Buchanan still asking of Obama: "Who does this guy think he is?"
On Morning Joe, Pat Buchanan praised an attack ad by the McCain campaign that refers to Sen. Barack Obama as "The One" and said the ad "goes right to an enormous vulnerability that Barack has created for himself with his grandiosity." Echoing a comment he made last week, Buchanan said: "The question's now becoming, 'Who does this guy think he is?' ... I think that is the real question."
On the August 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan praised an attack ad by Sen. John McCain's campaign that refers to Sen. Barack Obama as "The One" and claims "he has anointed himself." Buchanan said that the ad "goes right to an enormous vulnerability that Barack has created for himself with his grandiosity. I mean, his sense that 'I am the Messiah. I am the one the world has been waiting for.' " Echoing a comment he made last week, Buchanan referred to "that real question ... to be resolved -- because the issue in this campaign is Barack Obama" and said of Obama: "If he persuades Middle America he's the guy, he wins. So the real question has been, 'Who is this guy?' The question's now becoming, 'Who does this guy think he is?' ... I think that is the real question."
As Media Matters for America noted, during the July 30 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House, while commenting on an attack ad by the McCain campaign that refers to Obama's "celebrity," 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 also accused Obama of "act[ing] like, you know, he thinks he is the Lord's gift to mankind."
From the August 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Pat, is that a game-changer?
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Wow.
BUCHANAN: That is one of the best and funniest ads I have seen. The reason is, it makes you laugh. It is a hilarious ad, and it goes right to an enormous vulnerability that Barack has created for himself with his grandiosity. I mean, his sense that "I am the Messiah. I am the one the world has been waiting for." And I think it is a terrific ad, and frankly, I think it's something where the people laugh at Barack Obama, which is not a good thing. It makes him the issue in the campaign, and as I said, it goes straight to a real vulnerability of his.
SCARBOROUGH: And, of course, we've been -- every time one of these statements have come out, I know [co-host] Willie [Geist] and I have flinched saying, "Gosh, why do you say, 'we are the ones' " --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- " 'we've been waiting for'?" and I'm -- yeah, and especially, the part in that ad where you really start laughing is when the crowds are screaming on their feet and he says, "And it will be remembered as a time that the Earth healed itself, and the skies" -- I mean, and he was serious.
BUCHANAN: Right.
BRZEZINSKI: OK, but here's the thing. George Will --
BUCHANAN: You know, Joe, the --
BRZEZINSKI: Go ahead -- Pat, George Will had a column yesterday saying he needs to retire some of those. I mean, it's just -- it's time for him to move on.
BUCHANAN: Oh, he's really got to. You know, we've been saying that the real question that to be resolved -- because the issue in this campaign is Barack Obama. If he persuades Middle America he's the guy, he wins. So the real question has been, "Who is this guy?" The question's now becoming, "Who does this guy think he is?"
[laughter]
BUCHANAN: And so, I think that is the real question.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, he --
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
GEIST: Yeah --
SCARBOROUGH: That is a -- that is a great --
GEIST: -- that's great.
SCARBOROUGH: -- turn of phrase and, you know, Pat, I think that's a very legitimate question.
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: That is one of the best and funniest ads I have seen. The reason is, it makes you laugh. It is a hilarious ad, and it goes right to an enormous vulnerability that Barack has created for himself with his grandiosity.
I don't know, the way I read this, it does not seem like Buchanan actually thinks this. Tommy, am I reading this correctly?
If Obama was white . . .
Pat Buchanan wouldn't describe him as 'exotic.'
What the hell does he mean "Who does he think he is?" Obama knows he's a U.S. Senator. He's been compared to everyone from Moses to Hitler because Republicans can't stand the fact he's so popular, and their personal lackey, the media, is all too eager to support them in their dirty campaign tactics.
Then may I flip the coin - Would Democrats be making the same comparison if a Republican candidate had the same popularity?
I know that sounds like a near-impossible scenario, seeing that one's celebrity status tends to go down the second they affiliate themselves with Republicans or Conservatives (Chuck Norris lost his cult-status the second he endorsed Huckabee and saw all his "facts" become associated with Brett Favre), but I still would like to know how the Democratic Party would treat a Republican candidate who carried Obama's popularity.
Oh boy, thats not true.
Well not all true...some dems did question politically if he was the Anti-christ, lol.
Huge banner hanging off a building on bayshore blvd. in Tampa, Fl. Said "IS BUSH THE ANTI-CHRIST"
Funny as hell...lol.
Course, the "police" made us take it down......
"What the hell does he mean "Who does he think he is?" "
Maybe you need to live in the South to understand the question. It's "PC speak" for "uppity ni**er"
That is exactly what I was thinking. I am stunned that so many TV pundits blithely ask questions like "who does he think he is" and refer to Senator Obama as being grandiose or arrogant. As a Southerner, it is so obvious to me that they are saying "uppity n-word." How does the rest of the country not see this?
Are you suggesting that anyone who calls Obama arrogant, or something to that effect, must really mean they're referring to him as an 'uppity-n word?" I simply cannot accept that as the case. It's undeniable that what you say rings true as far as the mindless racists go, but your painting with far too broad a brush if you sweepingly think that anyone who calls Obama arrogant, or exceedingly big-headed, does so as a code word for 'uppity n. . . ."
No, if you call Obama 'arrogant' you're not automatically a racist. However, when you resort to baseless attacks, it shows that you are unable to critique the candidate's positions on important issues, and that you've been swallowing the right-wing-talkie mantra.
Every person who has ever run for the President of the United States of America has been 'arrogant' to some extent. They have all envisioned themselves as qualified for the highest position in the country, would you not call that arrogant?
I just don't want to see every negative word uttered about Obama construed automatically as a subtle attack on his race. If attacks are racial then truly they should be exposed and lambasted. But I certainly don't think that race should be assumed to be behind every negative attack, no matter how dumb.
Imagine a white man, 1 term US Senator, elected with 70% of the vote, who was raised by a single mother, attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, elected head of the Harvard Law Review who ran for president against a popular former president's wife and fellow senator and raised an enormous amount of money from small donors.
Imagine anyone calling that white man's confidence in his abilities arrogant.
Not everything said about Obama is based on race, but when it's obvious, you can't ignore it.
"Are you suggesting that anyone who calls Obama arrogant, or something to that effect, must really mean they're referring to him as an 'uppity-n word?" "
Nope. If they're not from the South it might not have the same connotation to them - they might be taking the word at their face value...but if they are quoting someone like Buchanan when HE says it, trust me...that's IS what HE means. And HIS audience knows it...everytime they hear it, regardless of who says it.
Yep, Native born Floridian.....
"Who do you think you are""
"Who do you think you are talking to?"
Its true.....it is what is thought.
Just the response I expected. No matter how good things get for African-Americans, they will always have the trump card of "racism" to throw out there. The good news is that most people are wising up and don't care. Even African-Americans themselves are getting sick and tired of it.
THIS African American is sick and tied of ignorant folks like you telling me "how good things are getting for me".
THIS African American is sick and tired of ignorant folks like you calling African Americans who succeed "uppity" instead of simply accepting our success, which you would automatically due, IF we were white.
THIS African American is sick and tired of ignorant folks like you speaking about African Americans as if you know something about us, which you don't, as evidence from your ignorant post.
I agree with you. Only a fool (blind one at that) would be unable to see the narcissism which is evident in Obama's fake presidential seal and his airplane's chair marked "Obama, President". He's got an ego the size of the Grand Canyon.
Don't assume racism if white democrats get the same crap.
"I am proud that I was right. I'm proud that we could defeat this evil."
-- John McCain, July 2008
This guy's white, too, so it's ok.
You would be 100% correct in your assessment....
...if the punditry at large hadn't all decided on "Obama is a presumptious self-important celebrity who believes his own hype" as the theme for last week.
Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd how all of these airbags seem to be on the same wavelength week after week after week?
But my argument here is that it seems awfully convenient that Buchanan's opinion matches up so well with all those other nearly identical opinions that all happened to come out during the same week.
Sure, as matters of opinion it's hard to label these statements as false, but as repetitive propoganda it isn't to hard to classify them as misinformation serving a specific agenda.
The motivation behind them doesn't really matter, although it's pretty likely that there is a sinister motive behind them.
It's the effect the comments have. They further the conservative agenda. They make Obama look worse than what he deserves to look.
People running for President have to be full of themselves to some extent, but that's not the same as being arrogant. Barack has done a very good job pulling himself up from what could have been a hard childhood as a mixed-race child of a twice-divorced single mom, so he has a right to be proud of himself, but that doesn't mean he's cocky. The hubris comment is just so out of place in any discussions about Obama it's silly, but it still got made.
They made him look worse than he rightfully should look. That's conservative misinformation to a tee.
Really? I hadn't noticed much of that. Maybe you're projecting.
The problem is not that Buchanan is being hard on Obama.
It's the false meme that there's something wrong with Obama being confident and assertive.
Buchanan is distorting Obama's behavior and distorting the reality about what a Presidential candidate should act like. Buchanan is distorting the comments that Obama made related to Obama being a symbol for some likely voters.
Those distortions by Buchanan forward the conservative agenda. They make Obama look worse than he actually is. They paint an inaccurate portrait of Obama's character and personality, and that inaccurate picture is not a pretty one.
It's that false lens that Buchanan uses to view and then describe Obama that caused Media Matters to report on this.
It's not a differing opinion. It's the pushing of the conservative agenda with unreliable and inaccurate information.
"Buchanan is distorting Obama's behavior and distorting the reality about what a Presidential candidate should act like"
What does that mean? It's harder and harder to make sense of your posts Sue, anymore.
"What does that mean? It's harder and harder to make sense of your posts Sue, anymore"
Makes perfect sense to me. Have you had your caffeine today? Seems like you're a bit slow in the uptake.
It means that you're so teed off at having your false WITH post dismantled that you're going to throw out the baseless charge that I'm a long-gone poster who must have really teed you off too, that's what it means.
Buchanan is not only falsely portraying how Obama behaves, he's also falsely portraying how potential Presidents should act and how previous ones have acted.
Those false portrayals further the conservative agenda that wants to make Obama look bad.
That's why Media Matters covered this.
If my posts are becoming hard for you to understand, that would reflect poorly on your cognitive skills, not mine. You're the one who didn't understand why Media Matters was covering these comments, after all!
It's that false lens that Buchanan uses to view and then describe Obama that caused Media Matters to report on this.
It's not a differing opinion. It's the pushing of the conservative agenda with unreliable and inaccurate information.
That is utter nonsense. Buchanan looks at Obama as an individual with an over-sized ego. Plain and simple. It most certainly is his opinion, and that it differs from yours does not in the least make it inaccurate. It's entirely subjective. Again, why is it so difficult to acknowledge that some people think Obama's conceited. . .?
That is utter nonsense. Buchanan looks at Obama as an individual with an over-sized ego. Plain and simple.
No. Buchanan looks at Obama as 'exotic', 'not like me and you.' Plain and simple. Those are his words verbatim. The man is a racist and I dare someone to tell me he isn't.
You are right about one thing, it is his opinion. Says a lot so many Republicans don't take issue with such rhetoric, instead encouraging more negative ads like the one with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Says a whole lot.
Buchanan looks at Obama as 'exotic', 'not like me and you.'
Do you have a link to where Buchanan called Obama's "exotic, not like me and you." ? I take your word that he said it, but I'd like to read the context . . .
Both are archived on Mediamatters. I promise. Buchanan gets away with so much racist comments its amazing, and still NBC hires this guy.
Its my opinion that there is NO pollution in the world whatsoever.
Doesn't make it true either.
Buchanan thinks Obama has a large ego. So what. Is the thought-police at mmfa gonna report on anybody in the media who deigns to disapprove of Obama?
Buchanan is entitled to his opinion. Just as we all are. Of course opinion can be influenced by one's personal politics.
As I wrote on another thread, there's a fine line between self-confidence & arrogance. Of course the Right will describe Obama as arrogant. Hey it's election time. Just like the Left will subtly [and not so subtly] opine about McCain's age, as if 71/72 automatically makes you an elderly demented old coot. I have family over 70 & they not only have all their marbles, they are in good health & active. Just because someone occasionally mis-speaks or forgets doesn't mean they belong in a nursing home. Hell even kids in their 20's/30's occasionally do both!
IMO, Obama is a self-confident individual. If he comes off a tad cocky at time or appears to have an "ego", well as it's been pointed out by others here as well as by pundits on tv, most politicians have an elevated view of themselves. Or at least appear to.
In the end it's usually in the eye of the beholder. If you like Obama, he's confident. If you don't, he's cocky.... another words it's opinion. And opinion can sometimes be slanted by ideology.
IMO, Obama is a self-confident individual. If he comes off a tad cocky at time or appears to have an "ego", well as it's been pointed out by others here as well as by pundits on tv, most politicians have an elevated view of themselves. Or at least appear to.
Jeter, Do you have an example of something Obama has said in the last few months that shows he's got a big ego, or is cocky or arrogant?
He doesn't I don't think. Sometimes self assurance comes off as being arrogant or cocky, at least this is how our republican friends are playing it (not so much you Jeter, but the people running the party).
Prime example. George W. Bush, very self assured, and has been seen as cocky and arrogant, except he has done and said things that were cocky and arrogant, and downright petulent if he doesn't get his own way every single time.
Some people viewed McCain's comparison of Obama supporters to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton fans as arrogant, stupid, and childish. This is merely opinion.
Well, I guess the stupid part is actually fact. Spears and the Hilton family are both Republican supporters.
While true, this isnt the first time its come up:
A February 24, 2005, Washington Post article begins:
Nice non-sequitir.
I'm glad that you agree that McCain's attacks on Obama supporters were arrogant and elitist.
It seems to me that Buchanan's "Who does this guy think he is?" and the "hubris" claims are the result of his trip to Iraq. I don't recall any of the 'he's too arrogant' and 'he's just a celebritiy' junk getting spin until now.
I can't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, Jeter. The airwaves and cable tubes will be filled with all sorts of opinions over the next few months. I just think your pal Tommy's idea that MMFA should avoid documenting these opinions is a little goofy.Enough voters get their own "ideas" from the repetition of these opinions , especially when they're repeated enough to convince some that they're facts.
BTW, smashing series this weekend. Wasn't it nice of my Hapless Halos to concentrate all of those errors into one game yesterday? :0/
Col, I know none of you like to summarize what I said without proper context or meaning, so let me assist you. MMFA, obviously, can highlight whatever they feel like, and we are allowed to comment, right here, on said topics.
However, for me personally, in my opinion, calling out these opinionators, such as Buchanan, for their opinions on personality or their analysis of public perception is well, their own opinion. Some may agree, some may disagree.....I don't agree they go too far in changing one's mind, they more or less reinforce what people already feel about Obama, in my opinion, and you perhaps disagree? Threads are better spent, in my opinion, highlighting real misinformation and distortions about policy or issues.
But that's just my opinion.
Colonel,
Hey I was thrilled that the Yanks managed to split the series, seeing how the Angels have been killing us the past few years. Yesterdays game was sloppy, but at least the good guys finally pulled it out ;-)
While some folks are swayed by a Buchanan or other pundits or op-ed columnists, I figure most of us are able to form our own opinions without that partisan influence. Of course the airwaves are now overloaded with the message that Obama the celebrity is an arrogant cocky empty suit & that may penetrate with folks that don't follow politics the way those of us here do.
MMFA should document these partisan Conservative opinions, and of course there is Liberal friendly media out there also doing their best to also debunk this narrative. IMO, the debates will be the tipping point. If Obama comes across confident, is decisive in his answers & delivers his message without hesitation, he'll win the Presidency in November.
-- If he persuades Middle America he's the guy, he wins. -- Buchanan
Well it certainly looks like he's working hard on that issue...and his base doesn't like it one bit. Markos Moulitsas at dailykos has fired both barrels at Obama's shifting positions.
-- But there is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticisized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician.
Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. --
It's just like clockwork...run as a liberal to get nominated and then shift toward the conservative slant to get elected. Obama may have come out of the closet a little too soon.
Except they haven't been getting elected. Obama needs to sway the independents by talking to them like he talks to his base.
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/08/02/barack-obama-the-one/
Here is the McCain ad for anybody who hasn't seen it.
What a load of bull. Where does this idea that Obama thinks he is "the Messiah" come from? No one would get that from listening to anything he's actually said. As usual the right is just making sh1t up.
Where does this idea that Obama thinks he is "the Messiah" come from?
It's one of the major themes on Fox and am radio. I've even heard comments that "He's running as the Messiah", or "He's made himself out to be the savior".
Thom Hartmann had a pretty good segment this morning on his show, playing these quotes from righty commentators, as well as the McCain "The One" ad, and comparing them with the terminology of the Left Behind series of books. Some of this is Grampy's attempt to fire up one reliable base, the far right religious fundamentalists, by drawing analogies to the charismatic Anti-Christ told of in the story books.
Who does Obama think that he is?
The next President of the United States. That's who.
I like the recent attacks by McCain, essentially saying, Obama is too popular to be President. Who is running the crazy old man's campaign anyway? The Marx Brothers?
That's right - Rush did say that Obama hates America and Hamas endorses him.
Is there a prominent Republican who HASN'T called him patriotic?
BUCHANAN: That is one of the best and funniest ads I have seen.
I heard another Republican commentator, it might have been on Meet the Press, describing the ad as "fun". Is my funny bone dislocated, or does this ad not say "fun" or "funny" in any way? It came off more as crazy superstitious fear-mongering to me, but I have been known to miss the boat with conservative humor.
Is my funny bone dislocated, or does this ad not say "fun" or "funny" in any way?
Nope Colonel rest easy, your funny bone is not dislocated. Now you know I find most political humor [Con or Lib] funny, but this ad didn't make me laugh. Not even a chuckle.
I thought the ad was stupid, amateurish & childish.
Jeter, in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't even asking if the ad was successful at being "fun" or "funny", but if anybody else saw it as even attempting to be so. I saw it more as trying to be serious and scary, and only coming off as accidentally funny in its ineptitude.
That's what was interesting to me, political advertising arguably portraying a candidate as the Anti-Christ, the ultimate symbol of evil and a component of the End Times, being defended as "fun" and "funny".
I saw it more as trying to be serious and scary, and only coming off as accidentally funny in its ineptitude.
I guess we didn't see it the same way then Colonel. I thought it was trying to be clever. An attempt at a humorous swipe at Obama the One ;-)
I found it to be neither clever or humorous. I don't even think it was all that insulting...it fell flat, IMO.
They ought to leave this kind of stuff in the hands of JibJab :-)
Be that as it may, playing to a christian base, it is "scary" because he is portrayed as the anti-christ.
That is not lost on millions of christians in the US and ABROAD.
Hey Rachel Maddow can you slap down Pat again. Oh that is one woman he really truly hates.
"Hey Rachel Maddow can you slap down Pat again. Oh that is one woman he really truly hates. "
Because she's...?
...informed and factual?
I thought someone would have put "everything he's not" - liberal and outspoken and informed and factual (possibly good-looking but I haven't placed her name in Google image search to verify that yet) - But I guess that'll do.
I haven't listened to her, so... I guess I have yet to verify any of the above still.
Exactly. The evidence doesn't support an accusation of Obama being overly-arrogance or surprisingly self-assured or offensively cocky.
Portraying him as if he were those things, or if being self-confident and having a lot to be proud of were unlike previous Presidential candidates, is why this is here.
It's Buchanan's bias that makes him go there. His bias causes inaccurate and unreliable information to be spewed.
This is a strategy that Sunday preachers use to great effect and is a lesson learned by President Bush during his christian conversion in the 1990s. Take a look at Pat Robertson who, despite being a Yale-educated lawyer, talks and acts like an idiot when he's on television. Because of their cynical view of their fellow Americans they feel that its not what they have to say, but it is just the tone of their voice that matters to the average idiot.
On the other hand its quite natural for them to say, 'What? Barack doesn't talk like a moron? Who does he think he is anyhow?' Its not the same as calling him 'upitty' but the message is the same. What's even more important is to try to get people to not listen to Sen. Obama is actually saying because they might discover that they agree with him. Its better for Republicans if they can instill a negative visceral response and shut out the words entirely.
Jumping to a negative conclusion without regards to the facts before you is the essence of prejudice. What you are seeing is an attempt to manufacture prejudicial sentiments for political gain.
As if opinions are harmless.
Anyway, Jeffrey Feldman, has some keen insights on the degenerative nature of all this opining.
"Violent Rhetoric: Poison in the Civic Body
...This is why the threat violent rhetoric poses to American democracy did not really appear until the advent of large scale broadcast technology--radio. With the rise of television and the accompanying industry of mass-scale book sales, individual sources of violent rhetoric have reached the point where they overwhelm the civic body.
The poisoning and subsequent collapse of the civic body from violent rhetoric initially takes the form of a shift in the way people talk and, but quickly gives way to a shift in how people act.
When violent rhetoric saturates the civic body via the media and other broadcast sources, people stop exchanging information, start hurling opinion. The dominant questions,'What is the information? What is the history? What is the goal?' gets displaced by the monolithic imperative, 'Do I agree?'
Civic identity shifts when the conversation shifts.
In a healthy civic body, an engaged citizen is someone who learns and analyzes information, examines problems, and formulates solutions. In a poisoned civic body, an engaged citizen is someone who offers opinions, expresses disdain for different opinions, and gathers with like-minded people to oppose those who differ in opinion."
RH, thanks for that. I can always count on you to have a more philosophical approach and post things that really matter, food for thought, instead of the back and forth (and useless imo) invective usually evident here.
You know just the act of watching television changes your brain chemistry? No wonder we are such a collectively stupid people. Al Gore writes in his book "The Assault on Reason" about the effects of television (as opposed to the brain function required for reading books). "And the passivity associated with wathcing television is at the expense of activity in parts of the brain associated with abstract thought, logic and the reasoning process".
Thus "the medium becomes the message", a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan. I could go on but probably nobody is that much interested. But if you haven't read the Gore book I recommend it highly.
But you pulled out Marshall McLuhan on me. Cool.
Pat Buchanan....Who does he think he is ??
Pat, he's a candidate who is about to blow your candidate out of the water in Nov.....it's just amazing to me that the RePugs are trying to belittle Obama by any means available to them to lessen the effect of the general election....
it's a new day(and era) Pat.....unfortunately, nobody told the folks at Morning Joe & FAUXnews.....it's like a bunch of oldtimer's sitting around the checkerboard wishing for the "way it use to be"....politics as usual
It ain't gonna happen!!
You can dress up a pig and call it anything you want. Bottom line is that it is still a pig. No matter what he says, or what any of his admirers say about him, Pukecanan is still a racist. Always has been and always will be.
Buchanan wanted Hillary to win, because he was convinced that McCain would have any easy victory because of her high negatives. This is why in all his appearances on MSNBC he was cheerleading for her. When she lost he went ballistic, and began to spew all his hate and venom at Obama. So that he would attack Obama daily is no surprise. Rachel Maddow has been a real champion in putting him in his place. On the McLagulan group he gets free reign to spot his hate message. He'll have fun in hell.
When will Morning Joe and Chirs Matthews have "racialist idelogical" balance and invite Frances Cress Welsing or Leonard Jefferies. If you are going to have a "white power republican" on your shows as a paid politcal pundit YOU MAY AS well have someone Black who hates whites as much as Buchanan hates Black Americans and others. As a Black Man the mainstream media has racist bias against Blacks who hate white Clinton supporters and White American Republicans!!! lololol
How in the hell has any reputable mainstream news service pays a racist, anti semite to give politcal opinions and write columns ?