They are correct when they call him a bigot
Check out Pat Buchannan's most recent article:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51164
While you might think I am tooting Pat Buchannan, I am not. I am going into how, when liberals call him a bigot, they are correct.
Now, generally, the old saying "a racist is a conservative losing an argument with a liberal" is generally true. But in Pat Buchannan's case, there may be some truth to calling him a bigot.
For starters, I read his book "Death of the West." When most conservative pundits write, if race is ever brought up, it's generally about how the thugs from da hood do keep African Americans down (which is largely true) or how affirmative action is bad (which is also true). Or sometimes an infamous criminal - who happens to be black - is denounced. But then again, for the most part, conservative pundits denounce any infamous criminal - irregardless of race. I have read several books from conservative pundits, and this is generally the first book I have read that has taken a bigoted tone.
Pat Buchannan goes way beyond how most conservatives view race. If you read his book, there is a racist undertone for it. For example, when students cheered during a speech of Bill Clinton's, when the remark came up that whites would no longer be the dominant race in this country, he actually thought this was some horrific thing. My attitude, as well as that of most (including most white) conservatives, to such a statement, is, who cares? This doesn't bother us. But apparently it does bother Pat Buchannan.
Also, Pat Buchannan wants to jump onto another trend bandwagon - anti-semitism. In fact, there is pretty good indication he has always been one. And it may run in his family.
Ann Coulter wrote in one of her books that when, in 1996, it was mentioned that Pat Buchannan's father was a fan of Father Coughlin, Pat's sister mentioned that her father had never even heard of Father Coughlin. To me, this indicates that his father not only listened to him, but was probably a major fan.
For those of you who don't know who Father Coughlin is, let me explain. Father Coughlin was the giant of radio of the 1930's - he was known as the "radio priest". As he was a Catholic priest. No one's radio star would come even close to his fame until Rush Limbaugh came along - and that was long after several alternatives to radio were developed. Some people have even attempted to say that Limbaugh was even a new Father Coughlin. Both were/are partisan, right-wing radio personalities. He had/have a huge following. Both even put out newsletters! And both were/are white males, if we are to get into this similarity. But that's about where the similarities stop.
Father Coughlin had an audience, at his peak of fame in the mid-1930's, at 40 million. Rush Limbaugh's peak audience was about 22 million. But Rush is on in the middle of the day, when people most likely listen to him while driving someplace. Father Coughlin was on during prime time. And, Rush's peak was about 1993, before the internet, but long after television became the dominant medium - with VCR's to compete with your time, to boot. And Rush is still on after 18 years, while Father Coughlin was shut down by the federal government after 13 years. Rush is probably the more dynamic personality.
There are other huge differences. Father Coughlin, a priest from a (Canadian) Irish-Catholic family, started his pundit career by engaging in socialist class warfare. Rush Limbaugh is a champion of free markets. Father Coughlin was very nearly a traitor. Rush Limbaugh has always been a patriot. In 1932, Hollywood made a favorable biographic movie about him (before he went off the deep end). Can you imagine Hollywood ever doing a favorable biography about Rush Limbaugh? And most importantly, while Rush Limbaugh defends Jews, and has aided in the career of some, Father Coughlin was a notorious anti-Semite. In fact, he was a kook (Rush likes to have kooks on his show, of any stripe, because he likes humor, and likes to make people laugh).
I read a biograpy of Father Coughlin. In the picture's section that is in nearly every book today, there was a photograph of his newsletter, circa 1941. If you believed it, you "knew" a. the good Hitler was doing, and b. that England was about ready to invade the US. Seriously. He was a bit of a problem for FDR, and so FDR was justified in shutting him down. (Interestingly, long after his career, he did champion a politcian w/ Limbaughs' values, Barry Goldwater, ironically, half-Jewish!).
Now, while Father Coughlin and Rush were rightwingers, that gives a very simplistic view of commonality - it's mere semantics. While both may have liked Barry, the term "rightwing" has changed over the decades. Before the 1960's, a rightwinger generally was an anti-Semitic. However, due to the course of history since that time, those with libertarian views largely took over the right, and several fundamentalist Christians, too. And fundamentalist Christians wnat to keep Israel around. Thus, the American right wing evolved significantly from 1938 to 2006. So much so, that it is the American right that not only champions Israels' actions, but is generally highly Jewophilic.
What does this have to do with anything? Lets use some common sense. In the 1930's, the population of the US was, maybe, 200 million? I don't have any historical charts, but this is probably close to accurate. That means that 1/5 of the US population listened to Father Couglin.
Interestingly, at the height of his anti-Semitism (meaning the end of the program), his audience included 100,000 Jews, according to his biographer. This goes to show that there are always useful idiots somewhere.
And who were his biggest fans? Why, those of kin - Irish Catholics. And who were the Buchannans? They are also Irish Catholics. Thus, to begin with, to never of heard of Father Coughlin in the 1930's, you would have had to have been a total hermit. And there is absolutely no way someone who descended from an Irish Catholic family would never have heard of him - he would have been touted at whatever church social function people would have attended.
Thus, if one does some analysis, it would seem to me that when Pat Buchannan's sister states that her father never heard of Father Coughlin, she is engaging in serious coverup, that their father would have been the equilivent of a Dittohead (if there was any related term for Father Coughlin) and probably strongly favored his views, and glorified them at the dinner table every night. I really can't believe that someone as brilliant as Ann Coulter, and someone who has a strong knowledge of American history as she does, would take this statement at face value.
So, what else about Mr. Buchannan? For one thing, for which White House did he work? The Nixon White House. And Richard Nixon was probably the biggest anti-Semitic President since at least the 1920's. Maybe excepting his successor, Gerald Ford, who was a founder of America First. You will hear more about this when I write an appropriate obituary - which I hope will be pretty soon.
In any case, Richard Nixon was known to hate Jews. He plainly called them "cocksuckers". I am not making this up. I would suggest that, at least in terms of males, the homosexual population of Jewry is equilivent to that of the rest of the population - maybe a bit higher, yes, but that is because Jews historically have a strong reputation as leftists (at least until now) and are more likely to "discover" their homosexuality (yes, I believe that most gays are born that way, but I also believe that there are a few "gays" who "became" that way, especially those gays who are pure leftists, because they want to be "with it". Thus, if a segment of a population has a high percentage of leftists, I think it is safe to assume that there would be a higher percentage of voluntary homosexuals in it as well) . Remember, this is before heterosexual blowjobs became popular, too - about a generation before Bill Clinton's little fling with Monica in the oval office popularized this activity. So I doubt there were many females giving fellatio at the time, either. For Nixon to use such a slur is thus highly off the mark, and indicates a strong dislike of a certain group.
Not that I'm denouncing Jews - those who read this blog should know by now that I am a pretty strong Jewophile (I was even once a member of "Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership!") . And, some of my second cousins are Jews - and sterotypically, pretty strong leftists, too. Nor am I denouncing gay stuff, either. I really don't care if a couple of dudes want to get it on with one another.
Anyways, away from the pornographic comments. Nixon also hated Israel. He suggested that they do not stand much of a long term shot. Buchannan indicates this. So, do you think that maybe Nixon helped to "educate" Pat a little more?
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Pat Buchannan were sitting by his TV set, wearing a kaffiyeh, hooked to either CNN or Fox News, cheering the Palesineans on like some kind of football game. I think the expression "Pat Buchannan owns a kaffiyeh" sounds pretty good, and is probably accurate, too.
Now, there is more to dislike about Buchannan. Rush Limbaugh indicated he supported him in 1992 - until he heard the Buchannan wanted to tell industries where to locate. So he probably turned him off. And, Pat Buchannan hates free trade. Thus, Buchannan is quasi-socialist, and belongs in the wrong party. But then again, I don't think the Democrats want him, either.
So what is my conclusion? Well, sometimes we agree with the opposite faction. And when they say that Pat Buchannan sucks, I don't think they are too far off the mark.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51164
While you might think I am tooting Pat Buchannan, I am not. I am going into how, when liberals call him a bigot, they are correct.
Now, generally, the old saying "a racist is a conservative losing an argument with a liberal" is generally true. But in Pat Buchannan's case, there may be some truth to calling him a bigot.
For starters, I read his book "Death of the West." When most conservative pundits write, if race is ever brought up, it's generally about how the thugs from da hood do keep African Americans down (which is largely true) or how affirmative action is bad (which is also true). Or sometimes an infamous criminal - who happens to be black - is denounced. But then again, for the most part, conservative pundits denounce any infamous criminal - irregardless of race. I have read several books from conservative pundits, and this is generally the first book I have read that has taken a bigoted tone.
Pat Buchannan goes way beyond how most conservatives view race. If you read his book, there is a racist undertone for it. For example, when students cheered during a speech of Bill Clinton's, when the remark came up that whites would no longer be the dominant race in this country, he actually thought this was some horrific thing. My attitude, as well as that of most (including most white) conservatives, to such a statement, is, who cares? This doesn't bother us. But apparently it does bother Pat Buchannan.
Also, Pat Buchannan wants to jump onto another trend bandwagon - anti-semitism. In fact, there is pretty good indication he has always been one. And it may run in his family.
Ann Coulter wrote in one of her books that when, in 1996, it was mentioned that Pat Buchannan's father was a fan of Father Coughlin, Pat's sister mentioned that her father had never even heard of Father Coughlin. To me, this indicates that his father not only listened to him, but was probably a major fan.
For those of you who don't know who Father Coughlin is, let me explain. Father Coughlin was the giant of radio of the 1930's - he was known as the "radio priest". As he was a Catholic priest. No one's radio star would come even close to his fame until Rush Limbaugh came along - and that was long after several alternatives to radio were developed. Some people have even attempted to say that Limbaugh was even a new Father Coughlin. Both were/are partisan, right-wing radio personalities. He had/have a huge following. Both even put out newsletters! And both were/are white males, if we are to get into this similarity. But that's about where the similarities stop.
Father Coughlin had an audience, at his peak of fame in the mid-1930's, at 40 million. Rush Limbaugh's peak audience was about 22 million. But Rush is on in the middle of the day, when people most likely listen to him while driving someplace. Father Coughlin was on during prime time. And, Rush's peak was about 1993, before the internet, but long after television became the dominant medium - with VCR's to compete with your time, to boot. And Rush is still on after 18 years, while Father Coughlin was shut down by the federal government after 13 years. Rush is probably the more dynamic personality.
There are other huge differences. Father Coughlin, a priest from a (Canadian) Irish-Catholic family, started his pundit career by engaging in socialist class warfare. Rush Limbaugh is a champion of free markets. Father Coughlin was very nearly a traitor. Rush Limbaugh has always been a patriot. In 1932, Hollywood made a favorable biographic movie about him (before he went off the deep end). Can you imagine Hollywood ever doing a favorable biography about Rush Limbaugh? And most importantly, while Rush Limbaugh defends Jews, and has aided in the career of some, Father Coughlin was a notorious anti-Semite. In fact, he was a kook (Rush likes to have kooks on his show, of any stripe, because he likes humor, and likes to make people laugh).
I read a biograpy of Father Coughlin. In the picture's section that is in nearly every book today, there was a photograph of his newsletter, circa 1941. If you believed it, you "knew" a. the good Hitler was doing, and b. that England was about ready to invade the US. Seriously. He was a bit of a problem for FDR, and so FDR was justified in shutting him down. (Interestingly, long after his career, he did champion a politcian w/ Limbaughs' values, Barry Goldwater, ironically, half-Jewish!).
Now, while Father Coughlin and Rush were rightwingers, that gives a very simplistic view of commonality - it's mere semantics. While both may have liked Barry, the term "rightwing" has changed over the decades. Before the 1960's, a rightwinger generally was an anti-Semitic. However, due to the course of history since that time, those with libertarian views largely took over the right, and several fundamentalist Christians, too. And fundamentalist Christians wnat to keep Israel around. Thus, the American right wing evolved significantly from 1938 to 2006. So much so, that it is the American right that not only champions Israels' actions, but is generally highly Jewophilic.
What does this have to do with anything? Lets use some common sense. In the 1930's, the population of the US was, maybe, 200 million? I don't have any historical charts, but this is probably close to accurate. That means that 1/5 of the US population listened to Father Couglin.
Interestingly, at the height of his anti-Semitism (meaning the end of the program), his audience included 100,000 Jews, according to his biographer. This goes to show that there are always useful idiots somewhere.
And who were his biggest fans? Why, those of kin - Irish Catholics. And who were the Buchannans? They are also Irish Catholics. Thus, to begin with, to never of heard of Father Coughlin in the 1930's, you would have had to have been a total hermit. And there is absolutely no way someone who descended from an Irish Catholic family would never have heard of him - he would have been touted at whatever church social function people would have attended.
Thus, if one does some analysis, it would seem to me that when Pat Buchannan's sister states that her father never heard of Father Coughlin, she is engaging in serious coverup, that their father would have been the equilivent of a Dittohead (if there was any related term for Father Coughlin) and probably strongly favored his views, and glorified them at the dinner table every night. I really can't believe that someone as brilliant as Ann Coulter, and someone who has a strong knowledge of American history as she does, would take this statement at face value.
So, what else about Mr. Buchannan? For one thing, for which White House did he work? The Nixon White House. And Richard Nixon was probably the biggest anti-Semitic President since at least the 1920's. Maybe excepting his successor, Gerald Ford, who was a founder of America First. You will hear more about this when I write an appropriate obituary - which I hope will be pretty soon.
In any case, Richard Nixon was known to hate Jews. He plainly called them "cocksuckers". I am not making this up. I would suggest that, at least in terms of males, the homosexual population of Jewry is equilivent to that of the rest of the population - maybe a bit higher, yes, but that is because Jews historically have a strong reputation as leftists (at least until now) and are more likely to "discover" their homosexuality (yes, I believe that most gays are born that way, but I also believe that there are a few "gays" who "became" that way, especially those gays who are pure leftists, because they want to be "with it". Thus, if a segment of a population has a high percentage of leftists, I think it is safe to assume that there would be a higher percentage of voluntary homosexuals in it as well) . Remember, this is before heterosexual blowjobs became popular, too - about a generation before Bill Clinton's little fling with Monica in the oval office popularized this activity. So I doubt there were many females giving fellatio at the time, either. For Nixon to use such a slur is thus highly off the mark, and indicates a strong dislike of a certain group.
Not that I'm denouncing Jews - those who read this blog should know by now that I am a pretty strong Jewophile (I was even once a member of "Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership!") . And, some of my second cousins are Jews - and sterotypically, pretty strong leftists, too. Nor am I denouncing gay stuff, either. I really don't care if a couple of dudes want to get it on with one another.
Anyways, away from the pornographic comments. Nixon also hated Israel. He suggested that they do not stand much of a long term shot. Buchannan indicates this. So, do you think that maybe Nixon helped to "educate" Pat a little more?
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Pat Buchannan were sitting by his TV set, wearing a kaffiyeh, hooked to either CNN or Fox News, cheering the Palesineans on like some kind of football game. I think the expression "Pat Buchannan owns a kaffiyeh" sounds pretty good, and is probably accurate, too.
Now, there is more to dislike about Buchannan. Rush Limbaugh indicated he supported him in 1992 - until he heard the Buchannan wanted to tell industries where to locate. So he probably turned him off. And, Pat Buchannan hates free trade. Thus, Buchannan is quasi-socialist, and belongs in the wrong party. But then again, I don't think the Democrats want him, either.
So what is my conclusion? Well, sometimes we agree with the opposite faction. And when they say that Pat Buchannan sucks, I don't think they are too far off the mark.
posted by EricMatthew at 10:27 PM
<< Home