MSNBC's Buchanan adopts "hubris" theme from Milbank's falsehood-laden column, says of Obama: "[W]ho ... the heck does this guy think he is"
Pat Buchanan criticized the McCain campaign attack ad that refers to Sen. Barack Obama's "celebrity," but said "there is a truth behind all this." Touting Dana Milbank's falsehood-laden Washington Post column as "credible," Buchanan said, "[W]ho is he and who ... the heck does this guy think he is, is becoming a real issue for Barack Obama."
In a segment in which MSNBC aired an attack ad from Sen. John McCain's campaign that refers to Sen. Barack Obama's "celebrity," MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan criticized the ad but said "there is a truth behind all this." Touting Dana Milbank's falsehood-laden July 30 Washington Post column as "credible," Buchanan said, "[W]ho is he and who ... the heck does this guy think he is, is becoming a real issue for Barack Obama." Buchanan then accused Obama of "act[ing] like, you know, he thinks he is the Lord's gift to mankind."
As Media Matters for America noted, in the "Washington Sketch" column that Buchanan called "credible," Milbank misrepresented quotes, neglected to do basic reporting, and advanced the baseless suggestion that actions that Obama has reportedly taken are unprecedented for a presidential candidate -- all in support of Milbank's thesis that Obama's "biggest challenger" may be "his own hubris."
From the July 30 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House:
GREGORY: This is the new ad that's out today, and then I'll have Pat respond. Let's roll.
NARRATOR [video clip]: He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead? With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says no to offshore drilling and says he'll raise taxes on electricity. Higher taxes, more foreign oil. That's the real Obama. I'm John McCain, and I approve this message.
GREGORY: Pat, your take?
BUCHANAN: Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, where was Lindsay Lohan, for heaven's sakes?
GREGORY: I knew that's what you'd be thinking about first.
BUCHANAN: Look, this is not an effective ad. And I've got to agree with -- I've got to agree with Rachel [Maddow, MSNBC host] to this extent: McCain has two or three problems here. One, McCain is someone who comes deeply to dislike his opponents, and he gets very mean. He did that certainly to Mitt Romney. Secondly, to use your candidate for cutting is not a smart thing to do. Third, this ad is not a KO punch at all.
However, there is a truth behind all this. And that is that Barack Obama, who is he and who does the heck does this guy think he is, is becoming a real issue for Barack Obama. This election is a referendum on him and, frankly, far more credible in the attacks on Obama are the national press attacks, including Milbank today, where this guy acts like, you know, he thinks he is the Lord's gift to mankind. I think those are effective and, frankly, this Ludacris thing that's coming up this afternoon, later, I think that's very effective, because that's right out of Barack Obama's own folks. And it's sort of in the Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright category. And that's where his vulnerability lies.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Buchanan then accused Obama of "act[ing] like, you know, he thinks he is the Lord's gift to mankind."
How exactly has he been acting like this Buchanan? Compared to Bush who thinks he is God?
From the article:
This ad is also deliberately and deceptively racist.
Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?
Sorry Snoop, Press is really stretching it here. I would guess he picked two empty headed bimbos because he is suggesting that Obama is an empty suit. It had zip to do with race. In fact if he'd compared him to anyone Black...the outcry would be that it was racist. Nor would he pick those other celebrities because they aren't considered empty headed. Well maybe Tom Cruise ;-)
I cannot conceive of anyone putting Britney Spears and Paris Hilton together in any type of spoof ad and it not having some kind of lewd connotation
Lewd? I'm not getting that take on it. How do you see this as lewd? I saw this, as I explained above, as a comparison of Obama to a couple of empty headed bimbos who have not "earned" their fame, inferring that Obama is an "empty suit". I'll take it a step further. I think [and I'm only guessing] that this ad is implying that Obama, like Brittney & Paris is a celebrity for doing basically nothing special...other than running for Prez of course. Paris's claim to fame is not her acting or singing but for an infamous sex tape. Brittney hasn't had a hit record in eons, her celebrity seems to be about her [bad] behavior. Now one can disagree with the premise, but this ad does not have racist undertones as some like Bill Press are trying to inject.
Irony, sadly Obama is the one who has injected race into his campaign. I was truly hoping he wouldn't do that. And I believe this type of rhetoric could backfire.
Here's what Obama said yesterday about what he claims will be said about him by McCain...
“You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills."
Obama is playing the race card here...as the obvious only difference with those other Presidents is that they are White & Obama is Black.
And don't forgot Obama said something similar back in June:
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’’
I like Obama. I'd vote for him before McCain. BUT if this is the tactic he's gonna use, it's a huge turn-off.
One can say that the Britt/Paris ad was low, but it did ask a legitimate question, is Obama just a celebrity, or is there more to him? I happen to think the guy can handle the job as Prez...but the ad is fair game. Playing the race card is not.
It is entirely to Obama's detriment to have race inserted into this campaign in any way. Therefore, it's patently absurd to suggest , as did McCain and this commenter that Obama is the one who inserted it initially.
He MUST figt back when McCain does insert it.
Remember Kerry who didn't fight back until it was too late?
J,
I dunno, the way I'm reading this it sounds like Pat is saying that Milbank & others in the media thinks that. Not him. I could be wrong.
Thanks Tommy, I thought I was probably reading it correctly.
I thought Buchanan analyzed the topic pretty fairly & honestly. There are folks out there in the press & among voters that have the impression of Obama coming off cocky. It seems MMFA doesn't want anyone to even dare mention it.
How unsurprisingly arrogant and presumptous of you to know what some people's perception is of Obama. They may have a gut feeling about him that isn't shared by you or I, but to tell them it's based on lies is ridiculous - you have no clue.
Your liberal elitism is on full display.
I see that this whole thing has taught you some new three-syllable words to try out today.
So when Buchanan talks about the public's perception of Obama, it's an honest and fair opinion, but when I talk about Buchanan's perception of that perception, it's "arrogant" and "presumptous"? So yet again it appears that somebody has to explain the article to you. Buchanan refers specifically to Milbank's article, the thesis of which is based on falsehoods and cropped quotes, as was shown yesterday. Buchanan calls this article "credible" by way of illustrating why this perception of Obama is a real hurdle. The article, however, is not at all credible, and therefore Buchanan's is being just as deceitful as Milbank in perpetuating this false perception of Obama as arrogant and presumptous.
No, because Buchanan is saying that this particular perception may be out there, perceptions don't need to be vetted for factual accuracy, you can't be that simple to believe that. They are what they are.
Just as my perception about you is well known here, it's not based on lies, it's based on your history of posts here, and I am entitled to it, sorry to burst your bubble. Just as people are who have one of Obama, you can disagree with it, but to call it invalid, or say it's based on something you don't like just reveals your partisan silliness.
Again. Oh, and my perception you is still the same.....why don't you work on trying to improve it.
Buchanan specifically named Milbank's attack and called it credible. He's feeding a perception that's based on lies. That's the point that you're obviously dodging. Why don't you stop hurling childish insults long enough to address it.
"I see that this whole thing has taught you some new three-syllable words to try out today".......Clams Casino
"Why don't you stop hurling childish insults long enough to address it".....Clams Casino
Ahh, Gee, gosh, when you apologize.
And you're not going to apologize for doing exactly what you just accused me of doing not more than two minutes ago, as I copied your very own words?
Good character dodge.
I'm just going to point out one thing that I find hilarious, and then I'll let you off the hook for the rest of the day. Maybe you don't notice that you do this, but you mindlessly parrot words and phrases that you've just read. You began the thread with "arrogant" and "presumptous," the exact words used by Dana Milbank in the article that you refuse to acknowledge. Now you're resorting to the "I'm rubber and your glue" school of debate, where you're just repeating things that I've just written.
Just a little dose of self-awareness might do you a bit of good.
"Oh, and my perception you is still the same.....why don't you work on trying to improve it."
My, that's a tad arrogant, doncha think? Suggesting that Clams improve something to satisfy YOU as if somehow you are above him? Wow... who's trying to be 'God' here...?
F****n thing SUCKS!
LOL... O'Reilly in meltdown mode is a trip.
Isn't it obvious that "Obama is now arrogant, elitist, stuck-up, full of himself" is the new RIGHTWING/MEDIA NARRATIVE to be followed by all the talking heads and pundits being seen as "opinion leaders", in order to FOOL the American Public into thinking that this is a factual representation and THE TRUTH?
Nobody wants to vote for a "cocky" black candidate, right? Anyone with any kind of EGO cannot be qualified for PRESIDENT, right? THIS is the Media's message to America: Obama: TOO ARROGANT to be elected.
The subtext, as always, is that, sad as it may seem, McCain is the only logical choice for America to make, because he is NOT Obama, the conceited prima donna.
And, of course, this is the rightwing NO BRAINER way to turn an obvious POSITIVE into a NEGATIVE: Obama is enormously POPULAR. He's well liked and well received in America and around the world. He's well spoken and his message rings true to the masses. McCain, by comparison, is pedestrian and lackluster. His message(s), tired and proven false (i.e. he represents more of Bush's policies). So, OF COURSE, this advantage by Obama must be universally portrayed by THE MEDIA ... IN THEIR OPINION ... as being evidence of popularity having "gone to Obama's head" and rendered him unelectable.
This is the very basis of Rovian politics: Attack an opponent's STRENGTH, and turn it into a liability. Your guy never saw a battlefield, while the opponent is a decorated war hero? No problem: LIE about his record, call him a coward, a fraud, and a liar. It works! And with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, all that's required is the Media's cooperation.
The point here is, once again, the Media is lockstep in promoting Rightwing messages, talking points, and narratives. Obediantly, repeatedly, and near universally. The Rightwing Mainstream Medis is dutifully tearing down Obama and propping up McCain, and the FACTS be damned. Milibank and Buchanan are just cogs in the corporate wheel.
Pat: This election is a referendum on him and, frankly, far more credible in the attacks on Obama are the national press attacks, including Milbank today, where this guy acts like, you know, he thinks he is the Lord's gift to mankind.
Indeed. He very clearly states that Milbank's attack is credible. How someone could post that they don't think Pat thinks that is truly bizzare.
Like these:
Jeter2: I dunno, the way I'm reading this it sounds like Pat is saying that Milbank & others in the media thinks that. Not him.
Tommy: You're right Jeter
Jeter2: Thanks Tommy, I thought I was probably reading it correctly.
"Apparently, in his mind, two people can say the exact same thing and one of them can be right and the other can be wrong"
Absolutely, it goes directly to credibility, you know, "consider the source". You and the Governor have none where I am concerned, so every word you utter is suspect. Sorry, it's my opinion.
If you mean that I consider words and opinions of those I respect far more than those I do not, you are absolutely correct.
You know where you fit in.
Psych lesson for the day, folks...
Actually, what's going on in Tommy's mind concerning you and Clams is the exact opposite of the Halo Effect... the Devil Effect. What this means is that since Tommy has formed a negative impression of you in his mind, no matter what his reasons may be, now ANYTHING you say... even if it is the absolute truth... will either be doubted or outright rejected by him simply because of that negative impression. Classic cognitive bias on Tommy's part being displayed here.
He's not paying attention to the MESSAGE, rather, he is placing way too much importance on the MESSENGER... which is absolutely nutty from a logical and critical thinking standpoint.
"Apparently, in his mind, two people can say the exact same thing and one of them can be right and the other can be wrong"
Absolutely
Is there some way to buy the rights to this, so I can get the royalties for every time this exchange is linked or pasted here?
Don't you think subjecting us to your cluelessness is enough? Now you want to get paid for it?
"If you don't follow why the messenger and the source is important in evaluating content, then I underestimated you."
Well, isn't that interesting. So everyone's credibility here is supposed to be a factor in evaluating what they say, but when your behavior is being discussed then I should "get over myself" and stop "refereeing credibility".
What a nice little setup, where you get to proclaim who is credible, while nobody can point out your hypocrisy, inconsistency, and dishonesty.
Anybody buying into it besides Jeter?
Let's see, Cons are outnumbered here by an incredibly large margin, & Brab asks if anyone else here is buying into a Cons argument? Aw, isn't that precious. Let's face it, the Lib mob mentality here is almost purely dictated by ideology. If one's opinion can only be filtered through the prism of ideology & partisanship, then critical thinking goes out the window. And that goes for both sides.
Let's say there are 48 Lib posters commenting on this thread, & only 2 Cons. Do you see how irrelevant your question is? Are you looking for honesty or just affirmation?
You know Brab, I've never seen you ever divert from Liberal talking points or disagree with Liberal leadership. On the other hand, both Tommy & I have often lambasted Conservatives & have often blasted Con talking points.
Your question is not only laughable here on a forum that is populated 100 to 1 with Libs. It's dumb. Just what answer did you really think you would get? I'm sure the bobbleheads will agree with you...wow big surprise.
Jeter was absolutely correct, as was Clams last weekend, in pointing out your cute little act here. You prop yourself up as the hypocrisy police and the arbiter of all things honest, yet you transparently pick and choose who to "arrest" and who to call out for dishonesty based on two things, 1) Your obsessive childish urge to incite an cross-examination style argument over the silliest irrelevencies, or some unrelated out of context past post you haul out from your "gotcha" file, or 2) Strictly down partisan ideological lines.
You don't fool anyone Brab, and you certainly don't impress me. Even the most ardent liberals on this website, as well as many fair and open minded posters, are on to your pedestal dancing, condescending platitudes and parental shout downs. Most of your affirmations now come from those who are equally as vociferous as you are in their distaste for opposing opinions, MHK for one.
So if you feel that feather in your cap proudly gives you reason to blow on your knuckles and rub them on your puffed up chest, be my guest. So keep playing Perry Mason, it's quite entertaining.
"....their distaste for opposing opinions, MHK for one."
Oh, and I forgot Bottleblonde/Sue, now there's one to have in your corner, congratulations.
Are you joking? On this very thread you're propping yourself up as an "arbiter" of who is credible and who isn't. And what's that judgment based on, specifically? Please tell me why you shouldn't "get over yourself" for demonstrating that behavior.
Once again you fail to address any of the points concerning your behavior and your motivations, how neat. And you do what you always do, shift the discussion to me. Are you that obsessed, because I am not the only one noticing it?
Address your own issues before you worry about mine, then you might deserve a response.
My God! I point out your hypocrisy, you repeatedly fail to address it, and now I'm the one "shifting" the conversation?
I'll tell you what, if you can provide anything to bolster your "points" about my motivation and behavior, I will address them. Otherwise, you offer no proof outside of your own words (isn't that phrase vaguely familiar?).
I read it just fine. There's nothing of any substance there. Back up what you say, and then it will be more than just your lame deflection away from your own demonstrated hypocrisy.
When people say you're paid to be here, you don't acknowledge any credibility to that because there's no "proof". But I'm supposed to accept your absurd characterization without anything to support it at all? The hypocrisy just keeps piling up.
I have to complement you. You and lap dog are really on point with your message on this one. Your attempts to frame this conversation in a manner that would make it appear as if the issue is about dissenting opinions and not about the way in which you interact with others is worthy of Karl Rove. Poor lonely conservatives being picked on because the mean liberals don't like different opinions. there are sooo many of them and just a few us (sniff sniff)
I actually agree with part of your argument in this thread, perception does matter and BO will need to address a negative perception regardless of how it came into being. I'm taking issue with your behavior, not because I'm trying to prop someone else up or because I disagree with your opinion. It's about your inability to act like a decent human being when you discuss issues with people you don't like. It's pretty hard to overlook the childish manner in which you refuse to answer legitimate questions that people pose, the silly standards you apply to others yet refuse to follow yourself or your general unwillingness to acknowledge points from people that aren't on your BFF list.
Good luck with your little campaign by the way, anyone that has read your body of work for as long as I have already know your MO.
Actually I took Tommy to task on this thread when he made a blanket statement. He clarified. Are you that incapable of having civil conversations with people we disagree with? Also your obession with Tommy is border line Fatal Attaction. Why is it that the threads are filled with Tommy this? Tommy that? Tommy Tommy Tommy? Why? Is he that powerful?
They absolutely do JLyons, everyone is free to evaluate and express theirs. To arrogantly say one is misinformation because you don't agree with it is silly.
To arrogantly say one is misinformation because you don't agree with it is silly.
I do not recall ever saying that. The problem i see is when Opinion is used to advance misinformation. IE Rush the Druggie, Hannity.
I saw that, it just means that you are allowed to question him, but others aren't. That's not objective. If you feel the need to reflexively defend someone when they're clearly operating under a double standard, that's a problem.
The reason that I remember so many things Tommy has said is because he's said so many ridiculous things. It's not that hard to spot an argument of convenience, and his tenacious defenses of those arguments make them very memorable. Like I say later on, Tommy argued that opinions don't need to have any basis to them. Then you say they can be evaluated (rightly), and he agrees. How can you evaluate something that has no basis? These two concepts are not compatible. I can recognize patterns, and that helps in spotting inconsistencies.
None of this takes away any of Tommy's responsibility for his own words, of course.
I saw that, it just means that you are allowed to question him, but others aren't. Really I have said others can not question him? Lie #1
That's not objective. If you feel the need to reflexively defend someone when they're clearly operating under a double standard, that's a problem. I am not defending Tommy, I am taking to task the mob mentality. I disagree with Tommy but he has never been disgusting toward me unlike others on here who go after me because i may disagree on one issue, or struck out trying to be sarcastic or just the game playes lie Bottle/SueEllie or mefirst who love to derail and play games.
The reason that I remember so many things Tommy has said is because he's said so many ridiculous things. It's not that hard to spot an argument of convenience, and his tenacious defenses of those arguments make them very memorable. Like I say later on, Tommy argued that opinions don't need to have any basis to them. Then you say they can be evaluated (rightly), and he agrees. How can you evaluate something that has no basis? These two concepts are not compatible. I can recognize patterns, and that helps in spotting inconsistencies. You failed to answer what Tommy has to do with every thread, even ones where he does not appear, threads are not about Tommy, they are about topics.
None of this takes away any of Tommy's responsibility for his own words, of course. And your own responsibilty for your actions, which you seem to always evade. You remind me more and more of Charlie Gibson in the April debate in Philadeplhia.
"Really I have said others can not question him? Lie #1"
Your attacks on me for making legitimate points about Tommy's behavior demonstrate that you don't allow me to question him. I didn't say you explicitly used those words.
"I am not defending Tommy, I am taking to task the mob mentality. I disagree with Tommy but he has never been disgusting toward me unlike others on here who go after me because i may disagree on one issue, or struck out trying to be sarcastic or just the game playes lie Bottle/SueEllie or mefirst who love to derail and play games."
If you're not defending Tommy, then demonstrate how the criticism of him is unfair. And you weren't being "sarcastic", quit lying about that already. You were not treated in any "disgusting" manner, if you really want to pursue that I'll be glad to shoot it down.
"You failed to answer what Tommy has to do with every thread, even ones where he does not appear, threads are not about Tommy, they are about topics."
Everyone's credibility counts here. It is always relevant. This has been explained any number of times.
"And your own responsibilty for your actions, which you seem to always evade. You remind me more and more of Charlie Gibson in the April debate in Philadeplhia."
I have no problem with taking responsibility for pointing out hypocrisy. Why would I?
Your attacks on me for making legitimate points about Tommy's behavior demonstrate that you don't allow me to question him. I didn't say you explicitly used those words.
You can question anyone, and I do not attack you I take you to task because you play games, and distort things I said once in a joking manner. You use that everytime i may disagree with you on an issue. You smear fellow posters with no evidence becuase you may not like points they make that time. You do not like different views. You also have done this to Tommy, sueld, jeter.
"You can question anyone, and I do not attack you I take you to task because you play games, and distort things I said once in a joking manner. You use that everytime i may disagree with you on an issue. You smear fellow posters with no evidence becuase you may not like points they make that time. You do not like different views. You also have done this to Tommy, sueld, jeter."
This is bizarre. So when demonstrate Tommy's hypocrisy, that's "playing games" because...? You have to show me why it's not legitimate in order to make that stick. I've never "smeared" anyone without any evidence, I state my point. I call you out on your behavior when you chastise others for being "vicious", because you never apologized or explained what you said. You never said you were being sarcastic. That's the same for you as it is for anyone else, you can't behave one way and then criticize others for the the same thing. If you have any examples to bolster your point, I'd really like to see some.
Difference is when I am attacked i fight back, i do not go around acting like LA Law, unlike you.
And let's remember this quote:"You smear fellow posters with no evidence becuase you may not like points they make that time."
You have no evidence, so you must be engaging in smear tactics. Is your friendship with Tommy really worth it?
"You smear fellow posters with no evidence becuase you may not like points they make that time. You do not like different views. You also have done this to Tommy, sueld, jeter."
(shred, shred) If your wondering what that sound is it's whatever integrity you had left.
You attack BB posts with unproven accusations of her being another posters without acknowledging the content of her post on a regular basis. We've all seen it and yes that would be what is considered a smear. Hmmm I wonder why you do that? Maybe it's because you don't like BB because you don't agree with her opinion or maybe it's because BB made you look foolish in prior posts?
The fact that you can actually type that post to Barb without realizing what a total hypocrite you are is truly mind boggling.
Well said JLyons, it's pathetic. Brabs constant whining about what I "demand", or what I assert, or what I expect, is ridiculous. I don't troll around with old posts from unrelated topics in my shirt pocket deliciously waiting to pounce on a select few posters that I despise, just to incite an argument or provoke an out of context battle - the way he does all the time.
But he won't admit or even acknowledge his own behavior, ever. He always makes it about me, or someone else. Damn funny.
"you don't get to have things both ways"
Do you have any idea how absolutely childish and utterly ridiculous that sounds? Who in the hell do you think you are? It is stunning the way you feel some authority to monitor behavior on a website with nothing but anonymous posters. You need therapy buddy. You are more and more like some demented cartoon character by the minute. I will step away.......
Whew.
It's "childish" to say that you don't get to have things both ways? So you can't point out that someone's making self-contradictory arguments, since that would be immature on your part?
Congratulations, you've given liberals free reign to make all the arguments of convenience they want against you, and you can't do a damn thing about it.
"and you can't do a damn thing about it"
The only thing I have ever done "about it", is give my opinion within this little comment box.....which is all I care to do, thank you. Unlike you, I don't feel I have any more power beyond that. Your overinflated sense of enforcement somehow just makes you look hysterical. Pop a pill.
"The only thing I have ever done "about it", is give my opinion within this little comment box.....which is all I care to do, thank you."
Then you won't be able to give your opinion about that behavior, because it will make you look childish.
"Good Point Jeter, but Brabanito has the history of wanting to incite. I believe it his his/her nature. There are few others. The Mob mentality does nothing to further discussions"
Jlyon - The fact that you can actually type the above statement when you've been at the forefront of the mob trying to tar and feather B.B. with unproven accusations about being prior posters is just stunning.
Zero integrity.
Jlyons
Offer some proof that BB is the person that your saying that she is and I would be willing to consider your point. You never have and I'm guessing your never will.
BB offers out opinions and counter arguments, you and your gang of thugs offer nothing but attacks in response with no proof.
If you had any integrity you would acknowledge what your doing is wrong and your would stop this nonsense with B.B. You would also acknowledge how ridiculous you sound lecturing Barb on something your totally guilty of instead of trying to pretend that it's different some how.
That may be the most pathetic dodge I've ever seen. Do you think it's fair for anyone to be able to make judgments about other people while chastising others from pointing out their own hypocrisy? If so, why? The ratio has nothing to do with that, that should not be acceptable to anyone. But instead of making an objective judgment about his behavior, you feel compelled to defend him. Don't you see how that validates what I said about you? You never seem to care about his behavior, as long as he's your buddy at the end of the day. If that's unfair, you tell me why.
As for stupidity, you do realize you're on a site about conservative misinformation, don't you? Obviously conservative talking points and leadership comes up all the time, so you have a lot more opportunities to make comments about them. I've criticized Democratic leadership, I disagree with items on here, and I have no idea what false "talking points" I've seen brought up here.
But outside of your deflections, your implied approval of Tommy's double standard is noted. Thank you.
Nice try Jeter, but the problem with your argument is that the issue most people have with Tommy is isn't about liberal v. conservative ideas... It's about the manner in which Tommy participates in the discussion.
Mod Mentality? Hmmm, let see I can remember a number of times that you've participated in ganging up on individual posters with your little group.
Spare us the sob story.
This is another example of the argument made yesterday about motivation.
Media Matters doesn't say what the motivation was of people who spew conservative misinformation. They don't allege bias, because it's often not clear what the motivation was, or if there is bias at all.
Jeter, on the other hand, claims that he knows our motivation.
It's not simply us arguing against vapid arguments. It's not us defending the Constitution against attack, or arguing against stupid wars and ignorant economic plans. Rather, it's us arguing against the Conservatives simply because they're conservative!
Wow. Slap me up 'side my head. Call me crazy, but from the evidence I've seen for 20 years (Rush just celebrated his 20th anniversary today!), it's those on the right who argue that way. They're the hypocrites, by and large, who argue against gays having any rights, except when it's their gays. It's those on the right who argue about issues simply because those issues were raised by Media Matters - the WITH crowd comes to mind.
Jeter claims that we're only arguing with him because of his political persuasion and not because we're looking for honesty. The very reason we liberals are here is because we're looking for honesty! Honesty from the media. Honesty in political campaigns. Honesty from political opponents. That's the raison d'etre for this site, because of the lack of honesty in the media! That's our motivation. On the other hand, there are righties who come to this website with the clear motivation to derail threads and distract us from the real issues raised here and to deny that these issues are important enough for Media Matters to talk about.
Jeter said "If one's opinion can only be filtered through the prism of ideology & partisanship, then critical thinking goes out the window. And that goes for both sides."
But it doesn't go for both sides. It's much more prevalent on the right. That's one of the reasons that Media Matters covered the talking point by ABC News that both campaigns have gone negative despite the paucity of evidence that the Obama campaign has done that.
a forum that is populated 100 to 1 with Libs.
Jeter, your constant whining about being outnumbered really is getting pathetic.This isn't a street fight, if you've got a good point, it shouldn't matter if it's a million to one. Now, it may seem like the ratio is pretty unbalanced, but that's probably more about the awesome firepower of the LIberal Arsenal of Truth and Logic, and your feeble defense of victimhood and dishonesty.
Besides, look at an average thread and count the number of posts by conservatives. Sometimes there are way more of those than lib comments, even if it's the same conservative posters saying the same thing over & over.The opportunity is there, as you guys obviously have a lot of time, it's up to you to take advantage of it. Less crying about the irrelevant ratio of posters,more effort into making those comments count!
I'm not gonna bother even jumping back into the Brab-Tommy-JLyons argument, it's too damn convoluted at this point with Brab taking names & putting them in his files...nor will I bother with Blondie, who of course it the late, not so great Sue/Ellie17/NotThatGeorge/etc. Sue never got over that Sunday many years ago when I wiped the board with her & posters [even Libs] declared it Jeter2 Day...and they sang ding dong the witch is dead. Oh Colonel it was glorious!!!
Whining am I? Nah.
You see Col. Beach I wouldn't care if it was a million to one, if more than a growing handful of Libs here weren't increasingly narrow-minded, thick-headed, & blindly partisan.
If a Conservative said the sky was blue, they'd deny it.
Or if some of you guys could actually think outside the box once in awhile.
Fair fight? Not here Beach...
Now of course there are some fair & reasonable folks here. They know who they are. You, my friend fluctuate ;-)
That's pretty pathetic that somebody can't get over Jeter2 Day many years ago. Probably even remembers which day of the week it happened on.
;0)
Congratulations on your victory, Jeter.
You're absolutely right, Jeter, I apologize. I'll be open-minded now. Can you tell me how hypocrisy is acceptable? I admit I've been operating under the notion that somehow it's not acceptable, which is clearly wrong of me.
I look forward to your answer, so I can be enlightened as to the merits of such behavior. Thanks!I don't disagree with your points, but that was all sort of unnecessary, wasn't it? I think Tommy's credibility was irreparably shredded to bits in this thread before this hypocrisy argument even began.
Me: "Apparently, in his mind, two people can say the exact same thing and one of them can be right and the other can be wrong."
Tommy: "Absolutely."
And that's really all we need to know, isn't it? Facts mean nothing to him. His arguments are irrational and illogical. He picks fights with people he dislikes and flatters those he does like, even when they both are saying the exact same thing. Anytime anyone attempts to praise Tommy for being fair or rational, we have his defiant admission that he is anything but. Within the past few weeks he's been exposed as a blindingly partisan, gay-baiting, race-baiting, hypocritical troll who takes pride in his own stupidity and double-standards. End of story.
And this isn't directed at you, Brab, but enough with the battered wife syndrome already. It seems that all Tommy has to do is show one glimmer of rational thought and people are falling all over themselves to praise him. Anyone who does that should be reminded that Tommy is laughing in their face.
"I don't disagree with your points, but that was all sort of unnecessary, wasn't it? I think Tommy's credibility was irreparably shredded to bits in this thread before this hypocrisy argument even began."
I absolutely agree that even before my posting, Tommy's admission that he disagrees with someone solely for who they are was a self-destructive moment of epic proportions. And then Jeter talks about closed-minded liberals, while defending Tommy at the same time. You can't make this stuff up. But an extra layer of hypocrisy was amusing to note, and the reactions to it were even better.
"And this isn't directed at you, Brab, but enough with the battered wife syndrome already. It seems that all Tommy has to do is show one glimmer of rational thought and people are falling all over themselves to praise him. Anyone who does that should be reminded that Tommy is laughing in their face."
Honestly, I think Tommy works off of gut reactions, which is where his projection of liberal "emotional" arguments stems from. Sometimes those reactions are fair and reasonable, and I don't have any trouble recognizing that. I don't want to discredit him entirely, I just want to establish (as often as necessary) the pattern of behavior so that his baseless opinions aren't given any weight, he has no authority to criticize the behavior or character of others, and also to discourage the clubhouse dynamic that's so prominent around him. People can back him up in his worse moments, but they're not going to do it without spending their own moral capital, as demonstrated on this very thread.
I certainly don't want to argue that "Tommy just makes rational points in order to fool people", which seems to be your suggestion (and if I'm misinterpreting you, by all means correct me). If that is the case, I just don't think there's enough evidence to support it, and it's not necessary anyway. His behavior warrants enough justified criticism without getting into muddy territory in an effort to portray him as 100% dishonest. If his behavior is modifiable at all, then encouragement for his better moments is just as important as taking him to task for his hole-digging episodes. And if his behavior isn't modifiable (which I think is the case, sadly), then he will continue to make an ass of himself and he will have less ammunition for making "partisan" deflection efforts.
In any event, it's only fair to give him every opportunity to adjust his behavior in the short-term and the long-term. Meanwhile, it's also fair to highlight his poor behavior as often as he displays it, since he shouldn't get a single ounce of credibility that he hasn't earned.
I certainly don't want to argue that "Tommy just makes rational points in order to fool people", which seems to be your suggestion (and if I'm misinterpreting you, by all means correct me)."
No, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that even an abusive husband stops hitting you at some point. And he'll even bring you flowers once a year. But I will say that the fact that Tommy makes a rational point every now and then is not something that he should get credit for, and here's why: He will reverse that position in a heartbeat if it suits him. He's not bound by any moral, ethical or even factual convictions. He'll acknowledge that 2+2=4 (and everyone will praise him for it), then a day later he'll pretend he's never heard of 2, and that 4 is just an opinion.
Of course, but when he reverses himself the inconsistency can still be highlighted. I'm just not seeing how withholding credit for the rational moments changes that. In fact, I would think it lends the criticism more credibility as it shows it's not based on something personal or partisan.
I see what you're saying, but also remember that if you're talking about someone disingenuous, an end to pointing out hypocrisy just means that he can claim he's consistent. Nobody makes any criticisms anymore, right?
I just think it's important to stay as objective as possible, and that means considering the validity of the argument before the nature of the poster. Not only does it seem like the right thing to do, but it effectively destroys the credibility of a number of avenues for deflection.
But again, I understand the attitude, of course. And it's not as if Tommy has any means to really object to it.
Great points, Brabantio - see, I spelled your name right this time, sorry about misspelling it before. I've never seen either spelling before.
The other day you compiled and posted a link of Tommy's comments to call his credibility into question. Using his own reputation against him, he then tried to diminish your point by saying that you were acting like a lawyer trying to prove something.
Here's, he's trying to prove something about Clams not having credibility without even presenting any proof of it, simply his own dismissive attitude about Clams as 'evidence'.
Which 'proof' should we believe? Why, the one with no evidence, of course (sarcasm). Which presenter of that 'proof' should we trust and respect? The one who has a bee in his bonnet for a poster, for the messenger, or the one who is attacking the message of the other poster? Should we go with the personal attack guy or the factual debunking guy?
Righties know who'd they chose. Liberals know which path they'd take. The problem for the righties is that the voters don't buy into the rightie's choices anymore. The message is the important thing. It's not okay to attack the messenger just because they're the messenger, but we see evidence that indicts several posters here as non-believers in 'attack the message, not the messenger" meme.
Actually, it says "Paul is dead..." (a Beatles reference)
Gotta get my eyes checked... ;>)
It's Kenny Bania.
Gov, I almost was gonna give you kudos for offering a quote from Seinfeld. But you blew it ;-)
BTW, your act is old, so old material is appropriate.
Gov, I almost was gonna give you kudos for offering a quote from Seinfeld. But you blew it ;-)
I was not almost going to care.
It's Kenny Bania.
Jeter, not everybody has the Seinfeld read-along scripts, they have to guess at names phonetically. Cut some slack! ;0)
So are you offically Tommy's attack lap dog now or just his sycophant?
Grrrrr!!!! Go get'em!
I like to think of those two and their 'relationship' here as being similar to the 'buddy-buddy' thingy that Sean Hannity has with The Detestable One, aka His Dumbness, aka Mark Levin out there in talk radio la-la land. Purty damn creepy if you ask me... *shudders*
Arf Arf .... Grrrr
I can't decide if you strike me as being more of an attack poodle or maybe a chihuahua?
Like these:
Jeter2: I dunno, the way I'm reading this it sounds like Pat is saying that Milbank & others in the media thinks that. Not him.
Tommy: You're right Jeter
Jeter2: Thanks Tommy, I thought I was probably reading it correctly.
Yeah, that was hilarious. How could any sane and reasonable person think that agreement from your buddy is confirmation? Agreement from your opponents? Now, that's confirmation. I'm amazed that Jeter even tried to pull that one off, that Tommy agreeing with him meant anything about how right or wrong he was!
And then there's the little fact that they're both wrong. Pat does think "there is truth" to the deceptivley laid out claim that Obama is pompous and arrogant. Pat plainly stated that he thinks that.
To arrogantly say one is misinformation because you don't agree with it is silly.
I do not recall ever saying that. The problem i see is when Opinion is used to advance misinformation. IE Rush the Druggie, Hannity.
I did not mean you specifically JLyons, sorry if it came across that way. Opinions certainly can be challenged and disagreed with, but they can't be proven wrong like facts can be, that is the difference that some here don't get. They just don't like opposing opinions, much less on a liberal website such as this, but they would never admit their intolerance.
But their intolerance will have to be, as MMFA apparently can handle it, even if it drives some here, and they know who they are, up the wall.
Opinions can't be proven wrong but they can be shown to be based on incorrect information. Further, if the opinion holder refuses to re-evaluate their opinion when presented with evidence that what they thought they knew was wrong it does call into question their critical thinking skills.
Just because something is labelled an opinion does not make it immune to questioning.
Moon,
It all depends on the opinion. If I hold an opinion that Obama will raise taxes then I should be asked for backup for that opinion, it should be held to a standard of some verification. However, if I say Obama is an arrogant politician, that is also an opinion that doesn't require some factual backup. It's my opinion, it's my perception. You are more than free to challenge it, or call it ridiculous, or wholeheartedly disagree with it, but it is an opinion nonetheless.
The Republican campaign machine is adept at all things slimy and underhanded and this is just the warm up for what’s to come. All they need to do is keep putting out the charge arrogance and people will start believing it without knowing why. Anyone who lived through the prior elections in 00 and 04 has seen first hand how this works.
Perhaps if one's opinion is simply that the false claims are just opinions, then nothing really matters. All aboad the-nuthin'-to-see-here express. *choo choo*
However, if I say Obama is an arrogant politician, that is also an opinion that doesn't require some factual backup. It's my opinion, it's my perception.
But that's not your opinion.
If you begin with the PREMISE that rightwingers govern in a way that's good for America, then any damn lie told to advance rule by rightwingers is acceptable as FACT, and every opinion which promotes rightwing candidates is VALID OPINION.
If, on the other hand, you look at what rightwingers have done in and to America during Bush's reign, and you see disasters, blunders, horrendously expensive mistakes, and insufferable arrogance ... then the basic PREMISE rightwingers depend upon as their baseline is FALSE.
The rightwinger says "My opinion is valid and correct", but he supported Bush, "thinking" Bush would be a "good" President. He was WRONG, almost criminally so. Thus, the rightwinger's opinion TODAY is totally invalid.
Other than that, they certainly keep pitching, because the MONEY is in promoting rightwing fantasies and myths.
The rightwinger says "My opinion is valid and correct
Bush does that all the time. He just flatly says that "wiretapping will protect you from the evil doers" or "free trade with Columbia will be good for the economy", or "more drilling will lower gas prices".
No evidence presented. Just faith-based governing. And the sheep follow along blindly.
Hey, can't you just accept that? He's gone to such great lengths to not say a damn a thing. Isn't that enough?
And you continue to display your misunderstanding of fact vs. opinion, again and again. It isn't that hard, first look them both up in the dictionary and then find a blackboard in your local school and reinforce it 100 times.
Maybe you'll finally get it.
Too funny..
Clams, sense of humor please. And I'm hot for Jeter so it's not mock :-0)
Carry on. I just get tired of all the back and forth stuff. It gets to be too much. That's just me. I usually don't read threads that have 200 posts 'cause I know what's happening. Not really all that much on topic and lots of insults and word parsing. Some people find that enlightening. I just don't. Live and let live.
Clams I realize responding to you is a wasted effort but here goes:
There is a fine line between self-confidence & arrogance. There are some in the media, and among the electorate that view Obama as the latter. Personally I see him as self-confident, as I'm certain you do as well, but that doesn't mean the subject can't be brought up, & various opinions offered. I thought Buchanan covered the topic as fairly as one might expect of him. If he happens to agree with those that see Obama as cocky or arrogant, he's entitled to that opinion.
And this opinion was not offered without a counter-opinion, which is usually what MMFA objects to.
I will likely vote for Obama. But I gotta be honest, whenever I read narrow-minded posts from Libs like you, I wonder...
You, as well, are apparently choosing to ignore the central point here. And since you find it such a waste of time to debate me, then I'll simply cut and paste what I wrote earlier. Tommy chose not to address it all. Let's see if you have a better dodge than mindless name-calling.
Buchanan refers specifically to Milbank's article, the thesis of which is based on falsehoods and cropped quotes, as was shown yesterday. Buchanan calls this article "credible" by way of illustrating why this perception of Obama is a real hurdle. The article, however, is not at all credible, and therefore Buchanan's is being just as deceitful as Milbank in perpetuating this false perception of Obama as arrogant and presumptous.
However, there is a truth behind all this. And that is that Barack Obama, who is he and who does the heck does this guy think he is, is becoming a real issue for Barack Obama. This election is a referendum on him and, frankly, far more credible in the attacks on Obama are the national press attacks, including Milbank today, where this guy acts like, you know, he thinks he is the Lord's gift to mankind.
Buchanan INCLUDED Milbank's op-ed, but he was ALSO speaking about the national press as a whole. Milbank cropped part of Obama's remarks, that we can agree on, & Buchanan probably shouldn't have included it. However, Milbank is NOT the only person in the media that has made the observation that Obama comes off as arrogant. And there are voters out there that also seem to have formed that opinion.
It's open to discussion.
Again, what some see as arrogant, others view as self-confident. It's called "opinion".
I realize this isn't addressed to me, but on first blush, and in the context in which it was said, I thought Pat B. meant "credible" in terms of its effectiveness in spreading the perception that Obama's arrogant (or whatever).
After denigrating the effect that McCain's ad would have on spreading this perception, I thought Buchanan was expressing his belief that articles from the national press, including Milbank's, would much more effectively spread that perception than did McCain's ad . . . That is, Buchanan thought Milbank's ad would come across as more credible because of the source. Whereas McCain comes across as "mean" or baleful, the national press, while expressing the same message as McCain, comes across more credible.
Again, those were my impressions . . . ., although I have to admit that I'm a fan of Buchanan as well . . .
I realize this isn't addressed to me, but on first blush, and in the context in which it was said, I thought Pat B. meant "credible" in terms of its effectiveness in spreading the perception that Obama's arrogant (or whatever).
Pat says very plainly that "there is a truth behind" the ad. It's "credible" because he thinks there's truth to it. And the only way to make it true is to crop quotes and mislead viewers and readers.
Gov, I think you're being misled by the way mmfa "innocently" divides paragraphs. When Pat says, "there is a truth behind all this", he is referring back to McCain's ad. In Pat's opinion, there's truth behind the assertion in the ad that Obama's presumptuous and arrogant.
In Pat's opinion, there's truth behind the assertion in the ad that Obama's presumptuous and arrogant.
Well then we agree there. In my opinion, Pat's opinion is wrong, based on what Obama's said and done so far.
"I thought Pat B. meant "credible" in terms of its effectiveness in spreading the perception that Obama's arrogant (or whatever)."
And now it's about the "truth" that Obama is arrogant? Doesn't that seem inconsistent to you? If he really believes it, then it's hard to argue that "credible" refers solely to effectiveness, as opposed to veracity.
Well said. I have full confidence that Obama will fill his administration and his Cabinet, if elected, with far more intelligent, and less partisan hackers than the ones that "[make you] wonder".
At least I pray that is the case.
There is a fine line between self-confidence & arrogance. There are some in the media, and among the electorate that view Obama as the latter.
After watching the media coverage of Obama I think that "line" moves an awful lot for Obama. What would normally be seen as confidence for a white man is viewed as arrogance and cocky for Obama. Who can forget the comments many made about Bush and the aircraft carrier. Their were cries of, "Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger", "He hopped out of the plane with a helmet tucked under his arm and walked across the flight deck with a swagger that seemed to suggest he had seen Top Gun.", "Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day.", and his cup size and on and on. His confidence was welcomed but Obama still has to EARN the right to his confidence.
I've heard this exact comment by many of my African American friends and family. Why does Obama have to earn the right to show he's confident in his abilities. Why is a well spoken, well educated African American man viewed as arrogant and elitist when a well spoken, well educated white man is view as just that, well spoken and well educated.
When I was growing up white folks used to call African Americans trying to better themselves "Uppity N's" and this is starting to take on that same feel. No matter how far you've come and how much you've achieved, you just can't win.
You may have a point, I should give Pat some slack?
No I just watched the entire video instead of reading it, and it is clear Buchanan is trying to take down Obama in a sneaky way. His attempt to bring up Wright is just as troubling.
Sorry Jeter I am not cutting Pat any slack.
BUCHANAN: This election is a referendum on him and, frankly, far more credible in the attacks on Obama are the national press attacks, including Milbank today, where this guy acts like, you know, he thinks he is the Lord's gift to mankind. I think those are effective...
Buchanan is saying the ad was not effective because it came from McCain but that Milbank and others in the national press raise a credible issue...that is, who does Obama think he is. If Buchanan thinks Nilbank's point is credible he obviously must subscribe to it.
"...who does the heck does this guy think he is..."
The presidential nominee of his party, Pat...something you and I, and millions of other people, never attained.
This is just silly. To highlight out and out lies by slimy authors is one thing, or to shine on a light on rightwing radio screecher's crap - but is anything that may put Obama in an unflattering light by any commentator in the media now going to be put here for skewering?
This is Buchanan's opinion on a perception problem that some feel may be an issue for Obama, and there is Rachel Maddow right there to give her point of view......so it is balanced, and fair from that perspective.
Thank goodness Obama isn't anywhere near as thin-skinned as MMFA.
WITH? Indeed.
I'm just glad that Pat's voice didn't go any higher, as my dog was getting uncomfortable.
That, and I'm glad he mentioned that the McCainiacs are moving on to ludicrous attacks. (Not that their attacks to this point haven't already been ludicrous, but now we're talking ludicrous by even McCainiac standards).
EVERY segment on any Hannity program is a ludicrous segment.
This election is a referendum on him (Obama)...
Uh, no Pat, it's a referendum on Republicans in the White House. Who could possibly want more of the same? (except for the uber rich and war profiteers).
I believe the first accusation of racism has been thrown out.
Go on guess which campaign did it.
Buchanan: "I think those are effective and, frankly, this Ludacris thing that's coming up this afternoon, later, I think that's very effective, because that's right out of Barack Obama's own folks."
Uh, Pat? Your racism is showing again......
I was going to check that out when I had time. At first I thought the "his own people" must be referring to Obama's campaign stirring up the issue, thinking that even Buchanan wouldn't step in it that bad.I thought maybe there was some angle I hadn't heard, that Obama's staff said something.
Is that what he's saying? That Obama has to explain the actions of all black people? Buchanan is really exotic.
He is a lying fool when he pretends to paint Obama are Ivy League. "His own folks" shows the real deal w/ Pat. Blacks are blacks and whites are whites. He thinks people are what the skin color is, and he gets paid by MSNBC to provide fake insight.
I watched this segment and it seem to me that Rachel Maddow put the Bucheman in his place,even after they proved to him Milbanks column was "distorted". Bucheman still was trying to push it as fact.
Another show where they're playing McCain's ad for free. What's up with that? It is interesting that Pat recognizes that the press is attacking Obama. But I don't think it's going to be effective. Basically what they're all saying is that Obama is "upitty."
What a tool Buchanan is ... as usual.
Hey, Pat: K-Mart called. Those sheets you ordered are in.
While anyone with half a brain can tell that Buchanan is agreeing with Milbank as he pushes his smears, here's a link that makes it explicit:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/31/race-to-the-white-house-rachel-maddow-calls-out-pat-buchanan/
Buchanan on Obama: "Upon what meat has this our Caesar fed. He‘s sounding like America‘s hot dog really."
Yeah, Clams, but don't you know, you're only providing that link to the smackdown that Rachel Maddow put on Pat Buchanan because you're a liberal and Pat's conservative?
Why are you ganging up on Pat like that? I mean, it can't be that you're trying to expose people to the honest facts, because we liberals only gang up on people like Pat and Jeter and Tommy because we hate conservatives! It's not that we think that the truth is important - how could we think that and then frequent this particular website, for example? It's not that we're interested in reviving our nation from the death grip that the Republicans have held us in and so you want to let people know about the deceitful way he framed that argument, in order to help loosen that stranglehold, right?
When this story first came out, I commented the following on the online Washington Post:
This Feels Racial
It may not of been Dana Milbank, my suggestion to take this racist subject to MSNBC fore filled its prophecy with non other then Pat Buchanan, who is a known racist. I don’t like it. We have become numb to very questionable offensive social practices. MSNBC has a history of riding that line between the socially acceptable and the historically offensive. We need to let MSNBC know that maybe they should not try to normalize everything.Joseph
Ascribing bigoted motives to someone who opines that Obama is presumptuous and thinks he's a "hot dog" is incredibly narrow-minded and simply nonsense.
Why do Obama supporters have such difficulty acknowledging that not everyone is taken with the holy one. And yes, some think he's arrogant, presumptuous, and everything else that goes along with having an exceedingly large ego.
I think Obama's presumptuous. His ego is nourished by his worshipping acolytes, apparently all over the world. Many, including probably Buchanan, think Obama's got a big head irrespective of Milbank's article. Thinking that opinion is asinine is fine, but to broadly ascribe racist motives for that view is equally asinine.
I wasn't born then, but wasn't Kennedy attacked for being a naive hot dog as well? If so, obviously the charge can be leveled without any racist motivation . . . There's people in my office right now who I can't stand because they walk around like their sh!t don't stink. One such person is black. I'm sure his pals view them differently than I do, but race has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion. Many factors form my opinion that so and so's a pompous prick, but race is irrelevant.
Race will play a part in this campaign and, unfortunately, I think there's a segment of the voting population who won't vote for Obama simply out of bigotry. It's pathetic and should be publicly derided as such, but Obama supporters shouldn't cry wolf everytime someone has a low opinion of him, or even loathes him.
Was it 1971 when Pat Buchanan first penned the idea of the GOP rigging the Democratic ticket with a black candidate to divide the Democratic Party? This was written about in the New Yorker not too long ago.
Looks like they finally succeeded. To think an operative like Buchanan would have to wait 37 years to see his malevolence bear fruit.
"The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com took Pat Buhcanan down on some of his past racist anti-black comments about Obama earlier this year.
"He Doesn't Know His Place"
Buchanan's comment: "Who does he think he is?" lands the standard racial slur in code that Obama doesn't know his place.
Buchanan has a history of this and is very clever with it. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" the day of the NC and IN primaries, he said: "If Hillary continues to whip him ..."
I reported this stone cold racist comment here. But the campaigns have moved beyond racism. McCain has turned it into a street fight, calling Obama "craven" and saying that he (Obama) is willing to lose the war to win the campaign. Hours later, McCain stated that he is not questioning Obama's patriotism and then repeated the statement.