know what Pat Buchanan did in 1972 for Dick Nixon. He devised the plan to divide and conquer the Democratic Party by
the preparation of attacks on one Democrat by another -- and 'endorsements' of one Democrat by another, which has to be repudiated
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htmThe Dems that year were divided by age, socioeconomic status and race. The nominee George McGovern could not find a decent VP, because everyone hated him for all the dirty tricks that Buchanan’s operatives had done while pretending to work for McGovern. The press was in the bag. There were Republican moles everywhere. Even Hunter S. Thompson, who was writing about the election for the
Rolling Stone (and who considered Buchanan a friend) was being used since his highly inflammatory articles were so biased in favor of McGovern and so critical of Muskie and Humphrey that the two latter Democrats must have had no doubt that McGovern himself put Dr. Gonzo up to libeling them.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Pat Buchanan got Thompson to write about them and that this is the reason Thompson did not appear on the Nixon’s enemies list. He would not have known about the drugging of Muskie or any of the other activities of CREEP. He was just there at the right time to describe the effects of the drugs that Muskie had been given and to tell the world that the candidate was a drug addict.
It never pays to underestimate the Lord of Lies, Pat Buchanan.
II. This is Now: Buchanan and Matthews Were Only Kidding When They Promised Not to Attack Barack Obama Over Little Things He Says http://baratunde.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_amazing_racism_of_pat_buchanan_be_not_surprised.html That said, it’s always frustrating to see rank neanderthals, half-wits, and fools making the argument that black people should be thankful to them. Intellectually, Pat Buchanan can’t carry Barack Obama’s unwashed boxers–from last week.
The author misses the point. A lot of people miss the point of Pat Buchanan. They are fooled by his innocent old fart act. He sits there like grandpa in the original
Texas Chainsaw Massacre staring off into space. Suddenly words erupt from his lips. As I described in my journal about the atrocity that was MSNBC’s Monster Super Tuesday coverage:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/140 Pat Buchanan is playing idiot savant truth teller this evening. He announces that Obama is the equivalent of McGovern for the Democrats or Goldwater for the Republicans. Everyone just nods.
On the plus side, the pundits gathered around the table agree that they would never discuss minutiae about Barack Obama (even in the general campaign, they promise), because he is do darn charismatic. Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan were there. Make a note of this in case Obama is the nominee. We might have to remind them of what they said.
Did I write that we might have to remind them after the nomination? Fuck that. Here is what Tweety and the Lord of Lies had to say just
four days later .
http://doubledemon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/11/1292835-chris-matthews-and-pat-buchanan-agree-that-clinton-is-the-strongest-democratic-candidate Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan Agree that Clinton is the Strongest Democratic Candidate Contrary to some Newsviners' contentions that the Mainstream Media is falling over itself over Obama, Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan both came out and said that Clinton was the better choice for Democrats. This morning, on Morning Joe, Matthews and Buchanan said that Clinton is better suited to stand up to the Republicans than Obama. This is not taken out of context.
Matthews asked Buchanan who he thought was the stronger Democratic candidate and Buchanan did not hesitate to say Hillary Clinton. He said that race will be a huge factor in the general which is why Hillary would be more successful. Matthews predicted that Hillary would barely beat McCain but that she was a sure thing while an Obama run would be more volatile and less predictable. Matthews said that Obama would either win big or get killed. Buchanan went so far as to say that the Republicans would "peel Obama".
Care for some bacon with that waffle? Now, though this may appear to be the exact opposite of saying that Obama is a candidate who is so charismatic that no one could ever attack him for anything he said (presumably they were talking about stuff like remarks about JFK and LBJ and MLK), actually context counts. When these two dirty tricksters said what they said at
night they were telling Democratic voters and Super Delegates
Shun Clinton because we will smear her from here to kingdom come. But we will leave Obama alone. We promise. When they said that Obama would be “peeled” on morning Joe, that was a signal to Republican voters to get out there and support Obama, too, because the GOP planned to tear him a new one in the general election.
And of course, faithful conservative viewers who were watching on election night heard Buchanan call Obama "McGovern" and knew that by that he meant "we will trash him in the general". It was conservative code since only right wingers would believe the messenger.
So, you see, they were the models of consistency after all.
Did Buchanan and Matthews keep their promise not to parse Obama’s words? Does the Pope shit in the woods.
Buchanan on “cling to guns and churches”:
Patrick Buchanan joining criticism of Barack Obama as "elitist and out of touch" for saying that some Americans "cling to guns or religion" in troubled times:
"This is very demeaning to simple working-class folks."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/quicktakes/892969,CST-NWS-qt14.articleI will let you Google Matthews yourself.
III. Buchanan Says that the Clinton’s Interjected Race into the Race---Except When He Says That Obama Interjected Race Into the Race Do not be fooled. Pat Buchanan is not senile. He only plays senile on TV so that he can get away with dirty tricks. The man is running a divide and conquer scam along with Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Howard Fineman and some of the others at the GE propaganda news network MSNBC that is exactly like the one he ran for Nixon. They are using poor Keith Olbermann to be their Hunter S. Thompson. KO’s job is to hype Obama---and trash talk Hillary Clinton shamelessly. “I hate to use the phrase Ponzi scheme….” Then why use the phrase? How did this gang of thugs corrupt high minded KO? What kind of lies have they been telling him? What kind of twisted political advice has the Lord of Lies been dishing out?
Never underestimate the intelligence of Pat Buchanan. He acts dumb, but sometimes he will forget himself and say things that only someone who has been paying close attention will notice and remark upon. He knows the score. A Democratic Congress will grant amnesty to the nation’s Latino immigrants and put them on the path to citizenship, and they will all vote Democratic. Buchanan can not stand the thought. Plus, his bosses will be eternally grateful to him if he gets John “I don’t care if we glow in the dark and I hope you don’t care either” McCain elected president so that it can get all its new nuclear power plant proposals rubber stamped in the NRC. GE makes billions each year from selling nuclear plants overseas. Now it wants to make them here in the US. McCain wants to build them in the US. We are going to have Chernobyl in our own back yards—and taxpayers are going to foot the bill.
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/35938http://www.star-telegram.com/100/story/636314.htmlhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_InstituteThe divide and conquer strategy works by getting a bunch of Democrats so mad at the nominee that they either stay home in the fall or cross over and vote for McCain. Since Obama is going to be the nominee, that means getting working class whites and angry women to pick McCain instead or getting them to opt out of the general election. It worked in 1972. Blue collar workers crossed over for Nixon.
Way back in January, when the mainstream media was trying to divide Democrats along racial lines, Buchanan wrote this little gem:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ghettoizing_barack.htmlGhettoizing Barack in which Buchanan attempts to create a narrative in which the Clintons tried (unsuccessfully) to steal Iowa with racist tactics, then successfully stole New Hampshire with racist and sexist tactics.
Then Bill Clinton told a Dartmouth audience that Obama's claim to being consistently antiwar was a "fairy tale."
That, plus the media pile-on, Barack's snide dismissal of her in the debate -- "You're popular enough, Hillary" -- and her choked-up moment hours before voting began caused the women of New Hampshire to rally in sympathy. Obama's lead, estimated by some at 15 points, vanished, and Hillary won what became one of the great upsets in New Hampshire history.
Stunned and stung, Barack's African-American backers then rushed into the baited trap. One after another, they headed for the TV cameras to charge that the Clintons had fought dirty, forcing voters to focus on the race and gender of the candidates rather than on their records, ideas and issues.
When Hillary said sweetly that while Dr. Martin Luther King was the inspirational leader of the civil rights revolution, LBJ was the indispensable leader who had enacted the laws, King, martyr-hero of black America, became an issue.
As the raillery grew acrimonious and the rage among Barack's backers rose, his black support solidified, but his white support, recoiling from race politics, peeled away. And the sisterhood rallied to Hillary.
So what? Lots of Democrats said the same thing. People at DU say this kind of stuff all the time. The Obama camp put out a memo making some of the same charges.
There are several problems with Buchanan’s version. The main one is that Obama’s white support did not peel away. Second, what is this about“acrimony and rage”? Is Buchanan trying to make his usual conservative readers
afraid of the scary Black man ? The third problem, Buchanan did not even believe what he was writing. I know that for a fact, because four months later he wrote the exact opposite.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan.htmlOn Tuesday, May 13, Buchanan insisted that Clinton’s “fairy tale” remark was completely innocent. So was his Jesse Jackson remark. The article is called “Race Cards and Speech Codes”
"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
So said Bill Clinton in New Hampshire of Obama's claim to have been a constant opponent of the war. Clinton cited Obama's voting record, which was the same as Hillary's in his early Senate years.
Yet, for this, the ex-president, designated by Toni Morrison as "our first black president," was charged with playing the race card.
Clinton spent days explaining the "fairy tale" remark.
Remember how the press accused Clinton of having multiple personality disorder? We could be kind and assume that the Lord of Lies has two personas. However, if we read farther, we can figure out why he has flipped his opinion of Bill’s remarks 180 degrees.
Buchanan then goes on to describe how Clinton has been attacked for suggesting that she is better able to mobilize blue collar white voters, who have been the key to victory in the fall in recent elections. This has caused her to be accused of being a racist. This time, rather than jumping on the “Clintons are racists” bandwagon, Buchanan goes the other way entirely.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.
They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.
The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.
Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.
Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.
I hope you got that. The Clintons are damaged goods, because people
like Pat Buchanan shot their mouths off in January and accused them of laying race baited traps to turn Obama into the 100% Black candidate that white folks would be afraid to vote for. Only the Clintons never race baited, it was “the liberal media and some black journalists” who did it.
Hmmm. Do you think that Pat Buchanan considers himself liberal or Black?
IV. Forewarned in Forearmed.What happened between January and May? In January, Clinton was the front runner and the Democrats were not divided. So, Buchanan wrote
Ghettoizing Obama to divide Democrats along racial lines and to hurt Clintons chances and help Obama’s so that the contest would continue longer without a nominee, increasing the chances of a brokered convention. In May, Obama appears to have won, so Buchanan is trashing him and attempting to paint him as a dirty trickster, just as I said that the GOP would paint Obama as a dirty trickster, who uses all the supposed advantages (ha!) of his race to get ahead. In this new version of things which will be spread to general election voters----independents, Republicans but also some disgruntled Clinton supporters---Obama will be the man who cheated his way to the top with the help of the
liberal press. And the mainstream media press that played the race card is going to be the same press that starts pointing fingers---just like dear old Pat here.
If you think that the corporate media will not try this one out then you were not watching in 2000 and 2004. If you think that the American people are too smart to buy it, then you were not watching in 2000 and 2004. Eugene Robinson, whom Buchanan criticizes is a regular guest on
Countdown so I am guessing that KO is one of the
liberal journalists who will experience a backlash from the mainstream media in the months to come.
Pat Buchanan writes the scripts that the GOP sympathetic media follows. So, why does any Democrat watch MSNBC or NBC when they continue to have that old CREEPster on the air and why would anyone watch Democratic Primary coverage in which he is involved?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVeFyV0iLrkNote, if you did not read my previous journal about Pat Buchanan, I warned you. You might want to do so now.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/129
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
